that the personal pronouns have but _two cases_, the nominative and the
objective. Of this class, may be reckoned Brightland, Dr. Johnson, Fisher,
Mennye, Cardell, Cooper, Dr. Jas. P. Wilson, W. B. Fowle. and, according to
his late grammars, Dr. Webster. But, in contriving what to make of _my_ or
_mine, our_ or _ours, thy_ or _thine, your_ or _yours, his, her_ or _hers,
its_, and _their_ or _theirs_, they are as far from any agreement, or even
from self-consistency, as the cleverest of them could ever imagine. To the
person, the number, the gender, and the case, of each of these words, they
either profess themselves to be total strangers, or else prove themselves
so, by the absurdities they teach. Brightland calls them "Possessive
Qualities, or Qualities of Possession;" in which class he also embraces all
_nouns_ of the possessive case. Johnson calls them pronouns; and then says
of them, "The possessive _pronouns_, like _other adjectives_, are without
_cases_ or change of termination."--_Gram._, p. 6. Fisher calls them
"Personal Possessive Qualities;" admits the person of _my, our_, &c.; but
supposes _mine, ours_, &c. to supply the place of the _nouns which govern
them!_ Mennye makes them one of his three classes of pronouns, "_personal,
possessive_, and _relative_;" giving to both forms the rank which Murray
once gave, and which Allen now gives, to the first form only. Cardell
places them among his "defining adjectives." With Fowle, these, and all
other possessives, are "possessive adjectives." Cooper, in his grammar of
1828. copies the last scheme of Murray: in that of 1831, he avers that the
personal pronouns "want the possessive case." Now, like Webster and Wilson,
he will have _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_, to be pronouns
of the nominative or the objective case. Dividing the pronouns into six
general classes, he makes these the fifth; calling them "Possessive
Pronouns," but preferring in a note the monstrous name, "_Possessive
Pronouns Substitute_." His sixth class are what he calls, "The Possessive
Pronominal _Adjectives_;" namely, "_my, thy, his, her, our, your, their,
its, own_, and sometimes _mine_ and _thine_."--_Cooper's Pl. and Pr.
Gram._, p. 43. But all these he has, unquestionably, either misplaced or
misnamed; while he tells us, that, "Simplicity of arrangement should be the
object of every compiler."--_Ib._, p. 33. Dr. Perley, (in whose scheme of
grammar all the pronouns are _nouns_,) will have _my, thy, his, her, its,
our, your_, and _their_, to be in the possessive case; but of _mine, thine,
hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_, he says, "These may be called
_Desiderative Personal Pronouns_."--_Perley's Gram._, p. 15.
OBS. 10.--Kirkham, though he professes to follow Murray, declines the
simple personal pronouns as I have declined them; and argues admirably,
that _my, thy, his, &c._, are pronouns of the possessive case, because,
"They always _stand for nouns in the possessive case_." But he afterwards
contradicts both himself and the common opinion of all former grammarians,
in referring _mine, thine, hers_, &c., to the class of "_Compound Personal
Pronouns._" Nay, as if to outdo even himself in absurdity, he first makes
_mine, thine, hers, ours_, &c., to be compounds, by assuming that, "These
_pluralizing adjuncts, ne_ and _s_, were, no doubt, formerly detached from
the pronouns with which they now coalesce;" and then, because he finds in
each of his supposed compounds the signification of a pronoun and its
governing noun, reassumes, in parsing them, the very principle of error, on
which he condemns their common classification. He says, "They should be
parsed _as two words_." He also supposes them to represent the nouns _which
govern them_--nouns with which they do not agree in any respect! Thus is he
wrong in almost every thing he says about them. See _Kirkham's Gram._, p.
99, p. 101, and p. 104. Goodenow, too, a still later writer, adopts the
major part of all this absurdity. He will have _my, thy, his, her, its,
our, your, their_, for the possessive case of his personal pronouns; but
_mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, he calls "_compound possessive
pronouns_, in the subjective or [the] objective case."--_Text-Book of E.
Gram._, p. 33. Thus he introduces a new class, unknown to his primary
division of the pronouns, and not included in his scheme of their
declension. Fuller, too, in a grammar produced at Plymouth, Mass., in 1822,
did nearly the same thing. He called _I, thou, he, she_, and _it_, with
their plurals, "_antecedent_ pronouns;" took _my, thy, his, her_, &c., for
their _only_ possessive forms in his declension; and, having passed from
them by the space of just half his book, added: "Sometimes, to prevent the
repetition of the same word, an _antecedent pronoun in the possessive
case_, is made to represent, both the pronoun and a noun; as, 'That book is
_mine_'--i. e. '_my book_.' MINE is a _compound antecedent pronoun_, and is
equivalent to _my_ book. Then parse _my_, and _book_, as though they were
both expressed."--_Fuller's Gram._, p. 71.
OBS. 11.--Amidst all this diversity of doctrine at the very centre of
grammar, who shall so fix its principles that our schoolmasters and
schoolmistresses may know _what to believe and teach_? Not he that
speculates without regard to other men's views; nor yet he that makes it a
merit to follow implicitly "the footsteps of" _one only_. The true
principles of grammar are with the learned; and that man is in the wrong,
with whom the _most_ learned will not, in general, coincide. Contradiction
of falsities, is necessary to the maintenance of truth; correction of
errors, to the success of science. But not every man's errors can be so
considerable as to deserve correction from other hands than his own.
Misinstruction in grammar has for this reason generally escaped censure. I
do not wish any one to coincide with me merely through ignorance of what
others inculcate. If doctors of divinity and doctors of laws will
contradict themselves in teaching grammar, so far as they do so, the lovers
of consistency will find it necessary to deviate from their track.
Respecting these pronouns, I learned in childhood, from Webster, a doctrine
which he now declares to be false. This was nearly the same as Lowth's,
which is quoted in the sixth observation above. But, in stead of correcting
its faults, this zealous reformer has but run into others still greater.
Now, with equal reproach to his etymology, his syntax, and his logic, he
denies that our pronouns have any form of the possessive case at all. But
grant the obvious fact, that _substitution_ is one thing, and _ellipsis_ an
other, and his whole argument is easily overthrown; for it is only by
confounding these, that he reaches his absurd conclusion.
OBS. 12.--Dr. Webster's doctrine now is, that none of the English pronouns
have more than two cases. He says, "_mine, thine, his, hers, yours_, and
_theirs_, are _usually considered_ as [being of] the possessive case. But
the _three first_ are either attributes, and used with nouns, or they are
substitutes. The _three last_ are always substitutes, used in the place of
names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD."--"That _mine, thine, his_, [_ours_,] _yours,
hers_, and _theirs_, do not constitute a possessive case, is demonstrable;
for they are constantly used as the nominatives to verbs and as the
objectives after verbs and prepositions, as in the following passages.
'Whether it could perform its operations of thinking and memory out of a
body organized as _ours is_.'--_Locke_. 'The reason is, that his subject is
generally things; _theirs_, on the contrary, _is_ persons.'--_Camp. Rhet._
'Therefore leave your forest of beasts for _ours_ of brutes, called
men.'--_Wycherley to Pope_. It is needless to multiply proofs. We observe
these _pretended possessives_ uniformly used as nominatives or
objectives.[210] Should it be said that _a noun is understood_; I reply,
_this cannot be true_," &c.--_Philosophical Gram._, p. 35; _Improved
Gram._, p. 26. Now, whether it be true or not, this very position is
expressly affirmed by the Doctor himself, in the citation above; though he
is, unquestionably, wrong in suggesting that the pronouns are "used _in the
place_ of [those] names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD." They are used in the place
of other names--the names of _the possessors_; and are governed by those
which he here both admits and denies to be "understood."
OBS. 13.--The other arguments of Dr. Webster against the possessive case of
pronouns, may perhaps be more easily answered than some readers imagine.
The first is drawn from the fact that conjunctions connect like cases.
"Besides, in three passages just quoted, the word _yours_ is joined by a
connective _to a name_ in the same case; 'To ensure _yours_ and _their
immortality_.' 'The easiest part of _yours_ and _my design_.' '_My sword_
and _yours_ are kin.' Will any person pretend that the connective here
joins different cases?"--_Improved Gram._, p. 28; _Philosophical Gram._, p.
36. I answer, No. But it is falsely assumed that _yours_ is here connected
by _and_ to _immortality_, to _design_, or to _sword_; because these words
are again severally understood after _yours_: or, if otherwise, the two
pronouns alone are connected by _and_, so that the proof is rather, that
_their_ and _my_ are in the possessive case. The second argument is drawn
from the use of the preposition _of_ before the possessive. "For we say
correctly, 'an acquaintance _of yours, ours_, or _theirs_'--_of_ being the
sign of the possessive; but if the words in themselves are possessives,
then there must be two signs of the same case, which is absurd."--_Improved
Gram._, p. 28; _Phil. Gr._, 36. I deny that _of_ is here the sign of the
possessive, and affirm that it is taken partitively, in all examples of
this sort. "I know my sheep, and am known _of mine_," is not of this kind;
because _of_ here means _by_--a sense in which the word is antiquated. In
recurring afterwards to this argument, the Doctor misquotes the following
texts, and avers that they "are evidently meant to include the _whole
number_: 'Sing _to_ the Lord, _all_ ye saints of _his_.'--_Ps._ 30, 4.
'_He_ that heareth these sayings _of mine_.'--_Matt._ 7."--_Improved
Gram._, p. 29; _Phil. Gr._, 38. If he is right about the meaning, however,
the passages are mistranslated, as well as misquoted: they ought to be,
"Sing _unto_ the Lord, _O ye his Saints_."--"_Every one_ that heareth
_these my sayings_." But when a definitive particle precedes the noun, it
is very common with us, to introduce the possessive elliptically after it;
and what Dr. Wilson means by suggesting that it is erroneous, I know not:
"When the preposition _of_ precedes _mine, ours, yours_, &c. the _errour_
lies, not in this, that there are double possessive cases, but in forming
an implication of a noun, which the substitute already denotes, together
with the persons."--_Essay on Gram._, p. 110.
OBS. 14.--In his Syllabus of English Grammar, Dr. Wilson teaches thus:
"_My, our, thy, your, his, her, its, their, whose_, and _whosesoever_ are
possessive pronominal _adjectives. Ours, yours, hers_, and _theirs_ are
_pronoun substantives_, used either as subjects, or [as] objects; as
singulars, or [as] plurals; and are substituted both for [the names of] the
possessors, and [for those of the] things possessed. _His, its, whose,
mine_, and _thine_, are sometimes used as _such substantives_; but also are
at other times _pronominal possessive_ adjectives."--_Wilson's Syllabus_,
p. X. Now compare with these three positions, the following three from the
same learned author. "In Hebrew, the _adjective_ generally agrees with its
noun in gender and number, but _pronouns_ follow the gender of their
antecedents, and not of the nouns with which they stand. So in English,
_my, thy, his, her, its, our, your_, and _their_, agree with the nouns they
represent, in number, gender, and person. But _adjectives_, having no
change expressive of number, gender, or case, cannot accord with their
nouns."--_Wilson's Essay on Gram._, p. 192. "_Ours, yours, hers_, and
_theirs_, are most usually considered possessive cases of personal
pronouns; but they are, more probably, possessive substitutes, not
adjectives, but _nouns_."--_Ib._, p. 109. "Nor can _mine_ or _thine_, with
any more propriety than _ours, yours_, &c. be joined to any noun, as
possessive adjectives and possessive cases may."--_Ib._, p. 110. Whoever
understands these instructions, cannot but see their inconsistency.
OBS. 15.--Murray argues at some length, without naming his opponents, that
the words which he assumes to be such, are really personal pronouns
standing rightfully in the possessive case; and that, "they should not, on
the slight pretence of their differing from nouns, be dispossessed of the
right and privilege, which, from time immemorial they have
enjoyed."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 53. Churchill as ably shows, that the
corresponding terms, which Lowth calls _pronominal adjectives_, and which
Murray and others will have to be _pronouns of no case_, are justly
entitled to the same rank. "If _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, be
the possessive case; _my, thy, her, our, your, their_, must be the same.
Whether we say, 'It is _John's_ book,' or, 'The book is _John's_;' _John's_
is not less the possessive case in one instance, than it is in the other.
If we say, 'It is _his_ book,' or, 'The book is _his_;' 'It is _her_ book,'
or, 'The book is _hers_;' 'It is _my_ book,' or, 'The book is _mine_;' 'It
is _your_ book,' or, 'The book is _yours_;' are not these parallel
instances? Custom has established it as a law, that this case of the
pronoun shall drop its original termination, for the sake of euphony, when
it precedes the noun that governs it; retaining it only where the noun is
understood: but this certainly makes no alteration in the nature of the
word; so that either _my_ is as much a possessive case as _mine_; or _mine_
and _my_ are equally pronominal adjectives."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p.
221. "Mr. Murray considers the phrases, '_our desire_,' '_your
intention_,' '_their resignation_,' as instances of plural adjectives
_agreeing_ with singular nouns; and consequently exceptions to the general
(may we not say _universal_?) rule: but if they [the words _our, your,
their_,] be, as is attempted to be proved above, the possessive cases of
pronouns, no rule is here violated."--_Ib._, p. 224.
OBS. 16.--One strong argument, touching this much-disputed point of
grammar, was incidentally noticed in the observations upon antecedents: an
adjective cannot give person, number, and gender, to a relative pronoun;
because, in our language, adjectives do not possess these qualities; nor
indeed in any other, except as they take them by immediate agreement with
nouns or pronouns in the same clause. But it is undeniable, that _my, thy,
his, her, our, your, their_, do sometimes stand as antecedents, and give
person, number, and gender to relatives, which head other clauses. For the
learner should remember, that, "When a relative pronoun is used, the
sentence is divided into two parts; viz. the _antecedent_ sentence, or that
which contains the _antecedent_; and the _relative_ sentence, containing
the _relative_."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 123. We need not here deny, that
Terence's Latin, as quoted in the grammars, "Omnes laudare fortunas _meas,
qui_ haberem gnatum tali ingeuio præditum," is quite as intelligible
syntax, as can literally be made of it in English--"That all would praise
_my_ fortunes, _who had_ a son endued with such a genius." For, whether the
Latin be good or not, it affords no argument against us, except that of a
supposed analogy; nor does the literality of the version prove, at all
points, either the accuracy or the sameness of the construction.
OBS. 17.--Surely, without some imperative reason, we ought not, in English,
to resort to such an assumption as is contained in the following Rule:
"Sometimes the relative agrees in person with that pronoun substantive,
from which the possessive pronoun adjective is derived; as, Pity _my_
condition, _who am_ so destitute. I rejoice at _thy_ lot, _who art_ so
fortunate. We lament _his_ fate, _who is_ so unwary. Beware of _her_
cunning, _who is_ so deceitful. Commiserate _our_ condition, _who are_ so
poor. Tremble at _your_ negligence, _who are_ so careless. It shall be
_their_ property, _who are_ so diligent. We are rejoicing at _thy_ lot,
_who hast_ been so fortunate."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 142. In his
explanation of the last of these sentences, the author says, "_Who_ is a
relative pronoun; in the masculine gender, singular number, second person,
and agrees with _thee_, implied in the adjective _thy_. RULE.--Sometimes
the relative agrees in person, &c. And it is the nominative to the verb
_hast been_. RULE.--When no nominative comes between the relative and the
verb, the relative is the nominative to the verb."--_Ib._, p. 143. A pupil
of G. Brown's would have said, "_Who_ is a relative pronoun, representing
'_thy_,' or the person addressed, in the second person, singular number,
and masculine gender; according to the rule which says, 'A pronoun must
agree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun which it represents, in
person, number, and gender:' and is in the nominative case, being the
subject of _hast been_; according to the rule which says, 'A noun or a
pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative
case.' Because the meaning is--_who hast been_; that is, _thy lot_, or the
lot _of thee, who hast been_."
OBS. 18.--Because the possessive case of a noun or pronoun is usually
equivalent in meaning to the preposition _of_ and the objective case, some
grammarians, mistaking this equivalence of meaning for sameness of case,
have asserted that all our possessives have a double form. Thus Nixon:
"When the particle _of_ comes between two substantives signifying different
things, it is not to be considered a preposition, but _the sign of the
substantive's being in the possessive case_, equally as if the apostrophic
_s_ had been affixed to it; as, 'The skill _of Cæsar_,' or _Cæsar's_
skill.'"--_English Parser_, p. 38. "When the apostrophic _s_ is used, the
genitive is the former of the two substantives; as, '_John's_ house:' but
when the particle _of_ is used, it is the latter; as, 'The house _of
John_.'"--_Ib._, p. 46. The work here quoted is adapted to two different
grammars; namely, Murray's and Allen's. These the author doubtless
conceived to be the best English grammars extant. And it is not a little
remarkable, that both of these authors, as well as many others, teach in
such a faulty manner, that their intentions upon this point may be matter
of dispute. "When Murray, Allen, and others, say, 'we make use of the
particle _of_ to express the _relation_ of the genitive,' the ambiguity of
their assertion leaves it in doubt whether or not they considered the
substantive which is preceded by _of_ and an other substantive, as in the
_genitive_ case."--_Nixon's English Parser_, p. 38. Resolving this doubt
according to his own fancy, Nixon makes the possessive case of our personal
pronouns to be as follows: "_mine_ or _of me, ours_ or _of us; thine_ or
_of thee, yours_ or _of you; his_ or _of him, theirs_ or _of them; hers_ or
_of her, theirs_ or _of them; its_ or _of it, theirs_ or _of
them_."--_English Parser_, p. 43. This doctrine gives us a form of
declension that is both complex and deficient. It is therefore more
objectionable than almost any of those which are criticised above. The
arguments and authorities on which the author rests his position, are not
thought likely to gain many converts; for which reason, I dismiss the
subject, without citing or answering them.
OBS. 19.--In old books, we sometimes find the word _I_ written for the
adverb _ay_, yes: as, "To dye, to sleepe; To sleepe, perchance to dreame;
_I_, there's the rub."--_Shakspeare, Old Copies_. The British Grammar,
printed in 1784, and the Grammar of Murray the schoolmaster, published some
years earlier than Lindley Murray's, say: "We use _I_ as an Answer, in a
familiar, careless, or merry Way; as, 'I, I, Sir, I, I;' but to use _ay_,
is accounted rude, especially to our Betters." See _Brit. Gram._, p. 198.
The age of this rudeness, or incivility, if it ever existed, has long
passed away; and the fashion seems to be so changed, that to write or utter
_I_ for _ay_, would now in its turn be "accounted _rude_"--the rudeness of
ignorance--a false orthography, or a false pronunciation. In the word _ay_,
the two sounds of _ah-ee_ are plainly heard; in the sound of _I_, the same
elements are more quickly blended. (See a note at the foot of page 162.)
When this sound is suddenly repeated, some writers make a new word of it,
which must be called an _interjection_: as, "'Pray, answer me a question or
two.' '_Ey, ey_, as many as you please, cousin Bridget, an they be not too
hard.'"--_Burgh's Speaker_, p. 99. "_Ey, ey_, 'tis so; she's out of her
head, poor thing."--_Ib._, p. 100. This is probably a corruption of _ay_,
which is often doubled in the same manner: thus,
"_Ay, ay_, Antipholus, look strange, and frown."--_Shakspeare_.
OBS. 20.--The common fashion of address being nowadays altogether in the
plural form, the pronouns _thou, thy, thine, thee_, and _thyself_, have
become unfamiliar to most people, especially to the vulgar and uneducated.
These words are now confined almost exclusively to the writings of the
poets, to the language of the Friends, to the Holy Scriptures, and to the
solemn services of religion. They are, however, the _only genuine_
representatives of the second person singular, in English; and to displace
them from that rank in grammar, or to present _you, your_, and _yours_, as
being literally singular, though countenanced by several late writers, is a
useless and pernicious innovation. It is sufficient for the information of
the learner, and far more consistent with learning and taste, to say, that
the plural is fashionably used _for the singular_, by a figure of syntax;
for, in all correct usage of this sort, the _verb_ is plural, as well as
the pronoun--Dr. Webster's fourteen authorities to the contrary
notwithstanding. For, surely, "_You was_" cannot be considered good
English, merely because that number of respectable writers have happened,
on some particular occasions, to adopt the phrase; and even if we must
needs concede this point, and grant to the Doctor and his converts, that
"_You was_ is _primitive_ and _correct_," the example no more proves that
_you_ is singular, than that _was_ is plural. And what is one singular
irregular preterit, compared with all the verbs in the language?
OBS. 21.--In our present authorized version of the Bible, the numbers and
cases of the second person are kept remarkably distinct,[211] the pronouns
being always used in the following manner: _thou_ for the nominative, _thy_
or _thine_ for the possessive, and _thee_ for the objective, singular; _ye_
for the nominative, _your_ or _yours_ for the possessive, and _you_ for the
objective, plural. Yet, before that version was made, fashionable usage had
commonly substituted _you_ for _ye_, making the former word nominative as
well as objective, and applying it to one hearer as well as to more. And
subsequently, as it appears, the religious sect that entertained a scruple
about applying _you_ to an individual, fell for the most part into an
ungrammatical practice of putting _thee_ for _thou_; making, in like
manner, the objective pronoun to be both nominative and objective; or, at
least, using it very commonly so in their conversation. Their manner of
speaking, however, was not--or, certainly, with the present generation of
their successors, _is_ not--as some grammarians represent it to be, that
formal and antique phraseology which we call _the solemn style_.[212] They
make no more use of the pronoun _ye_, or of the verbal termination _eth_,
than do people of fashion; nor do they, in using the pronoun _thou_, or
their improper nominative _thee_, ordinarily inflect with _st_ or _est_ the
preterits or the auxiliaries of the accompanying verbs, as is done in the
solemn style. Indeed, to use the solemn style familiarly, would be, to turn
it into burlesque; as when Peter Pindar "_telleth what he troweth._" [213]
And let those who think with Murray, that our present version of the
Scriptures _is the best standard_ of English grammar,[214] remember that in
it they have no warrant for substituting _s_ or _es_ for the old
termination _eth_, any more than for ceasing to use the solemn style of the
second person familiarly. That version was good in its day, yet it shows
but very imperfectly what the English language now is. Can we consistently
take for our present standard, a style which does not allow us to use _you_
in the nominative case, or _its_ for the possessive? And again, is not a
simplification of the verb as necessary and proper in the familiar use of
the second person singular, as in that of the third? This latter question I
shall discuss in a future chapter.
OBS. 22.--The use of the pronoun _ye_ in the nominative case, is now mostly
confined to the solemn style;[215] but the use of it in the objective,
which is disallowed in the solemn style, and nowhere approved by our
grammarians, is nevertheless _common_ when no emphasis falls upon the
word: as,
"When you're unmarried, never load _ye_
With jewels; they may incommode _ye_."--_Dr. King_, p. 384.
Upon this point, Dr. Lowth observes, "Some writers have used _ye_ as the
objective case plural of the pronoun of the second person, very improperly
and ungrammatically; [as,]
'The more shame for _ye_; holy men I thought _ye_.' Shak. Hen. VIII.
'But tyrants dread _ye_, lest your just decree
Transfer the pow'r, and set the people free.' Prior.
'His wrath, which one day will destroy _ye_ both.' Milt. P. L. ii. 734.
Milton uses the same manner of expression in a few other places of his
Paradise Lost, and more frequently in his [smaller] poems, _It may,
perhaps, be allowed in the comic and burlesque style_, which often imitates
a vulgar and incorrect pronunciation; but in the serious and solemn style,
_no authority is sufficient_ to justify so manifest a solecism."--_Lowth's
Gram._, p. 22. Churchill copies this remark, and adds; "Dryden has _you_ as
the nominative, and _ye_ as the objective, in the same passage:[216]
'What gain _you_, by forbidding it to tease _ye_?
It now can neither trouble _ye_, nor please _ye_.'
Was this from a notion, that _you_ and _ye_, thus employed, were more
analogous to _thou_ and _thee_ in the singular number?"--_Churchill's
Gram._, p. 25. I answer, No; but, more probably, from a notion, that the
two words, being now confessedly equivalent in the one case, might as well
be made so in the other: just as the Friends, in using _thee_ for _you_,
are carelessly converting the former word into a nominative, to the
exclusion of _thou_; because the latter has generally been made so, to the
exclusion of _ye_. When the confounding of such distinctions is begun, who
knows where it will end? With like ignorance, some writers suppose, that
the fashion of using the plural for the singular is a sufficient warrant
for putting the singular for the plural: as,
"The joys of love, are they not doubly _thine,
Ye poor!_ whose health, whose spirits ne'er decline?"
--_Southwick's Pleas. of Poverty._
"But, _Neatherds_, go look to the kine,
Their cribs with fresh fodder supply;
The task of compassion be _thine_,
For herbage the pastures deny."--_Perfect's Poems_, p. 5.
OBS. 23.--When used in a burlesque or ludicrous manner, the pronoun _ye_ is
sometimes a mere expletive; or, perhaps, intended rather as an objective
governed by a preposition understood. But, in such a construction, I see no
reason to prefer it to the regular objective _you_; as,
"He'll laugh _ye_, dance _ye_, sing _ye_, vault, look gay,
And ruffle all the ladies in his play."--_King_, p. 574.
Some grammarians, who will have _you_ to be singular as well as plural,
ignorantly tell us, that "_ye_ always means more than one." But the fact
is, that when _ye_ was in common use, it was as frequently applied to one
person as _you_: thus,
"Farewell my doughter lady Margarete,
God wotte full oft it grieued hath my mynde,
That _ye_ should go where we should seldome mete:
Now am I gone, and haue left _you_ behynde."--_Sir T. More_, 1503.
In the following example, _ye_ is used for _thee_, the objective singular;
and that by one whose knowledge of the English language, is said to have
been unsurpassed:--
"Proud Baronet of Nova Scotia!
The Dean and Spaniard must reproach _ye_."--_Swift_.
So in the story of the Chameleon:--
"'Tis green, 'tis green, Sir, I assure _ye_."--_Merrick_.
Thus we have _ye_ not only for the nominative in both numbers, but at
length for the objective in both; _ye_ and _you_ being made everywhere
equivalent, by very many writers. Indeed this pronoun has been so
frequently used for the objective case, that one may well doubt any
grammarian's authority to condemn it in that construction. Yet I cannot but
think it ill-chosen in the third line below, though right in the first:--
"_Ye_! who have traced the Pilgrim to the scene
Which is his last, if in your memories dwell
A thought which once was his, if on _ye_ swell
A single recollection, not in vain
He wore his sandal-shoon, and scallop-shell."--_Byron_.
OBS. 24.--The three pronouns of the third person, _he, she_, and _it_, have
always formed their plural number after one and the same manner, _they,
their_ or _theirs, them_. Or, rather, these plural words, which appear not
to be regular derivatives from any of the singulars, have ever been applied
alike to them all. But _it_, the neuter pronoun singular, had formerly no
variation of cases, and is still alike in the nominative and the objective.
The possessive _its_ is of comparatively recent origin. In our common
Bible, the word is not found, except by misprint; nor do other writings of
the same age contain it. The phrase, _of it_, was often used as an
equivalent; as, "And it had three ribs in the mouth _of it_ between the
teeth _of it_."--_Dan._, vii, 5. That is--"in _its_ mouth, between _its_
teeth." But, as a possessive case was sometimes necessary, our ancestors
used to borrow one; commonly from the masculine, though sometimes from the
feminine. This produced what now appears a strange confusion of the
genders: as, "_Learning_ hath _his_ infancy, when _it_ is but beginning,
and almost childish; then _his_ youth, when _it_ is luxuriant and juvenile;
then _his_ strength of years, when _it_ is solid and reduced; and lastly
_his_ old age, when _it_ waxeth dry and exhaust."--_Bacon's Essays_, p. 58.
"Of beaten work shall the _candlestick_ be made: _his_ shaft, and _his_
branches, _his_ bowls, _his_ knops, and _his_ flowers, shall be of the
same."--_Exodus_, xxv, 31. "They came and emptied the _chest_, and took
_it_ and carried _it_ to _his_ place again."--_2 Chron._, xxiv, 11. "Look
not thou upon the _wine, when_ it is red, when _it_ giveth _his_ colour in
the cup, when _it_ moveth _itself_ aright."--_Prov._, xxiii, 31. "The
_tree_ is known by _his_ fruit."--_Matt._, xii, 33. "When thou tillest the
ground, _it_ shall not henceforth yield unto thee _her_ strength."--_Gen._,
iv, 12. "He that pricketh the heart, maketh _it_ to show _her_
knowledge."--_Eccl._, xxii, 19. Shakspeare rarely, if ever, used _its_; and
his style is sometimes obscure for the want of it: as,
"There is no _vice_ so simple, but assumes
Some mark of virtue on _his_ outward parts."
--_Merch. of Venice_.
"The name of Cassius honours this corruption,
And _chastisement_ doth therefore hide _his_ head."
--_Jul. Cæs._, Act iv.
OBS. 25.--The possessive case of pronouns should never be written with an
apostrophe. A few pronominal adjectives taken substantively receive it; but
the construction which it gives them, seems to make them nouns: as, _one's,
other's_, and, according to Murray, _former's_ and _latter's_. The real
pronouns that end in _s_, as _his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_, though
true possessives after their kind, have no occasion for this mark, nor does
good usage admit it. Churchill, with equal disregard of consistency and
authority, gives it to one of them, and denies it to the rest. Referring to
the classification of these words as possessives, and of _my, thy, her,
our, your, their_, as adjectives, he says: "It seems as if the termination
in _s_ had led to the distinction: but no one will contend, that _ours_ is
the possessive case of _our_, or _theirs_ of _their_; though _ours, yours,
hers_, and _theirs_, are often very improperly spelt with an apostrophe, a
fault not always imputable to the printer; while in _it's_, which is
unquestionably the possessive case of _it_, the apostrophe, by a strange
perverseness, is almost always omitted."--_Churchill Gram._, p. 222. The
charge of strange perverseness may, in this instance, I think, be retorted
upon the critic; and that, to the fair exculpation of those who choose to
conform to the general usage which offends him.
OBS. 26.--Of the compound personal pronouns, this author gives the
following account: "_Self_, in the plural _selves_, a noun, is often
combined with the personal pronouns, in order to express emphasis, or
opposition, or the identity of the subject and [the] object of a verb; and
thus forms a pronoun _relative_: as, 'I did it _myself_;' 'he was not
_himself_, when he said so;' 'the envious torment _themselves_ more than
others.' Formerly _self_ and _selves_ were used simply as nouns, and
governed the pronoun, which was kept distinct from _it_ [them] in the
possessive case: but since _they_ [the pronoun and the noun] have coalesced
into one word, _they_ [the compounds] are used only in the following forms:
for the first person, _myself, ourselves_; for the second, _thyself_, or
_yourself, yourselves_; for the third, _himself, herself, itself,
themselves_: except in the regal style, in which, as generally in the
second person, the singular noun is added to the plural pronoun, [making]
_ourself_. Each of these is _the same in all three cases._"--_Churchill's
Gram._, p. 75. In a note referring to the close of this explanation, he
adds: "_Own_ also is often employed with the possessive cases of the
personal pronouns by way of emphasis, or opposition; but separately, as an
adjective, and not combining with them to form _a relative_: as, 'I did it
of _my own_ free will:' 'Did he do it with _his own_ hand?'"--_Ib._, p.
227.
OBS. 27.--The preceding instructions, faulty and ungrammatical as they are,
seem to be the best that our writers have furnished upon this point. To
detect falsities and blunders, is half the grammarian's duty. The pronouns
of which the term _self_ or _selves_ forms a part, are used, not for the
connecting of different clauses of a sentence, but for the purpose of
emphatic distinction in the sense. In calling them "_relatives_," Churchill
is wrong, even by his own showing. They have not the characteristics which
he himself ascribes to relatives; but are compound personal pronouns, and
nothing else. He is also manifestly wrong in asserting, that they are
severally "the same in all three cases." From the very nature of their
composition, the possessive case is alike impossible to them all. To
express ownership with emphasis or distinction, we employ neither these
compounds nor any others; but always use the simple possessives with the
separate adjective _own_: as, "With _my own_ eyes,"--"By _thy own_
confession,"--"To _his own_ house,"--"For _her own_ father,"--"By _its own_
weight,"--"To save _our own_ lives,"--"For _your own_ sake,"--"In _their
own_ cause."
OBS. 28.--The phrases, _my own, thy own, his own_, and so forth, Dr.
Perley, in his little Grammar, has improperly converted by the hyphen into
compound words: calling them the possessive forms of _myself, thyself,
himself_, and so forth; as if one set of compounds could constitute the
possessive case of an other! And again, as if the making of eight new
pronouns for two great nations, were as slight a feat, as the inserting of
so many hyphens! The word _own_, anciently written _owen_, is an
_adjective_; from an old form of the perfect participle of the verb _to
owe_; which verb, according to Lowth and others, once signified _to
possess_. It is equivalent to _due, proper_, or _peculiar_; and, in its
present use as an adjective, it stands nowhere else than between the
possessive case and the name of the thing possessed; as, "The Boy's _Own_
Book,"--"Christ's _own_ words,"--"Solomon's _own_ and only son." Dr.
Johnson, while he acknowledges the abovementioned derivation, very
strangely calls own a noun substantive; and, with not more accuracy, says:
"This is a word of no other use than as it is added to the possessive
pronouns, _my, thy, his, our, your, their_."--_Quarto Dict., w. Own_. O. B.
Peirce, with obvious untruth, says, "_Own_ is used in combination with a
name or substitute, and as a part of it, to constitute it
emphatic."--_Gram._, p. 63. He writes it separately, but parses it as a
part of the possessive noun or pronoun which precedes it!
OBS. 29.--The word _self_ was originally _an adjective_, signifying _same,
very_, or _particular_; but, when used alone, it is now generally _a noun_.
This may have occasioned the diversity which appears in the formation of
the compound personal pronouns. Dr. Johnson, in his great Dictionary, calls
_self_ a pronoun; but he explains it as being both adjective and
substantive, admitting that, "Its primary signification seems to be that of
an adjective."--Again he observes, "_Myself, himself, themselves_, and the
rest, may, contrary to the analogy of _my, him, them_, be used as
nominatives." _Hisself, itsself_, and _theirselves_, would be more
analogical than _himself, itself, themselves_; but custom has rejected the
former, and established the latter. When an adjective qualifies the term
_self_, the pronouns are written separately in the possessive case; as, _My
single self,--My own self,--His own self,--Their own selves_. So,
anciently, without an adjective: as, "A man shall have diffused his life,
_his self_, and his whole concernments so far, that he can weep his sorrows
with an other's eyes."--_South_. "Something valuable for _its self_ without
view to anything farther."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 293. "That they would
willingly, and of _their selves_ endeavour to keep a perpetual
chastity."--_Stat. Ed. VI. in Lowth's Gram._, p. 26. "Why I should either
_imploy my self_ in that study or put others upon it."--_Walker's English
Particles_, p. xiv. "It is no matter whether you do it by your proctor, or
by _your self_."--_Ib._, p. 96. The compound _oneself_ is sometimes written
in stead of the phrase _one's self_; but the latter is preferable, and more
common. Even _his self_, when written as two words, may possibly be right
in some instances; as,
"Scorn'd be the wretch that quits his genial bowl,
His loves, his friendships, ev'n _his self_, resigns;
Perverts the sacred instinct of his soul,
And to a ducat's dirty sphere confines."
--SHENSTONE: _Brit. Poets_, Vol. vii, p. 107.
OBS. 30.--In poetry, and even in some compositions not woven into regular
numbers, the simple personal pronouns are not unfrequently used, for
brevity's sake, in a reciprocal sense; that is, in stead of the compound
personal pronouns, which are the proper reciprocals: as, "Wash _you_, make
_you_ clean."--_Isaiah_, i, 16. "I made me great works; I builded _me_
houses; I planted _me_ vineyards; I made _me_ gardens and
orchards."--_Ecclesiastes_, ii, 4. "Thou shalt surely clothe _thee_ with
them all as with an ornament, and bind them on _thee_ as a bride
doeth."--_Isaiah_, xlix, 18. Compare with these the more regular
expression: "As a bridegroom decketh _himself_ with ornaments, and as a
bride adorneth _herself_ with jewels."--_Isaiah_, lxi, 10. This phraseology
is almost always preferable in prose; the other is a poetical license, or
peculiarity: as,
"I turn _me_ from the martial roar."--_Scott's L. L._, p. 97.
"Hush _thee_, poor maiden, and be still."--_Ib._, p. 110.
"Firmer he roots _him_ the ruder it blow."--_Ib._, p. 49.
OBS. 31.--To accommodate the writers of verse, the word _ever_ is
frequently contracted into _e'er_, pronounced like the monosyllable _air_.
An easy extension of this license, gives us similar contractions of all the
compound relative pronouns; as, _whoe'er_ or _whosoe'er, whose'er_ or
_whosesoe'er, whome'er_ or _whomsoe'er, whiche'er_ or _whichsoe'er,
whate'er_ or _whatsoe'er_. The character and properties of these compounds
are explained, perhaps sufficiently, in the observations upon the _classes_
of pronouns. Some of them are commonly parsed as representing two cases at
once; there being, in fact, an ellipsis of the noun, before or after them:
as,
"Each art he prompts, each charm he can create,
_Whate'er_ he gives, _are given_ for you to hate."--_Pope's Dunciad_.
OBS. 32.--For a form of parsing the double relative _what_, or its
compound _whatever_ or _whatsoever_, it is the custom of some teachers, to
suggest equivalent words, and then proceed to explain these, in lieu of the
word in question. This is the method of _Russell's Gram._, p. 99; of
_Merchants_, p. 110; of _Kirkham's_, p. 111; of _Gilbert's_, p. 92. But it
should be remembered that equivalence of meaning is not sameness of
grammatical construction; and, even if the construction be the same, to
parse other equivalent words, is not really to parse the text that is
given. A good parser, with the liberty to supply obvious ellipses, should
know how to explain all good English _as it stands_; and for a teacher to
pervert good English into false doctrine, must needs seem the very worst
kind of ignorance. What can be more fantastical than the following
etymology, or more absurd than the following directions for parsing?
"_What_ is compounded of _which that_. These words have been contracted and
made to coalesce, a part of the orthography of both being still retained:
_what--wh[ich--t]hat_; (_which-that_.) Anciently it appeared in the varying
forms, _tha qua, qua tha, qu'tha, quthat, quhat, hwat_, and finally
_what_."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 111. This bald pedantry of "_tha qua, qua
tha_," was secretly borrowed from the grammatical speculations of William
S. Cardell:[217] the "_which-that_" notion contradicts it, and is partly of
the borrower's own invention. If _what_ is a compound, it was compounded
more than a thousand years ago; and, of course, long before any part of the
English language existed as such. King Alfred used it, as he found it, in
the Saxon form of _hwæt_. The Scotch afterwards spelled it _quhat_. Our
English grammarians have _improperly_ called it a compound; and _Kirkham_,
still more absurdly, calls the word _others_ a compound, and _mine, thine,
ours, yours_, &e. compounds.[218]
OBS. 33.--According to this gentleman's notion of things, there is, within
the little circle of the word _what_, a very curious play of antecedent
parts and parts relative--a dodging contra-dance of _which that_ and _that
which_, with _things which_, and so forth. Thus: "When _what_ is a
_compound relative_ you must always parse it as _two words_; that is, you
must parse the antecedent part _as a noun_, and give it case; the relative
part you may _analyze_ like any other relative, giving it a case likewise.
Example: 'I will try _what_ (that which) can be found in female delicacy.'
Here _that_, the antecedent part of _what_, is in the obj. case, governed
by the verb 'will try;' _which_, the relative part, is in the nom. case to
'can be found.' 'I have heard _what_ (i.e. _that which_, or _the thing
which_) has been alleged.' "--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 111. Here, we sec, the
author's "_which-that_" becomes _that which_, or something else. But this
is not a full view of his method. The following vile rigmarole is a further
sample of that "_New Systematick Order of Parsing_," by virtue of which he
so very complacently and successfully sets himself above all other
grammarians: "'From _what_ is recorded, he appears, &c.' _What_ is a comp.
rel. pron. including both the antecedent and the relative, and is
equivalent to _that which_, or the _thing which.--Thing_, the antecedent
part of _what_, is a noun, the name of a thing--com. the name of a
species--neuter gender, it has no sex--third person, spoken of--sing.
number, it implies but one--and in the obj. case, it is the object of the
relation expressed by the prep. 'from,' and gov. by it: RULE 31. (Repeat
the Rule, and _every other Rule_ to which I refer.) _Which_, the relative
part of _what_, is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun--relative, it
relates to 'thing' for its antecedent--neut. gender, third person, sing,
number, because the antecedent is with which it agrees, according to RULE
14. _Rel. pron_. &c. _Which_ is _in_ the nom. case to the verb 'is
recorded,' agreeably to RULE 15. _The relative is the nominative case to
the verb, when no nominative comes between it and the verb._"--_Kirkham's
Gram._, p. 113.
OBS. 34.--The distinction which has been made by Murray and others, between
etymological parsing and syntactical--or, between that exercise which
simply classifies and describes the words of a sentence, and that which
adds to this the principles of their construction--is rejected by Kirkham,
and also by Ingersoll, Fuller, Smith, Sanborn, Mack, and some others, it
being altogether irreconcilable with their several modes of confounding the
two main parts of grammar. If such a distinction is serviceable, the want
of it is one of the inherent faults of the schemes which they have adopted.
But, since "grammar is the art of speaking and writing with _propriety_"
who that really values clearness and accuracy of expression, can think the
want of them excusable in _models_ prescribed for the exercise of parsing?
And is it not better to maintain the distinction above named, than to
interlace our syntactical parsing with broken allusions to the definitions
which pertain to etymology? If it is, this new mode of parsing, which
Kirkham claims to have invented, and Smith pretends to have got from
Germany, whatever boast may be made of it, is essentially defective and
very immethodical.[219] This remark applies not merely to the forms above
cited, respecting the pronoun _what_, but to the whole method of parsing
adopted by the author of "_English Grammar in Familiar Lectures_."
OBS. 35.--The forms of etymological parsing which I have adopted, being
designed to train the pupil, in the first place, by a succession of easy
steps, to a rapid and accurate description of the several species of words,
and a ready habit of fully defining the technical terms employed in such
descriptions, will be found to differ more from the forms of syntactical
parsing, than do those of perhaps any other grammarian. The definitions,
which constitute so large a portion of the former, being omitted as soon as
they are thoroughly learned, give place in the latter, to the facts and
principles of syntax. Thus have we fullness in the one part, conciseness in
the other, order and distinctness in both. The separation of etymology from
syntax, however, though judiciously adopted by almost all grammarians, is
in itself a mere matter of convenience. No one will pretend that these two
parts of grammar are in their nature _totally_ distinct and independent.
Hence, though a due regard to method demands the maintenance of this
ancient and still usual division of the subject, we not unfrequently, in
treating of the classes and modifications of words, exhibit contingently
some of the principles of their construction. This, however, is very
different from a purposed blending of the two parts, than which nothing can
be more unwise.
OBS. 36.--The great peculiarity of the pronoun _what_, or of its compound
_whatever_ or _whatsoever_, is a peculiarity of construction, rather than
of etymology. Hence, in etymological parsing, it may be sufficient to
notice it only as a relative, though the construction be double. It is in
fact a relative; but it is one that reverses the order of the antecedent,
whenever the noun is inserted with it. But as the noun is usually
suppressed, and as the supplying of it is attended with an obvious
difficulty, arising from the transposition, we cut the matter short, by
declaring the word to have, as it appears to have, a double syntactical
relation. Of the foregoing example, therefore--viz., "From _what_ is
recorded," &c.,--a pupil of mine, in parsing _etymologically_, would say
thus: "_What_ is a relative pronoun, of the third person, singular number,
neuter gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of
a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent
word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence. 3. The third
person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The
singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that
which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative
case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which denotes the subject
of a verb." In parsing _syntactically_, he would say thus: "_What_ is a
double relative, including both antecedent and relative, being equivalent
to _that which_. As _antecedent_, it is of the third person, singular
number, neuter gender, and objective case; being governed by _from_;
according to the rule which says, 'A Noun or a Pronoun made the object of a
preposition, is goverved [sic--KTH] by it in the objective case.' Because
the meaning is--_from what_. As _relative_, it is of the third person,
singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case; being the subject of
_is recorded_; according to the rule which says, 'A Noun or a Pronoun which
is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.' Because
the meaning is--_what is recorded_."
OBS. 37.--The word _what_, when uttered independently as a mark of
surprise, or as the prelude to an emphatic question which it does not ask,
becomes an interjection; and, as such, is to be parsed merely as other
interjections are parsed: as, "_What!_ came the word of God out from you?
or came it unto you only?"--_1 Cor._, xiv, 36. "_What!_ know ye not that
your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of
God?"--_1 Cor._, vi, 19. "But _what!_ is thy servant a dog, that he should
do this great thing?"--_2 Kings_, viii, 13. "_What!_ are you so ambitious
of a man's good word, who perhaps in an hour's time shall curse himself to
the pit of hell?"--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 152.
"_What!_ up and down, carv'd like an apple-tart?"--_Shakspeare_.
"_What!_ can you lull the winged winds asleep?"--_Campbell_.
EXAMPLES FOR PARSING.
PRAXIS V.--ETYMOLOGICAL.
_In the Fifth Praxis, it is required of the pupil--to distinguish and
define the different parts of speech, and the classes and modifications of
the_ ARTICLES, NOUNS, ADJECTIVES, and PRONOUNS.
_The definitions to be given in the Fifth Praxis, are two for an article,
six for a noun, three for an adjective, six for a pronoun, and one for a
verb, a participle, an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition, or an
interjection. Thus_:--
EXAMPLE PARSED.
"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing
formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus."--_Rom._, ix,
20.
_Nay_ is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle,
an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place,
degree, or manner.
_But_ is a conjunction. 1. A conjunction is a word used to connect words or
sentences in construction, and to show the dependence of the terms so
connected.
_O_ is an interjection. 1. An interjection is a word that is uttered merely
to indicate some strong or sudden emotion of the mind.
_Man_ is a common noun, of the second person, singular number, masculine
gender, and nominative case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or
thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a
sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The second person is that
which denotes the hearer, or the person addressed. 4. The singular number
is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which
denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that
form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a
finite verb.
_Who_ is an interrogative pronoun, of the third person, singular number,
masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead
of a noun. 2. An interrogative pronoun is a pronoun with which a question
is asked. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing
merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5.
The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male
kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun
which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.
_Art_ is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to
be acted upon_.
_Thou_ is a personal pronoun, of the second person, singular number,
masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead
of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of
what person it is. 3. The second person is that which denotes the hearer,
or the person addressed. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but
one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of
the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or
pronoun which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.
_That_ is a relative pronoun, of the second person, singular number,
masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead
of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent
word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence. 3. The second
person is that which denotes the hearer, or the person addressed. 4. The
singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is
that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative
case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the
subject of a finite verb.
_Repliest_ is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_,
or _to be acted upon_.
_Against_ is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some
relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally
placed before a noun or a pronoun.
_God_ is a proper noun, of the third person, singular number, masculine
gender, and objective case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or
thing, that can be known, or mentioned. 2. A proper noun is the name of
some particular individual, or people, or group. 3. The third person is
that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular
number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which
denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The objective case is that
form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the object of a
verb, participle, or preposition.
_Shall_ is a verb, auxiliary to _say_, and may be taken with it.
_The_ is the definite article. 1. An article is the word _the, an_, or _a_,
which we put before nouns to limit their signification. 2. The definite
article is _the_, which denotes some particular thing or things.
_Thing_ is a common noun of the third person, singular number, neuter
gender, and nominative case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or
thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a
sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The third person is that
which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number
is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes
things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that
form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a
finite verb.
_Formed_ is a participle. 1. A participle is a word derived from a verb,
participating the properties of a verb, and of an adjective or a noun; and
is generally formed by adding _ing, d_, or _ed_, to the verb.
_Say_, or _shall say_, is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to
be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_.
_To_ is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some
relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally
placed before a noun or a pronoun.
_Him_ is a personal pronoun, of the third person, singular number,
masculine gender, and objective case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead
of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of
what person it is. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or
thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but
one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of
the male kind. 6. The objective case is that form or state of a noun or
pronoun which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or
preposition.
_That_ is a relative pronoun, of the third person, singular number,
masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead
of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent
word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence. 3. The third
person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The
singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is
that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative
case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the
subject of a finite verb.
_Formed_ is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or
_to be acted upon_. _It_ is a personal pronoun, of the third person,
singular number, neuter gender, and objective case. 1. A pronoun is a word
used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by
its form, of what person it is. 3. The third person is that which denotes
the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which
denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are
neither male nor female. 6. The objective case is that form or state of a
noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or
preposition.
_Why_ is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle,
an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place,
degree, or manner.
_Hast_ is a verb, auxiliary to _made_, and may be taken with it.
_Thou_ is a personal pronoun, of the second person, singular number,
masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead
of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of
what person it is. 3. The second person is that which denotes the hearer,
or the person addressed. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but
one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of
the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or
pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.
_Made_, or _hast made_, is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to
be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_.
_Me_ is a personal pronoun, of the first person, singular number, neuter
gender, and objective case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun.
2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what person
it is. 3. The first person is that which denotes the speaker or writer. 4.
The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is
that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The
objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually
denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.
_Thus_ is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle,
an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place,
degree, or manner.
LESSON I.--PARSING.
"Every man has undoubtedly an inward perception of the celestial goodness
by which he is quickened. But, if to obtain some ideas of God, it be not
necessary for us to go beyond ourselves, what an unpardonable indolence it
is in those who will not descend into themselves that they may find
him?"--_Calvin's Institutes_, B. i, Ch. 5.
"Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father
that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: yet ye have not
known him; but I know him."--_John_, viii, 54.
"What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church
of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I
praise you in this? I praise you not."--_1 Cor._, xi, 22.
"We know not what we ought to wish for, but He who made us,
knows."--_Burgh's Dignity_, Vol. ii, p. 20.
"And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is
good?"--_1 Peter_, iii, 13.
"For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with
some that commend themselves: but they, measuring themselves by themselves,
and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise."--_2 Cor._, x, 12.
"Whatever is humane, is wise; whatever is wise, is just; whatever is wise,
just, and humane, will be found the true interest of states."--_Dr. Rush,
on Punishments_, p. 19.
"But, methinks, we cannot answer it to ourselves, as-well-as to our Maker,
that we should live and die ignorant of ourselves, and thereby of him, and
of the obligations which we are under to him for ourselves."--_William
Penn_.
"But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding?
The depth saith, 'It is not in me;' and the sea saith, 'It is not with me.'
Destruction and death say, 'We have heard the fame thereof with our
ears.'"--See _Job_, xxviii, 12, 14, 22; and _Blair's Lect._, p. 417.
"I still had hopes, my latest hours to crown,
Amidst these humble bow'rs to lay me down."--_Goldsmith_.
"Why dost thou then suggest to me distrust,
Knowing who I am, as I know who thou art?"--_Milton_, P. R.
LESSON II.--PARSING.
"I would, methinks, have so much to say for myself, that if I fell into the
hands of him who treated me ill, he should be sensible when he did so: his
conscience should be on my side, whatever became of his
inclination."--_Steele, Spect._, No. 522.
"A boy should understand his mother tongue well before he enters upon the
study of a dead language; or, at any rate, he should be made perfect master
of the meaning of all the words which are necessary to furnish him with a
translation of the particular author which he is studying."--_Gallaudet,
Lit. Conv._, p. 206.
"No discipline is more suitable to man, or more congruous to the dignity of
his nature, than that which refines his taste, and leads him to
distinguish, in every subject, what is regular, what is orderly, what is
suitable, and what is fit and proper."--_Kames's El. of Crit._, i, 275.
"Simple thoughts are what arise naturally; what the occasion or the subject
suggests unsought; and what, when once suggested, are easily apprehended by
all. Refinement in writing, expresses a less natural and [less] obvious
train of thought."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 184.
"Where the story of an epic poem is founded on truth, no circumstances must
be added, but such as connect naturally with what are known to be true:
history may be supplied, but it must not be contradicted."--See _Kames's
El. of Crit._, ii, 280.
"Others, I am told, pretend to have been once his friends. Surely they are
their enemies, who say so; for nothing can be more odious than to treat a
friend as they have treated him. But of this I cannot persuade myself, when
I consider the constant and eternal aversion of all bad writers to a good
one."--_Cleland, in Defence of Pope_.
"From side to side, he struts, he smiles, he prates,
And seems to wonder what's become of Yates."--_Churchill_.
"Alas! what sorrows gloom'd that parting day,
That call'd them from their native walks away!"--_Goldsmith_.
LESSON III.--PARSING.
"It is involved in the nature of man, that he cannot be indifferent to an
event that concerns him or any of his connexions: if it be fortunate, it
gives him joy; if unfortunate, it gives him sorrow."--_Kames's El. of
Crit._, i, 62.
"I knew a man who had relinquished the sea for a country life: in the
corner of his garden he reared an artificial mount with a level summit,
resembling most accurately a quarter-deck, not only in shape, but in size;
and here he generally walked."--_Ib._, p. 328.
"I mean, when we are angry with our Maker. For against whom else is it that
our displeasure is pointed, when we murmur at the distribution of things
here, either because our own condition is less agreeable than we would have
it, or because that of others is more prosperous than we imagine they
deserve?"--_Archbishop Seeker_.
"Things cannot charge into the soul, or force us upon any opinions about
them; they stand aloof and are quiet. It is our fancy that makes them
operate and gall us; it is we that rate them, and give them their bulk and
value."--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 212.
"What is your opinion of truth, good-nature, and sobriety? Do any of these
virtues stand in need of a good word; or are they the worse for a bad one?
I hope a diamond will shine ne'er the less for a man's silence about the
worth of it."--_Ib._, p. 49.
"Those words which were formerly current and proper, have now become
obsolete and barbarous. Alas! this is not all: fame tarnishes in time too;
and men grow out of fashion, as well as languages."--_Ib._, p. 55.
"O Luxury! thou curs'd by Heaven's decree,
How ill exchang'd are things like these for thee."--_Goldsmith_.
"O, then, how blind to all that truth requires,
Who think it freedom when a part aspires!"--_Id._
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.
ERRORS OF PRONOUNS.
LESSON I.--RELATIVES.
"At the same time that we attend to this pause, every appearance of
sing-song and tone must be carefully guarded against."--_Murray's English
Reader_, p. xx.
[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the word _that_ had not clearly the
construction either of a pronoun or of a conjunction. But, according to
Observation 18th, on the Classes of Pronouns, "The word _that_, or indeed
any other word, should never be so used as to leave the part of speech
uncertain." Therefore, the expression should be altered: thus, "_While_ we
attend to this pause, every appearance of _singsong_ must be carefully
_avoided_."]
"For thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee."--_Jeremiah_, i, 7;
_Gurney's Obs._, p. 223. "Ah! how happy would it have been for me, had I
spent in retirement these twenty-three years that I have possessed my
kingdom."--See _Sanborn's Gram._, p. 242. "In the same manner that relative
pronouns and their antecedents are usually parsed."--_Ib._, p. 71. "Parse
or mention all the other nouns in the parsing examples, in the same manner
that you do the word in the form of parsing."--_Ib._, p. 8. "The passive
verb will always be of the person and number that the verb _be_ is, of
which it is in part composed."--_Ib._, p. 53. "You have been taught that a
verb must always be of the same person and number that its nominative
is."--_Ib._, p. 68. "A relative pronoun, also, must always be of the same
person, number, and even gender that its antecedent is."--_Ib._, p. 68.
"The subsequent is always in the same case that the word is, which asks the
question."--_Ib._, p. 95. "_One_ sometimes represents an antecedent noun in
the same definite manner that personal pronouns do."--_Ib._, p. 98. "The
mind being carried forward to the time that an event happens, easily
conceives it to be present."--_Ib._, p. 107. "_Save_ and _saving_ are
parsed in the same manner that _except_ and _excepting_ are."--_Ib._, p.
123. "Adverbs describe, qualify, or modify the meaning of a verb in the
same manner that adjectives do nouns."--_Ib._, p. 16. "The third person
singular of verbs, is formed in the same manner, that the plural number of
nouns is."--_Ib._, p. 41. "He saith further: 'that the apostles did not
anew baptize such persons, that had been baptized with the baptism of
John.'"--_Barclay's Works_, i, 292. "For we which live, are always
delivered unto death for Jesus' sake."--_2 Cor._, iv, 11. "For they, which
believe in God, must be careful to maintain good works."--_Barclay's
Works_, i, 431. "Nor yet of those which teach things which they ought not,
for filthy lucre's sake."--_Ib._, i, 435. "So as to hold such bound in
heaven, whom they bind on earth, and such loosed in heaven, whom they loose
on earth."--_Ib._, i, 478. "Now, if it be an evil to do any thing out of
strife; then such things that are seen so to be done, are they not to be
avoided and forsaken?"--_Ib._, i, 522. "All such who satisfy themselves not
with the superficies of religion."--_Ib._, ii, 23. "And he is the same in
substance, what he was upon earth, both in spirit, soul and body."--_Ib._,
iii, 98. "And those that do not thus, are such, to whom the Church of Rome
can have no charity."--_Ib._, iii, 204. "Before his book he placeth a great
list of that he accounts the blasphemous assertions of the
Quakers."--_Ib._, iii, 257. "And this is that he should have
proved."--_Ib._, iii, 322. "Three of which were at that time actual
students of philosophy in the university."--_Ib._, iii, 180. "Therefore it
is not lawful for any whatsoever * * * to force the consciences of
others."--_Ib._, ii, 13. "What is the cause that the former days were
better than these?"--_Eccl._, vii, 10. "In the same manner that the term
_my_ depends on the name _books_."--_O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p. 54. "In the
same manner as the term _house_ depends on the relative _near_."--_Ib._, p.
58. "James died on the day that Henry returned."--_Ib._, p. 177.
LESSON II.--DECLENSIONS.
"_Other_ makes the plural _others_, when it is found without it's
substantive."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 12.
[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the pronoun _it's_ is written with an
apostrophe. But, according to Observation 25th, on the Declensions of
Pronouns, "The possessive case of pronouns should never be written with an
apostrophe." Therefore, this apostrophe should be omitted; thus, "_Other_
makes the plural _others_, when it is found without its substantive."]
"But _his, her's, our's, your's, their's_, have evidently the form of the
possessive case."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 23. "To the Saxon possessive cases,
_hire, ure, eower, hira_, (that is, _her's, our's, your's, their's_,) we
have added the _s_, the characteristic of the possessive case of
nouns."--_Ib._, p. 23. "Upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both
their's and our's."--FRIENDS' BIBLE: _1 Cor._, i, 2. "In this Place _His_
Hand is clearly preferable either to Her's or It's." [220]--_Harris's
Hermes_, p. 59. "That roguish leer of your's makes a pretty woman's heart
ake."--ADDISON: _in Joh. Dict._ "Lest by any means this liberty of your's
become a stumbling-block."--FRIENDS' BIBLE: _1 Cor._, viii, 9. "First
person: Sing. I, mine, me; Plur. we, our's, us."--_Wilbur and Livingston's
Gram._, p. 16. "Second person: Sing. thou, thine, thee; Plur. ye or you,
your's, you."--_Ib._ "Third person: Sing. she, her's, her; Plur. they,
their's, them."--_Ib._ "So shall ye serve strangers in a land that is not
your's."--SCOTT ET AL.: _Jer._, v, 19. "Second person, Singular: Nom. thou
or you, Poss. thine or yours, Obj. thee or you."--_Frost's El. of E.
Gram._, p. 13. "Second person, Dual: Nom. Gyt, ye two; Gen. Incer, of ye
two; Dat. Inc, incrum, to ye two; Acc. Inc, ye two; Voc. Eala inc, O ye
two; Abl. Inc, incrum, from ye two."--_Gwill's Saxon Gram._, p. 12. "Second
person, Plural; Nom. Ge, ye; Gen. Eower, of ye; Dat. Eow, to ye; Acc. Eow,
ye; Voc. Eala ge, O ye; Abl. Eow, from ye."--_Ib._ (_written in_ 1829.)
"These words are, _mine, thine, his, her's, our's, your's, their's_, and
_whose_."--_Cardell's Essay_, p. 88. "This house is _our's_, and that is
_your's. Their's_ is very commodious."--_Ib._, p. 90. "And they shall eat
up thine harvest, and thy bread: they shall eat up thy flocks and thine
herds."--_Jeremiah_, v, 17. "_Whoever_ and _Whichever_ are thus declined.
_Sing._ and _Plu. nom._ whoever, _poss._ whoseever, _obj._ whomever.
_Sing._ and _Plu. nom._ whichever, _poss._ whoseever, _obj._
whichever."--_Cooper's Plain and Practical Gram._, p. 38. "The compound
personal pronouns are thus declined; _Sing. N._ Myself, _P._ my-own, _O._
myself; _Plur. N._ ourselves, _P._ our-own, _O._ ourselves. _Sing. N._
Thyself or yourself, _P._ thy-own or your-own, _O._ thyself or yourself;"
&c.--_Perley's Gram._, p. 16. "Every one of us, each for hisself, laboured
how to recover him."--SIDNEY: _in Priestley's Gram._, p. 96. "Unless when
ideas of their opposites manifestly suggest their selves."--_Wright's
Gram._, p. 49. "It not only exists in time, but is time its self."--_Ib._,
p. 75. "A position which the action its self will palpably deny."--_Ib._,
p. 102. "A difficulty sometimes presents its self."--_Ib._, p. 165. "They
are sometimes explanations in their selves."--_Ib._, p. 249. "Our's,
Your's, Their's, Her's, It's."--_S. Barrett's Gram._, p. 24.
"Their's the wild chace of false felicities:
His, the compos'd possession of the true."
--_Murray's E. Reader_, p. 216.
LESSON III.--MIXED.
"It is the boast of Americans, without distinction of parties, that their
government is the most free and perfect, which exists on the earth."--_Dr.
Allen's Lectures_, p. 18.
[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the relative _which_ is here intended to be
taken in a restrictive sense. But, according to Observation 26th, on the
Classes of Pronouns, (and others that follow it,) the word _who_ or
_which_, with a comma before it, does not usually limit the preceding term.
Therefore, _which_ should be _that_, and the comma should be omitted;
thus,--"that their government is the most free and perfect _that_ exists on
the earth."]
"Children, who are dutiful to their parents, enjoy great
prosperity."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 69. "The scholar, who improves his
time, sets an example worthy of imitation."--_Ib._, p. 69. "Nouns and
pronouns, which signify the same person, place, or thing, agree in
case."--_Cooper's Gram._, p. 115. "An interrogative sentence is one, which
asks a question."--_Ib._, p. 114. "In the use of words and phrases, which
in point of time relate to each other, a _due regard_ to _that relation_
should be _observed_."--_Ib._, p. 146; see _L. Murray_'s Rule xiii. "The
same observations, which have been made respecting the effect of the
article and participle, appear to be applicable to the pronoun and
participle."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 193. "The reason that they have not the
same use of them in reading, may be traced to the very defective and
erroneous method, in which the art of reading is taught."--_Ib._, p. 252.
"Since the time that reason began to exert her powers, thought, during our
waking hours, has been active in every breast, without a moment's
suspension or pause."--_Murray's Key_, p. 271; _Merchant's Gram._, p. 212.
"In speaking of such who greatly delight in the same."--_Notes to Dunciad_,
177. "Except such to whom the king shall hold out the golden sceptre, that
he may live."--_Esther_, iv, 11.--"But the same day that Lot went out of
Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them
all."--_Luke_, xvii, 29. "In the next place I will explain several cases of
nouns and pronouns which have not yet come under our notice."--_Kirkham's
Gram._, p. 129. "Three natural distinctions of time are all which can
exist."--_Rail's Gram._, p. 15. "We have exhibited such only as are
obviously distinct; and which seem to be sufficient, and not more than
sufficient."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 68; _Hall's_, 14. "This point encloses a
part of a sentence which may be omitted without materially injuring the
connexion of the other members."--_Hall's Gram._, p. 39. "Consonants are
letters, which cannot be sounded without the aid of a Vowel."--_Bucke's
Gram._, p. 9. "Words are not simple sounds, but sounds, which convey a
meaning to the mind."--_Ib._, p. 16. "Nature's postures are always easy;
and which is more, nothing but your own will can put you out of
them."--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 197. "Therefore ought we to examine our
ownselves, and prove our ownselves."--_Barclay's Works_, i, 426. "Certainly
it had been much more natural, to have divided Active Verbs into
_Immanent_, or such whose Action is terminated in it self, and _Transient_,
or such whose Action is terminated in something without it
self."--_Johnson's Gram. Com._, p. 273. "This is such an advantage which no
other lexicon will afford."--DR. TAYLOR: _in Pike's Lex._, p. iv. "For
these reasons, such liberties are taken in the Hebrew tongue with those
words as are of the most general and frequent use."--_Pike's Heb. Lexicon_,
p. 184. "At the same time that we object to the laws, which the antiquarian
in language would impose upon us, we must enter our protest against those
authors, who are too fond of innovations."--_Murray's Gram._, Vol. i, p.
136.
CHAPTER VI.--VERBS.
A Verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_: as,
I _am_, I _rule_, I _am ruled_; I _love_, thou _lovest_, he _loves_. VERBS
are so called, from the Latin _Verbum_, a _Word_; because the verb is that
word which most essentially contains what is said in any clause or
sentence.
An English verb has four CHIEF TERMS, or PRINCIPAL PARTS, ever needful to
be ascertained in the first place; namely, the _Present_, the _Preterit_,
the _Imperfect Participle_, and the _Perfect Participle_. The _Present_ is
that form of the verb, which is the root of all the rest; the verb itself;
or that simple term which we should look for in a dictionary: as, _be, act,
rule, love, defend, terminate_.
The _Preterit_ is that simple form of the verb, which denotes time past;
and which is always connected with some noun or pronoun, denoting the
subject of the assertion: as, _I was, I acted, I ruled, I loved, I
defended_.
The _Imperfect Participle_ is that which ends commonly[221] in _ing_, and
implies a _continuance_ of the being, action, or passion: as, _being,
acting, ruling, loving, defending, terminating_.
The _Perfect Participle_ is that which ends commonly in _ed_ or _en_, and
implies a _completion_ of the being, action, or passion: as, _been, acted,
ruled, loved_.
CLASSES.
Verbs are divided, with respect to their _form_, into four classes;
_regular_ and _irregular, redundant_ and _defective_.
I. A _regular verb_ is a verb that forms the preterit and the perfect
participle by assuming _d_ or _ed_; as, _love, loved, loving, loved_.
II. An _irregular verb_ is a verb that does not form the preterit and the
perfect participle by assuming _d_ or _ed_; as, _see, saw, seeing, seen_.
III. A _redundant verb_ is a verb that forms the preterit or the perfect
participle in two or more ways, and so as to be both regular and irregular;
as, _thrive, thrived_ or _throve, thriving, thrived_ or _thriven_.
IV. A _defective verb_ is a verb that forms no participles, and is used in
but few of the moods and tenses; as, _beware, ought, quoth_.
Verbs are divided again, with respect to their _signification_, into four
classes; _active-transitive, active-intransitive, passive_, and _neuter_.
I. An _active-transitive_ verb is a verb that expresses an action which has
some person or thing for its object; as, "Cain _slew Abel_."--"Cassius
_loved Brutus_."
II. An _active-intransitive_ verb is a verb that expresses an action which
has no person or thing for its object; as, "John _walks_."--"Jesus _wept_."
III. A. _passive verb_ is a verb that represents its subject, or what the
nominative expresses, as being acted upon; as, "I _am compelled_."--"Cæsar
_was slain_."
IV. A _neuter verb_ is a verb that expresses neither action nor passion,
but simply being, or a state of being; as, "There _was_ light."--"The babe
_sleeps_."
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.--So various have been the views of our grammarians, respecting this
complex and most important part of speech, that almost every thing that is
contained in any theory or distribution of the English verbs, may be
considered a matter of opinion and of dispute. Nay, the essential nature of
a verb, in Universal Grammar, has never yet been determined by any received
definition that can be considered unobjectionable. The greatest and most
acute philologists confess that a faultless definition of this part of
speech, is difficult, if not impossible, to be formed. Horne Tooke, at the
close of his Diversions of Purley, cites with contempt nearly a dozen
different attempts at a definition, some Latin, some English, some French;
then, with the abruptness of affected disgust, breaks off the catalogue and
the conversation together, leaving his readers to guess, if they can, what
he conceived a verb to be. He might have added some scores of others, and
probably would have been as little satisfied with any one of them. A
definition like that which is given above, may answer in some degree the
purpose of distinction; but, after all, we must judge what is, and what is
not a verb, chiefly from our own observation of the sense and use of
words.[222]
OBS. 2.--Whether _participles_ ought to be called verbs or not, is a
question that has been much disputed, and is still variously decided; nor
is it possible to settle it in any way not liable to some serious
objections. The same may perhaps be said of all the forms called
_infinitives_. If the essence of a verb be made to consist in affirmation,
predication, or assertion, (as it is in many grammars,) neither infinitives
nor participles can be reckoned verbs, without a manifest breach of the
definition. Yet are the former almost universally treated as verbs, and by
some as the only pure verbs; nor do all deny them this rank, who say that
affirmation is _essential_ to a verb. Participles, when unconnected with
auxiliaries, are most commonly considered a separate part of speech; but in
the formation of many of our moods and tenses, we take them as _constituent
parts of the verb_. If there is absurdity in this, there is more in
undertaking to avoid it; and the inconvenience should be submitted to,
since it amounts to little or nothing in practice. With auxiliaries, then,
participles _are verbs_: without auxiliaries, they are _not verbs_, but
form a separate part of speech.
OBS. 3.--The number of verbs in our language, amounts unquestionably to
four or five thousand; some say, (perhaps truly,) to eight thousand. All
these, whatever be the number, are confessedly _regular_ in their
formation, except about two hundred. For, though the catalogues in our
grammars give the number somewhat variously, all the irregular, redundant,
and defective verbs, put together, are _commonly_ reckoned fewer than two
hundred. I admit, in all, two hundred and nineteen. The regular verbs,
therefore, are vastly more numerous than those which deviate from the
stated form. But, since many of the latter are words of very frequent
occurrence, the irregular verbs appear exceedingly numerous in practice,
and consequently require a great deal of attention. The defective verbs
being very few, and most of these few being mere auxiliaries, which are
never parsed separately, there is little occasion to treat them as a
distinct class; though Murray and others have ranked them so, and perhaps
it is best to follow their example. The redundant verbs, which are regular
in one form and irregular in an other, being of course always found written
either one way or the other, as each author chooses, may be, and commonly
have been, referred in parsing to the class of regular or irregular verbs
accordingly. But, as their number is considerable, and their character
peculiar, there may be some advantage in making them a separate class.
Besides, the definition of an irregular verb, as given in any of our
grammars, seems to exclude all such as _may_ form the preterit and the
perfect participle by assuming _d_ or _ed_.
OBS. 4.--In most grammars and dictionaries, verbs are divided, with respect
to their signification, into three classes only; _active, passive_, and
_neuter_. In such a division, the class of _active_ verbs includes those
only which are _active-transitive_, and all the _active-intransitive_ verbs
are called _neuter_. But, in the division adopted above,
_active-intransitive_ verbs are made a distinct class; and those only are
regarded as neuter, which imply a state of existence without action. When,
therefore, we speak of verbs without reference to their regimen, we may, if
we please, apply the simple term active to all those which express
_action_, whether _transitive_ or _intransitive_. "We _act_ whenever we
_do_ any thing; but we _may act_ without _doing_ any thing."--_Crabb's
Synonymes_.
OBS. 5.--Among the many English grammars in which verbs are divided, as
above mentioned, into _active, passive_, and _neuter_, only, are those of
the following writers: Lowth, Murray, Ainsworth, Alden, Allen, Alger,
Bacon, Bicknell, Blair, Bullions, (at first,) Charles Adams, Bucke,
Cobbett, Cobbin, Dilworth, A. Flint, Frost, (at first,) Greenleaf, Hall,
Johnson,[223] Lennie, Picket, Pond, Sanborn, R. C. Smith, Rev. T. Smith,
and Wright. These authors, and many more, agree, that, "A _verb neuter_
expresses neither action nor passion, but being, or a state of being."--_L.
Murray_. Yet, according to their scheme, such words as _walk, run, fly,
strive, struggle, wrestle, contend_, are verbs _neuter_. In view of this
palpable absurdity, I cannot but think it was a useful improvement upon the
once popular scheme of English grammar, to make active-intransitive verbs a
distinct class, and to apply the term _neuter_ to those few only which
accord with the foregoing definition. This had been done before the days of
Lindley Murray, as may be seen in Buchanan's English Syntax, p. 56, and in
the old British Grammar, p. 153, each published many years before the
appearance of his work;[224] and it has often been done since, and is
preferred even by many of the professed admirers and followers of Murray;
as may be seen in the grammars of Comly, Fisk, Merchant, Kirkham, and
others.
OBS. 6.--Murray himself quotes this improved distribution, and with
some appearance of approbation; but strangely imagines it must needs be
_inconvenient_ in practice. Had he been a schoolmaster, he could hardly
have so judged. He says, "Verbs have been distinguished by some writers,
into the following kinds:--
"1st. _Active-transitive_, or those which denote an action that passes from
the agent to some object: as, Cæsar conquered Pompey.
"2d. _Active-intransitive_, or those which express that kind of action,
which has no effect upon any thing beyond itself: as, Cæsar walked.
"3d. _Passive_, or those which express, not action, but passion, whether
pleasing or painful: as, Portia was loved; Pompey was conquered.
"4th. _Neuter_, or those which express an attribute that consists neither
in action nor passion: as, Cæsar stood.
"This appears to be an orderly arrangement. But if the class of
_active-intransitive_ verbs were admitted, _it would rather perplex_ than
assist the learner: for the difference between verbs active and neuter, as
transitive and intransitive is easy and obvious: but the difference between
verbs absolutely neuter and [those which are] intransitively active, is not
always clear. It is, indeed, often _very difficult_, if not impossible to
be ascertained."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 60.[225]
OBS. 7.--The following note, from a book written on purpose to apply the
principles of Murray's Grammar, and of Allen's, (the two best of the
foregoing two dozen,) may serve as an offset to the reason above assigned
for rejecting the class of active-intransitive verbs: "It is possible that
some teachers may look upon the nice distinction here made, between the
active _transitive_ and the active _intransitive verbs_, as totally
unnecessary. They may, perhaps, rank the latter with the neuter verbs. The
author had his choice of difficulties: on the one hand, he was aware that
his arrangement might not suit the views of the above-mentioned persons;
and, on the other, he was so sensible of the inaccuracy of their system,
and of its clashing with the definitions, as well as rules, laid down in
almost every grammar, that he was unwilling to bring before the public a
work containing so well-known and manifest an error. Of what use can
Murray's definition of the _active_ verb be, to one who endeavours to prove
the propriety of thus assigning an epithet to the various parts of speech,
in the course of parsing? He says, 'A verb active expresses an action, and
necessarily implies an agent, and an object acted upon.' In the sentence,
'William hastens away,' the active intransitive verb _hastens_ has indeed
an _agent_, 'William,' but where is the _object_? Again, he says, 'Active
verbs govern the objective case;' although it is clear it is not the
_active_ meaning of the verb which requires the objective case, but the
_transitive_, and that only. He adds, 'A verb neuter expresses _neither
action, nor passion_, but being, or a state of being;' and the accuracy of
this definition is borne out by the assent of perhaps every other
grammarian. If, with this clear and forcible definition before our eyes, we
proceed to class _active_ intransitive verbs with neuter verbs, and direct
our pupils to prove such a classification by reciting Murray's definition
of the _neuter_ verb, we may indeed expect from a thinking pupil the
remonstrance which was actually made to a teacher on that system, while
parsing the verb '_to run_.' 'Sir,' asks the boy, 'does not _to run_ imply
action, for it always makes me perspire?'"--_Nixon's English Parser_, p. 9.
OBS. 8.--For the consideration of those classical scholars who may think we
are bound by the authority of _general usage_, to adhere to the old
division of verbs into active, passive, and neuter, it may be proper to
say, that the distribution of the verbs in Latin, has been as much a matter
of dispute among the great grammarians of that language, as has the
distribution of English verbs, more recently, among ourselves; and often
the points at issue were precisely the same.[226] To explain here the
different views of the very old grammarians, as Charisius, Donatus,
Servius, Priscian; or even to notice the opinions of later critics, as
Sanctius, Scioppius, Vossius, Perizonius; might seem perhaps a needless
departure from what the student of mere English grammar is concerned to
know. The curious, however, may find interesting citations from all these
authors, under the corresponding head, in some of our Latin grammars. See
_Prat's Grammatica Latina_, 8vo, London, 1722. It is certain that the
division of _active_ verbs, into _transitive_ and _intransitive_--or, (what
is the same thing,) into "_absolute_ and _transitive_"--or, into
"_immanent_ and _transient_"--is of a very ancient date. The notion of
calling _passive_ verbs _transitive_, when used in their ordinary and
proper construction, as some now do, is, I think, a _modern_ one, and no
small error.
OBS. 9.--Dr. Adam's distribution of verbs, is apparently the same as the
first part of Murray's; and his definitions are also in nearly the same
words. But he adds, "The verb _Active_ is also called _Transitive_, when
the action _passeth over_ to the object, or hath an effect on some other
thing; as, _scribo literas_, I write letters: but when the action is
confined within the agent, and _passeth not over_ to any object, it is
called _Intransitive_; as, _ambulo_, I walk; _curro_, I run: [fist] which
are likewise called _Neuter Verbs_."--_Adam's Latin and English Gram._, p.
79. But he had just before said, "A _Neuter_ verb properly expresses
neither action nor passion, but _simply the being, state, or condition_ of
things; as, _dormio_, I sleep; _sedeo_, I sit."--_Ibid._ Verbs of motion or
action, then, must needs be as improperly called neuter, in Latin, as in
English. Nor is this author's arrangement orderly in other respects; for he
treats of "_Deponent_ and _Common_ Verbs," of "_Irregular_ Verbs," of
"_Defective_ Verbs," and of "_Impersonal_ Verbs," none of which had he
mentioned in his distribution. Nor are the late revisers of his grammar any
more methodical.
OBS. 10.--The division of our verbs into _active-transitive,
active-intransitive, passive_, and _neuter_, must be understood to have
reference not only to their _signification_ as of themselves, but also to
their _construction_ with respect to the government of an objective word
after them. The latter is in fact their most important distinction, though
made _with reference_ to a different part of speech. The classical scholar,
too, being familiar with the forms of Latin and Greek verbs, will doubtless
think it a convenience, to have the arrangement as nearly correspondent to
those ancient forms, as the nature of our language will admit. This is
perhaps the strongest argument for the recognition of the class of _passive
verbs_ in English. Some grammarians, choosing to parse the passive
participle separately, reject this class of verbs altogether; and, forming
their division of the rest with reference to the construction alone, make
but two classes, _transitive_ and _intransitive_. Such is the distribution
adopted by C. Alexander, D. Adams, Bingham, Chandler, E. Cobb, Harrison,
Nutting, and John Peirce; and supported also by some British writers, among
whom are McCulloch and Grant. Such too was the distribution of Webster, in
his Plain and Comprehensive Grammar, as published in 1800. He then taught:
"We have no _passive_ verb in the language; and those which are called
_neuter_ are mostly _active_."--Page 14. But subsequently, in his
Philosophical, Abridged, and Improved Grammars, he recognized "a more
natural and comprehensive division" of verbs, "_transitive, intransitive,
and passive_."--_Webster's Rudiments_, p. 20. This, in reality, differs but
little from the old division into _active, passive_, and _neuter_. In some
grammars of recent date, as Churchill's, R. W. Bailey's, J. R. Brown's,
Butler's, S. W. Clark's, Frazee's, Hart's, Hendrick's, Perley's, Pinneo's,
Weld's, Wells's, Mulligan's, and the _improved_ treatises of Bullions and
Frost, verbs are said to be of _two_ kinds only, _transitive_ and
_intransitive_; but these authors allow to transitive verbs a "passive
form," or "passive voice,"--absurdly making all passive verbs transitive,
and all neuters intransitive, as if _action_ were expressed by both. For
this most faulty classification, Dr. Bullions pretends the authority of
"Mr. Webster;" and Frazee, that of "Webster, Bullions, and
others."--_Frazee's Gram._, Ster. Ed., p. 30. But if Dr. Webster ever
taught the absurd doctrine _that passive verbs are transitive_, he has
contradicted it far too much to have any weight in its favour.
OBS. 11.--Dalton makes only two classes; and these he will have to be
_active_ and _passive_: an arrangement for which he might have quoted
Scaliger, Sanctius, and Scioppius. Ash and Coar recognize but two, which
they call _active_ and _neuter_. This was also the scheme of Bullions, in
his Principles of E. Gram., 4th Edition, 1842. Priestley and Maunder have
two, which they call _transitive_ and _neuter_; but Maunder, like some
named above, will have transitive verbs to be susceptible of an active and
a passive voice, and Priestley virtually asserts the same. Cooper, Day,
Davis, Hazen, Hiley, Webster, Wells, (in his 1st Edition,) and Wilcox. have
three classes; _transitive, intransitive_, and _passive_. Sanders's Grammar
has _three_; "_Transitive, Intransitive_, and _Neuter_;" and two voices,
both _transitive!_ Jaudon has four: _transitive, intransitive, auxiliary_,
and _passive_. Burn has four; _active, passive, neuter_, and _substantive_.
Cardell labours hard to prove that all verbs are _both active and
transitive_; and for this, had he desired their aid, he might have cited
several ancient authorities.[227] Cutler avers, "_All verbs are active_;"
yet he divides them "into _active transitive, active intransitive_, and
_participial verbs_."--_Grammar and Parser_, p. 31. Some grammarians,
appearing to think all the foregoing modes of division useless, attempt
nothing of the kind. William Ward, in 1765, rejected all such
classification, but recognized three voices; "Active, Passive, and Middle;
as, _I call, I am called, I am calling_." Farnum, in 1842, acknowledged the
first two of these voices, but made no division of verbs into classes.
OBS. 12.--If we admit the class of _active-intransitive_ verbs, that of
verbs _neuter_ will unquestionably be very small. And this refutes Murray's
objection, that the learner will "_often_" be puzzled to know which is
which. Nor can it be of any consequence, if he happen in some instances to
decide wrong. To _be_, to _exist_, to _remain_, to _seem_, to _lie_, to
_sleep_, to _rest_, to _belong_, to _appertain_, and perhaps a few more,
may best be called _neuter_; though some grammarians, as may be inferred
from what is said above, deny that there are any neuter verbs in any
language. "Verba Neutra, ait Sanctius, nullo pacto esse possunt; quia,
teste Aristotele, omnis motus, actio, vel passio, nihil medium
est."--_Prat's Latin Gram._, p. 117. John Grant, in his Institutes of Latin
Grammar, recognizes in the verbs of that language the distinction which
Murray supposes to be so "very difficult" in those of our own; and, without
falling into the error of Sanctius, or of Lily,[228] respecting neuter
verbs, judiciously confines the term to such as are neuter in reality.
OBS. 13.--Active-transitive verbs, in English, generally require, that the
agent or doer of the action be expressed _before_ them in the nominative
case, and the object or receiver of the action, _after_ them in the
objective; as, "Cæsar _conquered_ Pompey." Passive verbs, which are never
primitives, but always derived from active-transitive verbs, (in order to
form sentences of like import from natural opposites in voice and sense,)
reverse this order, change the cases of the nouns, and denote that the
subject, named before them, is affected by the action; while the agent
follows, being introduced by the preposition _by_: as, "Pompey _was
conquered_ by Cæsar." But, as our passive verb always consists of two or
more separable parts, this order is liable to be varied, especially in
poetry; as,
"How many things _by season seasoned are_
To their right praise and true perfection!"--_Shakspeare_.
"Experience _is by industry achieved_,
And _perfected by_ the swift _course_ of time."--_Id._
OBS. 14.--Most active verbs may be used either transitively or
intransitively. Active verbs are transitive whenever there is any person or
thing expressed or clearly implied on which the action terminates; as, "I
_knew_ him well, and every truant _knew_."--_Goldsmith_. When they do not
govern such an object, they are intransitive, whatever may be their power
on other occasions; as, "The grand elementary principles of pleasure, by
which he _knows_, and _feels_, and _lives_, and _moves_."--_Wordsworth's
Pref._, p. xxiii. "The Father _originates_ and _elects_. The Son _mediates_
and _atones_. The Holy Spirit _regenerates_ and _sanctifies_."--_Gurney's
Portable Evidences_, p. 66. "Spectators _remark_, judges _decide_, parties
_watch_."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 271. "In a sermon, a preacher _may explain,
demonstrate, infer, exhort, admonish, comfort_."--_Alexander's E. Gram._,
p. 91.
OBS. 15.--Some verbs may be used in either an active or a neuter sense. In
the sentence, "Here I rest," _rest_ is a neuter verb; but in the sentence,
"Here I rest my hopes," _rest_ is an active-transitive verb, and governs
_hopes_. And a few that are always active in a grammatical sense, as
necessarily requiring an object after them, do not always indicate such an
exertion of force as we commonly call _action_. Such perhaps are the verbs
to _have_, to _possess_, to _owe_, to _cost_; as, "They _have_ no
wine."--"The house _has_ a portico."--"The man _possesses_ no real
estate."--"A son _owes_ help and honour to his father."--_Holyday_. "The
picture _cost_ a crown."--_Wright_, p. 181. Yet possibly even these may be
sometimes rather active-intransitive; as, "I can bear my part; 'tis my
occupation: _have_ at it with you."--_Shakspeare_. "Kings _have_ to deal
with their neighbours."--_Bacon_. "She will let her instructions enter
where folly now _possesses_."--_Shakspeare._
"Thou hast deserv'd more love than I can show;
But 'tis thy fate to give, and mine to _owe_."--_Dryden_.
OBS. 16.--An active-intransitive verb, followed by a preposition and its
object, will sometimes admit of being put into the passive form: the object
of the preposition being assumed for the nominative, and the preposition
itself being retained with the verb, as an adverb: as, (_Active_,) "They
_laughed_ at him."--(_Passive_,) "He _was laughed at_." "For some time the
nonconformists _were connived at_."--_Robertson's America_, Vol. ii, p.
414. "Every man _shall be dealt_ equitably with."--_Butler's Analogy_, p.
212. "If a church _would be looked up to_, it must stand high."--_Parker's
Idea_, p. 15.
OBS. 17.--In some instances, what is commonly considered the active form of
the verb, is used in a passive sense; and, still oftener, as we have no
other passive form that so well denotes continuance, we employ the
participle in _ing_ in that sense also: as, "I'll teach you all what's
_owing_ to your Queen."--_Dryden_. That is--what is _due_, or _owed_. "The
books continue _selling_; i.e. _upon the sale_, or _to be
sold_."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 111. "So we say the brass is _forging_;
i.e. _at the forging_, or _in_ [_being forged_."]--_Ib._ "They are to
_blame_; i.e. to _be blamed._"--_Ib._ Hence some grammarians seem to think,
that in our language the distinction between active and passive verbs is of
little consequence: "Mr. Grant, however, observes, p. 65, 'The component
parts of the English verb, or name of action, are few, simple, and natural;
they, consist of three words, as _plough, ploughing, ploughed_. Now these
words, and their inflections, may be employed either actively or passively.
Actively, 'They _plough_ the fields; they _are ploughing_ the fields; they
_ploughed_, or _have ploughed_, the fields.' Passively, 'The fields
_plough_ well; the fields _are ploughing_; the fields _are ploughed_.' This
passive use of the present tense and participle is, however, restricted to
what he denominates 'verbs of _external, material_, or _mechanical
action_;' and not to be extended to verbs of _sensation_ and _perception_;
e.g. _love, feel, see, &c_."--_Nutting's Gram._, p. 40.
MODIFICATIONS.
Verbs have modifications of four kinds; namely, _Moods, Tenses, Persons_
and _Numbers_.
MOODS.
Moods [229] are different forms of the verb, each of which expresses the
being, action, or passion, in some particular manner.
There are five moods; the _Infinitive_, the _Indicative_, the _Potential_,
the _Subjunctive_, and the _Imperative_.
The _Infinitive mood_ is that form of the verb, which expresses the being,
action, or passion, in an unlimited manner, and without person or number:
as, "To _die_,--to _sleep_;--To _sleep_!--perchance, to _dream!_"
The _Indicative mood_ is that form of the verb, which simply indicates or
declares a thing: as, I _write_; you _know_: or asks a question; as, "Do
you _know?_"--"_Know_ ye not?"
The _Potential mood_ is that form of the verb which expresses the power,
liberty, possibility, or necessity, of the being, action, or passion: as,
"I _can walk_; he _may ride_; we _must go_."
The _Subjunctive mood_ is that form of the verb, which represents the
being, action, or passion, as conditional, doubtful, and contingent: as,
"If thou _go_, see that thou _offend_ not."--"See thou _do_ it
not."--_Rev._, xix, 10.
The _Imperative mood_ is that form of the verb which is used in commanding,
exhorting, entreating, or permitting: as, "_Depart_ thou."--"Be
_comforted_."--"_Forgive_ me."--"_Go_ in peace."
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.--The _Infinitive_ mood is so called in opposition to the other
moods, in which the verb is said to be _finite_. In all the other moods,
the verb has a strict connexion, and necessary agreement in person and
number, with some subject or nominative, expressed or understood; but the
infinitive is the mere verb, without any such agreement, and has no power
of completing sense with a noun. In the nature of things, however, all
being, action, or passion, not contemplated abstractly as a _thing_,
belongs to something that is, or acts, or is acted upon. Accordingly
infinitives have, in most instances, a _reference_ to some subject of this
kind; though their grammatical dependence connects them more frequently
with some other term. The infinitive mood, in English, is distinguished by
the preposition to; which, with a few exceptions, immediately precedes it,
and may be said to govern it. In dictionaries, and grammars, _to_ is often
used as a mere _index_, to distinguish verbs from the other parts of
speech. But this little word has no more claim to be ranked as a part of
the verb, than has the conjunction _if_, which is the sign of the
subjunctive. It is the nature of a preposition, to show the relation of
different things, thoughts, or words, to each other; and this "sign of the
infinitive" may well be pursued separately as a preposition, since in most
instances it manifestly shows the relation between the infinitive verb and
some other term. Besides, by most of our grammarians, the present tense of
the infinitive mood is declared to be the _radical form_ of the verb; but
this doctrine must be plainly untrue, upon the supposition that this tense
is a compound.
OBS. 2.--The _Indicative_ mood is so called because its chief use is, to
_indicate_, or declare positively, whatever one wishes to say. It is that
form of the verb, which we always employ when we affirm or deny any thing
in a direct and independent manner. It is more frequently used, and has a
greater number of tenses, than any other mood; and is also, in our
language, the only one in which the principal verb is varied in
termination. It is not, however, on all occasions, confined to its primary
use; else it would be simply and only declarative. But we use it sometimes
interrogatively, sometimes conditionally; and each of these uses is
different from a simple declaration. Indeed, the difference between a
question and an assertion is practically very great. Hence some of the old
grammarians made the form of inquiry a separate mood, which they called the
_Interrogative Mood_. But, as these different expressions are
distinguished, not by any difference of form in the verb itself, but merely
by a different order, choice, or delivery of the words, it has been found
most convenient in practice, to treat them as one mood susceptible of
different senses. So, in every conditional sentence, the _prot'asis_, or
condition, differs considerably from the _apod'osis_, or principal clause,
even where both are expressed as facts. Hence some of our modern
grammarians, by the help of a few connectives, absurdly merge a great
multitude of Indicative or Potential expressions in what they call the
_Subjunctive Mood_. But here again it is better to refer still to the
Indicative or Potential mood whatsoever has any proper sign of such mood,
even though it occur in a dependent clause.
OBS. 3.--The _Potential_ mood is so called because the leading idea
expressed by it, is that of the _power_ of performing some action. This
mood is known by the signs _may, can, must, might, could, would_, and
_should_. Some of these auxiliaries convey other ideas than that of power
in the agent; but there is no occasion to explain them severally here. The
potential mood, like the indicative, may be used in asking a question; as,
"_Must_ I _budge_? _must_ I _observe_ you? _must_ I _stand_ and _crouch_
under your testy humour?"--_Shakspeare_. No question can be asked in any
other mood than these two. By some grammarians, the potential mood has been
included in the subjunctive, because its meaning is often expressed in
Latin by what in that language is called the subjunctive. By others, it has
been entirely rejected, because all its tenses are compound, and it has
been thought the words could as well be parsed separately. Neither of these
opinions is sufficiently prevalent, or sufficiently plausible, to deserve a
laboured refutation. On the other hand, James White, in his Essay on the
English Verb, (London, 1761,) divided this mood into the following five:
"the _Elective_," denoted by _may_ or _might_; "the _Potential_," by _can_
or _could_; "the _Determinative_" by _would_; "the _Obligative_," by
_should_; and "the _Compulsive_," by _must_. Such a distribution is
needlessly minute. Most of these can as well be spared as those other
"moods, _Interrogative, Optative, Promissive, Hortative, Precative_, &c.",
which Murray mentions only to reject. See his _Octavo Gram._, p. 68.
OBS. 4.--The _Subjunctive_ mood is so called because it is always
_subjoined_ to an other verb. It usually denotes some doubtful contingency,
or some supposition contrary to fact. The manner of its dependence is
commonly denoted by one of the following conjunctions; _if, that, though,
lest, unless_. The indicative and potential moods, in all their tenses, may
be used in the same dependent manner, to express any positive or potential
condition; but this seems not to be a sufficient reason for considering
them as parts of the subjunctive mood. In short, the idea of a "subjunctive
mood in the indicative form," (which is adopted by Chandler, Frazee, Fisk,
S. S. Greene, Comly, Ingersoll, R. C. Smith, Sanborn, Mack, Butler, Hart,
Weld, Pinneo, and others,) is utterly inconsistent with any just notion of
what a mood is; and the suggestion, which we frequently meet with, that the
regular indicative or potential mood may be _thrown into the subjunctive_
by merely prefixing a conjunction, is something worse than nonsense.
Indeed, no mood can ever be made _a part of an other_, without the grossest
confusion and absurdity. Yet, strange as it is, some celebrated authors,
misled by an _if_, have tangled together three of them, producing such a
snarl of tenses as never yet can have been understood without being thought
ridiculous. See _Murray's Grammar_, and others that agree with his late
editions.
OBS. 5.--In regard to the number and form of the tenses which should
constitute the _subjunctive mood_ in English, our grammarians are greatly
at variance; and some, supposing its distinctive parts to be but elliptical
forms of the indicative or the potential,[230] even deny the existence of
such a mood altogether. On this point, the instructions published by
Lindley Murray, however commended and copied, are most remarkably vague and
inconsistent.[231] The early editions of his Grammar gave to this mood _six
tenses_, none of which had any of the personal inflections; consequently
there was, in all the tenses, _some difference_ between it and the
indicative. His later editions, on the contrary, make the subjunctive
exactly like the indicative, except in the present tense, and in the choice
of auxiliaries for the second-future. Both ways, he goes too far. And while
at last he restricts the _distinctive form_ of the subjunctive to narrower
bounds than he ought, and argues against, "If thou _loved_, If thou
_knew_," &c., he gives to this mood not only the last five tenses of the
indicative, but also all those of the potential, with its multiplied
auxiliaries; alleging, "that as the indicative mood _is converted_ into the
subjunctive, by the expression of a condition, motive, wish, supposition,
&c.[232] being superadded to it, so the potential mood may, in like manner,
_be turned into_ the subjunctive."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 82. According to
this, the subjunctive mood of every regular verb embraces, in one voice, as
many as one hundred and thirty-eight different expressions; and it may
happen, that in one single tense a verb shall have no fewer than fifteen
different forms in each person and number. Six times fifteen are ninety;
and so many are the several phrases which now compose Murray's pluperfect
tense of the subjunctive mood of the verb _to strow_--a tense which most
grammarians very properly reject as needless! But this is not all. The
scheme not only confounds the moods, and utterly overwhelms the learner
with its multiplicity, but condemns as bad English what the author himself
once adopted and taught for the imperfect tense of the subjunctive mood,
"If thou _loved_, If thou _knew_," &c., wherein he was sustained by Dr.
Priestley, by Harrison, by Caleb Alexander, by John Burn, by Alexander
Murray, the schoolmaster, and by others of high authority. Dr. Johnson,
indeed, made the preterit subjunctive like the indicative; and this may
have induced the author to change his plan, and inflect this part of the
verb with _st_. But Dr. Alexander Murray, a greater linguist than either of
them, very positively declares this to be wrong: "When such words as _if,
though, unless, except, whether_, and the like, are used before verbs, they
lose their terminations of _est, eth_, and _s_, in those persons which
commonly have them. No speaker of good English, expressing himself
conditionally, says, Though thou _fallest_, or Though he _falls_, but,
Though thou _fall_, and Though he _fall_; nor, Though thou _camest_, but,
Though, or although, thou _came_."--_History of European Languages_, Vol.
i, p. 55.
OBS. 6.--Nothing is more important in the grammar of any language, than a
knowledge of the _true forms_ of its verbs. Nothing is more difficult in
the grammar of our own, than to learn, in this instance and some others,
what forms we ought to prefer. Yet some authors tell us, and Dr. Lowth
among the rest, that our language is wonderfully simple and easy. Perhaps
it is so. But do not its "simplicity and facility" appear greatest to those
who know least about it?--i.e., least of its grammar, and least of its
history? In citing a passage from the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel, Lord
Kames has taken the liberty to change the word _hath_ to _have_ seven times
in one sentence. This he did, upon the supposition that the subjunctive
mood has a perfect tense which differs from that of the indicative; and for
such an idea he had the authority of Dr. Johnson's Grammar, and others. The
sentence is this: "But if he _be_ a robber, a shedder of blood; if he
_have_ eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour's wife; if he
_have_ oppressed the poor and needy, _have_ spoiled by violence, _have_ not
restored the pledge, _have lift_ up his eyes to idols, _have_ given forth
upon usury, and _have_ taken increase: shall he live? he shall not
live."--_Elements of Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 261. Now, is this good
English, or is it not? One might cite about half of our grammarians in
favour of this reading, and the other half against it; with Murray, the
most noted of all, first on one side, and then on the other. Similar
puzzles may be presented concerning three or four other tenses, which are
sometimes ascribed, and sometimes denied, to this mood. It seems to me,
after much examination, that the subjunctive mood in English should have
_two tenses_, and no more; the _present_ and the _imperfect_. The present
tense of this mood naturally implies contingency and futurity, while the
imperfect here becomes an _aorist_, and serves to suppose a case as a mere
supposition, a case contrary to fact. Consequently the foregoing sentence,
if expressed by the subjunctive at all, ought to be written thus: "But if
he _be_ a robber, a shedder of blood; if he _eat_ upon the mountains, and
_defile_ his neighbour's wife; if he _oppress_ the poor and needy, _spoil_
by violence, _restore_ not the pledge, _lift_ up his eyes to idols, _give_
forth upon usury, and _take_ increase; shall he live? he shall not live."
OBS. 7.--"Grammarians _generally_ make a present and a past time under the
subjunctive mode."--_Cobbett's E. Gram._, ¶ 100. These are the tenses which
are given to the subjunctive by _Blair_, in his "_Practical Grammar_." If
any one will give to this mood _more_ tenses than these, the five which are
adopted by _Staniford_, are perhaps the least objectionable: namely,
"_Present_, If thou love, or do love; _Imperfect_, If thou loved, or did
love; _Perfect_, If thou have loved; _Pluperfect_, If thou had loved;
_Future_, If thou should or would love."--_Staniford's Gram._, p. 22. But
there are no sufficient reasons for even this extension of its
tenses.--Fisk, speaking of this mood, says: "Lowth restricts it entirely to
the present tense."--"Uniformity on this point is highly desirable."--"On
this subject, we adopt the opinion of Dr. Lowth."--_English Grammar
Simplified_, p. 70. His desire of uniformity he has both heralded and
backed by a palpable misstatement. The learned Doctor's subjunctive mood,
in the second person singular, is this: "_Present time_. Thou love; AND,
Thou _mayest_ love. _Past time_. Thou _mightest_ love; AND, Thou _couldst_,
&c. love; and have loved."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 38. But Fisk's subjunctive
runs thus: "_Indic. form_, If thou lovest; _varied form_, If thou love."
And again: "_Present tense_, If thou art, If thou be; _Imperfect tense_, If
thou wast, If thou wert."--_Fisk's Grammar Simplified_, p. 70. His very
definition of the subjunctive mood is illustrated _only by the indicative_;
as, "If thou _walkest_."--"I will perform the operation, if he _desires_
it."--_Ib._, p. 69. Comly's subjunctive mood, except in some of his early
editions, stands thus: "_Present tense_, If thou lovest; _Imperfect tense_,
If thou lovedst or loved; _First future tense_, If thou (shalt)
love."--_Eleventh Ed._, p. 41. This author teaches, that the indicative or
potential, when preceded by an _if_, "should be _parsed_ in the subjunctive
mood."--_Ib._, p. 42. Of what is in fact the true subjunctive, he says:
"_Some writers_ use the singular number in the present tense of the
subjunctive mood, without any variation; as, 'if I _love_, if thou _love_,
if he _love_.' But this usage _must be ranked amongst the anomalies_ of our
language."--_Ib._, p. 41. Cooper, in his pretended "_Abridgment of Murray's
Grammar, Philad._, 1828," gave to the subjunctive mood the following form,
which contains all six of the tenses: "2d pers. If thou love, If thou do
love, If thou loved, If thou did love, If thou have loved, If thou had
loved, If thou shall (or will) love, If thou shall (or will) have loved."
This is almost exactly what Murray at first adopted, and afterwards
rejected; though it is probable, from the abridger's preface, that the
latter was ignorant of this fact. Soon afterwards, a perusal of Dr.
Wilson's Essay on Grammar dashed from the reverend gentleman's mind the
whole of this fabric; and in his "Plain and Practical Grammar, Philad.,
1831," he acknowledges but four moods, and concludes some pages of argument
thus: "From the above considerations, it will appear _to every sound
grammarian_, that our language does not admit a subjunctive mode, at least,
separate and distinct from the indicative and potential."--_Cooper's New
Gram._, p. 63.
OBS. 8.--The true _Subjunctive_ mood, in English, is virtually rejected by
some later grammarians, who nevertheless acknowledge under that name a
greater number and variety of forms than have ever been claimed for it in
any other tongue. All that is peculiar to the Subjunctive, all that should
constitute it a distinct mood, they represent as an archaism, an obsolete
or antiquated mode of expression, while they willingly give to it every
form of both the indicative and the potential, the two other moods which
sometimes follow an _if_. Thus Wells, in his strange entanglement of the
moods, not only gives to the subjunctive, as well as to the indicative, a
"Simple" or "Common Form," and a "Potential Form;" not only recognizes in
each an "Auxiliary Form," and a "Progressive Form;" but encumbers the whole
with distinctions of style,--with what he calls the "Common Style," and the
"Ancient Style;" or the "Solemn Style," and the "Familiar Style:" yet,
after all, his own example of the Subjunctive, "Take heed, lest any man
_deceive_ you," is obviously different from all these, and not explainable
under any of his paradigms! Nor is it truly consonant with any part of his
theory, which is this: "The subjunctive of all verbs except _be_, takes
_the same form as the indicative_. Good writers were formerly much
accustomed to _drop_ the personal termination in the _subjunctive present_,
and write 'If he _have_,' 'If he _deny_,' etc., for 'If he _has_,' 'If he
_denies_,' etc.; but this termination is now _generally retained_, unless
_an auxiliary is understood_. Thus, 'If he _hear_,' may properly be used
for 'If he _shall hear_' or 'If he _should hear_,' but not for 'If he
_hears_.'"--_Wells's School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 83; 3d Ed., p. 87. Now
every position here taken is demonstrably absurd. How could "good writers"
indite "much" bad English by _dropping_ from the subjunctive an indicative
ending which never belonged to it? And how can a needless "auxiliary" be
"_understood_," on the principle of equivalence, where, by awkwardly
changing a mood or tense, it only helps some grammatical theorist to
convert good English into bad, or to pervert a text? The phrases above may
all be right, or all be wrong, according to the correctness or
incorrectness of their application: when each is used as best it may be,
there is no exact equivalence. And this is true of half a dozen more of the
same sort; as, "If he _does hear_,"--"If he _do hear_,"--"If he is
_hearing_,"--"If he _be hearing_,"--"If he _shall be hearing_,"--"If he
_should be hearing_."
OBS. 9.--Similar to Wells's, are the subjunctive forms of Allen H. Weld.
Mistaking _annex_ to signify _prefix_, this author teaches thus: "ANNEX
_if, though, unless, suppose, admit, grant, allow_, or any word implying a
_condition_, to each tense of the _Indicative and Potential modes_, to form
the subjunctive; as, If thou lovest or love. If he loves, or love. Formerly
it was customary to _omit the terminations_ in the second and third persons
of the present tense of the Subjunctive mode. But now the terminations are
_generally retained_, except when the ellipsis of _shall_ or _should_ is
implied; as, If he obey, i. e., if he _shall_, or _should_ obey."--_Weld's
Grammar, Abridged Edition_, p. 71. Again: "_In general_, the form of the
verb in the Subjunctive, _is the same as that of the Indicative_; but an
_elliptical form_ in the second and third _person_ [persona] singular, is
used in the following instances: (1.) _Future contingency_ is expressed by
the _omission of the Indicative termination_; as, If he go, for, if he
_shall_ go. Though he slay me, i.e., though he _should_ slay me. (2.)
_Lest_ and _that_ annexed to a command are followed by the _elliptical
form_ of the Subjunctive; as, Love not sleep [,] lest thou _come_ to
poverty. (3.) _If_ with _but_ following it, when futurity is denoted,
requires the _elliptical form_; as, If he _do_ but _touch_ the hills, they
shall smoke."--_Ib._, p. 126. As for this scheme, errors and
inconsistencies mark every part of it. First, the rule for forming the
subjunctive is false, and is plainly contradicted _by all that is true_ in
the examples: "_If thou love_," or, "_If he love_" contains not the form of
the indicative. Secondly, no terminations have ever been "generally"
omitted from, or retained in, the form of the subjunctive present; because
that part of the mood, as commonly exhibited, is well known to be made of
the _radical verb_, without inflection. One might as well talk of suffixes
for the imperative, "_Love_ thou," or "_Do_ thou love." Thirdly, _shall_ or
_should_ can never be really implied in the subjunctive present; because
the supposed ellipsis, needless and unexampled, would change the tense, the
mood, and commonly also the meaning. "If he _shall_," properly implies a
condition of _future certainty_; "If he _should_," a supposition of _duty_:
the true subjunctive suggests neither of these. Fourthly, "the ellipsis of
_shall_, or _should_," is most absurdly called above, "the omission of the
_Indicative termination_." Fifthly, it is very strangely supposed, that to
omit what pertains to the _indicative_ or the _potential_ mood, will
produce an "elliptical form of _the Subjunctive_." Sixthly, such examples
as the last, "If he _do_ but _touch_ the hills," having the auxiliary _do_
not inflected as in the indicative, disprove the whole theory.
OBS. 10.--In J. B. Chandler's grammars, are taken nearly the same views of
the "Subjunctive or Conditional Mood," that have just been noticed. "This
mood," we are told, "is _only_ the indicative _or_ potential mood, with the
word _if_ placed before the nominative case."--_Gram. of_ 1821, p. 48;
_Gram. of_ 1847, p. 73. Yet, of even _this_, the author has said, in the
former edition, "It would, perhaps, be _better to abolish the use_ of the
subjunctive mood entirely. _Its use_ is a continual source of dispute among
grammarians, and of perplexity to scholars."--Page 33. The suppositive verb
_were_,--(as, "_Were_ I a king,"--"If I _were_ a king,"--) which this
author formerly rejected, preferring _was_, is now, after six and twenty
years, replaced in his own examples; and yet he still attempts to _disgrace
it_, by falsely representing it as being only "the indicative _plural_"
very grossly misapplied! See _Chandler's Common School Gram._, p. 77.
OBS. 11.--The _Imperative_ mood is so called because it is chiefly used in
_commanding_. It is that brief form of the verb, by which we directly urge
upon others our claims and wishes. But the nature of this urging varies
according to the relation of the parties. We command inferiors; exhort
equals; entreat superiors; permit whom we will;--and all by this same
imperative form of the verb. In answer to a request, the imperative implies
nothing more than permission. The will of a superior may also be urged
imperatively by the indicative, future. This form is particularly common in
solemn prohibitions; as, "Thou _shalt not kill_. * * * Thou _shalt not
steal_."--_Exodus_, xx, 13 and 15. Of the ten commandments, eight are
negative, and all these are indicative in form. The other two are in the
imperative mood: "_Remember_ the sabbath day to keep it holy. _Honour_ thy
father and thy mother."--_Ib._ But the imperative form may also be
negative: as, "_Touch not; taste not; handle not_."--_Colossians_, ii, 21.
TENSES.
Tenses are those modifications of the verb, which distinguish time. There
are six tenses; the _Present_, the _Imperfect_, the _Perfect_, the
_Pluperfect_, the _First-future_, and the _Second-future_.