26. SIXTH DEFINITION:--"_An_ Adverb is _a part of speech joined_ to a verb,

an adjective, _and sometimes to_ another adverb, to express some _quality_

or _circumstance_ respecting _it_."--_Murray's Gram._, pp. 28 and 114. See

_Dr. Ash's Gram._, p. 47. This definition contains many errors; some of

which are gross blunders. 1. The first word, "_An_," is erroneously put for

_The: an_ adverb is _one_ adverb, not the whole class; and, if, "_An_

adverb is a part of speech," any and every adverb is a _part of speech_;

then, how many parts of speech are there? 2. The word "_joined_" is not

well chosen; for, with the exception of _not_ in _cannot_, the adverb is

very rarely _joined_ to the word to which it relates. 3. The want of a

comma before _joined_, perverts the construction; for the phrase, "_speech

joined_ to a verb," is nonsense; and to suppose _joined_ to relate to the

noun _part_, is not much better. 4. The word "_and_" should be _or_;

because no adverb is ever added to three or four different terms at once.

5. The word "_sometimes_" should be omitted; because it is needless, and

because it is inconsistent with the only conjunction which will make the

definition true. 6. The preposition "_to_" should either be inserted before

"_an adjective_," or suppressed before the term which follows; for when

several words occur in the same construction, uniformity of expression is

desirable. 7. For the same reason, (if custom may be thus far conformed to

analogy,) the article "_an_" ought, in cases like this, if not always, to

be separated from the word _other_; thus, "An adverb is a word added to _a_

verb, _a_ participle, _an_ adjective, or _an_ other adverb." Were the eye

not familiar with it, _another_ would be thought as irregular as

_theother_. 8. The word "_quality_" is wrong; for no adverb ever expresses

any _quality_, as such; qualities are expressed by _adjectives_, and never,

in any direct manner, by adverbs. 9. The "_circumstances_" which we express

by adverbs never belong to the _words_, as this definition avers that they

do, but always to the _actions_ or _qualities_ which the words signify. 10.

The pronoun _it_, according to Murray's second rule of syntax, ought to be

_them_, and so it stands in his own early editions; but if _and_ be changed

to _or_, as I have said it should be, the pronoun _it_ will be right.

27. SEVENTH DEFINITION:--"Prepositions serve to connect words with _one

another_, and to show the relation _between them_."--_Lowth, Murray, and

others_. This is only an observation, not a definition, as it ought to have

been; nor does it at all distinguish the preposition from the conjunction.

It does not reach the thing in question. Besides, it contains an actual

solecism in the expression. The word "_between_" implies but _two_ things;

and the phrase "_one another_" is not applicable where there are but two.

It should be, "to connect words with _each other_, and to show the

_relation between_ them;"--or else, "to connect words with _one an other_,

and to show the _relations among_ them." But the latter mode of expression

would not apply to prepositions considered severally, but only to the whole

class.

28. EIGHTH DEFINITION:--"A Conjunction is _a part of speech_ that is

_chiefly_ used to connect sentences; so as, out of two _or more_ sentences,

to make but one: it sometimes connects only words."--_Murray, and others_.

Here are more than thirty words, awkwardly and loosely strung together; and

all that is said in them, might be much better expressed in half the

number. For example: "A Conjunction is a word which connects other terms,

and commonly of two sentences makes but one." But verbosity and want of

unity are not the worst faults of this definition. We have three others to

point out. 1. "A conjunction is" not "_a part of speech_;" because _a_

conjunction is _one_ conjunction, and a part of speech is a whole class, or

sort, of words. A similar error was noticed in Murray's definition of an

adverb; and so common has this blunder become, that by a comparison of the

definitions which different authors have given of the parts of speech,

probably it will be found, that, by some hand or other, every one of the

ten has been commenced in this way. 2. The words "_or more_" are erroneous,

and ought to be omitted; for no one conjunction can connect more than two

terms, in that consecutive order which the sense requires. Three or more

simple sentences may indeed form a compound sentence; but, as they cannot

be joined in a _cluster_, they must have two or more connectives. 3. The

last clause erroneously suggests, that any or every conjunction "_sometimes

connects only words_;" but the conjunctions which may connect only words,

are not more than five, whereas those which connect only sentences are four

times as many.

29. NINTH DEFINITION:--"Interjections are words _thrown in between the

parts of a sentence_, to express the passions or emotions of the _speaker_;

as, 'O Virtue! how amiable thou art!'"--_Murray, and many others_. This

definition, which has been copied from grammar to grammar, and committed to

memory millions of times, is obviously erroneous, and directly contradicted

by the example. Interjections, though often enough thrown in between the

parts of a _discourse_, are very rarely "thrown in between the parts of a

_sentence_." They more frequently occur at the beginning of a sentence than

any where else; and, in such cases, they do not come under this narrow

definition. The author, at the head of his chapter on interjections,

appends to this definition two other examples; both of which contradict it

in like manner: "_Oh_! I have alienated my friend."--"_Alas_! I fear for

life." Again: Interjections are used occasionally, in _written_, as well as

in _oral_ discourse; nor are they less indicative of the emotions of the

_writer_, than of those "of the _speaker_."

30. I have thus exhibited, with all intentional fairness of criticism, the

entire series of these nine primary definitions; and the reader may judge

whether they sustain the praises which have been bestowed on the book,[69]

or confirm the allegations which I have made against it. He will understand

that my design is, here, as well as in the body of this work, to teach

grammar practically, by _rectifying_, so far as I may, all sorts of

mistakes either in it or respecting it; to compose a book which, by a

condensed exposition of such errors as are commonly found in other

grammars, will at once show the need we have of a better, and be itself a

fit substitute for the principal treatises which it censures. Grammatical

errors are universally considered to be small game for critics. They must

therefore be very closely grouped together, to be worth their room in this

work. Of the tens of thousands who have learned for grammar a multitude of

ungrammatical definitions and rules, comparatively few will ever know what

I have to say of their acquisitions. But this I cannot help. To the readers

of the present volume it is due, that its averments should be clearly

illustrated by particular examples; and it is reasonable that these should

be taken from the most accredited sources, whether they do honour to their

framers or not. My argument is only made so much the stronger, as the works

which furnish its proofs, are the more esteemed, the more praised, or the

more overrated.

31. Murray tells us, "There is no necessary connexion between words and

ideas."--_Octavo Gram._, Vol. i, p. 139. Though this, as I before observed,

is not altogether true, he doubtless had very good reason to distinguish,

in his teaching, "between _the sign_ and _the thing signified_." Yet, in

his own definitions and explanations, he frequently _confounds_ these very

things which he declares to be so widely different as not even to have a

"necessary connexion." Errors of this kind are very common in all our

English grammars. Two instances occur in the following sentence; which also

contains an error in doctrine, and is moreover obscure, or rather, in its

literal sense, palpably absurd: "To substantives belong gender, number, and

case; and _they_ are _all of_ the third person _when spoken of_, and of the

second person _when spoken to_."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 38; _Alger's

Murray_, 16; _Merchant's_, 23; _Bacon's_, 12; _Maltby's_, 12; _Lyon's_, 7;

_Guy's_, 4; _Ingersoll's_, 26; _S. Putnam's_, 13; _T. H. Miller's_, 17;

_Rev. T. Smith's_, 13. Who, but a child taught by language like this, would

ever think of _speaking to a noun_? or, that a noun of the second person

_could not be spoken of_? or, that a noun cannot be put in the _first

person_, so as to agree with _I_ or _we_? Murray himself once taught, that,

"Pronouns _must always agree_ with their antecedents, _and_ the nouns for

which they stand, in gender, number, and _person_;" and he departed from a

true and important principle of syntax, when he altered his rule to its

present form. But I have said that the sentence above is obscure, or its

meaning absurd. What does the pronoun "_they_" represent? "_Substantives_,"

according to the author's intent; but "_gender, number_, and _case_,"

according to the obvious construction of the words. Let us try a parallel:"

To scriveners belong pen, ink, and paper; and _they_ are all of primary

importance when there is occasion to use them, and of none at all when they

are not needed." Now, if this sentence is _obscure_, the other is not less

so; but, if this is perfectly _clear_, so that what is said is obviously

and only what is intended, then it is equally clear, that what is said in

the former, is gross absurdity, and that the words cannot reasonably be

construed into the sense which the writer, and his copyists, designed.

32. All Murray's grammars, not excepting the two volumes octavo, are as

_incomplete_ as they are _inaccurate_; being deficient in many things which

are of so great importance that they should not be excluded from the very

smallest epitome. For example: On the subject of the _numbers_, he

attempted but one definition, and that is a fourfold solecism. Ho speaks of

the _persons_, but gives neither definitions nor explanations. In treating

of the _genders_, he gives but one formal definition. His section on the

_cases_ contains no regular definition. On the _comparison_ of adjectives,

and on the _moods_ and _tenses_ of verbs, he is also satisfied with a very

loose mode of teaching. The work as a whole exhibits more industry than

literary taste, more benevolence of heart than distinctness of

apprehension; and, like all its kindred and progeny, fails to give to the

principles of grammar that degree of clearness of which they are easily

susceptible. The student does not know this, but he feels the effects of

it, in the obscurity of his own views on the subject, and in the conscious

uncertainty with which he applies those principles. In grammar, the terms

_person, number, gender, case, mood, tense_, and many others, are used in a

technical and peculiar sense; and, in all scientific works, the sense of

technical terms should be clearly and precisely defined. Nothing can be

gained by substituting other names of modern invention; for these also

would need definitions as much as the old. We want to know the things

themselves, and what they are most appropriately called. We want a book

which will tell us, in proper order, and in the plainest manner, what all

the elements of the science are.

33. What does he know of grammar, who cannot directly and properly answer

such questions as these?--"What are numbers, in grammar? What is the

singular number? What is the plural number? What are persons, in grammar?

What is the first person? What is the second person? What is the third

person? What are genders, in grammar? What is the masculine gender? What is

the feminine gender? What is the neuter gender? What are cases, in grammar?

What is the nominative case? What is the possessive case? What is the

objective case?"--And yet the most complete acquaintance with every

sentence or word of Murray's tedious compilation, may leave the student at

a loss for a proper answer, not only to each of these questions, but also

to many others equally simple and elementary! A boy may learn by heart all

that Murray ever published on the subject of grammar, and still be left to

confound the numbers in grammar with numbers in arithmetic, or the persons

in grammar with persons in civil life! Nay, there are among the professed

_improvers_ of this system of grammar, _men_ who have actually confounded

these things, which are so totally different in their natures! In "Smith's

New Grammar on the Productive System," a work in which Murray is largely

copied and strangely metamorphosed, there is an abundance of such

confusion. For instance: "What is the meaning of the word _number_? Number

means _a sum that may be counted_."--_R. C. Smith's New Gram._, p. 7. From

this, by a tissue of half a dozen similar absurdities, called _inductions_,

the novice is brought to the conclusion that the numbers are _two_--as if

there were in nature but two sums that might be counted! There is no end to

the sickening detail of such blunders. How many grammars tell us, that,

"The first person is the _person who speaks_;" that, "The second person is

the _person spoken to_;" and that, "the third person is the _person spoken

of_!" As if the three persons of a verb, or other part of speech, were so

many _intelligent beings_! As if, by exhibiting a word in the three

persons, (as _go, goest, goes_,) we put it first _into the speaker_, then

_into the hearer_, and then _into somebody else_! Nothing can be more

abhorrent to grammar, or to sense, than such confusion. The things which

are identified in each of these three definitions, are as unlike as

Socrates and moonshine! The one is a thinking being; the other, a mere form

peculiar to certain words. But Chandler, of Philadelphia, ("the Grammar

King," forsooth!) without mistaking the grammatical persons for rational

souls, has contrived to crowd into his definition of _person_ more errors

of conception and of language,--more insult to common sense,--than one

could have believed it possible to put together in such space. And this

ridiculous old twaddle, after six and twenty years, he has deliberately

re-written and lately republished as something "adapted to the schools of

America." It stands thus: "_Person is a distinction which is made in a noun

between its representation of its object, either as spoken to, or spoken

of_."--Chandler's E. Grammar; Edition of 1821, p. 16; Ed. 1847, p. 21.

34. Grammarians have often failed in their definitions, because it is

impossible to define certain terms in the way in which the description has

been commonly attempted. He who undertakes what is impossible must

necessarily fail; and fail too, to the discredit of his ingenuity. It is

manifest that whenever a generic name in the singular number is to be

defined, the definition must be founded upon some property or properties

common to all the particular things included under the term. Thus, if I

would define a _globe_, a _wheel_, or a _pyramid_, my description must be

taken, not from what is peculiar to one or an other of these things, but

from those properties only which are common to all globes, all wheels, or

all pyramids. But what property has _unity_ in common with _plurality_, on

which a definition of _number_ may be founded? What common property have

the _three cases_, by which we can clearly define _case_? What have the

_three persons_ in common, which, in a definition of _person_, could be

made evident to a child? Thus all the great classes of grammatical

modifications, namely, _persons, numbers, genders, cases, moods_, and

_tenses_, though they admit of easy, accurate, and obvious definitions in

the plural, can scarcely be defined at all in the singular. I do not say,

that the terms _person, number, gender, case, mood_, and _tense_, ia their

technical application to grammar, are all of them equally and absolutely

undefinable in the singular; but I say, that no definition, just in sense

and suitable for a child, can ever be framed for any one of them. Among the

thousand varied attempts of grammarians to explain them so, there are a

hundred gross solecisms for every tolerable definition. For this, as I have

shown, there is a very simple reason in the nature of the things.

35. But this reason, as well as many other truths equally important and

equally clear, our common grammarians, have, so far as I know, every man of

them, overlooked. Consequently, even when they were aiming at the right

thing, they frequently fell into gross errors of expression; and, what is

still more surprising, such errors have been entailed upon the very art of

grammar, and the art of authorship itself, by the prevalence of an absurd

notion, that modern writers on this subject can be meritorious authors

without originality. Hence many a school-boy is daily rehearsing from his

grammar-book what he might well be ashamed to have written. For example,

the following definition from Murray's grammar, is found in perhaps a dozen

other compends, all professing to teach the art of speaking and writing

with propriety: "_Number_ is the _consideration of an object_, as _one_ or

_more_." [70] Yet this short sentence, as I have before suggested, is a

fourfold solecism. _First_, the word "_number_" is wrong; because those

modifications of language, which distinguish unity and plurality, cannot be

jointly signified by it. _Secondly_, the word "_consideration_" is wrong;

because _number_ is not _consideration_, in any sense which can be put upon

the terms: _condition, constitution, configuration_, or any other word

beginning with _con_, would have done just as well. _Thirdly_, "the

consideration of _an_ object as _one_," is but idle waste of thought; for,

that one thing is one,--that _an_ object is _one_ object,--every child

knows by _intuition_, and not by "_consideration_." _Lastly_, to consider

"_an_ object as _more_" than one, is impossible; unless this admirable

definition lead us into a misconception in so plain a case! So much for the

art of "the grammatical definer."

36. Many other examples, equally faulty and equally common, might, be

quoted and criticised for the further proof and illustration of what I have

alleged. But the reader will perhaps judge the foregoing to be sufficient.

I have wished to be brief, and yet to give my arguments, and the neglected

facts upon which they rest, their proper force upon the mind. Against such

prejudices as may possibly arise from the authorship of rival publications,

or from any interest in the success of one book rather than of an other,

let both my judges and me be on our guard. I have intended to be fair; for

captiousness is not criticism. If the reader perceives in these strictures

any improper bias, he has a sort of discernment which it is my misfortune

to lack. Against the compilers of grammars, I urge no conclusions at which

any man can hesitate, who accedes to my preliminary remarks upon them; and

these may be summed up in the following couplet of the poet Churchill:

"To copy beauties, forfeits all pretence

To fame;--to copy faults, is want of sense."

CHAPTER XI.

BRIEF NOTICES OF THE SCHEMES OF CERTAIN GRAMMARS.

"Sed ut perveniri ad summa nisi ex principiis non potest: ita, procedente

jam opere, minima incipiunt esse quæ prima sunt."--QUINTILIAN. _De Inst.

Orat._, Lib. x, Cap. 1, p. 560.

1. The _history_ of grammar, in the proper sense of the term, has

heretofore been made no part of the study. I have imagined that many of its

details might be profitable, not only to teachers, but to that class of

learners for whose use this work is designed. Accordingly, in the preceding

pages, there have been stated numerous facts properly historical, relating

either to particular grammars, or to the changes and progress of this

branch of instruction. These various details it is hoped will be more

entertaining, and perhaps for that reason not less useful, than those

explanations which belong merely to the construction and resolution of

sentences. The attentive reader must have gathered from the foregoing

chapters some idea of what the science owes to many individuals whose names

are connected with it. But it seems proper to devote to this subject a few

pages more, in order to give some further account of the origin and

character of certain books.

2. The manuals by which grammar was first

taught in English, were not properly English Grammars. They were

translations of the Latin Accidence; and were designed to aid British youth

in acquiring a knowledge of the Latin language, rather than accuracy in the

use of their own. The two languages were often combined in one book, for

the purpose of teaching sometimes both together, and sometimes one through

the medium of the other. The study of such works doubtless had a tendency

to modify, and perhaps at that time to improve, the English style of those

who used them. For not only must variety of knowledge have led to

copiousness of expression, but the most cultivated minds would naturally be

most apt to observe what was orderly in the use of speech. A language,

indeed, after its proper form is well fixed by letters, must resist all

introduction of foreign idioms, or become corrupted. Hence it is, that Dr.

Johnson avers, "The great pest of speech is frequency of translation. No

book was ever turned from one language into another, without imparting

something of its native idiom; this is the most mischievous and

comprehensive innovation."--_Preface to Joh. Dict._, 4to, p. 14. Without

expressly controverting this opinion, or offering any justification of mere

metaphrases, or literal translations, we may well assert, that the practice

of comparing different languages, and seeking the most appropriate terms

for a free version of what is ably written, is an exercise admirably

calculated to familiarize and extend grammatical knowledge.

3. Of the class of books here referrred [sic--KTH] to, that which I have

mentioned in an other chapter, as Lily's or King Henry's Grammar, has been

by far the most celebrated and the most influential. Concerning this

treatise, it is stated, that its parts were not put together in the present

form, until eighteen or twenty years after Lily's death. "The time when

this work was completed," says the preface of 1793, "has been differently

related by writers. Thomas Hayne places it in the year 1543, and Anthony

Wood, in 1545. But neither of these accounts can be right; for I have seen

a beautiful copy, printed upon vellum, and illuminated, anno 1542, in

quarto. And it may be doubted whether this was the first edition."--_John

Ward, Pref._, p. vii. In an Introductory Lecture, read before the

University of London in 1828, by Thomas Dale, professor of English

literature, I find the following statement: "In this reign,"--the reign of

Henry VIII,--"the study of grammar was reduced to a system, by the

promulgation of many grammatical treatises; one of which was esteemed of

sufficient importance to be honoured with a royal name. It was called, 'The

Grammar of King Henry the Eighth;' and to this, 'with other works, the

young Shakspeare was probably indebted for some learning and much loyalty.'

But the honour of producing the first English grammar is claimed by William

Bullokar, who published, in the year 1586, 'A Bref Grammar for English,'

being, to use his own words, 'the first Grammar for English that ever waz,

except my Grammar at large.'"

4. Ward's preface to Lily commences thus: "If we look back to the origin of

our common _Latin Grammar_, we shall find it was no hasty performance, nor

the work of a single person; but composed at different times by several

eminent and learned men, till the whole was at length finished, and by the

order of _King Henry_ VIII.[,] brought into that form in which it has ever

since continued. The _English introduction_ was written by the reverend and

learned Dr. _John Colet_, Dean of St. _Paul's_, for the use of the school

he had lately founded there; and was dedicated by him to _William Lily_,

the first high master of that school, in the year 1510; for which reason it

has usually gone by the name of _Paul's Accidence_. The substance of it

remains the same, as at first; though it has been much altered in the

manner of expression, and sometimes the order, with other improvements. The

_English syntax_ was the work of _Lily_, as appears by the title in the

most ancient editions, which runs thus: _Gulielmi Lilii Angli Rudimenta_.

But it has been greatly improved since his time, both with, regard to the

method, and an enlargement of double the quantity."

5. Paul's Accidence is

therefore probably the oldest grammar that can now be found in our

language. It is not, however, an English grammar; because, though written

in antique English, and embracing many things which are as true of our

language as of any other, it was particularly designed for the teaching of

_Latin_. It begins thus: "In speech be these eight parts following: Noun,

Pronoun, Verb, Participle, declined; Adverb, Conjunction, Preposition,

Interjection, undeclined." This is the old platform of the Latin

grammarians; which differs from that of the Greek grammars, only in having

no Article, and in separating the Interjection from the class of Adverbs.

Some Greek grammarians, however, separate the Adjective from the Noun, and

include the Participle with the Verb: thus, "There are in Greek eight

species of words, called Parts of Speech; viz. Article, Noun, Adjective,

Pronoun, Verb, Adverb, Preposition, and Conjunction."--_Anthon's Valpy_, p.

18. With respect to our language, the plan of the Latin Accidence is

manifestly inaccurate; nor can it be applied, without some variation, to

the Greek. In both, as well as in all other languages that have _Articles_,

the best amendment of it, and the nearest adherence to it, is, to make the

Parts of Speech _ten_; namely, the Article, the Noun, the Adjective, the

Pronoun, the Verb, the Participle, the Adverb, the Conjunction, the

Preposition, and the Interjection.

6. The best Latin grammarians admit that the Adjective ought not to be

called a Noun; and the best Greek grammarians, that the Interjections ought

not to be included among Adverbs. With respect to Participles, a vast

majority of grammarians in general, make them a distinct species, or part

of speech; but, on this point, the English grammarians are about equally

divided: nearly one half include them with the verbs, and a few call them

adjectives. In grammar, it is wrong to deviate from the old groundwork,

except for the sake of truth and improvement; and, in this case, to vary

the series of parts, by suppressing one and substituting an other, is in

fact a greater innovation, than to make the terms ten, by adding one and

dividing an other. But our men of nine parts of speech innovated yet more:

they added the Article, as did the Greeks; divided the Noun into

Substantive and Adjective; and, without good reason, suppressed the

Participle. And, of latter time, not a few have thrown the whole into

confusion, to show the world "the order of [their] understanding." What was

grammar fifty years ago, some of these have not thought it worth their

while to inquire! And the reader has seen, that, after all this, they can

complacently talk of "the censure so frequently and so justly awarded to

_unfortunate innovators_."--KIRKHAM'S _Gram._, p. 10.

7. The old scheme of the Latin grammarians has seldom, if ever, been

_literally_ followed in English; because its distribution of the parts of

speech, as declined and undeclined, would not be true with respect to the

English participle. With the omission of this unimportant distinction, it

was, however, scrupulously retained by Dilworth, by the author of the

British Grammar, by William Ward, by Buchanan, and by some others now

little known, who chose to include both the article and the adjective with

the noun, rather than to increase the number of the parts of speech beyond

eight. Dr. Priestley says, "I shall adopt the _usual distribution_ of words

into eight classes; viz. Nouns, Adjectives, Pronouns, Verbs, Adverbs,

Prepositions, Conjunctions, and Interjections.[71] I do this in compliance

with the practice of most Grammarians; and because, _if any number, in a

thing so arbitrary, must be fixed upon_, this seems to be as comprehensive

and distinct as any. All the innovation I have made hath been to throw out

the _Participle_, and substitute the _Adjective_, as more evidently a

distinct part of speech."--_Rudiments of English Gram._, p. 3. All this

comports well enough with Dr. Priestley's haste and carelessness; but it is

not true, that he either adopted, "the usual distribution of words," or

made an other "as comprehensive and distinct as any." His "_innovation_,"

too, which has since been countenanced by many other writers, I have

already shown to be greater, than if, by a promotion of the article and the

adjective, he had made the parts of speech ten. Dr. Beattie, who was

Priestley's coeval, and a much better scholar, adopted this number without

hesitation, and called every one of them by what is still its right name:

"In English there are _ten_ sorts of words, which are all found in the

following short sentence; 'I now see the good man coming; but, alas! he

walks with difficulty.' _I_ and _he_ are pronouns; _now_ is an adverb;

_see_ and _walks_ are verbs; _the_ is an article; _good_, an adjective;

_man_ and _difficulty_ are nouns, the former substantive, the latter

abstract; _coming_ is a participle; _but_, a conjunction; _alas!_ an

interjection; _with_, a preposition. That no other sorts of words are

necessary in language, will appear, when we have seen in what respects

these are necessary."--_Beattie's Moral Science_, Vol. i, p. 30. This

distribution is precisely that which the best _French_ grammarians have

_usually_ adopted.

8. Dr. Johnson professes to adopt the division, the order, and the terms,

"of the common grammarians, without inquiring whether a fitter distribution

might not be found."--_Gram. before 4to Dict._, p. 1. But, in the Etymology

of his Grammar, he makes no enumeration of the parts of speech, and treats

only of articles, nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and verbs; to which if we

add the others, according to the common grammarians, or according to his

own Dictionary, the number will be _ten_. And this distribution, which was

adopted by Dr. Ash about 1765, by Murray the schoolmaster about 1790, by

Caleb Alexander in 1795, and approved by Dr. Adam in 1793, has since been

very extensively followed; as may be seen in Dr. Crombie's treatise, in the

Rev. Matt. Harrison's, in Dr. Mandeville's reading-books, and in the

grammars of Harrison, Staniford, Alden, Coar, John Peirce, E. Devis, C.

Adams, D. Adams, Chandler, Comly, Jaudon, Ingersoll, Hull, Fuller,

Greenleaf, Kirkham, Ferd. H. Miller, Merchant, Mack, Nutting, Bucke, Beck,

Barrett, Barnard, Maunder, Webber, Emmons, Hazen, Bingham, Sanders, and

many others. Dr. Lowth's distribution is the same, except that he placed

the adjective after the pronoun, the conjunction after the preposition,

and, like Priestley, called the participle a verb, thus making the parts of

speech _nine_. He also has been followed by many; among whom are Bicknell,

Burn, Lennie, Mennye, Lindley Murray, W. Allen, Guy, Churchill, Wilson,

Cobbett, Davis, David Blair, Davenport, Mendenhall, Wilcox, Picket, Pond,

Russell, Bacon, Bullions, Brace, Hart, Lyon, Tob. H. Miller, Alger, A.

Flint, Folker, S. Putnam, Cooper, Frost, Goldsbury, Hamlin, T. Smith, R. C.

Smith, and Woodworth. But a third part of these, and as many more in the

preceding list, are confessedly mere modifiers of Murray's compilation; and

perhaps, in such a case, those have done best who have deviated least from

the track of him whom they professed to follow.[72]

9. Some seem to have supposed, that by reducing the number of the parts of

speech, and of the rules for their construction, the study of grammar would

be rendered more easy and more profitable to the learner. But this, as

would appear from the history of the science, is a mere retrogression

towards the rudeness of its earlier stages. It is hardly worth while to

dispute, whether there shall be nine parts of speech or ten; and perhaps

enough has already been stated, to establish the expediency of assuming the

latter number. Every word in the language must be included in some class,

and nothing is gained by making the classes larger and less numerous. In

all the artificial arrangements of science, distinctions are to be made

according to the differences in things; and the simple question here is,

what differences among words shall be at first regarded. To overlook, in

our primary division, the difference between a verb and a participle, is

merely to reserve for a subdivision, or subsequent explanation, a species

of words which most grammarians have recognized as a distinct sort in their

original classification.

10. It should be observed that the early period of grammatical science was

far remote from the days in which _English_ grammar originated. Many things

which we now teach and defend as grammar, were taught and defended two

thousand years ago, by the philosophers of Greece and Rome. Of the parts of

speech, Quintilian, who lived in the first century of our era, gives the

following account: "For the ancients, among whom were Aristotle[73] and

Theodectes, treated only of verbs, nouns, and conjunctions: as the verb is

what we say, and the noun, that of which we say it, they judged the power

of discourse to be in _verbs_, and the matter in _nouns_, but the connexion

in _conjunctions_. Little by little, the philosophers, and especially the

Stoics, increased the number: first, to the conjunctions were added

_articles_; afterwards, _prepositions_; to nouns, was added the

_appellation_; then the _pronoun_; afterwards, as belonging to each verb,

the _participle_; and, to verbs in common, _adverbs_. Our language [i. e.,

the _Latin_] does not require articles, wherefore they are scattered among

the other parts of speech; but there is added to the foregoing the

_interjection_. But some, on the authority of good authors, make the parts

only eight; as Aristarchus, and, in our day, Palæmon; who have included the

vocable, or appellation, with the noun, as a species of it. But they who

make the noun one and the vocable an other, reckon nine. But there are also

some who divide the vocable from the appellation; making the former to

signify any thing manifest to sight or touch, as _house, bed_; and the

latter, any thing to which either or both are wanting, as _wind, heaven,

god, virtue_. They have also added the _asseveration_ and the

_attrectation_, which I do not approve. Whether the vocable or appellation

should be included with the noun or not, as it is a matter of little

consequence, I leave to the decision of others."--See QUINTIL. _de Inst.

Orat._, Lib. i, Cap. 4, §24.

11. Several writers on English grammar,

indulging a strange unsettlement of plan, seem not to have determined in

their own minds, how many parts of speech there are, or ought to be. Among

these are Horne Tooke, Webster, Dalton, Cardell, Green, and Cobb; and

perhaps, from what he says above, we may add the name of Priestley. The

present disputation about the sorts of words, has been chiefly owing to the

writings of Horne Tooke, who explains the minor parts of speech as mere

abbreviations, and rejects, with needless acrimony, the common

classification. But many have mistaken the nature of his instructions, no

less than that of the common grammarians. This author, in his third

chapter, supposes his auditor to say, "But you have not all this while

informed me _how many parts of speech_ you mean to lay down." To whom he

replies, "That shall be as you please. Either _two_, or _twenty_, or

_more_." Such looseness comported well enough with his particular purpose;

because he meant to teach the derivation of words, and not to meddle at all

with their construction. But who does not see that it is impossible to lay

down rules for the _construction_ of words, without first dividing them

into the classes to which such rules apply? For example: if a man means to

teach, that, "A verb must agree with its subject, or nominative, in person

and number," must he not first show the learner _what words are verbs?_ and

ought he not to see in this rule a reason for not calling the participle a

verb? Let the careless followers of Lowth and Priestley answer. Tooke did

not care to preserve any parts of speech at all. His work is not a system

of grammar; nor can it be made the basis of any regular scheme of

grammatical instruction. He who will not grant that the same words may

possibly be used as different parts of speech, must make his parts of

speech either very few or very many. This author says, "I do not allow that

_any_ words change their nature in this manner, so as to belong sometimes

to one part of speech, and sometimes to another, from the different ways of

using them. I never could perceive any such fluctuation in any word

whatever."--_Diversions of Purley_, Vol. i, p. 68.

12. From his own positive language, I imagine this ingenious author never

well considered what constitutes the sameness of words, or wherein lies the

difference of the parts of speech; and, without understanding these things,

a grammarian cannot but fall into errors, unless he will follow somebody

that knows them. But Tooke confessedly contradicts, and outfaces "_all

other Grammarians_" in the passage just cited. Yet it is plain, that the

whole science of grammar--or at least the whole of etymology and syntax,

which are its two principal parts--is based upon a division of words into

the parts of speech; a division which necessarily refers, in many

instances, the same words to different sections according to the manner in

which they are used. "Certains mots répondent, ainsi au même temps, à

diverses parties d'oraison selon que la grammaire les emploie

diversement."--_Buffier_, Art. 150. "Some words, from the different ways in

which they are used, belong sometimes to one part of speech, sometimes to

another."--_M'Culloch's Gram._, p. 37. "And so say all other

Grammarians."--_Tooke, as above_.

13. The history of _Dr. Webster_, as a grammarian, is singular. He is

remarkable for his changeableness, yet always positive; for his

inconsistency, yet very learned; for his zeal "to correct popular errors,"

yet often himself erroneous; for his fertility in resources, yet sometimes

meagre; for his success as an author, yet never satisfied; for his boldness

of innovation, yet fond of appealing to antiquity. His grammars are the

least judicious, and at present the least popular, of his works. They

consist of four or five different treatises, which for their mutual credit

should never be compared: it is impossible to place any firm reliance upon

the authority of a man who contradicts himself so much. Those who imagine

that the last opinions of so learned a man must needs be right, will do

well to wait, and see what will be his last: they cannot otherwise know to

what his instructions will finally lead: Experience has already taught him

the folly of many of his pretended improvements, and it is probable his

last opinions of English grammar will be most conformable to that just

authority with which he has ever been tampering. I do not say that he has

not exhibited ingenuity as well as learning, or that he is always wrong

when he contradicts a majority of the English grammarians; but I may

venture to say, he was wrong when he undertook to disturb the common scheme

of the parts of speech, as well as when he resolved to spell all words

exactly as they are pronounced.

14. It is not commonly known with how rash a hand this celebrated author

has sometimes touched the most settled usages of our language. In 1790,

which was seven years after the appearance of his first grammar, he

published an octavo volume of more than four hundred pages, consisting of

Essays, moral, historical, political, and literary, which might have done

him credit, had he not spoiled his book by a grammatical whim about the

reformation of orthography. Not perceiving that English literature,

multiplied as it had been within two or three centuries, had acquired a

stability in some degree corresponding to its growth, he foolishly imagined

it was still as susceptible of change and improvement as in the days of its

infancy. Let the reader pardon the length of this digression, if for the

sake of any future schemer who may chance to adopt a similar conceit, I

cite from the preface to this volume a specimen of the author's practice

and reasoning. The ingenious attorney had the good sense quickly to abandon

this project, and content himself with less glaring innovations; else he

had never stood as he now does, in the estimation of the public. But there

is the more need to record the example, because in one of the southern

states the experiment has recently been tried again. A still abler member

of the same profession, has renewed it but lately; and it is said there are

yet remaining some converts to this notion of improvement. I copy

literally, leaving all my readers and his to guess for themselves why he

spelled "_writers_" with a _w_ and "_riting_" without.

15. "During the course of ten or twelv yeers, I hav been laboring to

correct popular errors, and to assist my yung brethren in the road to truth

and virtue; my publications for theze purposes hav been numerous; much time

haz been spent, which I do not regret, and much censure incurred, which my

hart tells me I do not dezerv." * * * "The reeder wil observ that the

_orthography_ of the volum iz not uniform. The reezon iz, that many of the

essays hav been published before, in the common orthography, and it would

hav been a laborious task to copy the whole, for the sake of changing the

spelling. In the essays, ritten within the last yeer, a considerable change

of spelling iz introduced by way of experiment. This liberty waz taken by

the writers before the age of queen Elizabeth, and to this we are indeted

for the preference of modern spelling over that of Gower and Chaucer. The

man who admits that the change of _hoasbonde, mynde, ygone, moneth_ into

_husband, mind, gone, month_, iz an improovment, must acknowlege also the

riting of _helth, breth, rong, tung, munth_, to be an improovment. There iz

no alternativ. Every possible reezon that could ever be offered for

altering the spelling of wurds, stil exists in full force; and if a gradual

reform should not be made in our language, it wil proov that we are less

under the influence of reezon than our ancestors."--_Noah Webster's Essays,

Preface_, p. xi.

16. But let us return, with our author, to the question of the parts of

speech. I have shown that if we do not mean to adopt some less convenient

scheme, we must count them _ten_, and preserve their ancient order as well

as their ancient names.[74] And, after all his vacillation in consequence

of reading Horne Tooke, it would not be strange if Dr. Webster should come

at last to the same conclusion. He was not very far from it in 1828, as may

be shown by his own testimony, which he then took occasion to record. I

will give his own words on the point: "There is great difficulty in

devising a correct classification of the several sorts of words; and

probably no classification that shall be simple and at the same time

philosophically correct, can be invented. There are some words that do not

strictly fall under any description of any class yet devised. Many attempts

have been made and are still making to remedy this evil; but such schemes

as I have seen, do not, in my apprehension, correct the defects of the old

schemes, nor simplify the subject. On the other hand, all that I have seen,

serve only to obscure and embarrass the subject, by substituting new

arrangements and new terms which are as incorrect as the old ones, and less

intelligible. I have attentively viewed these subjects, in all the lights

which my opportunities have afforded, and am convinced that the

distribution of words, most generally received, _is the best that can be

formed_, with some slight alterations adapted to the particular

construction of the English language."

17. This passage is taken from the advertisement, or preface, to the

Grammar which accompanies the author's edition of his great quarto

Dictionary. Now the several schemes which bear his own name, were doubtless

all of them among those which he had that he had "_seen_;" so that he here

condemns them all collectively, as he had previously condemned some of them

at each reformation. Nor is the last exempted. For although he here plainly

gives his vote for that common scheme which he first condemned, he does not

adopt it without "some slight alterations;" and in contriving these

alterations he is inconsistent with his own professions. He makes the parts

of speech _eight_, thus: "1. The name or noun; 2. The pronoun or

substitute; 3. The adjective, attribute, or attributive; 4. The verb; 5.

The adverb; 6. The preposition; 7. The connective or conjunction; 8. The

exclamation or interjection." In his Rudiments of English Grammar,

published in 1811, "to unfold the _true principles_ of the language," his

parts of speech were _seven_; "viz. 1. Names or nouns; 2. Substitutes or

pronouns; 3. Attributes or adjectives; 4. Verbs, with their participles; 5.

Modifiers or adverbs; 6. Prepositions; 7. Connectives or conjunctions." In

his Philosophical and Practical Grammar, published in 1807, a book which

professes to teach "the _only legitimate principles_, and established

usages," of the language, a twofold division of words is adopted; first,

into two general classes, primary and secondary; then into "_seven species_

or parts of speech," the first two belonging to the former class, the other

five to the latter; thus: "1. Names or nouns; 2. Verbs; 3. Substitutes; 4.

Attributes; 5. Modifiers; 6. Prepositions; 7. Connectives." In his

"Improved Grammar of the English Language," published in 1831, the same

scheme is retained, but the usual names are preferred.

18. How many different schemes of classification this author invented, I

know not; but he might well have saved himself the trouble of inventing

any; for, so far as appears, none of his last three grammars ever came to a

second edition. In the sixth edition of his "Plain and Comprehensive

Grammar, grounded on the _true principles_ and idioms of the language," a

work which his last grammatical preface affirms to have been originally

fashioned "on the model of Lowth's," the parts of speech are reckoned

"_six_; nouns, articles, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, and abbreviations or

particles." This work, which he says "was extensively used in the schools

of this country," and continued to be in demand, he voluntarily suppressed;

because, after a profitable experiment of four and twenty years, he found

it so far from being grounded on "true principles," that the whole scheme

then appeared to him incorrigibly bad. And, judging from this sixth

edition, printed in 1800, the only one which I have seen, I cannot but

concur with him in the opinion. More than one half of the volume is a loose

_Appendix_ composed chiefly of notes taken from Lowth and Priestley; and

there is a great want of method in what was meant for the body of the work.

I imagine his several editions must have been different grammars with the

same title; for such things are of no uncommon occurrence, and I cannot

otherwise account for the assertion that this book was compiled "on _the

model of Lowth's_, and on the same principles as [those on which] Murray

has constructed his."--_Advertisement in Webster's Quarto Dict., 1st Ed._

19. In a treatise on grammar, a bad scheme is necessarily attended with

inconveniences for which no merit in the execution can possibly compensate.

The first thing, therefore, which a skillful teacher will notice in a work

of this kind, is the arrangement. If he find any difficulty in discovering,

at sight, what it is, he will be sure it is bad; for a lucid order is what

he has a right to expect from him who pretends to improve upon all the

English grammarians. Dr. Webster is not the only reader of the EPEA

PTEROENTA, who has been thereby prompted to meddle with the common scheme

of grammar; nor is he the only one who has attempted to simplify the

subject by reducing the parts of speech to _six_. John Dalton of

Manchester, in 1801, in a small grammar which he dedicated to Horne Tooke,

made them six, but not the same six. He would have them to be, nouns,

pronouns, verbs, adverbs, conjunctions, and prepositions. This writer, like

Brightland, Tooke, Fisher, and some others, insists on it that the articles

are _adjectives_. Priestley, too, throwing them out of his classification,

and leaving the learner to go almost through his book in ignorance of their

rank, at length assigns them to the same class, in one of his notes. And so

has Dr. Webster fixed them in his late valuable, but not faultless,

dictionaries. But David Booth, an etymologist perhaps equally learned, in

his "Introduction to an Analytical Dictionary of the English Language,"

declares them to be of the same species as the _pronouns_; from which he

thinks it strange that they were ever separated! See _Booth's Introd._, p.

21.

20. Now, what can be more idle, than for teachers to reject the common

classification of words, and puzzle the heads of school-boys with

speculations like these? It is easy to admit all that etymology can show to

be true, and still justify the old arrangement of the elements of grammar.

And if we depart from the common scheme, where shall we stop? Some have

taught that the parts of speech are only _five_; as did the latter stoics,

whose classes, according to Priscian and Harris, were these: articles,

nouns appellative, nouns proper, verbs, and conjunctions. Others have made

them _four_; as did Aristotle and the elder stoics, and, more recently,

Milnes, Brightland, Harris, Ware, Fisher, and the author of a work on

Universal Grammar, entitled Enclytica. Yet, in naming the four, each of

these contrives to differ from _all the rest!_ With Aristotle, they are,

"nouns, verbs, articles, and conjunctions;" with Milnes, "nouns, adnouns,

verbs, and particles;" with Brightland, "names, qualities, affirmations,

and particles;" with Harris, "substantives, attributives, definitives, and

connectives;" with Ware, "the name, the word, the assistant, the

connective;" with Fisher, "names, qualities, verbs, and particles;" with

the author of Enclytica, "names, verbs, modes, and connectives." But why

make the classes so numerous as four? Many of the ancients, Greeks,

Hebrews, and Arabians, according to Quintilian, made them _three_; and

these three, according to Vossius, were nouns, verbs, and particles.

"Veteres Arabes, Hebræi, et Græci, tres, non amplius, classes faciebant; l.

Nomen, 2. Verbum, 3. Particula seu Dictio."--_Voss. de Anal._, Lib. i, Cap.

1.

21. Nor is this number, _three_, quite destitute of modern supporters;

though most of these come at it in an other way. D. St. Quentin, in his

Rudiments of General Grammar, published in 1812, divides words into the

"three general classes" last mentioned; viz., "1. Nouns, 2. Verbs, 3.

Particles."--P. 5. Booth, who published the second edition of his

etymological work in 1814, examining severally the ten parts of speech, and

finding what he supposed to be the true origin of all the words in some of

the classes, was led to throw one into an other, till he had destroyed

seven of them. Then, resolving that each word ought to be classed according

to the meaning which its etymology fixes upon it, he refers the number of

classes to _nature_, thus: "If, then, each [word] has a _meaning_, and is

capable of raising an idea in the mind, that idea must have its prototype

in nature. It must either denote an _exertion_, and is therefore a _verb_;

or a _quality_, and is, in that case, an _adjective_; or it must express an

_assemblage_ of qualities, such as is observed to belong to some individual

object, and is, on this supposition, the _name_ of such object, or a

_noun_. * * * We have thus given an account of the different divisions of

words, and have found that the whole may be classed under the three heads

of Names, Qualities, and Actions; or Nouns, Adjectives, and

Verbs."--_Introd. to Analyt. Dict._, p. 22.

22. This notion of the parts of speech, as the reader will presently see,

found an advocate also in the author of the popular little story of Jack

Halyard. It appears in his Philosophic Grammar published in Philadelphia in

1827. Whether the writer borrowed it from Booth, or was led into it by the

light of "nature," I am unable to say: he does not appear to have derived

it from the ancients. Now, if either he or the lexicographer has discovered

in "nature" a prototype for this scheme of grammar, the discovery is only

to be proved, and the schemes of all other grammarians, ancient or modern,

must give place to it. For the reader will observe that this triad of parts

is not that which is mentioned by Vossius and Quintilian. But authority may

be found for reducing the number of the parts of speech yet lower. Plato,

according to Harris, and the first inquirers into language, according to

Horne Tooke, made them _two_; nouns and verbs, which Crombie, Dalton,

M'Culloch, and some others, say, are the only parts essentially necessary

for the communication of our thoughts. Those who know nothing about

grammar, regard all words as of _one_ class. To them, a word is simply a

word; and under what other name it may come, is no concern of theirs.

23. Towards this point, tends every attempt to simplify grammar by

suppressing any of the _ten_ parts of speech. Nothing is gained by it; and

it is a departure from the best authority. We see by what steps this kind

of reasoning may descend; and we have an admirable illustration of it in

the several grammatical works of William S. Cardell. I shall mention them

in the order in which they appeared; and the reader may judge whether the

author does not ultimately arrive at the conclusion to which the foregoing

series is conducted. This writer, in his Essay on Language, reckons seven

parts of speech; in his New-York Grammar, six; in his Hartford Grammar,

three principal, with three others subordinate; in his Philadelphia

Grammar, three only--nouns, adjectives, and verbs. Here he alleges, "The

unerring plan of _nature_ has established three classes of perceptions, and

consequently three parts of speech."--P. 171. He says this, as if he meant

to abide by it. But, on his twenty-third page, we are told, "Every

adjective is either a noun or a participle." Now, by his own showing, there

are no participles: he makes them all adjectives, in each of his schemes.

It follows, therefore, that all his adjectives, including what others call

participles, are nouns. And this reduces his three parts of speech to two,

in spite of "the unerring plan of _nature!_" But even this number is more

than he well believed in; for, on the twenty-first page of the book, he

affirms, that, "All other terms are but derivative forms and new

applications of _nouns_." So simple a thing is this method of grammar! But

Neef, in his zeal for reformation, carries the anticlimax fairly off the

brink; and declares, "In the grammar which shall be the work of my pupils,

there shall be found no nouns, no pronouns, no articles, no participles, no

verbs, no prepositions, no conjunctions, no adverbs, no interjections, no

gerunds, not even one single supine. Unmercifully shall they be banished

from it."--_Neef's Method of Education_, p. 60.

24. When Cardell's system appeared, several respectable men, convinced by

"his powerful demonstrations," admitted that he had made "many things in

the _established doctrines_ of the expounders of language appear

sufficiently ridiculous;" [75] and willingly lent him the influence of

their names, trusting that his admirable scheme of English grammar, in

which their ignorance saw nothing but new truth, would be speedily

"perfected and generally embraced." [76] Being invited by the author to a

discussion of his principles, I opposed them _in his presence_, both

privately and publicly; defending against him, not unsuccessfully, those

doctrines which time and custom have sanctioned. And, what is remarkable,

that candid opposition which Cardell himself had treated with respect, and

parried in vain, was afterwards, by some of his converts, impeached of all

unfairness, and even accused of wanting common sense. "No one," says

Niebuhr, "ever overthrew a literary idol, without provoking the anger of

its worshipers."--_Philological Museum_, Vol. i, p. 489. The certificates

given in commendation of this "set of opinions," though they had no

extensive effect on the public, showed full well that the signers knew

little of the history of grammar; and it is the continual repetition of

such things, that induces me now to dwell upon its history, for the

information of those who are so liable to be deceived by exploded errors

republished as novelties. A eulogist says of Cardell, "He had adopted a set

of opinions, which, to most of his readers, appeared _entirely new."_ A

reviewer proved, that all his pretended novelties are to be found in

certain grammars now forgotten, or seldom read. The former replies, Then he

[Cardell,] is right--and the man is no less stupid than abusive, who finds

fault; for here is proof that the former "had highly respectable authority

for almost every thing he has advanced!"--See _The Friend_, Vol. ii, pp.

105 and 116, from which all the quotations in this paragraph, except one,

are taken.

25. The reader may now be curious to know what these doctrines

were. They were summed up by the reviewer, thus: "Our author pretends to

have drawn principally from his own resources, in making up his books; and

many may have supposed there is more _novelty_ in them than there really

is. For instance: 1. He classes the _articles_ with _adjectives_; and so

did Brightland, Tooke, Fisher, Dalton, and Webster. 2. He calls the

_participles, adjectives_; and so did Brightland and Tooke. 3. He make the

_pronouns_, either _nouns_ or _adjectives_; and so did Adam, Dalton, and

others. 4. He distributes the _conjunctions_ among the other parts of

speech; and so did Tooke. 5. He rejects the _interjections_; and so did

Valla, Sanctius, and Tooke. 6. He makes the _possessive case_ an

_adjective_; and so did Brightland. 7. He says our language has _no cases_;

and so did Harris. 8. He calls _case, position_; and so did James Brown. 9.

He reduces the adjectives to two classes, _defining_ and _describing_; and

so did Dalton. 10. He declares all _verbs_ to be _active_; and so did

Harris, (in his Hermes, Book i, Chap. ix,) though he admitted the

_expediency_ of the common division, and left to our author the absurdity

of contending about it. Fisher also rejected the class of _neuter verbs_,

and called them all _active_. 11. He reduces the _moods_ to _three_, and

the _tenses_ to _three_; and so did Dalton, in the very same words. Fisher

also made the _tenses three_, but said there _are no moods_ in English. 12.

He makes the _imperative mood_ always _future_; and so did Harris, in 1751.

Nor did the doctrine originate with him; for Brightland, a hundred years

ago, [about 1706,] ascribed it to some of his predecessors. 13. He reduces

the whole of our _syntax_ to about _thirty lines_; and two thirds of these

are useless; for Dr. Johnson expressed it quite as fully in _ten_. But

their explanations are both good for nothing; and Wallis, more wisely,

omitted it altogether."--_The Friend_, Vol. ii, p. 59.

26. Dr. Webster says, in a marginal note to the preface of his

Philosophical Grammar, "Since the days of _Wallis_, who published a Grammar

of the English Language, in Latin, in the reign of Charles II.[,] from

which Johnson and Lowth borrowed most of their rules, _little improvement_

has been made in English grammar. Lowth supplied some valuable criticisms,

most of which however respect obsolete phrases; but many of his criticisms

are extremely erroneous, and they have had an ill effect, in perverting the

true idioms of our language. Priestley furnished a number of new and useful

observations on the peculiar phrases of the English language. To which may

be added some good remarks of Blair and Campbell, interspersed with many

errors. Murray, not having mounted to the original sources of information,

and professing only to select and arrange the rules and criticisms of

preceding writers, has furnished little or nothing new. Of the numerous

compilations of inferior character, it may be affirmed, that they have

added nothing to the stock of grammatical knowledge." And the concluding

sentence of this work, as well as of his Improved Grammar, published in

1831, extends the censure as follows: "It is not the English language only

whose history and principles are yet to be illustrated; but the grammars

and dictionaries of _all other_ languages, with which I have any

acquaintance, must be revised and corrected, before their elements and true

construction can be fully understood." In an advertisement to the grammar

prefixed to his quarto American Dictionary, the Doctor is yet more severe

upon books of this sort. "I close," says he, "with the single remark, that

from all the observations I have been able to make, I am convinced the

dictionaries and grammars which have been used in our seminaries of

learning for the last forty or fifty years, are _so incorrect and

imperfect_ that they have introduced or sanctioned more errors than they

have amended; in other words, had the people of England and of these States

been left to learn the pronunciation and construction of their vernacular

language solely by tradition, and the reading of good authors, the language

would have been spoken and written with more purity than it has been and

now is, by those who have learned to adjust their language by the rules

which dictionaries prescribe."

27. Little and much are but relative terms; yet when we look back to the

period in which English grammar was taught only in Latin, it seems

extravagant to say, that "little improvement has been made" in it since. I

have elsewhere expressed a more qualified sentiment. "That the grammar of

our language has made considerable progress since the days of Swift, who

wrote a petty treatise on the subject, is sufficiently evident; but whoever

considers what remains to be done, cannot but perceive how ridiculous are

many of the boasts and felicitations which we have heard on that topic."

[77] Some further notice will now be taken of that progress, and of the

writers who have been commonly considered the chief promoters of it, but

especially of such as have not been previously mentioned in a like

connexion. Among these may be noticed _William Walker_, the preceptor of

Sir Isaac Newton, a teacher and grammarian of extraordinary learning, who

died in 1684. He has left us sundry monuments of his taste and critical

skill: one is his "Treatise of English Particles,"--a work of great labour

and merit, but useless to most people now-a-days, because it explains the

English in Latin; an other, his "Art of Teaching Improv'd,"--which is also

an able treatise, and apparently well adapted to its object, "the Grounding

of a Young Scholar in the Latin Tongue." In the latter, are mentioned other

works of his, on "_Rhetorick_, and _Logick_" which I have not seen.

28. In 1706, _Richard Johnson_ published an octavo volume of more than four

hundred pages, entitled, "Grammatical Commentaries; being an Apparatus to a

New National Grammar: by way of animadversion upon the falsities,

obscurities, redundancies and defects of Lily's System now in use." This is

a work of great acuteness, labour, and learning; and might be of signal use

to any one who should undertake to prepare a new or improved Latin grammar:

of which, in my opinion, we have yet urgent need. The English grammarian

may also peruse it with advantage, if he has a good knowledge of Latin--and

without such knowledge he must be ill prepared for his task. This work is

spoken of and quoted by some of the early English grammarians; but the

hopes of the writer do not appear to have been realized. His book was not

calculated to supply the place of the common one; for the author thought it

impracticable to make a new grammar, suitable for boys, and at the same

time to embrace in it proofs sufficient to remove the prejudices of

teachers in favour of the old. King Henry's edict in support of Lily, was

yet in force, backed by all the partiality which long habit creates; and

Johnson's learning, and labour, and zeal, were admired, and praised, and

soon forgot.

29. Near the beginning of the last century, some of the generous wits of

the reign of Queen Anne, seeing the need there was of greater attention to

their vernacular language, and of a grammar more properly English than any

then in use, produced a book with which the later writers on the same

subjects, would have done well to have made themselves better acquainted.

It is entitled "A Grammar of the English Tongue; with the Arts of Logick,

Rhetorick, Poetry, &c. Illustrated with useful Notes; giving the Grounds

and Reasons of Grammar in General. The Whole making a Compleat System of an

English Education. _Published by_ JOHN BRIGHTLAND, for the Use of the

Schools of Great Britain and Ireland." It is ingeniously recommended in a

certificate by Sir Richard Steele, or the Tattler, under the fictitious

name of Isaac Bickerstaff, Esq., and in a poem of forty-three lines, by

Nahum Tate, poet laureate to her Majesty. It is a duodecimo volume of three

hundred pages; a work of no inconsiderable merit and originality; and

written in a style which, though not faultless, has scarcely been surpassed

by any English grammarian since. I quote it as Brightland's:[78] who were

the real authors, does not appear. It seems to be the work of more than

one, and perhaps the writers of the Tattler were the men. My copy is of the

seventh edition, London, printed for Henry Lintot, 1746. It is evidently

the work of very skillful hands; yet is it not in all respects well planned

or well executed. It unwisely reduces the parts of speech to four; gives

them new names; and rejects more of the old system than the schools could

be made willing to give up. Hence it does not appear to have been very

extensively adopted.

30. It is now about a hundred and thirty years, since _Dr. Swift_, in a

public remonstrance addressed to the Earl of Oxford, complained of the

imperfect state of our language, and alleged in particular, that "in many

instances it offended against every part of grammar." [79] Fifty years

afterward, _Dr. Lowth_ seconded this complaint, and pressed it home upon

the polite and the learned. "Does he mean," says the latter, "that the

English language, as it is spoken by the politest part of the nation, and

as it stands in the writings of the most approved authors, often offends

against every part of grammar? _Thus far, I am afraid the charge is

true_."--_Lowth's Grammar, Preface_, p. iv. Yet the learned Doctor, to whom

much praise has been justly ascribed for the encouragement which he gave to

this neglected study, attempted nothing more than "A Short Introduction to

English Grammar;" which, he says, "was calculated for the learner _even of

the lowest class_:" and those who would enter more deeply into the subject,

he referred to _Harris_; whose work is not an English grammar, but "A

Philosophical Inquiry concerning Universal Grammar." Lowth's Grammar was

first published in 1758. At the commencement of his preface, the reverend

author, after acknowledging the enlargement, polish, and refinement, which

the language had received during the preceding two hundred years, ventures

to add, "but, whatever other improvements it may have received, it hath

made _no advances_ in grammatical accuracy." I do not quote this assertion

to affirm it literally true, in all its apparent breadth; but there is less

reason to boast of the correctness even now attained, than to believe that

the writers on grammar are not the authors who have in general come nearest

to it in practice. Nor have the ablest authors always produced the best

compends for the literary instruction of youth.

31. The treatises of the learned doctors Harris, Lowth, Johnson, Ash,

Priestley, Horne Tooke, Crombie, Coote, and Webster, owe their celebrity

not so much to their intrinsic fitness for school instruction, as to the

literary reputation of the writers. Of _Harris's Hermes_, (which, in

comparison with our common grammars, is indeed a work of much ingenuity and

learning, full of interesting speculations, and written with great elegance

both of style and method,) _Dr. Lowth_ says, it is "the most beautiful and

perfect example of analysis, that has been exhibited since the days of

Aristotle."--_Preface to Gram._, p. x. But these two authors, if their

works be taken together, as the latter intended they should be, supply no

sufficient course of English grammar. The instructions of the one are too

limited, and those of the other are not specially directed to the subject.

32. _Dr. Johnson_, who was practically one of the greatest grammarians that

ever lived, and who was very nearly coetaneous with both Harris and Lowth,

speaks of the state of English grammar in the following terms: "I found our

speech copious without order, and energetick _without rules_: wherever I

turned my view, there was perplexity to be disentangled, and confusion to

be regulated."--_Preface to Dict._, p. 1. Again: "Having therefore _no

assistance but from general grammar_, I applied myself to the perusal of

our writers; and noting whatever might be of use to ascertain or illustrate

any word or phrase, accumulated in time the materials of a

dictionary."--_Ibid._ But it is not given to any one man to do every thing;

else, Johnson had done it. His object was, to compile a dictionary, rather

than to compose a grammar, of our language. To lexicography, grammar is

necessary, as a preparation; but, as a purpose, it is merely incidental.

Dr. Priestley speaks of Johnson thus: "I must not conclude this preface,

without making my acknowledgements to Mr. _Johnson_, whose admirable

dictionary has been of the greatest use to me in the study of our language.

It is pity he had not formed as just, and as extensive an idea of English

grammar. Perhaps this very useful work may still be reserved for his

distinguished abilities in this way."--_Priestley's Grammar, Preface_, p.

xxiii. Dr. Johnson's English Grammar is all comprised in fourteen pages,

and of course it is very deficient. The syntax he seems inclined entirely

to omit, as (he says) Wallis did, and Ben Jonson had better done; but, for

form's sake, he condescends to bestow upon it ten short lines.

33. My point here is, that the best grammarians have left much to be done

by him who may choose to labour for the further improvement of English

grammar; and that a man may well deserve comparative praise, who has not

reached perfection in a science like this. Johnson himself committed many

errors, some of which I shall hereafter expose; yet I cannot conceive that

the following judgement of his works was penned without some bias of

prejudice: "Johnson's merit ought not to be denied to him; but his

dictionary is the most imperfect and faulty, and the least valuable _of

any_[80] of his productions; and that share of merit which it possesses,

makes it by so much the more hurtful. I rejoice, however, that though the

least valuable, he found it the most profitable: for I could never read his

preface without shedding a tear. And yet it must be confessed, that his

_grammar_ and _history_ and _dictionary_ of what _he calls_ the English

language, are in all respects (except the bulk of the _latter_[81]) most

truly contemptible performances; and a reproach to the learning and

industry of a nation which could receive them with the slightest

approbation. Nearly one third of this dictionary is as much the language of

the Hottentots as of the English; and it would be no difficult matter so to

translate any one of the plainest and most popular numbers of the

_Spectator_ into the language of this dictionary, that no mere Englishman,

though well read in his own language, would he able to comprehend one

sentence of it. It appears to be a work of labour, and yet is in truth one

of the most idle performances ever offered to the public; compiled by an

author who possessed not one single requisite for the undertaking, and

(being a publication of a set of booksellers) owing its success to that

very circumstance which alone must make it impossible that it should

deserve success."--_Tooke's Diversions of Purley_, Vol. i, p. 182.

34. _Dr. Ash's_ "Grammatical Institutes, or Easy Introduction to Dr.

Lowth's English Grammar," is a meagre performance, the ease of which

consists in nothing but its brevity. _Dr. Priestley_, who in the preface to

his third edition acknowledges his obligations to Johnson, and also to

Lowth, thought it premature to attempt an English grammar; and contented

himself with publishing a few brief "Rudiments," with a loose appendix

consisting of "Notes and Observations, for the use of those who have made

some proficiency in the language." He says, "With respect to our own

language, there seems to be a kind of claim upon all who make use of it, to

do something for its improvement; and the best thing we can do for this

purpose at present, is, to exhibit its actual structure, and the varieties

with which it is used. When these are once distinctly pointed out, and

generally attended to, the best forms of speech, and those which are most

agreeable to the analogy of the language, will soon recommend themselves,

and come into general use; and when, by this means, the language shall be

written with sufficient uniformity, we may hope to see a complete grammar

of it. At present, _it is by no means ripe for such a work_;[82] but we may

approximate to it very fast, if all persons who are qualified to make

remarks upon it, will give a little attention to the subject. In such a

case, a few years might be sufficient to complete it."--_Priestley's

Grammar, Preface_, p. xv. In point of time, both Ash and Priestley

expressly claim priority to Lowth, for their first editions; but the former

having allowed his work to be afterwards entitled an Introduction to

Lowth's, and the latter having acknowledged some improvements in his from

the same source, they have both been regarded as later authors.

35. The great work of the learned etymologist _John Horne Tooke_, consists

of two octavo volumes, entitled, "EPEA PTEROENTA, or the Diversions of

Purley." This work explains, with admirable sagacity, the origin and

primitive import of many of the most common yet most obscure English words;

and is, for that reason, a valuable performance. But as it contains nothing

respecting the construction of the language, and embraces no proper system

of grammatical doctrines, it is a great error to suppose that the common

principles of practical grammar ought to give place to such instructions,

or even be modelled according to what the author proves to be true in

respect to the origin of particular words. The common grammarians were less

confuted by him, than many of his readers have imagined; and it ought not

to be forgotten that his purpose was as different from theirs, as are their

schemes of Grammar from the plan of his critical "Diversions." In this

connexion may be mentioned an other work of similar size and purpose, but

more comprehensive in design; the "History of European Languages," by that

astonishing linguist the late _Dr. Alexander Murray_. This work was left

unfinished by its lamented author; but it will remain a monument of

erudition never surpassed, acquired in spite of wants and difficulties as

great as diligence ever surmounted. Like Tooke's volumes, it is however of

little use to the mere English scholar. It can be read to advantage only by

those who are acquainted with several other languages. The works of

_Crombie_ and _Coote_ are more properly essays or dissertations, than

elementary systems of grammar.

36. The number of English grammars has now become so very great, that not

even a general idea of the comparative merits or defects of each can here

be given. I have examined with some diligence all that I have had

opportunity to obtain; but have heard of several which I have never yet

seen. Whoever is curious to examine at large what has been published on

this subject, and thus to qualify himself to judge the better of any new

grammar, may easily make a collection of one or two hundred bearing

different names. There are also many works not called grammars, from which

our copyists have taken large portions of their compilations. Thus Murray

confessedly copied from ten authors; five of whom are Beattie, Sheridan,

Walker, Blair, and Campbell. Dr. Beattie, who acquired great celebrity as a

teacher, poet, philosopher, and logician, was well skilled in grammar; but

he treated the subject only in critical disquisitions, and not in any

distinct elementary work adapted to general use. Sheridan and Walker, being

lexicographers, confined themselves chiefly to orthography and

pronunciation. Murray derived sundry principles from the writings of each;

but the English Grammar prepared by the latter, was written, I think,

several years later than Murray's. The learned doctors Blair and Campbell

wrote on rhetoric, and not on the elementary parts of grammar. Of the two,

the latter is by far the more accurate writer. Blair is fluent and easy,

but he furnishes not a little false syntax; Campbell's Philosophy of

Rhetoric is a very valuable treatise. To these, and five or six other

authors whom I have noticed, was Lindley Murray "principally indebted for

his materials." Thus far of the famous contributors to English grammar. The

Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory, delivered at Harvard University by John

Quincy Adams, and published in two octavo volumes in 1810, are such as do

credit even to that great man; but they descend less to verbal criticism,

and enter less into the peculiar province of the grammarian, than do most

other works of a similar title.

37. Some of the most respectable authors or compilers of more general

systems of English grammar for the use of schools, are the writer of the

British Grammar, Bicknell, Buchanan, William Ward, Alexander Murray the

schoolmaster, Mennye, Fisher, Lindley Murray, Penning, W. Allen, Grant,

David Blair, Lennie, Guy, Churchill. To attempt any thing like a review or

comparative estimate of these, would protract this introduction beyond all

reasonable bounds; and still others would be excluded, which are perhaps

better entitled to notice. Of mere modifiers and abridgers, the number is

so great, and the merit or fame so little, that I will not trespass upon

the reader's patience by any further mention of them or their works.

Whoever takes an accurate and comprehensive view of the history and present

state of this branch of learning, though he may not conclude, with Dr.

Priestley, that it is premature to attempt a complete grammar of the

language, can scarcely forbear to coincide with Dr. Barrow, in the opinion

that among all the treatises heretofore produced no such grammar is found.

"Some superfluities have been expunged, some mistakes have been rectified,

and some obscurities have been cleared; still, however, that all the

grammars used in our different schools, public as well as private, are

disgraced by errors or defects, is a complaint as just as it is frequent

and loud."--_Barrow's Essays_, p. 83.

38. Whether, in what I have been enabled to do, there will be found a

remedy for this complaint, must be referred to the decision of others. Upon

the probability of effecting this, I have been willing to stake some

labour; how much, and with what merit, let the candid and discerning, when

they shall have examined for themselves, judge. It is certain that we have

hitherto had, of our language, no complete grammar. The need of such a work

I suppose to be at this time in no small degree felt, especially by those

who conduct our higher institutions of learning; and my ambition has been

to produce one which might deservedly stand along side of the Port-Royal

Latin and Greek Grammars, or of the Grammaire des Grammaires of Girault Du

Vivier. If this work is unworthy to aspire to such rank, let the patrons of

English literature remember that the achievement of my design is still a

desideratum. We surely have no other book which might, in any sense, have

been called "_the Grammar of English Grammars_;" none, which, either by

excellence, or on account of the particular direction of its criticism,

might take such a name. I have turned the eyes of Grammar, in an especial

manner, upon the conduct of her own household; and if, from this volume,

the reader acquire a more just idea of _the grammar_ which is displayed in

_English grammars_, he will discover at least one reason for the title

which has been bestowed upon the work. Such as the book is, I present it to

the public, without pride, without self-seeking, and without anxiety:

knowing that most of my readers will be interested in estimating it

_justly_; that no true service, freely rendered to learning, can fail of

its end; and that no achievement merits aught with Him who graciously

supplies all ability. The opinions expressed in it have been formed with

candour, and are offered with submission. If in any thing they are

erroneous, there are those who can detect their faults. In the language of

an ancient master, the earnest and assiduous _Despauter_, I invite the

correction of the candid: "Nos quoque, quantumcunque diligentes, cùm a

candidis tùm a lividis carpemur: a candidis interdum justè; quos oro, ut de

erratis omnibus amicè me admoneant--erro nonnunquam quia homo sum."

GOOLD BROWN.

_New York_, 1836.

THE GRAMMAR OF ENGLISH GRAMMARS.

Grammar, as an art, is the power of reading, writing, and speaking

correctly. As an acquisition, it is the essential skill of scholarship. As

a study, it is the practical science which teaches the right use of

language.

_An English Grammar_ is a book which professes to explain the nature and

structure of the English language; and to show, on just authority, what is,

and what is not, good English.

ENGLISH GRAMMAR, in itself, is the art of reading, writing, and speaking

the English language correctly. It implies, in the adept, such knowledge as

enables him to avoid improprieties of speech; to correct any errors that

may occur in literary compositions; and to parse, or explain grammatically,

whatsoever is rightly written.

_To read_ is to perceive what is written or printed, so as to understand

the words, and be able to utter them with their proper sounds.

_To write_ is to express words and thoughts by letters, or characters,

made with a pen or other instrument.

_To speak_ is to utter words orally, in order that they may be heard and

understood.

Grammar, like every other liberal art, can be properly taught only by a

regular analysis, or systematic elucidation, of its component parts or

principles; and these parts or principles must be made known chiefly by

means of definitions and examples, rules and exercises.

A _perfect definition_ of any thing or class of things is such a

description of it, as distinguishes that entire thing or class from every

thing else, by briefly telling _what it is_.

An _example_ is a particular instance or model, serving to prove or

illustrate some given proposition or truth.

A _rule of grammar_ is some law, more or less general, by which custom

regulates and prescribes the right use of language.

An _exercise_ is some technical performance required of the learner in

order to bring his knowledge and skill into practice.

LANGUAGE, in the primitive sense of the term, embraced only vocal

expression, or human speech uttered by the mouth; but after letters were

invented to represent articulate sounds, language became twofold, _spoken_

and _written_, so that the term, _language_, now signifies, _any series of

sounds or letters formed into words and employed for the expression of

thought._

Of the composition of language we have also two kinds, _prose_ and _verse_;

the latter requiring a certain number and variety of syllables in each

line, but the former being free from any such restraint.

The _least parts_ of written language are letters; of spoken language,

syllables; of language significant in each part, words; of language

combining thought, phrases; of language subjoining sense, clauses; of

language coördinating sense, members; of language completing sense,

sentences.

A discourse, or narration, of any length, is but a series of sentences;

which, when written, must be separated by the proper points, that the

meaning and relation of all the words may be quickly and clearly perceived

by the reader, and the whole be uttered as the sense requires.

In extended compositions, a sentence is usually less than a paragraph; a

paragraph, less than a section; a section, less than a chapter; a chapter,

less than a book; a book, less than a volume; and a volume, less than the

entire work.

The common order of _literary division_, then, is; of a large work, into

volumes; of volumes, into books; of books, into chapters; of chapters, into

sections; of sections, into paragraphs; of paragraphs, into sentences; of

sentences, into members; of members, into clauses; of clauses, into

phrases; of phrases, into words; of words, into syllables; of syllables,

into letters.

But it rarely happens that any one work requires the use of all these

divisions; and we often assume some natural distinction and order of parts,

naming each as we find it; and also subdivide into articles, verses,

cantoes, stanzas, and other portions, as the nature of the subject

suggests.

Grammar is divided into four parts; namely, Orthography, Etymology, Syntax,

and Prosody.

Orthography treats of letters, syllables, separate words, and spelling.

Etymology treats of the different _parts of speech_, with their classes and

modifications.

Syntax treats of the relation, agreement, government, and arrangement of

words in sentences.

Prosody treats of punctuation, utterance, figures, and versification.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--In the Introduction to this work, have been taken many views of

the study, or general science, of grammar; many notices of its history,

with sundry criticisms upon its writers or critics; and thus language has

often been presented to the reader's consideration, either as a whole, or

with broader scope than belongs to the teaching of its particular forms. We

come now to the work of _analyzing_ our own tongue, and of laying down

those special rules and principles which should guide us in the use of it,

whether in speech or in writing. The author intends to dissent from other

grammarians no more than they are found to dissent from truth and reason;

nor will he expose their errors further than is necessary for the credit of

the science and the information of the learner. A candid critic can have no

satisfaction merely in finding fault with other men's performances. But the

facts are not to be concealed, that many pretenders to grammar have shown

themselves exceedingly superficial in their knowledge, as well as slovenly

in their practice; and that many vain composers of books have proved

themselves _despisers_ of this study, by the abundance of their

inaccuracies, and the obviousness of their solecisms.

OBS. 2.--Some grammarians have taught that the word _language_ is of much

broader signification, than that which is given to it in the definition

above. I confine it to speech and writing. For the propriety of this

limitation, and against those authors who describe the thing otherwise, I

appeal to the common sense of mankind. One late writer defines it thus:

"LANGUAGE is _any means_ by which one _person_ communicates his _ideas_ to

_another_."--_Sanders's Spelling-Book_, p. 7. The following is the

explanation of an other slack thinker: "One may, by speaking or by writing,

(and sometimes _by motions_,) communicate his thoughts to others. _The

process_ by which this is done, is called LANGUAGE.--_Language_ is _the

expression_ of thought _and feeling_."--_S. W. Clark's Practical Gram._, p.

7. Dr. Webster goes much further, and says, "LANGUAGE, in its most

extensive sense, is the instrument or means of communicating ideas _and

affections_ of the mind _and body_, from one _animal to another_. In this

sense, _brutes possess the power of language_; for by various inarticulate

sounds, they make known their wants, desires, and sufferings."--

_Philosophical Gram._, p. 11; _Improved Gram._, p. 5. This latter

definition the author of that vain book, "_the District School_," has

adopted in his chapter on Grammar. Sheridan, the celebrated actor and

orthoëpist, though he seems to confine language to the human species, gives

it such an extension as to make words no necessary part of its essence.

"The first thought," says he, "that would occur to every one, who had not

properly considered the point, is, that language is composed of words. And

yet, this is so far from being an adequate idea of language, that the point

in which most men think its very essence to consist, is not even a

necessary property of language. For language, in its full extent, means,

any way or method whatsoever, by which _all that passes in the mind of one

man_, may be manifested to another."--_Sheridan's Lectures on Elocution_,

p. 129. Again: "I have already _shown_, that words are, in their own

nature, _no essential part of language_, and are only considered so through

custom."--_Ib._ p. 135.

OBS. 3.--According to S. Kirkham's notion, "LANGUAGE, in its most extensive

sense, implies those signs by which _men and brutes_, communicate _to each

other_ their thoughts, affections and desires."--_Kirkham's English Gram._,

p. 16. Again: "_The language of brutes_ consists in the use of those

inarticulate sounds by which they express _their thoughts and

affections_."--_Ib._ To me it seems a shameful abuse of speech, and a vile

descent from the dignity of grammar, to make the voices of "_brutes_" any

part of language, as taken in a literal sense. We might with far more

propriety raise our conceptions of it to the spheres above, and construe

literally the metaphors of David, who ascribes to the starry heavens, both

"_speech_" and "_language_," "_voice_" and "_words_," daily "_uttered_" and

everywhere "_heard_." See _Psalm_ xix.

OBS. 4.--But, strange as it may seem, Kirkham, commencing his instructions

with the foregoing definition of language, proceeds to divide it, agreeably

to this notion, into two sorts, _natural_ and _artificial_; and affirms

that the former "is common both to man and brute," and that the language

which is peculiar to man, the language which consists of _words_, is

altogether an _artificial invention_:[83] thereby contradicting at once a

host of the most celebrated grammarians and philosophers, and that without

appearing to know it. But this is the less strange, since he immediately

forgets his own definition and division of the subject, and as plainly

contradicts himself. Without limiting the term at all, without excluding

his fanciful "_language of brutes_," he says, on the next leaf, "_Language_

is _conventional_, and not only _invented_, but, in its progressive

advancement, _varied for purposes of practical convenience_. Hence it

assumes _any and every form_ which those who make use of it, choose to give

it."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 18. This, though scarcely more rational than

his "_natural language of men and brutes_," plainly annihilates that

questionable section of grammatical science, whether brutal or human, by

making all language a thing "_conventional_" and "_invented_." In short, it

leaves no ground at all for any grammatical science of a positive

character, because it resolves all forms of language into the irresponsible

will of those who utter any words, sounds, or noises.

OBS. 5.--Nor is this gentleman more fortunate in his explanation of what

may really be called language. On one page, he says, "_Spoken language_ or

_speech_, is made up of articulate sounds uttered by the human

voice."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 17. On the next, "The most important use of

_that faculty called speech_, is, to convey our thoughts to

others."--_Ib._, p. 18. Thus the grammarian who, in the same short

paragraph, seems to "defy the ingenuity of man to give his words any other

meaning than that which he himself intends _them to express_," (_Ib._, p.

19,) either writes so badly as to make any ordinary false syntax appear

trivial, or actually conceives man to be the inventor of one of his own

_faculties_. Nay, docs he not make man the contriver of that "natural

language" which he possesses "in common with the brutes?" a language "_The

meaning of which_," he says, "_all the different animals perfectly

understand_?"--See his _Gram._, p. 16. And if this notion again be true,

does it not follow, that a horse knows perfectly well what horned cattle

mean by their bellowing, or a flock of geese by their gabbling? I should

not have noticed these things, had not the book which teaches them, been

made popular by _a thousand_ imposing attestations to its excellence and

accuracy. For grammar has nothing at all to do with inarticulate voices, or

the imaginary languages of _brutes_. It is scope enough for one science to

explain all the languages, dialects, and speeches, that lay claim to

_reason_. We need not enlarge the field, by descending

"To beasts, whom[84] God on their creation-day

Created mute to all articulate sound."--_Milton_.[85]

PART I.

ORTHOGRAPHY.

ORTHOGRAPHY treats of letters, syllables, separate words, and spelling.

CHAPTER I.--OF LETTERS.

A _Letter_ is an alphabetic character, which commonly represents some

elementary sound of the human voice, some element of speech.

An elementary sound of the human voice, or an element of speech, is one of

the simple sounds which compose a spoken language. The sound of a letter is

commonly called its _power_: when any letter of a word is not sounded, it

is said to be _silent_ or _mute._ The letters in the English alphabet, are

twenty-six; the simple or primary sounds which they represent, are about

thirty-six or thirty-seven.

A knowledge of the letters consists in an acquaintance with these _four

sorts of things_; their _names_, their _classes_, their _powers_, and their

_forms_.

The letters are written, or printed, or painted, or engraved, or embossed,

in an infinite variety of shapes and sizes; and yet are always _the same_,

because their essential properties do not change, and their names, classes,

and powers, are mostly permanent.

The following are some of the different sorts of types, or styles of

letters, with which every reader should be early acquainted:--

1. The Roman: A a, B b, C c, D d, E e, F f, G g, H h, I i, J j, K k, L l, M

m, N n, o, P p, Q q, R r, S s, T t, U u, V v, W w, X x, Y y, Z z.

2. The Italic: _A a, B b, C c, D d, E e, F f, G g, H h, I i, J j, K k, L l,

M m, N n, o, P p, Q q, R r, S s, T t, U u, V v, W w, X x, Y y, Z z._

3. The Script: [Script: A a, B b, C c, D d, E e, F f, G g, H h, I i, J j, K

k, L l, M m, N n, o, P p, Q q, R r, S s, T t, U u, V v, W w, X x, Y y, Z

z.]

4. The Old English: [Old English: A a, B b, C c, D d, E e, F f, G g, H h, I

i, J j, K k, L l, M m, N n, o, P p, Q q, R r, S s, T t, U u, V v, W w, X x,

Y y, Z z.]

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--A letter _consists_ not in the figure only, or in the power only,

but in the figure and power united; as an ambassador consists not in the

man only, or in the commission only, but in the man commissioned. The

figure and the power, therefore, are necessary to constitute the letter;

and a name is as necessary, to call it by, teach it, or tell what it is.

The _class_ of a letter is determined by the nature of its power, or sound;

as the ambassador is plenipotentiary or otherwise, according to the extent

of his commission. To all but the deaf and dumb, written language is the

representative of that which is spoken; so that, in the view of people in

general, the powers of the letters are habitually identified with their

sounds, and are conceived to be nothing else. Hence any given sound, or

modification of sound, which all men can produce at pleasure, when

arbitrarily associated with a written sign, or conventional character,

constitutes what is called _a letter_. Thus we may produce the sounds of

_a, e, o_, then, by a particular compression of the organs of utterance,

modify them all, into _ba, be, bo_, or _fa, fe, fo_; and we shall see that

_a, e_, and _o_, are letters of one sort, and _b_ and _f_ of an other. By

_elementary_ or _articulate_ sounds,[86] then, we mean not only the simple

tones of the voice itself, but the modifying stops and turns which are

given them in speech, and marked by letters: the real voices constituting

vowels; and their modifications, consonants.

OBS. 2.--A mere mark to which no sound or power is ever given, cannot be a

letter; though it may, like the marks used for punctuation, deserve a name

and a place in grammar. Commas, semicolons, and the like, represent

_silence_, rather than sounds, and are therefore not letters. Nor are the

Arabic figures, which represent entire _words_, nor again any symbols

standing for _things_, (as the astronomic marks for the sun, the moon, the

planets,) to be confounded with letters; because the representative of any

word or number, of any name or thing, differs widely in its power, from the

sign of a simple elementary sound: i. e., from any constituent _part_ of a

written word. The first letter of a word or name does indeed sometimes

stand for the whole, and is still a letter; but it is so, as being the

first element of the word, and not as being the representative of the

whole.

OBS. 3.--In their definitions of vowels and consonants, many grammarians

have resolved letters into _sounds only_; as, "A Vowel is an articulate

_sound_," &c.--"A Consonant is an articulate _sound_," &c.--_L. Murray's

Gram._, p. 7. But this confounding of the visible signs with the things

which they signify, is very far from being a true account of either.

Besides, letters combined are capable of a certain mysterious power which

is independent of all sound, though speech, doubtless, is what they

properly represent. In practice, almost all the letters may occasionally

happen to be _silent_; yet are they not, in these cases, necessarily

useless. The deaf and dumb also, to whom none of the letters express or

represent sounds, may be taught to read and write understandingly. They

even learn in some way to distinguish the accented from the unaccented

syllables, and to have some notion of _quantity_, or of something else

equivalent to it; for some of them, it is said, can compose verses

according to the rules of prosody. Hence it would appear, that the powers

of the letters are not, of necessity, identified with their sounds; the

things being in some respect distinguishable, though the terms are commonly

taken as synonymous. The fact is, that a word, whether spoken or written,

is of itself _significant_, whether its corresponding form be known or not.

Hence, in the one form, it may be perfectly intelligible to the illiterate,

and in the other, to the educated deaf and dumb; while, to the learned who

hear and speak, either form immediately suggests the other, with the

meaning common to both.

OBS. 4.--Our knowledge of letters rises no higher than to the forms used by

the ancient Hebrews and Phoenicians. Moses is supposed to have written in

characters which were nearly the same as those called Samaritan, but his

writings have come to us in an alphabet more beautiful and regular, called

the Chaldee or Chaldaic, which is said to have been made by Ezra the

scribe, when he wrote out a new copy of the law, after the rebuilding of

the temple. Cadmus carried the Phoenician alphabet into Greece, where it

was subsequently altered and enlarged. The small letters were not invented

till about the seventh century of our era. The Latins, or Romans, derived

most of their capitals from the Greeks; but their small letters, if they

had any, were made afterwards among themselves. This alphabet underwent

various changes, and received very great improvements, before it became

that beautiful series of characters which we now use, under the name of

_Roman letters_. Indeed these particular forms, which are now justly

preferred by many nations, are said to have been adopted after the

invention of printing. "The Roman letters were first used by Sweynheim and

Pannartz, printers who settled at Rome, in 1467. The earliest work printed

wholly in this character in England, is said to have been Lily's or Paul's

Accidence, printed by Richard Pinson, 1518. The Italic letters were

invented by Aldus Manutius at Rome, towards the close of the fifteenth

century, and were first used in an edition of Virgil, in

1501."--_Constables Miscellany_, Vol. xx, p. 147. The Saxon alphabet was

mostly Roman. Not more than one quarter of the letters have other forms.

But the changes, though few, give to a printed page a very different

appearance. Under William the Conqueror, this alphabet was superseded by

the modern Gothic, Old English, or Black letter; which, in its turn,

happily gave place to the present Roman. The Germans still use a type

similar to the Old English, but not so heavy.

OBS. 5.--I have suggested that a true knowledge of the letters implies an

acquaintance with their _names_, their _classes_, their _powers_, and their

_forms_. Under these four heads, therefore, I shall briefly present what

seems most worthy of the learner's attention at first, and shall reserve

for the appendix a more particular account of these important elements. The

most common and the most useful things are not those about which we are in

general most inquisitive. Hence many, who think themselves sufficiently

acquainted with the letters, do in fact know but very little about them. If

a person is able to read some easy book, he is apt to suppose he has no

more to learn respecting the letters; or he neglects the minute study of

these elements, because he sees what words they make, and can amuse himself

with stories of things more interesting. But merely to understand common

English, is a very small qualification for him who aspires to scholarship,

and especially for a _teacher_. For one may do this, and even be a great

reader, without ever being able to name the letters properly, or to

pronounce such syllables as _ca, ce, ci, co, cu, cy_, without getting half

of them wrong. No one can ever teach an art more perfectly than he has

learned it; and if we neglect the _elements_ of grammar, our attainments

must needs be proportionately unsettled and superficial.

I. NAMES OF THE LETTERS. The _names_ of the letters, as now commonly spoken

and written in English, are _A, Bee, Cee, Dee, E, Eff, Gee, Aitch, I, Jay,

Kay, Ell, Em, En, O, Pee, Kue, Ar, Ess, Tee, U, Vee, Double-u, Ex, Wy,

Zee_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--With the learning and application of these names, our literary

education begins; with a continual rehearsal of them in spelling, it is for

a long time carried on; nor can we ever dispense with them, but by

substituting others, or by ceasing to mention the things thus named. What

is obviously indispensable, needs no proof of its importance. But I know

not whether it has ever been noticed, that these names, like those of the

days of the week, are worthy of particular distinction, for their own

nature. They are words of a very peculiar kind, being nouns that are at

once _both proper and common_. For, in respect to rank, character, and

design, each letter is a thing strictly individual and identical--that is,

it is ever one and the same; yet, in an other respect, it is a

comprehensive sort, embracing individuals both various and numberless. Thus

every B is a _b_, make it as you will; and can be nothing else than that

same letter b, though you make it in a thousand different fashions, and

multiply it after each pattern innumerably. Here, then, we see

individuality combined at once with great diversity, and infinite

multiplicity; and it is _to this combination_, that letters owe their

wonderful power of transmitting thought. Their _names_, therefore, should

always be written with capitals, as proper nouns, at least in the singular

number; and should form the plural regularly, as ordinary appellatives.

Thus: (if we adopt the names now most generally used in English schools:)

_A, Aes; Bee, Bees; Cee, Cees; Dee, Dees; E, Ees; Eff, Effs; Gee, Gees;

Aitch, Aitches; I, Ies; Jay, Jays; Kay, Kays; Ell, Ells; Em, Ems; En, Ens;

O, Oes; Pee, Pees; Kue, Kues; Ar, Ars; Ess, Esses; Tee, Tees; U, Ues; Vee,

Vees; Double-u, Double-ues; Ex, Exes; Wy, Wies; Zee, Zees._

OBS. 2.--The names of the letters, as expressed in the modern languages,

are mostly framed _with reference_ to their powers, or sounds. Yet is there

in English no letter of which the name is always identical with its power:

for _A, E, I, O_, and _U_, are the only letters which can name themselves,

and all these have other sounds than those which their names express. The

simple powers of the other letters are so manifestly insufficient to form

any name, and so palpable is the difference between the nature and the name

of each, that did we not know how education has been trifled with, it would

be hard to believe even Murray, when he says, "They are frequently

confounded by writers on grammar. Observations and reasonings on the

_name_, are often applied to explain the _nature_ of a consonant; and by

this means the student is led into error and perplexity."--_L. Murray's

Gram._, 8vo, p. 8. The confounding of names with the things for which they

stand, implies, unquestionably, great carelessness in the use of speech,

and great indistinctness of apprehension in respect to things; yet so

common is this error, that Murray himself has many times fallen into

it.[87] Let the learner therefore be on his guard, remembering that

grammar, both in its study and in its practice, requires the constant

exercise of a rational discernment. Those letters which name themselves,

take for their names those sounds which they usually represent at the end

of an accented syllable; thus the names, _A, E, I, O, U_, are uttered with

the sounds given to the same letters in the first syllables of the other

names, _Abel, Enoch, Isaac, Obed, Urim_; or in the first syllables of the

common words, _paper, penal, pilot, potent, pupil_. The other letters, most

of which can never be perfectly sounded alone, have names in which their

powers are combined with other sounds more vocal; as, _Bee, Cee, Dee,--Ell,

Em, En,--Jay, Kay, Kue_. But in this respect the terms _Aitch_ and

_Double-u_ are irregular; because they have no obvious reference to the

powers of the letters thus named.

OBS. 3.--Letters, like all other things, must be learned and spoken of _by

their names_; nor can they be spoken of otherwise; yet, as the simple

characters are better known and more easily exhibited than their written

names, the former are often substituted for the latter, and are read as the

words for which they are assumed. Hence the orthography of these words has

hitherto been left too much to mere fancy or caprice. Our dictionaries, by

a strange oversight or negligence, do not recognize them as words; and

writers have in general spelled them with very little regard to either

authority or analogy. What they are, or ought to be, has therefore been

treated as a trifling question: and, what is still more surprising, several

authors of spelling-books make no mention at all of them; while others,

here at the very threshold of instruction, teach falsely--giving "_he_" for

_Aitch_, "_er_" for _Ar_, "_oo_" or "_uu_" for _Double-u_, "_ye_" for _Wy_,

and writing almost all the rest improperly. So that many persons who think

themselves well educated, would be greatly puzzled to name on paper these

simple elements of all learning. Nay, there can be found a hundred men who

can readily write the alphabetic names which were in use two or three

thousand years ago in Greece or Palestine, for one who can do the same

thing with propriety, respecting those which we now employ so constantly in

English:[88] and yet the words themselves are as familiar to every

school-boy's lips as are the characters to his eye. This fact may help to

convince us, that _the grammar_ of our language has never yet been

sufficiently taught. Among all the particulars which constitute this

subject, there are none which better deserve to be everywhere known, by

proper and determinate names, than these prime elements of all written

language.

OBS. 4.--Should it happen to be asked a hundred lustrums hence, what were

the names of the letters in "the Augustan age of English literature," or in

the days of William the Fourth and Andrew Jackson, I fear the learned of

that day will be as much at a loss for an answer, as would most of our

college tutors now, were they asked, by what series of names the Roman

youth were taught to spell. Might not Quintilian or Varro have obliged

many, by recording these? As it is, we are indebted to Priscian, a

grammarian of the sixth century, for almost all we know about them. But

even the information which may be had, on this point, has been strangely

overlooked by our common Latin grammarians.[89] What, but the greater care

of earlier writers, has made the Greek names better known or more important

than the Latin? In every nation that is not totally illiterate, custom must

have established for the letters a certain set of names, which are _the

only true ones_, and which are of course to be preferred to such as are

local or unauthorized. In this, however, as in other things, use may

sometimes vary, and possibly improve; but when its decisions are clear, no

feeble reason should be allowed to disturb them. Every parent, therefore,

who would have his children instructed to read and write the English

language, should see that in the first place they learn to name the letters

as they are commonly named in English. A Scotch gentleman of good education

informs me, that the names of the letters, as he first learned them in a

school in his own country, were these: "A, Ib, Ec, Id, E, Iff, Ig, Ich, I,

Ij, Ik, Ill, Im, In, O, Ip, Kue, Ir, Iss, It, U, Iv, Double-u, Ix, Wy, Iz;"

but that in the same school the English names are now used. It is to be

hoped, that all teachers will in time abandon every such local usage, and

name the letters _as they ought to be named_; and that the day will come,

in which the regular English _orthography_ of these terms, shall be

steadily preferred, ignorance of it be thought a disgrace, and the makers

of school-books feel no longer at liberty to alter names that are a

thousand times better known than their own.

OBS. 5.--It is not in respect to their _orthography_ alone, that these

first words in literature demand inquiry and reflection: the

_pronunciation_ of some of them has often been taught erroneously, and,

with respect to three or four of them, some writers have attempted to make

an entire change from the customary forms which I have recorded. Whether

the name of the first letter should be pronounced "_Aye_," as it is in

England, "_Ah_," as it is in Ireland, or "_Aw_," as it is in Scotland, is a

question which Walker has largely discussed, and clearly decided in favour

of the first sound; and this decision accords with the universal practice

of the schools in America. It is remarkable that this able critic, though

he treated minutely of the letters, naming them all in the outset of his

"Principles" subsequently neglected the names of them all, except the first

and the last. Of _Zee_, (which has also been called _Zed, Zad, Izzard,

Uzzard, Izzet_, and _Iz_,)[90] he says, "Its common name is _izzard_, which

Dr. Johnson explains into _s hard_; if, however, this is the meaning, it is

a gross misnomer; for the _z_ is not the hard, but the soft _s_;[91] but as

it has a less sharp, and therefore not so audible a sound, it is not

impossible _but_ it may mean _s surd_. _Zed_, borrowed from the French, is

the more fashionable name of this letter; but, in my opinion, _not to be

admitted, because the names of the letters ought to have no

diversity._"--_Walker's Principles_, No. 483. It is true, the name of a

letter ought to be one, and in no respect diverse; but where diversity has

already obtained, and become firmly rooted in custom, is it to be obviated

by insisting upon what is old-fashioned, awkward, and inconvenient? Shall

the better usage give place to the worse? Uniformity cannot be so reached.

In this country, both _Zed_ and _Izzard_, as well as the worse forms _Zad_

and _Uzzard_, are now fairly superseded by the softer and better term

_Zee_; and whoever will spell aloud, with each of these names, a few such

words as _dizzy, mizzen, gizzard_, may easily perceive why none of the

former can ever be brought again into use. The other two, _Iz_ and _Izzet_,

being localisms, and not authorized English, I give up all six; _Zed_ to

the French, and the rest to oblivion.

OBS. 6.--By way of apology for noticing the name of the first letter,

Walker observes, "If a diversity of names to vowels did not confound us in

our spelling, or declaring to each other the component letters of a word,

it would be entirely needless to enter into _so trifling a question_ as the

mere name of a letter; but when we find ourselves unable to convey signs to

each other on account of this diversity of names, and that words themselves

are endangered by an improper utterance of their component parts, it seems

highly incumbent on us to attempt a uniformity in this point, which,

insignificant as it may seem, is undoubtedly the foundation of a just and

regular pronunciation."--_Dict., under A_. If diversity in this matter is

so perplexing, what shall we say to those who are attempting innovations

without assigning reasons, or even pretending authority? and if a knowledge

of these names is the basis of a just pronunciation, what shall we think of

him who will take no pains to ascertain how he ought to speak and write

them? He who pretends to teach the proper fashion of speaking and writing,

cannot deal honestly, if ever he silently prefer a suggested improvement,

to any established and undisturbed usage of the language; for, in grammar,

no individual authority can be a counterpoise to general custom. The best

usage can never be that which is little known, nor can it be well

ascertained and taught by him who knows little. Inquisitive minds are ever

curious to learn the nature, origin, and causes of things; and that

instruction is the most useful, which is best calculated to gratify this

rational curiosity. This is my apology for dwelling so long upon the

present topic.

OBS. 7.--The names originally given to the letters were not mere notations

of sound, intended solely to express or make known the powers of the

several characters then in use; nor ought even the modern names of our

present letters, though formed with special reference to their sounds, to

be considered such. Expressions of mere sound, such as the notations in a

pronouncing dictionary, having no reference to what is meant by the sound,

do not constitute words at all; because they are not those acknowledged

signs to which a meaning has been attached, and are consequently without

that significance which is an essential property of words. But, in every

language, there must be a series of sounds by which the alphabetical

characters are commonly known in speech; and which, as they are the

acknowledged names of these particular objects, must be entitled to a place

among _the words_ of the language. It is a great error to judge otherwise;

and a greater to make it a "trifling question" in grammar, whether a given

letter shall be called by one name or by an other. Who shall say that

_Daleth, Delta_, and _Dee_, are not three _real words_, each equally

important in the language to which it properly belongs? Such names have

always been in use wherever literature has been cultivated; and as the

forms and powers of the letters have been changed by the nations, and have

become different in different languages, there has necessarily followed a

change of the names. For, whatever inconvenience scholars may find in the

diversity which has thence arisen, to name these elements in a set of

foreign terms, inconsistent with the genius of the language to be learned,

would surely be attended with a tenfold greater. We derived our letters,

and their names too, from the Romans; but this is no good reason why the

latter should be spelled and pronounced as we suppose they were spelled and

pronounced in Rome.

OBS. 8.--The names of the twenty-two letters in Hebrew, are, without

dispute, proper _words_; for they are not only significant of the letters

thus named, but have in general, if not in every instance, some other

meaning in that language. Thus the mysterious ciphers which the English

reader meets with, and wonders over, as he reads the 119th Psalm, may be

resolved, according to some of the Hebrew grammars, as follows:--

[Hebrew: Aleph] Aleph, A, an ox, or a leader; [Hebrew: Beth] Beth, Bee,

house; [Hebrew: Gimel] Gimel, Gee, a camel; [Hebrew: Dalet] Daleth, Dee, a

door; [Hebrew: he] He, E, she, or behold; [Hebrew: vav] Vau, U, a hook, or

a nail; [Hebrew: zajin] Zain, Zee, armour; [Hebrew: het] Cheth, or Heth,

Aitch, a hedge; [Hebrew: tet] Teth, Tee, a serpent, or a scroll; [Hebrew:

jod] Jod, or Yod, I, or Wy, a hand shut; [Hebrew: kaf] Caph, Cee, a

hollow hand, or a cup; [Hebrew: lamed] Lamed, Ell, an ox-goad; [Hebrew:

mem] Mem, Em, a stain, or spot; [Hebrew: nun] Nun, En, a fish, or a snake;

[Hebrew: samekh] Samech, Ess, a basis, or support; [Hebrew: ayin] Ain, or

Oin, O, an eye, or a well; [Hebrew: pe] Pe, Pee, a lip, or mouth; [Hebrew:

tsadi] Tzaddi, or Tsadhe, Tee-zee, (i. e. tz, or ts,) a hunter's pole;

[Hebrew: qof] Koph, Kue, or Kay, an ape; [Hebrew: resh] Resch, or Resh,

Ar, a head; [Hebrew: shin] Schin, or Sin, Ess-aitch, or Ess, a tooth;

[Hebrew: tav] Tau, or Thau, Tee, or Tee-aitch, a cross, or mark.

These English names of the Hebrew letters are written with much less

uniformity than those of the Greek, because there has been more dispute

respecting their powers. This is directly contrary to what one would have

expected; since the Hebrew names are words originally significant of other

things than the letters, and the Greek are not. The original pronunciation

of both languages is admitted to be lost, or involved in so much obscurity

that little can be positively affirmed about it; and yet, where least was

known, grammarians have produced the most diversity; aiming at disputed

sounds in the one case, but generally preferring a correspondence of

letters in the other.

OBS. 9.--The word _alphabet_ is derived from the first two names in the

following series. The Greek letters are twenty-four; which are formed,

named, and sounded, thus:--

[Greek: A a], Alpha, a; [Greek: B, b], Beta, b; [Greek: G g], Gamma, g

hard; [Greek: D d], Delta, d; [Greek: E e], Epsilon, e short; [Greek: Z z],

Zeta, z; [Greek: Æ æ], Eta, e long; [Greek: TH Th th], Theta, th; [Greek: I

i], Iota, i; [Greek K k], Kappa, k; [Greek: L l], Lambda, l; [Greek: M m],

Mu, m; [Greek: N n], Nu, n; [Greek: X x], Xi, x; [Greek: O o], Omicron, o

short; [Greek: P p], Pi, p; [Greek: R r] Rho, r; [Greek: S s s], Sigma, s;

[Greek: T t], Tau, t; [Greek: Y y], Upsilon, u; [Greek: PH ph], Phi, ph;

[Greek: CH ch], Chi, ch; [Greek: PS ps], Psi, ps; [Greek: O o], Omega, o

long.

Of these names, our English dictionaries explain the first and the last;

and Webster has defined _Iota_, and _Zeta_, but without reference to the

meaning of the former in Greek. _Beta, Delta, Lambda_, and perhaps some

others, are also found in the etymologies or definitions of Johnson and

Webster, both of whom spell the word _Lambda_ and its derivative

_lambdoidal_ without the silent _b_, which is commonly, if not always,

inserted by the authors of our Greek grammars, and which Worcester, more

properly, retains.

OBS. 10.--The reader will observe that the foregoing names, whether Greek

or Hebrew, are in general much less simple than those which our letters now

bear; and if he has ever attempted to spell aloud in either of those

languages, he cannot but be sensible of the great advantage which was

gained when to each letter there was given a short name, expressive, as

ours mostly are, of its ordinary power. This improvement appears to have

been introduced by the Romans, whose names for the letters were even more

simple than our own. But so negligent in respect to them have been the

Latin grammarians, both ancient and modern, that few even of the learned

can tell what they really were in that language; or how they differed,

either in orthography or sound, from those of the English or the French,

the Hebrew or the Greek. Most of them, however, may yet be ascertained from

Priscian, and some others of note among the ancient philologists; so that

by taking from later authors the names of those letters which were not used

in old times, we can still furnish an entire list, concerning the accuracy

of which there is not much room to dispute. It is probable that in the

ancient pronunciation of Latin, _a_ was commonly sounded as in _father_;

_e_ like the English _a_; _i_ mostly like _e_ long; _y_ like _i_ short; _c_

generally and _g_ always hard, as in _come_ and _go_. But, as the original,

native, or just pronunciation of a language is not necessary to an

understanding of it when written, the existing nations have severally, in a

great measure, accommodated themselves, in their manner of reading this and

other ancient tongues.

OBS. 11.--As the Latin language is now printed, its

letters are twenty-five. Like the French, it has all that belong to the

English alphabet, except the _Double-u_. But, till the first Punic war, the

Romans wrote C for G, and doubtless gave it the power as well as the place

of the Gamma or Gimel. It then seems to have slid into K; but they used it

also for S, as we do now. The ancient Saxons, generally pronounced C as K,

but sometimes as Ch. Their G was either guttural, or like our Y. In some of

the early English grammars the name of the latter is written _Ghee_. The

letter F, when first invented, was called, from its shape, Digamma, and

afterwards Ef. J, when it was first distinguished from I, was called by the

Hebrew name Jod, and afterwards Je. V, when first distinguished from U, was

called Vau, then Va, then Ve. Y, when the Romans first borrowed it from the

Greeks, was called Ypsilon; and Z, from the same source, was called Zeta;

and, as these two letters were used only in words of Greek origin, I know

not whether they ever received from the Romans any shorter names. In

Schneider's Latin Grammar, the letters are named in the following manner;

except Je and Ve, which are omitted by this author: "A, Be, Ce, De, E, Ef,

Ge, Ha, I, [Je,] Ka, El, Em, En, O, Pe, Cu, Er, Es, Te, U, [Ve,] Ix,

Ypsilon, Zeta." And this I suppose to be the most proper way of writing

their names _in Latin_, unless we have sufficient authority for shortening

Ypsilon into Y, sounded as short _i_, and for changing Zeta into Ez.

OBS. 12.--In many, if not in all languages, the five vowels, A, E, I, O, U,

name themselves; but they name themselves differently to the ear, according

to the different ways of uttering them in different languages. And as the

name of a consonant necessarily requires one or more vowels, that also may

be affected in the same manner. But in every language there should be a

known way both of writing and of speaking every name in the series; and

that, if there is nothing to hinder, should be made conformable to _the

genius of the language_. I do not say that the names above can be regularly

declined in Latin; but in English it is as easy to speak of two Dees as of

two trees, of two Kays as of two days, of two Exes as of two foxes, of two

Effs as of two skiffs; and there ought to be no more difficulty about the

correct way of writing the word in the one case, than in the other. In Dr.

Sam. Prat's Latin Grammar, (an elaborate octavo, all Latin, published in

London, 1722,) nine of the consonants are reckoned mutes; b, c, d, g, p, q,

t, j, and v; and eight, semivowels; f, l, m, n, r, s, x, z. "All the

mutes," says this author, "are named by placing _e_ after them; as, be, ce,

de, ge, except _q_, which ends in _u_." See p. 8. "The semivowels,

beginning with _e_, end in themselves; as, ef, _ach_, el, em, en, er, es,

_ex_, (or, as Priscian will have it, _ix_,) _eds_." See p. 9. This mostly

accords with the names given in the preceding paragraph; and so far as it

does not, I judge the author to be wrong. The reader will observe that the

Doctor's explanation is neither very exact nor quite complete: K is a mute

which is not enumerated, and the rule would make the name of it _Ke_, and

not _Ka_;--H is not one of his eight semivowels, nor does the name Ach

accord with his rule or seem like a Latin word;--the name of Z, according

to his principle, would be _Ez_ and not "_Eds_," although the latter may

better indicate the _sound_ which was then given to this letter.

OBS. 13.--If the history of these names exhibits diversity, so does that of

almost all other terms; and yet there is some way of writing every word

with correctness, and correctness tends to permanence. But Time, that

establishes authority, destroys it also, when he fairly sanctions newer

customs. To all names worthy to be known, it is natural to wish a perpetual

uniformity; but if any one thinks the variableness of these to be peculiar,

let him open the English Bible of the fourteenth century, and read a few

verses, observing the names. For instance: "Forsothe whanne _Eroude_ was to

bringynge forth hym, in that nigt _Petir_ was slepynge bitwixe tweyno

knytis."--_Dedis_, (i. e., _Acts_,) xii, 6. "_Crist Ihesu_ that is to

demynge the quyke and deed."--_2 Tim._, iv, 1. Since this was written for

English, our language has changed much, and at the same time acquired, by

means of the press, some aids to stability. I have recorded above the

_true_ names of the letters, as they are now used, with something of their

history; and if there could be in human works any thing unchangeable, I

should wish, (with due deference to all schemers and fault-finders,) that

these names might remain the same forever.

OBS. 14.--If any change is desirable in our present names of the letters,

it is that we may have a shorter and simpler term in stead of _Double-u_.

But can we change this well known name? I imagine it would be about as easy

to change _Alpha, Upsilon, or Omega_; and perhaps it would be as useful.

Let Dr. Webster, or any defender of his spelling, try it. He never named

the _English_ letters rightly; long ago discarded the term _Double-u_; and

is not yet tired of his experiment with "_oo_;" but thinks still to make

the vowel sound of this letter its name. Yet he writes his new name wrong;

has no authority for it but his own; and is, most certainly, reprehensible

for the _innovation_.[92] If W is to be named as a vowel, it ought to _name

itself_, as other vowels do, and not to take _two Oes_ for its written

name. Who that knows what it is, to name a letter, can think of naming _w_

by double _o_? That it is possible for an ingenious man to misconceive this

simple affair of naming the letters, may appear not only from the foregoing

instance, but from the following quotation: "Among the thousand

mismanagements of literary instruction, there is at the outset in the

hornbook, _the pretence to represent elementary sounds_ by syllables

composed of two or more elements; as, _Be, Kay, Zed, Double-u_, and

_Aitch_. These words are used in infancy, and through life, as _simple

elements_ in the process of synthetic spelling. If the definition of a

_consonant_ was made by the master from the practice of the child, it might

suggest pity for the pedagogue, but should not make us forget the realities

of nature."--_Dr. Push, on the Philosophy of the Human Voice_, p. 52. This

is a strange allegation to come from such a source. If I bid a boy spell

the word _why_, he says, "Double-u, Aitch, Wy, _hwi_;" and knows that he

has spelled and pronounced the word correctly. But if he conceives that the

five syllables which form the three words, _Double-u_, and _Aitch_, and

_Wy_, are the three simple sounds which he utters in pronouncing the word

_why_, it is not because the hornbook, or the teacher of the hornbook, ever

made any such blunder or "pretence;" but because, like some great

philosophers, he is capable of misconceiving very plain things. Suppose he

should take it into his head to follow Dr. Webster's books, and to say,

"Oo, he, ye, _hwi_;" who, but these doctors, would imagine, that such

spelling was supported either by "the realities of nature," or by the

authority of custom? I shall retain both the old "definition of a

consonant," and the usual names of the letters, notwithstanding the

contemptuous pity it may excite in the minds of _such_ critics.

II. CLASSES OF THE LETTERS.

The letters are divided into two general classes, _vowels_ and

_consonants_.

A _vowel_ is a letter which forms a perfect sound when uttered alone; as,

_a, e, o_.

A _consonant_ is a letter which cannot be perfectly uttered till joined to

a vowel; as, _b, c, d_.[93]

The vowels are _a, e, i, o, u_, and sometimes _w_ and _y._ All the other

letters are consonants.

_W_ or _y_ is called a consonant when it precedes a vowel heard in the same

syllable; as in _wine, twine, whine; ye, yet, youth_: in all other cases,

these letters are vowels; as in _Yssel, Ystadt, yttria; newly, dewy,

eyebrow._

CLASSES OF CONSONANTS.

The consonants are divided, with respect to their powers, into _semivowels_

and _mutes._

A _semivowel_ is a consonant which can be imperfectly sounded without a

vowel, so that at the end of a syllable its sound may be protracted; as,

_l, n, z_, in _al, an, az._

A _mute_ is a consonant which cannot be sounded at all without a vowel, and

which at the end of a syllable suddenly stops the breath; as, _k, p, t_, in

_ak, ap, at._

The semivowels are, _f, h, j, l, m, n, r, s, v, w, x, y, z_, and _c_ and

_g_ soft: but _w_ or _y_ at the end of a syllable, is a vowel; and the

sound of _c, f, g, h, j, s_, or _x_, can be protracted only as an

_aspirate_, or strong breath.

Four of the semivowels,--_l, m, n_, and _r_,--are termed _liquids_, on

account of the fluency of their sounds; and four others,--_v, w, y_, and

_z_,--are likewise more vocal than the aspirates.

The mutes are eight;--_b, d, k, p, q, t_, and _c_ and _g_ hard: three of

these,--_k, q_, and _c_ hard,--sound exactly alike: _b, d_, and _g_ hard,

stop the voice less suddenly than the rest.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The foregoing division of the letters is of very

great antiquity, and, in respect to its principal features sanctioned by

almost universal authority; yet if we examine it minutely, either with

reference to the various opinions of the learned, or with regard to the

essential differences among the things of which it speaks, it will not

perhaps be found in all respects indisputably certain. It will however be

of use, as a basis for some subsequent rules, and as a means of calling the

attention of the learner to the manner in which he utters the sounds of the

letters. A knowledge of about three dozen different elementary sounds is

implied in the faculty of speech. The power of producing these sounds with

distinctness, and of adapting them to the purposes for which language is

used, constitutes perfection of utterance. Had we a perfect alphabet,

consisting of one symbol, and only one, for each elementary sound; and a

perfect method of spelling, freed from silent letters, and precisely

adjusted to the most correct pronunciation of words; the process of

learning to read would doubtless be greatly facilitated. And yet any

attempt toward such a reformation, any change short of the introduction of

some entirely new mode of writing, would be both unwise and impracticable.

It would involve our laws and literature in utter confusion, because

pronunciation is the least permanent part of language; and if the

orthography of words were conformed entirely to this standard, their origin

and meaning would, in many instances, be soon lost. We must therefore

content ourselves to learn languages as they are, and to make the best use

we can of our present imperfect system of alphabetic characters; and we may

be the better satisfied to do this, because the deficiencies and

redundancies of this alphabet are not yet so well ascertained, as to make

it certain what a perfect one would be.