_Wert_, as used in lieu of _wast_

--its mood not easy to determine; authorities for a various use of.

_What_, its class and nature

--to what usually applied; its twofold relat. explained

--its numb.; example of solec. in the use of

--as a mere adj., or as a pron. indef.

--its use both as an adj. and as a relative at the same time; do. for

_who_ or _which_, ludic. and vulg.

--declined

--how to be disposed of in etymolog. parsing; how to be parsed

syntactically

--how becomes an interj.

--used appar. for an adv.; uttered exclamatorily before an adj., to be

taken as an adj., ("WHAT PARTIAL _judges are our_," &c.,)

--followed by _that_, by way of pleonasm, ("WHAT _I tell you in

darkness_, THAT," &c.,)

--with _but_ preceding, ("_To find a friend_, BUT WHAT" &c.,)

--vulg. use of, for _that_

--derivation of, from Sax., shown.

_Whatever_ or _whatsoever_, its peculiarities of construe., the same as

those of _what_; its use in simp, relation

--its construc. as a double relative; whether it may be supposed

ellipt.

--its declension.

_When, where_, or _while_, in what instance not fit to follow the verb _is_

--_When, where, whither_, as partaking of the nature of a pron.;

construc, of do., with antecedent nouns of time, &c., how far

allowable

--derivation of, from Anglo-Sax.

_Whether_, as an interrog. pron.; as a disjunc. conjunc.

--conjunc. corresponsive to _or_

--as do., its derivation from Sax.

_Which_, relative

--its former use; to what objects now confined

--its use after a personal term taken by meton. for a thing; do., as

still applicable to persons

--is of all the genders, (in oppos. to MURR., WEBST., _et. al._,)

--is less approp. than _who_, in all personifications

--its construc. when taken in its discrim. sense,

--how differs from the rel. _that_

--BLAIR'S incorrect remarks respecting

--_Which_, as rel. or interrog., declined

--_Which_, sometimes takes _whose_ for its poss.,

--represents a prop. name taken merely as a name, ("_Herod_

--WHICH _is but_," &c.,)

--do. nouns of mult, expressing persons, when such are strictly of the

neut. gend., ("The COMMITTEES WHICH" &c.,)

--in what cases is less approp. than _that_

--does not fitly represent an indicative assertion, ('"Be ATTENTIVE,

_without_ WHICH," &c.,)

--its Sax. derivation shown

--_The which_, obsol.,

--_Which_, interrog., what demands,

--to what objects applied

--now used for the obsol. _whether_.

_Whichever, whichsoever_, signif. and construc. of

--declension of.

_Who_, relative

--to what usually applied

--has superseded _which_, formerly applied to persons, ("_Our Father_

WHO _art_" &c.,)

--to be preferred to _which_, in all personifications

--how differs from the rel. _that_

--_Who_, as rel. or interrog., declined,

--_Whose_, use of, for the defec. poss., _of which_

--_Than whom_, (see _Than._)

--_Who_, interrog., what demands

--may be the anteced. of the rel. _that_

--_Who_, derivation of, from Sax.

_Whoever_, and _whoso_ or _whosoever_, signif. and construc. of

--declens. of

--_Whoso_ and _whatso_, antiq., import and use of,

_Whole_, improp. use of, for _all_. ("_Almost the_ WHOLE _inhabitants_,"

HUME.,).

_Why_, after nouns of cause, (see _When_, &c.)

--_Why, wherefore, therefore_, their class.

_Will_, verb, how varied

--use of, as a principal verb.

_Wis_, verb, pret. _wist_, signif. and use of

--_Had I wist_,

_With_, for _and_, (see _Cum_:)

--added to adv. of direc., with emphat. imperat. ("_Up_ WITH _it_").

_Withal_ its class and construc. _Without_, obsol. use of, for

_unless_ or _except_. _Withouten_, paragog. and poet. form.

_Withinside of_ _Won't_, whence formed; its pronunc.

_Worcester, Dr. J. E._, his Universal and Critical Dictionary WORDS,

treated.

--_Word_, defined.

--_Words_ distinguished, and the divisions of, defined.

--(See _Compound Word_.)

--_Words_, Rules for the figure of;

--simp., _when_ compounding is to be avoided

--when to be joined, or to be written separately

--_Words_, the nature of, explained

--the consid. of, as comm., and as prop.,

--brevity sought in the comm. use of

--the identity of, in what consists

--unsettled and variable usage with respect to the figure of

--_Words_ that may constitute diff. parts of speech, their construc.

not to be left doubtf.

--the reference of, to other words, do.

--senselessly jumbled, charac. of

--entirely needless, how to be disposed of

--unintelligently misapplied, what indicates,

--_Words_, PUNCT. _of_: in pairs; alternated; put absol.; in appos.;

repeated

--_Words_, derivation of, treated

--most of those regarded as primitives in Eng., may be traced to

ulterior sources

--the study of, its importance

--how the knowledge of, may be promoted with respect to Eng.

--_Words_, the use of, as affecting Purity

--do., as affect. Propriety

--do., as affect. Precision

--do., as affect. Perspicuity

--do., as affect. Strength

_Worshiper_, whether properly written with a single or a double _p_

_Worth_, its class and construc.

_Worthy_, admits not ellips. of prep, _of_ before obj. following

_Writing, to write_, what meant by

X.

X, its name and plur. num.

--format. of the plur. of nouns in

--why never doubled

--written for a number

--its sounds

Y.

Y, its name and plur. numb.;

--borrowed first by the Romans from the Greeks, by whom called Ypsilon

--in Eng. is either a vowel or a conson.

--classed with the semivowels

--final, changed or unchanged before terminations

--do., when, by former practice, retained in verbs ending in _y_,

before conson. terminations

--sounds of

--in poet. format. of adjectives

_Ye_, nom. plur., solemn style

--its use as the obj. case

--as a mere explet. in burlesque

--its use in the lang. of tragedy

--used for _thee_

--in the Eng. Bible not found in the obj. case

--_Ye_ and _you_, promisc. use of, in the same case and the same style,

ineleg.

_Yes, yea_, in a simp. affirmation, construc. and class of

--derivation of, from Anglo-Sax.

_You_, use of, for thou

--_You_, with _was_, ("YOU WAS BUILDING,") approved by DR. WEBST. _et

al._, as the better form for the sing. numb.

--_You_, and VERB PLUR., in reference to _one person_, how to be

treated in parsing. _Your_, facet. in conversation, and how uttered

("_Dwells, like_ YOUR _miser_, sir," &c., SHAK.,) _Yourself_, its

pecul. of construc.

_Your Majesty, your Highness_, &c., see _Address_.

_Youyouing_ and _theethouing_, history of

Z.

Z, its name and plur.

--has been called by several names; WALK., on the name

--peculiarity of its ordinary _form_

--its sounds described

_Zeugma_, (i.e., JUGATIO, _vel_ CONNEXIO, _Sanct._,) the various forms of,

were named and noticed, but not censured, by the ancient grammarians

--constructions of _adjectives_, referred to the figure, ("ONE _or a_

FEW _judges_,"); do. of verbs, ("_But_ HE NOR I FEEL _more_," YOUNG,)

THE END OF THE INDEX,

AND OF THE GRAMMAR OF ENGLISH GRAMMARS.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Ben Jonson's notion of grammar, and of its parts, was as follows:

"Grammar is the art of true and well-speaking a language: the writing is

but an accident.

The Parts of Grammar are

Etymology \ which is / the true notation of words,

Syntaxe / \ the right ordering of them.

A word is a part of speech or note, whereby a thing is known or called; and

consisteth of one or more letters. A letter is an indivisible part of a

syllable, whose prosody, or right sounding, is perceived by the power; the

orthography, or right writing, by the form. Prosody, and Orthography, are

not parts of grammar, but diffused, like blood and spirits, through the

whole."--_Jonson's Grammar_, Book I.

[2] Horne Tooke eagerly seized upon a part of this absurdity, to prove that

Dr. Lowth, from whom Murray derived the idea, was utterly unprepared for

what he undertook in the character of a grammarian: "Dr. Lowth, when he

undertook to write his _Introduction_, with the best intention in the

world, most assuredly sinned against his better judgment. For he begins

most judiciously, thus--'Universal grammar explains the principles which

are common to _all_ languages. The grammar of any particular language,

_applies_ those common principles to that particular language.' And yet,

with _this clear truth_ before his eyes, he boldly proceeds to give a

_particular_ grammar; without being himself possessed of one single

principle of universal grammar."--_Diversions of Purley_, Vol. 1, p. 224.

If Dr. Lowth discredited his better judgement in attempting to write an

English grammar, perhaps Murray, and his weaker copyists, have little

honoured theirs, in supposing they were adequate to such a work. But I do

not admit, that either Lowth or Murray "_begins most judiciously_," in

speaking of Universal and Particular grammar in the manner above cited. The

authors who have started with this fundamental blunder, are strangely

numerous. It is found in some of the most dissimilar systems that can be

named. Even Oliver B. Peirce, who has a much lower opinion of Murray's

ability in grammar than Tooke had of Lowth's, adopts this false notion with

all implicitness, though he decks it in language more objectionable, and

scorns to acknowledge whence he got it. See his _Gram._, p. 16. De Suey, in

his Principles of General Grammar, says, "All rules of Syntax relate to two

things, _Agreement and Government_."--_Foxdick's Tr._, p. 108. And again:

"None of these rules properly belong to General Grammar, as each language

follows, in regard to the rules of Agreement and Government, a course

peculiar to itself."--_Ibid._, p. 109." "It is with Construction [i.e.,

Arrangement] as with Syntax. It follows no general rule common to all

languages."--_Ibid._ According to these positions, which I do not admit to

be strictly true, General or Universal Grammar has no principles of

_Syntax_ at all, whatever else it may have which Particular Grammar can

assume and apply.

[3] This verb "_do_" is wrong, because "_to be contemned_" is passive.

[4] "A very good judge has left us his opinion and determination in this

matter; that he 'would take for his rule in speaking, not what might happen

to be the faulty caprice of the multitude, but the consent and agreement of

learned men.'"--_Creighton's Dict._, p. 21. The "good judge" here spoken

of, is Quintilian; whose words on the point are these: "Necessarium est

judicium, constituendumque imprimis, id ipsum quid sit, quod

_consuetudinem_ vocemus. * * * In loquendo, non, si quid vitiose multis

insederit, pro regula sermonis, amplendum est. * * * Ergo consuetudinem

sermonis, vocabo _consensum eruditorum_ sicut vivendi, consenum

honorum."--_De Inst. Orat._, Lib. i. Cap. 6, p. 57.

[5] "The opinion of plenty is amongst the causes of want; and the great

quantity of books maketh a show rather of superfluity than lack; which

surcharge, nevertheless, is not to be removed by making no more books, but

by making more good books, which, as the serpent of Moses, might devour the

serpents of the enchanters."--_Bacon_. In point of style, his lordship is

here deficient; and he has also mixed and marred the figure which he uses.

But the idea is a good one.

[6] Not, "_Oldham_, in Hampshire," as the Universal Biographical Dictionary

has it; for _Oldham_ is in _Lancashire_, and the name of Lily's birthplace

has sometimes been spelled "_Odiam_."

[7] There are other Latin grammars now in use in England; but what one is

most popular, or whether any regard is still paid to the ancient edict or

not, I cannot say. Dr. Adam, in his preface, dated 1793, speaking of Lily,

says: "His Grammar was appointed, by an act _which is still in force_, to

be taught in the established schools of England." I have somehow gained the

impression, that the act is now totally disregarded.--_G. Brown_.

[8] For this there is an obvious reason, or apology, in what his biographer

states, as "the humble origin of his Grammar;" and it is such a reason as

will go to confirm what I allege. This famous compilation was produced at

the request of _two or three young teachers_, who had charge of a _small

female school_ in the neighbourhood of the author's residence: and nothing

could have been more unexpected to their friend and instructor, than that

he, in consequence of this service, should become known the world over, as

_Murray the Grammarian_. "In preparing the work, and consenting to the

publicaton, he had no expectation that it would be read, except by the

school for which it was designed, and two or three other schools conducted

by persons who were also his friends."--_Life of L Murray_, p. 250.

[9] Grammatici namque auctoritas per se nulla est; quom ex sola

doctissimorum oraturum, historicorum, poetarum, et aliorum ideonorum

scriptorum observatione, constet ortam esse veram grammaticam. _Multa

dicenda forent, si grammatistarum ineptias refellere vellem_: sed nulla est

gloria præterire asellos."--DESPAUTERII _Præf. Art. Versif._, fol. iii,

1517.

[10] The Latin word for _participle_ is _participium_, which makes

_participio_ in the dative or the ablative case; but the Latin word for

_partake_ is _participo_, and not "_participio_."--G. BROWN.

[11] This sentence is manifestly bad English: either the singular verb

"_appears_" should be made plural, or the plural noun "_investigations_"

should be made singular.--G. BROWN.

[12] "What! a book have _no merit_, and yet be called for at the rate of

_sixty thousand copies a year_! What a slander is this upon the public

taste! What an insult to the understanding and discrimination of the good

people of these United States! According to this reasoning, all the

inhabitants of our land must be fools, except one man, and that man is

GOOLD BROWN!"--KIRKHAM, _in the Knickerbocker_, Oct. 1837, p. 361.

Well may the honest critic expect to be called a slanderer of "the public

taste," and an insulter of the nation's "understanding," if both the merit

of this vaunted book and the wisdom of its purchasers are to be measured

and proved by the author's profits, or the publisher's account of sales!

But, possibly, between the intrinsic merit and the market value of some

books there may be a difference. Lord Byron, it is said, received from

Murray his bookseller, nearly ten dollars a line for the Fourth Canto of

Childe Harold, or about as much for every two lines as Milton obtained for

the whole of Paradise Lost. Is this the true ratio of the merit of these

authors, or of the wisdom of the different ages in which they lived?

[13] Kirkham's real opinion of Murray cannot be known from this passage

only. How able is that writer who is chargeable with the _greatest want_ of

taste and discernment? "In regard to the application of the final pause in

reading blank verse, _nothing can betray a greater want of rhetorical taste

and philosophical acumen_, than the directions of Mr. Murray."--_Kirkham's

Elocution_, p. 145. Kirkham is indeed no judge either of the merits, or of

the demerits, of Murray's writings; nor is it probable that this criticism

originated with himself. But, since it appears in his name, let him have

the credit of it, and of representing the compiler whom he calls "_that

able writer_" and "_that eminent philologist_," as an untasteful dunce, and

a teacher of _nonsense_: "To say that, unless we 'make every _line_

sensible to the ear,' we mar the melody, and suppress the numbers of the

poet, is _all nonsense_."--_Ibid._ See Murray's Grammar, on "Poetical

Pauses;" 8vo, p. 260; 12mo, 210.

[14] "Now, in these instances, I should be fair game, were it not for the

_trifling_ difference, that I happen to present the doctrines and notions

of _other writers_, and NOT my own, as stated by my learned

censor."--KIRKHAM, _in the Knickerbocker_, Oct. 1837, p. 360. If the

instructions above cited are not his own, there is not, within the lids of

either book, a penny's worth that is. His fruitful copy-rights are void in

law: the "learned censor's" pledge shall guaranty this issue.--G. B. 1838.

[15] I am sorry to observe that the gentleman, Phrenologist, as he

professes to be, has so little _reverence_ in his crown. He could not read

the foregoing suggestion without scoffing at it. Biblical truth is not

powerless, though the scornful may refuse its correction.--G. B. 1838.

[16] Every schoolboy is familiar with the following lines, and rightly

understands the words "_evil_" and "_good_" to be _nouns_, and not

_adjectives_.

"The _evil_ that men do, lives after them;

The _good_ is oft interred with their bones."--SHAKSPEARE.

_Julius Cæsar, Act 3: Antony's Funeral Oration over Cæsar's Body._

Kirkham has vehemently censured me for _omitting the brackets_ in which he

encloses the words that be supposes to be _understood_ in this couplet. But

he forgets two important circumstances: _First_, that I was quoting, not

the bard, but the grammatist; _Second_, that a writer uses brackets, to

distinguish _his own_ amendments of what he quotes, and not those of an

other man. Hence the marks which he has used, would have been _improper_

for me. Their insertion does not make his reading of the passage _good

English_, and, consequently, does not avert the point of my criticism.

The foregoing Review of Kirkham's Grammar, was published as an extract

from my manuscript, by the editors of the Knickerbocker, in their number

for June, 1837. Four months afterwards, with friendships changed, they

gave, him the "justice" of appearing in their pages, in a long and virulent

article against me and my works, representing me, "with emphatic force," as

"_a knave, a liar, and a pedant_." The _enmity_ of that effusion I forgave;

because I bore him no personal ill-will, and was not selfish enough to

quarrel for my own sake. Its _imbecility_ clearly proved, that in this

critique there is nothing _with which he could justly find fault_.

Perceiving that no point of this argument could be broken, he _changed the

ground_, and satisfied himself with despising, upbraiding, and vilifying

the writer. Of what _use_ this was, others may judge.

This extraordinary grammarian survived the publication of my criticism

about ten years, and, it is charitably hoped, died happily; while I have

had, for a period somewhat longer, all the benefits which his earnest

"_castigation_" was fit to confer. It is not perceived, that what was

written before these events, should now be altered or suppressed by reason

of them. With his pretended "defence," I shall now concern myself no

further than simply to deny one remarkable assertion contained in it; which

is this--that I, Goold Brown, "at the funeral of Aaron Ely," in 1830,

"praised, and _highly_ praised, this self-same Grammar, and declared it to

be 'A GOOD WORK!'"--KIRKHAM, _in the Knickerbocker_, Oct., 1837, p. 362. I

treated him always courteously, and, on this solemn occasion, walked with

him without disputing on grammar; but, if this statement of his has any

reasonable foundation, I know not what it is.--G. B. in 1850.

[17] See _Notes to Pope's Dunciad_, Book II, verse 140.

[18] A modern namesake of the Doctor's, the _Rev. David Blair_, has the

following conception of the _utility_ of these speculations: "To enable

children to comprehend the _abstract idea_ that all the words in a language

consist but of _nine kinds_, it will be found useful to explain how _savage

tribes_ WHO _having no language_, would first invent one, beginning with

interjections and nouns, and proceeding from one part of speech to another,

as their introduction might successively be called for by necessity or

luxury."--_Blair's Pract. Gram., Pref._, p. vii.

[19] "Interjections, I _shewed_, or passionate exclamations, were the

_first elements_ of speech. Men laboured to communicate their feelings to

one another, by those expressive cries and gestures which nature taught

them."--_Dr. Hugh Blair's Lectures_, p. 57.

[20] "It is certain that the verb was invented before the noun, in all the

languages of which a tolerable account has been procured, either in ancient

or modern times."--_Dr. Alex. Murray's History of European Languages_, Vol.

I, p. 326.

[21] The Greek of this passage, together with a translation not very

different from the foregoing, is given as a marginal note, in _Harris's

Hermes_, Book III, Chap. 3d.

[22] The Bible does not say positively that there was no diversity of

languages _before the flood_; but, since the life-time of Adam extended

fifty-six years into that of Lamech, the father of Noah, and two hundred

and forty-three into that of Methuselah, the father of Lamech, with both of

whom Noah was contemporary nearly six hundred years, it is scarcely

possible that there should have occurred any such diversity, either in

Noah's day or before, except from some extraordinary cause. Lord Bacon

regarded the multiplication of languages at Babel as a general evil, which

had had no parallel but in the curse pronounced after Adam's transgression.

When "the language of all the earth" was "confounded," Noah was yet alive,

and he is computed to have lived 162 years afterwards; but whether in his

day, or at how early a period, "grammar" was thought of, as a remedy for

this evil, does not appear. Bacon says, "Concerning speech and words, the

consideration of them hath produced the science of grammar. For man still

striveth to redintegrate himself in those benedictions, of which, by his

fault, he hath been deprived; and as he hath striven against the first

general curse by the invention of all other arts, so hath he striven to

come forth from _the second general curse, which was the confusion of

tongues, by the art of grammar_; whereof the use in a mother tongue is

small, in a foreign tongue more, but most in such foreign tongues as have

ceased to be vulgar tongues, and are turned only to learned tongues."--See

_English Journal of Education_, Vol. viii, p. 444.

[23] It should be, "_to all living creatures_;" for each creature had,

probably, but one name.--G. Brown.

[24] Some recent German authors of note suppose language to have sprung up

among men _of itself_, like spontaneous combustion in oiled cotton; and

seem to think, that people of strong feelings and acute minds must

necessarily or naturally utter their conceptions by words--and even by

words both spoken and written. Frederick Von Schlegel, admitting "the

_spontaneous origin_ of language generally," and referring speech to its

"_original source_--a deep feeling, and a clear discriminating

intelligence," adds: "The oldest system of writing _developed itself_ at

the same time, and in the same manner, as the spoken language; not wearing

at first the symbolic form, which it subsequently assumed in compliance

with the necessities of a less civilized people, but composed of certain

signs, which, in accordance with the simplest elements of language,

actually conveyed the sentiments of the race of men then

existing."--_Millington's Translation of Schlegel's Æsthetic Works_, p.

455.

[25] "Modern Europe owes a principal share of its enlightened and moral

state to the restoration of learning: the advantages which have accrued to

history, religion, the philosophy of the mind, and the progress of society;

the benefits which have resulted from the models of Greek and Roman

taste--in short, all that a knowledge of the progress and attainments of

man in past ages can bestow on the present, has reached it through the

medium of philology."--_Dr. Murray's History of European Languages_, Vol.

II, p. 335.

[26] "The idea of God is a development from within, and a matter of faith,

not an induction from without, and a matter of proof. When Christianity has

developed its correlative principles within us, then we find evidences of

its truth everywhere; nature is full of them: but we cannot find them

before, simply because we have no eye to find them with."--H. N. HUDSON:

_Democratic Review, May_, 1845.

[27] So far as mind, soul, or spirit, is a subject of natural science,

(under whatever name,) it may of course be known naturally. To say to what

extent theology may be considered a natural science, or how much knowledge

of any kind may have been opened to men otherwise than by words, is not now

in point. Dr. Campbell says, "Under the general term [_physiology_] I also

comprehend _natural theology_ and _psychology_, which, in my opinion, have

been most unnaturally disjoined by philosophers. Spirit, which here

comprises only the Supreme Being and the human soul, is surely as much

included under the notion of natural object as a body is, and is knowable

to the philosopher purely in the same way, by observation and

experience."--_Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 66. It is quite unnecessary for

the teacher of languages to lead his pupils into any speculations on this

subject. It is equally foreign to the history of grammar and to the

philosophy of rhetoric.

[28] "Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall

it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it

may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without

signification. Therefore, if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall

be unto him that speaketh, a barbarian; and he that speaketh, shall be a

barbarian unto me."--_1 Cor._, xiv. 9, 10, 11. "It is impossible that our

knowledge of words should outstrip our knowledge of things. It may, and

often doth, come short of it. Words may be remembered as sounds, but [they]

cannot be understood as signs, whilst we remain unacquainted with the

things signified."--_Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 160. "Words can

excite only ideas already acquired, and if no previous ideas have been

formed, they are mere unmeaning sounds."--_Spurzheim on Education_, p. 200.

[29] Sheridan the elecutionist makes this distinction: "All that passes in

the mind of man, may be reduced to two classes, which I call ideas and

emotions. By ideas, I mean all thoughts which rise, and pass in succession

in the mind. By emotions, all exertions of the mind in arranging,

combining, and separating its ideas; as well as the effects produced on all

the mind itself by those ideas; from the more violent agitation of the

passions, to the calmer feelings produced by the operation of the intellect

and the fancy. In short, thought is the object of the one; internal

feeling, of the other. That which serves to express the former, I call the

language of ideas; and the latter, the language of emotions. Words are the

signs of the one: tones, of the other. Without the use of these two sorts

of language, it is impossible to communicate through the ear, all that

passes in the mind of man."--_Sheridan's Art of Reading; Blair's Lectures_,

p. 333.

[30] "Language is _the great instrument_, by which all the faculties of the

mind are brought forward, moulded, polished, and exerted."--_Sheridan's

Elocution_, p. xiv.

[31] It should be, "_These are_."--G. B.

[32] It should be, "_They fitly represent_."--G. B.

[33] This is badly expressed; for, according to his own deduction, _each

part_ has but _one sign_. It should be, "We express _the several parts by

as many several signs_."--G. Brown.

[34] It would be better English to say, "the _instruments_ and _the_

signs."--G. Brown.

[35] "Good speakers do not pronounce above three syllables in a second of

time; and generally only two and a half, taking in the necessary

pauses."--_Steele's Melody of Speech_.

[36] The same idea is also conveyed in the following sentence from Dr.

Campbell: "Whatever regards the analysis of the operations of the mind,

_which is quicker than lightning in all her energies_, must in a great

measure be abstruse and dark."--_Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 289. Yet this

philosopher has given it as his opinion, "that we really _think by signs_

as well as speak by them."--_Ib._, p. 284. To reconcile these two positions

with each other, we must suppose that thinking by signs, or words, is a

process infinitely more rapid than speech.

[37] That generalization or abstraction which gives to similar things a

common name, is certainly no laborious exercise of intellect; nor does any

mind find difficulty in applying such a name to an individual by means of

the article. The general sense and the particular are alike easy to the

understanding, and I know not whether it is worth while to inquire which is

first in order. Dr. Alexander Murray says, "It must be attentively

remembered, that all terms run from a general to a particular sense. The

work of abstraction, the ascent from individual feelings to classes of

these, was finished before terms were invented. Man was silent till he had

formed some ideas to communicate; and association of his perceptions soon

led him to think and reason in ordinary matters."--_Hist. of European

Languages_, Vol. I, p. 94. And, in a note upon this passage, he adds: "This

is to be understood of primitive or radical terms. By the assertion that

man was silent till he had formed ideas to communicate, is not meant, that

any of our species were originally destitute of the natural expressions of

feeling or thought. All that it implies, is, that man had been subjected,

during an uncertain period of time, to the impressions made on his senses

by the material world, before he began to express the natural varieties of

these by articulated sounds. * * * * * * Though the abstraction which

formed such classes, might be greatly aided or supported by the signs; yet

it were absurd to suppose that the sign was invented, till the sense

demanded it."--_Ib._, p. 399.

[38] Dr. Alexander Murray too, In accounting for the frequent abbreviation

of words, seems to suggest the possibility of giving them the celerity of

thought: "Contraction is a change which results from a propensity to make

the signs _as rapid as the thoughts_ which they express. Harsh combinations

soon suffer contraction. Very long words preserve only the principal, that

is, the accented part. If a nation accents its words on the last syllable,

the preceding ones will often be short, and liable to contraction. If it

follow a contrary practice, the terminations are apt to decay."--History of

European Languages, Vol. I, p. 172.

[39] "We cannot form a distinct idea of any moral or intellectual quality,

unless we find some trace of it in ourselves."--_Beattie's Moral Science,

Part Second, Natural Theology_, Chap. II, No. 424.

[40] "Aristotle tells us that the world is a copy or transcript of those

ideas which are in the mind of the first Being, and that those ideas which

are in the mind of man, are a transcript of the world. To this we may add,

that words are the transcripts of those ideas which are in the mind of man,

and that writing or printing _are_ [is] the transcript of

words."--_Addison, Spect._, No. 166.

[41] Bolingbroke on Retirement and Study, Letters on History, p. 364.

[42] See this passage in "The Economy of Human Life," p. 105--a work

feigned to be a compend of Chinese maxims, but now generally understood to

have been written or compiled by _Robert Dodsley_, an eminent and ingenious

bookseller in London.

[43] "Those philosophers whose ideas of _being_ and _knowledge_ are derived

from body and sensation, have a short method to explain the nature of

_Truth_.--It is a _factitious_ thing, made by every man for himself; which

comes and goes, just as it is remembered and forgot; which in the order of

things makes its appearance _the last_ of all, being not only subsequent to

sensible objects, but even to our sensations of them! According to this

hypothesis, there are many truths, which have been, and are no longer;

others, that will be, and have not been yet; and multitudes, that possibly

may never exist at all. But there are other reasoners, who must surely have

had very different notions; those, I mean, who represent Truth not as _the

last_, but as _the first_ of beings; who call it _immutable, eternal,

omnipresent_; attributes that all indicate something more than

human."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 403.

[44] Of the best method of teaching grammar, I shall discourse in an other

chapter. That methods radically different must lend to different results,

is no more than every intelligent person will suppose. The formation of

just methods of instruction, or true systems of science, is work for those

minds which are capable of the most accurate and comprehensive views of the

things to be taught. He that is capable of "originating and producing"

truth, or true "ideas," if any but the Divine Being is so, has surely no

need to be trained into such truth by any factitious scheme of education.

In all that he thus originates, he is himself a _Novum Organon_ of

knowledge, and capable of teaching others, especially those officious men

who would help him with their second-hand authorship, and their paltry

catechisms of common-places. I allude here to the fundamental principle of

what in some books is called "_The Productive System of Instruction_," and

to those schemes of grammar which are professedly founded on it. We are

told that, "The _leading principle_ of this system, is that which its name

indicates--that the child should be regarded not as a mere recipient of the

ideas of others, but as an agent _capable of collecting, and originating,

and producing_ most of the ideas which are necessary for its education,

when presented with the objects or the facts from which they may be

derived."--_Smith's New Gram., Pref., p. 5: Amer. Journal of Education, New

Series_, Vol. I, No. 6, Art. 1. It ought to be enough for any teacher, or

for any writer, if he finds his readers or his pupils ready _recipients_ of

the ideas which he aims to convey. What more they know, they can never owe

to him, unless they learn it from him against his will; and what they

happen to lack, of understanding or believing him, may very possibly be

more his fault than theirs.

[45] Lindley Murray, anonymously copying somebody, I know not whom, says:

"Words derive their meaning from the consent and practice of those who use

them. _There is no necessary connexion between words and ideas_. The

association between the sign and the thing signified, is purely

arbitrary."--_Octavo Gram._, Vol. i, p. 139. The second assertion here

made, is very far from being literally true. However arbitrary may be the

use or application of words, their connexion with ideas is so necessary,

that they cannot be words without it. Signification, as I shall hereafter

prove, is a part of the very essence of a word, the most important element

of its nature. And Murray himself says, "The understanding and language

have a strict connexion."--_Ib._, Vol. i, p. 356. In this, he changes

without amendment the words of Blair: "Logic and rhetoric have here, as in

many other cases, a strict connexion."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 120.

[46] "The language which is, at present, spoken throughout Great Britain,

is neither the ancient primitive speech of the island, nor derived from it;

but is altogether of foreign origin. The language of the first inhabitants

of our island, beyond doubt, was the Celtic, or Gælic, common to them with

Gaul; from which country, it appears, by many circumstances, that Great

Britain was peopled. This Celtic tongue, which is said to be very

expressive and copious, and is, probably, one of the most ancient languages

in the world, obtained once in most of the western regions of Europe. It

was the language of Gaul, of Great Britain, of Ireland, and very probably,

of Spain also; till, in the course of those revolutions which by means of

the conquests, first, of the Romans, and afterwards, of the northern

nations, changed the government, speech, and, in a manner, the whole face

of Europe, _this tongue was gradually obliterated_; and now subsists only

in the mountains of Wales, in the Highlands of Scotland, and among the wild

Irish. For the Irish, the Welsh, and the Erse, are no other than different

dialects of the same tongue, the ancient Celtic."--_Blair's Rhetoric_,

Lect. IX, p. 85.

[47] With some writers, the _Celtic_ language is _the Welsh_; as may be

seen by the following extract: "By this he requires an Impossibility, since

much the greater Part of Mankind can by no means spare 10 or 11 Years of

their Lives in learning those dead Languages, to arrive at a perfect

Knowledge of their own. But by this Gentleman's way of Arguing, we ought

not only to be Masters of _Latin_ and _Greek_, but of _Spanish, Italian,

High- Dutch, Low-Dutch, French_, the _Old Saxon, Welsh, Runic, Gothic_, and

_Islandic_; since much the greater number of Words of common and general

Use are derived from _those Tongues_. Nay, by the same way of Reasoning we

may prove, that the _Romans_ and _Greeks_ did not understand their own

Tongues, because they were not acquainted with _the Welsh, or ancient

Celtic_, there being above 620 radical _Greek_ Words derived from _the

Celtic_, and of the Latin a much greater Number."--_Preface to Brightland's

Grammar_, p. 5.

[48] The author of this specimen, through a solemn and sublime poem in ten

books, _generally_ simplified the preterit verb of the second person

singular, by omitting the termination _st_ or _est_, whenever his measure

did not require the additional syllable. But his tuneless editors have, in

many instances, taken the rude liberty both to spoil his versification, and

to publish under his name what he did not write. They have given him _bad

prosody_, or unutterable _harshness of phraseology_, for the sake of what

they conceived to be _grammar_. So _Kirkham_, in copying the foregoing

passage, alters it as he will; and alters it _differently_, when he happens

to write some part of it twice: as,

"That morning, thou, that _slumberedst_ not before,

Nor _slept_, great Ocean! _laidst_ thy waves at rest,

And _hushed_ thy mighty minstrelsy."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 203.

Again:

"That morning, thou, that _slumberedst_ not before,

Nor _sleptst_, great Ocean, _laidst_ thy waves at rest,

And _hush'dst_ thy mighty minstrelsy."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 44.

[49] _Camenes_, the _Muses_, whom Horace called _Camænæ_. The former is an

English plural from the latter, or from the Latin word _camena_, a muse or

song. These lines are copied from Dr. Johnson's History of the English

Language; their _orthography_ is, in some respects, _too modern_ for the

age to which they are assigned.

[50] The Saxon characters being known nowadays to but very few readers, I

have thought proper to substitute for them, in the latter specimens of this

chapter, the Roman; and, as the old use of colons and periods for the

smallest pauses, is liable to mislead a common observer, the punctuation

too has here been modernized.

[51] Essay on Language, by William S. Cardell, New York, 1825, p. 2. This

writer was a great admirer of Horne Tooke, from whom he borrowed many of

his notions of grammar, but not this extravagance. Speaking of the words

_right_ and _just_, the latter says, "They are applicable only to _man; to

whom alone language belongs_, and of whose sensations only words are the

representatives."--_Diversions of Purley_, Vol. ii, p. 9.

[52] CARDELL: _Both Grammars_, p. 4.

[53] "_Quoties dicimus, toties de nobis judicatur_."--Cicero. "As often as

we speak, so often are we judged."

[54] "Nor had he far to seek for the source of our impropriety in the use

of words, when he should reflect that the study of our own language, has

never been made a part of the education of our youth. Consequently, the use

of words is got wholly by chance, according to the company that we keep, or

the books that we read." SHERIDAN'S ELOCUTION, _Introd._, p. viii, dated

"July 10, 1762," 2d Amer. Ed.

[55] "To Write and Speak correctly, gives a Grace, and gains a favourable

Attention to what one has to say: And since 'tis _English_, that an English

Gentleman will have constant use of, that is the Language he should chiefly

Cultivate, and wherein most care should be taken to polish and perfect his

Stile. To speak or write better _Latin_ than _English_, may make a Man be

talk'd of, but he would find it more to his purpose to Express himself well

in his own Tongue, that he uses every moment, than to have the vain

Commendation of others for a very insignificant quality. This I find

universally neglected, and no care taken any where to improve Young Men in

their own Language, that they may thoroughly understand and be Masters of

it. If any one among us have a facility or purity more than ordinary in his

Mother Tongue, it is owing to Chance, or his Genius, or any thing, rather

than to his Education or any care of his Teacher. To Mind what _English_

his Pupil speaks or writes is below the Dignity of one bred up amongst

_Greek_ and _Latin_, though he have but little of them himself. These are

the learned Languages fit only for learned Men to meddle with and teach:

_English_ is the Language of the illiterate Vulgar."--_Locke, on

Education_, p. 339; _Fourth Ed., London_, 1699.

[56] A late author, in apologizing for his choice in publishing a grammar

without forms of praxis, (that is, without any provision for a stated

application of its principles by the learner,) describes the whole business

of _Parsing_ as a "dry and uninteresting recapitulation of the disposal of

a few parts of speech, and their _often times told_ positions and

influence;" urges "the _unimportance_ of parsing, _generally_;" and

represents it to be only "a finical and ostentatious parade of practical

pedantry."--_Wright's Philosophical Gram._, pp. 224 and 226. It would be no

great mistake to imagine, that _this gentleman's system_ of grammar,

applied in any way to practice, could not fail to come under this

unflattering description; but, to entertain this notion of parsing in

general, is as great an error, as that which some writers have adopted on

the other hand, of making this exercise their sole process of inculcation,

and supposing it may profitably supersede both the usual arrangement of the

principles of grammar and the practice of explaining them by definitions.

It is asserted in Parkhurst's "English Grammar for Beginners, on the

Inductive Method of Instruction," that, "to teach the child a definition at

the outset, is beginning at the _wrong end_;" that, "with respect to all

that goes under the name of etymology in grammar, it is learned chiefly by

practice in parsing, and scarcely at all by the aid of definitions."--

_Preface_, pp. 5 and 6.

[57] Hesitation in speech may arise from very different causes. If we do

not consider this, our efforts to remove it may make it worse. In most

instances, however, it may be overcome by proper treatment, "Stammering,"

says a late author, "is occasioned by an _over-effort to articulate_; for

when the mind of the speaker is so occupied with his subject as not to

allow him to reflect upon his defect, he will talk without difficulty. All

stammerers can sing, owing to the continuous sound, and the slight manner

in which the consonants are touched in singing; so a drunken man can run,

though he cannot walk or stand still."--_Gardiner's Music of Nature_, p.

30.

"To think rightly, is of knowledge; to speak fluently, is of nature;

To read with profit, is of care; but to write aptly, is of practice."

_Book of Thoughts_, p. 140.

[58] "There is nothing more becoming [to] a _Gentleman_, or more useful in

all the occurrences of life, than to be able, on any occasion, to speak

well, and to the purpose."--_Locke, on Education_, §171. "But yet, I think

I may ask my reader, whether he doth not know a great many, who live upon

their estates, and so, with the name, should have the qualities of

Gentlemen, who cannot so much as tell a story as they should; much less

speak clearly and persuasively in any business. This I think not to be so

much their fault, as the fault of their education.--They have been taught

_Rhetoric_, but yet never taught how to express themselves handsomely with

their tongues or pens in the language they are always to use; as if the

names of the figures that embellish the discourses of those who understood

the art of speaking, were the very art and skill of speaking well. _This,

as all other things of practice, is to be learned, not by a few, or a great

many rules given; but by_ EXERCISE _and_ APPLICATION _according to_ GOOD

RULES, _or rather_ PATTERNS, _till habits are got, and a facility of doing

it well_."--_Ib._, §189. The forms of parsing and correcting which the

following work supplies, are "_patterns_," for the performance of these

practical "_exercises_;" and _such patterns_ as ought to be implicitly

followed, by every one who means to be a ready and correct speaker on these

subjects.

[59] The principal claimants of "the Inductive Method" of Grammar, are

Richard W. Green, Roswell C. Smith, John L. Parkhurst, Dyor H. Sanborn,

Bradford Frazee, and, Solomon Barrett, Jr.; a set of writers, differing

indeed in their qualifications, but in general not a little deficient in

what constitutes an accurate grammarian.

[60] William C. Woodbridge edited the Journal, and probably wrote the

article, from which the author of "English Grammar on the Productive

System" took his "_Preface_."

[61] Many other grammars, later than Murray's, have been published, some in

England, some in America, and some in both countries; and among these there

are, I think, a few in which a little improvement has been made, in the

methods prescribed for the exercises of parsing and correcting. In most,

however, _nothing of the kind has been attempted_. And, of the formularies

which have been given, the best that I have seen, are still miserably

defective, and worthy of all the censure that is expressed in the paragraph

above; while others, that appear in works not entirely destitute of merit,

are absolutely _much worse_ than Murray's, and worthy to condemn to a

speedy oblivion the books in which they are printed. In lieu of forms of

expression, clear, orderly, accurate, and full; such as a young parser

might profitably imitate; such as an experienced one would be sure to

approve; what have we? A chaos of half-formed sentences, for the ignorant

pupil to flounder in; an infinite abyss of blunders, which a world of

criticism could not fully expose! See, for example, the seven pages of

parsing, in the neat little book entitled, "A Practical Grammar of the

English Language, by the Rev. David Blair: Seventh Edition: London, 1815:"

pp. 49 to 57. I cannot consent to quote more than one short paragraph of

the miserable jumble which these pages contain. Yet the author is evidently

a man of learning, and capable of writing well on some subjects, if not on

this. "Bless the Lord, O my soul!" Form: "_Bless_, a verb, (repeat 97);

active (repeat 99); active voice (102); _infinitive mood_ (107); _third

person, soul being the nominative_ (118); present tense (111); conjugate

the verb after the pattern (129); its object is Lord (99)."--_Blair's

Gram._, p. 50. Of the paragraphs referred to, I must take some notice:

"107. The _imperative_ mood commands or orders or intreats."--_Ib._, p. 19.

"118. The _second person_ is always the pronoun _thou_ or _you_ in the

singular, and _ye_ or _you_ in the plural."--_Ib._, p. 21. "111. The

_imperative_ mood has no distinction of tense: and the _infinitive_ has no

distinction of persons."--_Ib._, p. 20. Now the author should have said:

"_Bless_ is a redundant active-transitive verb, from _bless, blessed_ or

_blest, blessing, blessed_ or _blest_; found in the _imperative_ mood,

present tense, _second_ person, and singular number:" and, if he meant to

parse the word _syntactically_, he should have added: "and agrees with its

nominative _thou_ understood; according to the rule which says, 'Every

finite verb must agree with its subject or nominative, in person and

number.' Because the meaning is--_Bless thou_ the Lord." This is the whole

story. But, in the form above, several things are false; many,

superfluous; some, deficient; several, misplaced; nothing, right. Not much

better are the models furnished by _Kirkham, Smith, Lennie, Bullions_, and

other late authors.

[62] Of Dr. Bullions's forms of parsing, as exhibited in his English

Grammar, which is a modification of Lennie's Grammar, it is difficult to

say, whether they are most remarkable for their deficiencies, their

redundancies, or their contrariety to other teachings of the same author or

authors. Both Lennie and Bullions adopt the rule, that, "An _ellipsis_ is

_not allowable_ when it would obscure the sentence, weaken its force, or be

attended with an impropriety."--_L._, p. 91; _B._, p. 130. And the latter

strengthens this doctrine with several additional observations, the first

of which reads thus: "In general, _no word should be omitted_ that is

necessary to the _full and correct construction_, or even _harmony_ of a

sentence."--_Bullions, E. Gr._, 130. Now the parsing above alluded to, has

been thought particularly commendable for its _brevity_--a quality

certainly desirable, so far as it consists with the end of parsing, or with

the more needful properties of a good style, clearness, accuracy, ease, and

elegance. But, if the foregoing rule and observation are true, the models

furnished by these writers are not commendably brief, but miserably

defective. Their brevity is, in fact, such as renders them all _bad

English_; and not only so, it makes them obviously inadequate to their

purpose, as bringing into use but a part of the principles which the

learner had studied. It consists only in the omission of what ought to have

been inserted. For example, this short line, "_I lean upon the Lord_," is

parsed by both of these gentlemen thus: "_I, the first personal_ pronoun,

masculine, or feminine, singular, _the_ nominative--_lean_, a verb,

_neuter_, first person singular, present, indicative--_upon_, a

preposition--_the_, an article, the definite--_Lord_, a noun, masculine,

singular, the objective, (governed by _upon_.)"--_Lennie's Principles of

English Gram._, p. 51; _Bullions's_, 74. This is a little sample of their

etymological parsing, in which exercise they generally omit not only all

the definitions or "reasons" of the various terms applied, but also all the

following particulars: first, the verb _is_, and certain _definitives_ and

_connectives_, which are "necessary to the full and correct construction"

of their sentences; secondly, the distinction of nouns as _proper_ or

_common_; thirdly, the _person_ of nouns, _first, second_, or _third_;

fourthly, the words, _number, gender_, and _case_, which are necessary to

the sense and construction of certain words used; fifthly, the distinction

of adjectives as belonging to _different classes_; sixthly, the division of

verbs as being _regular_ or _irregular, redundant_ or _defective_;

seventhly, sometimes, (Lennie excepted,) the division of verbs as _active,

passive_, or _neuter_; eighthly, the words _mood_ and _tense_, which

Bullions, on page 131, pronounces "quite unnecessary," and inserts in his

own formule on page 132; ninthly, the distinction of adverbs as expressing

_time, place, degree_, or _manner_; tenthly, the distinction of

conjunctions as _copulative_ or disjunctive; lastly, the distinction of

interjections as indicating _different emotions_. All these things does

their completest specimen of etymological parsing lack, while it is grossly

encumbered with parentheses of syntax, which "_must be omitted_ till the

pupil get the _rules_ of syntax."--Lennie, p. 51. It is also vitiated with

several absurdities, contradictions, and improper changes of expression:

as, "_His, the third personal pronoun_;" (B., p. 23;)--"_me, the first

personal pronoun_;" (_Id._, 74;)--"_A_, The indefinite article;" (_Id._,

73;)--"_a_, an article, the indefinite;" (_Id._, 74;)--"When the _verb is

passive_, parse thus: '_A verb active_, in the passive voice, _regular,

irregular_,' &c."--_Bullions_, p. 131. In stead of teaching sufficiently,

as elements of etymological parsing, the definitions which belong to this

exercise, and then dismissing them for the principles of syntax, Dr.

Bullions encumbers his method of syntactical parsing with such a series of

etymological questions and answers as cannot but make it one of the

slowest, longest, and most tiresome ever invented. He thinks that the

pupil, after parsing any word syntactically, "_should be requested to

assign a reason for every thing contained in his statement!_"--_Principles

of E. Grammar_, p. 131. And the teacher is to ask questions as numerous as

the reasons! Such is the parsing of a text-book which has been pronounced

"superior to any other, for use in our common schools"--"a _complete_

grammar of the language, and _available for every purpose_ for which Mr.

Brown's can possibly be used."--_Ralph K. Finch's Report_, p, 12.

[63] There are many other critics, besides Murray and Alger, who seem not

to have observed the import of _after_ and _before_ in connexion with the

tenses. Dr. Bullions, on page 139th of his English Grammar, copied the

foregoing example from Lennie, who took it from Murray. Even Richard Hiley,

and William Harvey Wells, grammarians of more than ordinary tact, have been

obviously misled by the false criticism above cited. One of Hiley's Rules

of Syntax, with its illustration, stands thus: "In _the use of the

different tenses_, we must particularly _observe to use that tense_ which

clearly and properly conveys the sense intended; thus, instead of saying,

'After I _visited_ Europe, I returned to America;' we should say, 'After I

_had visited_ Europe, I returned to America."--_Hiley's Gram._, p. 90. Upon

this he thought it needful to comment thus: "'After I _visited_ Europe, I

returned to America;' _this sentence is incorrect_; _visited_ ought to be

_had visited_, because the action _implied_ by the verb _visited_ WAS

COMPLETED _before_ the other past action _returned_."--_Ib._, p. 91. See

nearly the same thing in _Wells's School Grammar, 1st Edition_, p. 151; but

his later editions are wisely altered. Since "_visited_ and _was

completed_" are of the same tense, the argument from the latter, if it

proves any thing, proves the former to be _right_, and the proposed change

needless, or perhaps worse than needless. "I _visited_ Europe _before_ I

_returned_ to America," or, "I _visited_ Europe, _and afterwards returned_

to America," is good English, and not to be improved by any change of

tense; yet here too we see the _visiting_ "_was completed before_" the

return, or HAD BEEN COMPLETED _at the time_ of the return. I say, "The

Pluperfect Tense is that which expresses what _had taken_ place _at_ some

past time mentioned: as, 'I _had seen_ him, _when_ I met you.'" Murray

says, "The Pluperfect Tense represents a _thing_ not only as past, but also

as prior to some _other point of time_ specified in the sentence: as, I

_had finished_ my letter _before_ he arrived." Hiley says, "The

_Past-Perfect_ expresses an action or event which _was past before_ some

_other past action or event_ mentioned in the sentence, _and to which_ it

refers; as, I _had finished_ my lessons _before_ he came." With this, Wells

appears to concur, his example being similar. It seems to me, that these

last two definitions, and their example too, are bad; because by the help

of _before_ or _after_, "_the past before the past_" _may_ be clearly

expressed by the _simple past tense_: as, "I _finished_ my letter _before_

he _arrived_."--"I _finished_ my lessons _before_ he _came_." "He _arrived_

soon _after_ I _finished_ the letter."--"Soon _after_ it _was completed_,

he _came in_."

[64] Samuel Kirkham, whose grammar is briefly described in the third

chapter of this introduction, boldly lays the blame of all his philological

faults, upon our noble _language itself_; and even conceives, that a

well-written and faultless grammar cannot be a good one, because it will

not accord with that reasonless jumble which he takes every existing

language to be! How diligently he laboured to perfect his work, and with

what zeal for truth and accuracy, may be guessed from the following

citation: "The truth is, after all _which_ can be done to render the

definitions and rules of grammar comprehensive and accurate, they will

still be found, when critically examined by men of learning and science,

_more_ or _less_ exceptionable. _These exceptions and imperfections_ are

the unavoidable consequence of the _imperfections of the language_.

Language as well as every thing else _of human invention_, will always be

_imperfect_. Consequently, a perfect system of grammatical principles,

_would not suit it_. A perfect grammar will not be produced, until some

perfect being writes it for a perfect language; and a perfect language will

not be constructed, until _some super-human agency_ is employed in its

production. All grammatical principles and systems which are not _perfect_

are _exceptionable_."--_Kirkham's Grammar_, p. 66. The unplausible

sophistry of these strange remarks, and the palliation they afford to the

multitudinous defects of the book which contains them, may be left, without

further comment, to the judgement of the reader.

[65] The phrase _complex ideas_, or _compound ideas_, has been used for the

notions which we have of things consisting of different parts, or having

various properties, so as to embrace some sort of plurality: thus our ideas

of _all bodies_ and _classes of things_ are said to be complex or compound.

_Simple ideas_ are those in which the mind discovers no parts or plurality:

such are the ideas of _heat, cold, blueness, redness, pleasure, pain,

volition_, &c. But some writers have contended, that the _composition of

ideas_ is a fiction; and that all the complexity, in any case, consists

only in the use of a _general term_ in lieu of many particular ones. Locke

is on one side of this debate, Horne Tooke, on the other.

[66] Dilworth appears to have had a true _idea_ of the thing, but he does

not express it as a definition; "Q. Is _an_ Unit of one, a Number? A. _An_

Unit is a number, _because it may properly answer the question how

many!_"--_Schoolmaster's Assistant_, p. 2. A number in arithmetic, and a

number in grammar, are totally different things. The _plural_ number, as

_men_ or _horses_, does not tell _how many_; nor does the word _singular_

mean _one_, as the author of a recent grammar says it does. The _plural_

number is _one_ number, but it is not _the singular_. "The _Productive

System_" teaches thus: "What does the word _singular_ mean? It means

_one_."--Smith's New Gram., p. 7.

[67] It is truly astonishing that so great a majority of our grammarians

could have been so blindly misled, as they have been, in this matter; and

the more so, because a very good definition of a Letter was both published

and republished, about the time at which Lowth's first appeared: viz.,

"What is a letter? A Letter is the Sign, Mark, or Character of a simple or

uncompounded Sound. Are Letters Sounds? No. Letters are only the Signs or

Symbols of Sounds, not the Sounds themselves."--_The British Grammar_, p.

3. See the very same words on the second page of _Buchanan's "English

Syntax_," a work which was published as early as 1767.

[68] In Murray's octavo Grammar, this word is _the_ in the first chapter,

and _their_ in the second; in the duodecimo, it is _their_ in both places.

[69] "The _definitions_ and the _rules_ throughout the Grammar, are

expressed with neatness and perspicuity. They are as short and

comprehensive as the nature of the subject would admit: and they are well

adapted both to the understanding and the memory of young persons."--_Life

of L. Murray_, p. 245. "It may truly be said that the language in every

part of the work, is simple, correct, and perspicuous."--_Ib._, p. 246.

[70] For this definition, see _Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 40; _Duodecimo_,

41; _Smaller Gram._, 18; _Alger's_, 18; _Bacon's_, 15; _Frost's_, 8,

_Ingersoll's_, 17; _A Teacher's_, 8; _Maltby's_, 14; _T. H. Miller's_, 20;

_Pond's_, 18; _S. Putnam's_, 15; _Russell's_, 11; _Merchant's Murray_, 25;

and _Worcester's Univ. and Crit. Dictionary_. Many other grammarians have

attempted to define number; with what success a few examples will show:

(1.) "Number is the distinction of one from many."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p.

40; _Merchant's School Gram._, 28; _Greenleaf's_, 22; _Nutting's_, 17;

_Picket's_, 19; _D. Adams's_, 31. (2.) "Number is the distinction of one

from more."--_Fisher's Gram._, 51; _Alden's_, 7. (3.) "Number is the

distinction of one from several or many."--_Coar's Gram._, p. 24. (4.)

"Number is the distinction of one from more than one."--_Sanborn's Gram._,

p. 24; _J. Flint's_, 27; _Wells's, 52_. (5.) "Number is the distinction of

one from more than one, or many."--_Grant's Latin Gram._, p. 7. (6.) "What

is number? Number is the Distinction of one, from two, or many."--_British

Gram._, p. 89; _Buchanan's_, 16. (7.) "You inquire, 'What is number?'

Merely this: _the distinction_ of one from two, or many. Greek substantives

have _three_ numbers."--_Bucke's Classical Gram._, p. 38. All these authors

say, that, in English, "there are _two numbers_, the singular and the

plural." According to their explanations, then, we have _two "distinctions

of one from two, several, more, or many;"_ and the Greeks, by adding a dual

number, have _three_! Which, then, of the two or three modifications or

forms, do they mean, when they say, "Number is _the distinction_" &c.? Or,

if none of them, _what else_ is meant? All these definitions had their

origin in an old Latin one, which, although it is somewhat better, makes

doubtful logic in its application: "NUMERUS est, unius et multorum

distinctio. Numeri _igitur_ sunt _duo_; Singularis et Pluralis."--

_Ruddiman's Gram._, p. 21. This means: (8.) "Number is a distinction of one

and many. The numbers _therefore_ are _two_; the Singular and the Plural."

But we have yet other examples: as, (9.) "Number is the distinction of

_objects_, as one or more."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 39. "The _distinction_

of _objects_ as _one_," is very much like "_the consideration_ of _an

object_ as _more than one_." (10.) "Number distinguishes _objects_ as _one_

or more."--_Cooper's Murray_, p. 21; _Practical Gram._, p. 18. That is,

number makes the plural to be either plural or singular for distinction's

sake! (11.) "Number is the distinction of _nouns_ with regard to the

_objects_ signified, _as one_ or more."--_Fisk's Murray_, p. 19. Here, too,

number has "regard" to the same confusion: while, by a gross error, its

"distinction" is confined to "_nouns_" only! (12.) "Number is _that

property_ of a _noun_ by which it expresses _one_ or _more_ than

one."--_Bullions's E. Gram._, p. 12; _Analyt. Gram._, 25. Here again number

is improperly limited to "_a noun_;" and is said to be one sign of two, or

either of two, incompatible ideas! (13.) "Number shows _how many_ are

meant, whether one or more."--_Smith's new Gram._, p. 45. This is not a

_definition_, but a false assertion, in which Smith again confounds

arithmetic with grammar! _Wheat_ and _oats_ are of different numbers; but

neither of these numbers "means _a sum that may be counted_," or really

"shows _how many_ are meant." So of "_Man_ in general, _Horses_ in general,

&c."--_Brightland's Gram._, p. 77. (14.) "Number is _the difference_ in a

_noun or pronoun_, to denote either a single thing or more than

one."--_Davenport's Gram._, p. 14. This excludes the numbers of a _verb_,

and makes the singular and the plural to be essentially one thing. (15.)

"Number is a modification of nouns and verbs, &c. according as the thing

spoken of is represented, as, _one_ or _more_, with regard to

number."--_Burn's Gram._, p. 32. This also has many faults, which I leave

to the discernment of the reader. (16.) "What is number? Number _shows the

distinction_ of one from many."--_Wilcox's Gram._, p. 6. This is no answer

to the question asked; besides, it is obviously worse than the first form,

which has "_is_," for "_shows_." (17.) "What is Number? It is _the_

representation of _objects_ with respect to singleness, or plurality."

--_O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p. 34. If there are two numbers, they are neither

of them properly described in this definition, or in any of the preceding

ones. There is a gross misconception, in taking each or either of them to

be an alternate representation of two incompatible ideas. And this sort of

error is far from being confined to the present subject; it runs through a

vast number of the various definitions contained in our grammars. (18.)

"_Number_ is _the inflection_ of a _noun_, to indicate _one object or more

than one_. Or, _Number_ is _the expression_ of unity or of more than

unity."--_Hiley's Gram._, p. 14. How hard this author laboured to _think

what number is_, and could not! (19.) "Number is the distinction of _unity

and plurality_."--_Hart's E. Gram._, p. 40, Why say, "_distinction_;" the

numbers, or _distinctions_, being two? (20.) "Number is _the capacity of

nouns_ to represent either one or more than one object."--_Barrett's

Revised Gram._, p. 40. (21.) "Number is _a property_ of _the noun which_

denotes _one_ or _more_ than one."--_Weld's Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 55. (22.)

"Number is _a property_ of the _noun or pronoun_ [,] _by which it_ denotes

_one, or more_ than one."--_Weld's Gram., Abridged Ed._, p. 49. (23.)

"Number is _the property_ that distinguishes _one from more_ than

one."--_Weld's Gram., Improved Ed._, p. 60. This, of course, excludes the

plural. (24.) "Number is _a modification of nouns_ to denote whether one

object is meant, or more than one."--_Butler's Gram._, p. 19. (25.) "Number

is _that modification_ of the _Noun_ which distinguishes one from more than

one."--_Spencer's Gram._, p. 26. Now, it is plain, that not one of these

twenty-five definitions comports with the idea that the singular is one

number and the plural an other! Not one of them exhibits any tolerable

approach to accuracy, either of thought or of expression! Many of the

grammarians have not attempted any definition of _number_, or of _the

numbers_, though they speak of both the singular and the plural, and

perhaps sometimes apply the term _number_ to _the distinction_ which is _in

each_: for it is the property of the singular number, to distinguish unity

from plurality: and of the plural, to distinguish plurality from unity.

Among the authors who are thus silent, are Lily, Colet, Brightland, Harris,

Lowth, Ash, Priestly, Bicknell, Adam, Gould, Harrison, Comly, Jaudon,

Webster, Webber, Churchill, Staniford, Lennie, Dalton, Blair, Cobbett,

Cobb, A. Flint, Felch, Guy, Hall, and S. W. Clark. Adam and Gould, however,

in explaining the properties of _verbs_, say: "_Number_ marks _how many_ we

suppose to be, to act, or to suffer."--_A._, 80; _G._, 78.

[71] These are the parts of speech in some late grammars; as, Barrett's, of

1854, Butler's, Covell's, Day's, Frazee's, Fowle's New, Spear's, Weld's,

Wells's, and the Well-wishers'. In Frost's Practical Grammar, the words of

the language are said to be "divided into _eight_ classes," and the names

are given thus: "_Noun, Article, Pronoun, Verb, Adverb, Preposition,

Conjunction, and Interjection_."--P. 29. But the author afterwards treats

of the _Adjective_, between the _Article_ and the _Pronoun_, just as if he

had forgotten to name it, and could not count nine with accuracy! In

Perley's Grammar, the parts of speech are a different eight: namely,

"_Nouns, Adjectives, Verbs, Adverbs, Prepositions, Conjunctions,

Interjections_, and _Particles_!"--P. 8. S. W. Clark has Priestley's

classes, but calls Interjections "Exclamations."

[72] Felton, who is confessedly a modifier of Murray, claims as a merit,

"_the rejection of several useless parts of speech_" yet acknowledges

"_nine_," and treats of _ten_; "viz., _Nouns, Pronouns, Verbs, Participles,

Prepositions, Adjectives_, [Articles,] _Adverbs, Conjunctions,

Exclamations_."--_O. C. Felton's Gram._ p. 5, and p. 9.

[73] Quintilian is at fault here; for, in some of his writings, if not

generally, Aristotle recognized _four_ parts of speech; namely, verbs,

nouns, conjunctions, and articles. See _Aristot. de Poetica_, Cap. xx.

[74] "As there are ten different characters or figures in arithmetic to

represent all possible quantities, there are also ten kinds of words or

parts of speech to represent all possible sentences: viz.: article, noun,

adjective, pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, preposition, conjunction,

interjection."--_Chauvier's Punctuation_, p. 104.

[75] _The Friend_, 1829, Vol. ii, p. 117.

[76] _The Friend_, Vol. ii, p. 105.

[77] See the Preface to my Compendious English Grammar in the American

editions of _the Treasury of Knowledge_, Vol. i, p. 8.

[78] Some say that Brightland himself was the writer of this grammar; but

to suppose him the sole author, hardly comports with its dedication to the

Queen, by her "most Obedient and Dutiful _Subjects_, the _Authors_;" or

with the manner in which these are spoken of, in the following lines, by

the laureate:

"Then say what Thanks, what Praises must attend

_The Gen'rous Wits_, who thus could condescend!

Skill, that to Art's sublimest Orb can reach,

Employ'd its humble Elements to Teach!

Yet worthily Esteem'd, because we know

To raise _Their_ Country's Fame _they_ stoop'd so low."--TATE.

[79] Dr. Campbell, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, page 158th, makes a

difficulty respecting the meaning of this passage: cites it as an instance

of the misapplication of the term _grammar_; and supposes the writer's

notion of the thing to have been, "of grammar in the abstract, _an_

universal archetype by which the particular grammars of all different

tongues ought to be regulated." And adds, "If this was his meaning, I

cannot say whether he is in the right or in the wrong, in this accusation.

I acknowledge myself to be entirely ignorant of this ideal grammar." It

would be more fair to suppose that Dr. Swift meant by "_grammar_" the rules

and principles according to which the English language ought to be spoken

and written; and, (as I shall hereafter show,) it is no great hyperbole to

affirm, that every part of the code--nay, well-nigh every one of these

rules and principles--is, in many instances, violated, if not by what may

be called _the language itself_, at least by those speakers and writers who

are under the strongest obligations to know and observe its true use.

[80] The phrase "_of any_" is here erroneous. These words ought to have

been omitted; or the author should have said--"the least valuable of _all_

his productions."

[81] This word _latter_ should have been _last_; for _three_ works are here

spoken of.

[82] With this opinion concurred the learned James White, author of a

Grammatical Essay on the English Verb, an octavo volume of more than three

hundred pages, published in London in 1761. This author says, "Our Essays

towards forming an English Grammar, have not been very many: from the reign

of Queen Elizabeth, to that of Queen Ann, there are but Two that the author

of the Present knows of: one in English by the renown'd Ben Jonson, and one

in Latin by the learn'd Dr. Wallis. In the reign of Queen Ann indeed, there

seems to have arisen a noble Spirit of ingenious Emulation in this Literary

way: and to this we owe the treatises compos'd at that period for the use

of schools, by Brightland, Greenwood, and Maittaire. But, since that time,

nothing hath appear'd, that hath come to this Essayist's knowledge,

deserving _to be taken any notice of_ as tending to illustrate our Language

by ascertaining the Grammar of it; except Anselm Bayly's Introduction to

Languages, Johnson's Grammar prefix'd to the Abridgement of his Dictionary,

and the late Dr. Ward's Essays upon the English Language.--These are all

the Treatises he hath met with, relative to this subject; all which he hath

perus'd _very_ attentively, and made the best use of them in his power. But

notwithstanding all these aids, something still remains to be done, at

least it so appears to him, _preparatory to attempting with success the

Grammar of our Language_. All our efforts of this kind seem to have been

render'd ineffectual hitherto, chiefly by the prevaliency of two false

notions: one of which is, that our Verbs have no Moods; and the other, that

our Language hath no Syntax."--_White's English Verb_, p. viii.

[83] A similar doctrine, however, is taught by no less an author than "the

Rev. Alexander Crombie, LL. D.," who says, in the first paragraph of his

introduction, "LANGUAGE consists of intelligible signs, and is the medium,

by which _the mind_ communicates _its thoughts_. It is either articulate,

or inarticulate; artificial, or natural. The former is peculiar to man; the

latter is _common to all animals_. By inarticulate language, we mean those

instinctive cries, by which the several tribes of inferior creatures are

enabled to express their sensations and desires. By articulate language is

understood a system of expression, composed of simple _sounds_, differently

modified by the organs of speech, and variously combined."--_Treatise on

the Etymology and Syntax of the English Language_, p. 1. See the same

doctrine also in _Hiley's Gram._, p. 141. The language which "is _common to

all animals_," can be no other than that in which Æsop's wolves and

weasels, goats and grasshoppers, talked--a language quite too unreal for

_grammar_. On the other hand, that which is composed of _sounds_ only, and

not of letters, includes but a mere fraction of the science.

[84] The pronoun _whom_ is not properly applicable to beasts, unless they

are _personified_: the relative _which_ would therefore, perhaps, have been

preferable here, though _whom_ has a better sound.--G. B.

[85] "The great difference between men and brutes, in the utterance of

sound by the mouth, consists in the power of _articulation_ in man, and the

entire want of it in brutes."--_Webster's Improved Gram._, p. 8.

[86] Strictly speaking, an _articulate sound_ is not a simple element of

speech, but rather a complex one, whether syllable or word; for

_articulate_ literally means _jointed_. But our grammarians in general,

have applied the term to the sound of a letter, a syllable, or a word,

indiscriminately: for which reason, it seems not very suitable to be used

alone in describing any of the three. Sheridan says, "The essence of a

syllable consists in _articulation only_, for every _articulate sound_ of

course forms a syllable."--_Lectures on Elocution_, p. 62. If he is right

in this, not many of our letters--or, perhaps more properly, none of

them--can singly represent articulate sounds. The looseness of this term

induces me to add or prefer an other. "The Rev. W. Allen," who comes as

near as any of our grammarians, to the true definition of a _letter_, says:

1. "The sounds used in language are called _articulate sounds_." 2. "A

letter is a character used in printing or writing, to represent an

_articulate_ sound."--_Allen's Elements of E. Gram._, p. 2. Dr. Adam says:

1. "A letter is the mark of _a sound_, or of _an articulation of_ sound."

2. "A vowel is properly called a _simple sound_; and the sounds formed by

the concourse of vowels and consonants, _articulate sounds_."--_Latin and

English Gram._, pp. 1 and 2.

[87] Of this sort of blunder, the following false definition is an

instance: "A _Vowel_ is a letter, _the name of which_ makes a full open

sound."--_Lennie's Gram._, p. 5; _Brace's_, 7; _Hazen's_, 10. All this is

just as true of a consonant as of a vowel. The comma too, used in this

sentence, defeats even the sense which the writers intended. It is surely

no description either of a vowel or of a consonant, to say, that it is a

letter, and that the name of a letter makes a full open sound. Again, a

late grammarian teaches, that the names of all the letters are nothing but

_Roman capitals_, and then seems to inquire which of _these names_ are

_vowels_, thus: "_Q_. How many letters are in the alphabet? _A_.

Twenty-six. _Q_. What are their names? _A_. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J,

K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. _Q_. Which of _these_ are

called _Vowels_?"--_Fowle's Common School Gram., Part First_, p. 7. If my

worthy friend Fowle had known or considered _what are the names_ of the

letters in English, he might have made a better beginning to his grammar

than this.

[88] By the colloquial phrase, "to a Tee" we mean, "to a _nicety_, to a

_tittle_, a _jot_, an _iota_. Had the British poet Cawthorn, himself a

noted schoolmaster, known how to write the name of "T," he would probably

have preferred it in the following couplet:

"And swore by Varro's shade that he

Conceived the medal to a T."--_British Poets_, Vol. VII, p. 65.

Here the name would certainly be much fitter than the letter, because the

text does not in reality speak of the letter. With the names of the Greek

letters, the author was better acquainted; the same poem exhibits two of

them, where the characters themselves are spoken of:

"My eye can trace divinely true,

In this dark curve a little Mu;

And here, you see, there _seems_ to lie

The ruins of a Doric Xi."--_Ibidem_.

The critical reader will see that "_seems_" should be _seem_, to agree with

its nominative "_ruins_."

[89] Lily, reckoning without the H, J, or V, speaks of the Latin letters as

"_twenty-two_;" but _says nothing_ concerning their names. Ruddiman, Adam,

Grant, Gould, and others, who include the H, J, and V, rightly state the

number to be "_twenty-five_;" but, concerning their names, are likewise

_entirely silent_. Andrews and Stoddard, not admitting the K, teach thus:

"The letters of the Latin language are _twenty-four_. They _have the same

names_ as the corresponding characters in English."--_Andrews and

Stoddard's Latin Gram._, p. 1. A later author speaks thus: "The Latin

Alphabet consists of _twenty-five_ letters, _the same in name_ and form as

the English, but without the _w_."--_Bullions's Latin Gram._, p. 1. It

would probably be nearer to the truth, to say, "The Latin Alphabet, _like

the French_, has no W; it consists of twenty-five letters, which are _the

same in name_ and form _as the French_." Will it be pretended that the

French names and the English do not differ?

[90] The Scotch _Iz_ and the Craven _Izzet_, if still in use anywhere, are

names strictly local, not properly English, nor likely to spread. "IZZET,

the letter Z. This is probably the corruption of _izzard_, the old and

common name for the letter, though I know not, says _Nares_, on what

authority."--_Glossary of Craven, w. Izzet._ "_Z z, zed_, more commonly

called _izzard_ or _uzzard_, that is, _s hard_."--_Dr. Johnson's Gram._, p.

1.

"And how she sooth'd me when with study sad

I labour'd on to reach the final Zad."--_Crabbe's Borough_, p. 228.

[91] William Bolles, in his new Dictionary, says of the letter Z: "Its

sound is uniformly that of a _hard_ S." The _name_, however, he pronounces

as I do; though he writes it not _Zee_ but zé; giving not the _orthography_

of the name, as he should have done, but a mere index of its pronunciation.

Walker proves by citations from Professor Ward and Dr. Wallis, that these

authors considered the _sharp_ or _hissing_ sound of _s_ the "_hard_"

sound; and the _flat_ sound, like that of _z_, its "_soft_" sound. See his

_Dictionary_, 8vo, p. 53.

[92] Dr. Webster died in 1843. Most of this work was written while he was

yet in vigour.

[93] This old definition _John L. Parkhurst_ disputes:--says it "is

_ambiguous_;"--questions whether it means, "that the _name_ of such a

letter, or the _simple sound_," requires a vowel! "If the latter," says he,

"_the assertion is false._ The simple sounds, represented by the

consonants, can be uttered separately, distinctly, and perfectly. It can be

done with the _utmost ease_, even by a little child."--_Parkhurst's

Inductive Gram. for Beginners_, p. 164. He must be one of these modern

philosophers who delight to _make mouths_ of these voiceless elements, to

show how much may be done without sound from the larynx.

[94] This test of what is, or is not, a vowel sound or a consonant sound,

is often appealed to, and is generally admitted to be a just one. Errors in

the application of _an_ or _a_ are not unfrequent, but they do not affect

the argument. It cannot be denied, that it is proper to use _a_, and not

proper to use _an_, before the initial sound of _w_ or _y_ with a vowel

following. And this rule holds good, whether the sound be expressed by

these particular letters, or by others; as in the phrases, "_a wonder, a

one, a yew, a use, a ewer, a humour, a yielding temper_." But I have heard

it contended, that these are vowel sounds, notwithstanding they require

_a_; and that the _w_ and _y_ are always vowels, because even a vowel sound

(it was said) requires _a_ and not _an_, whenever an other vowel sound

immediately follows it. Of this notion, the following examples are a

sufficient refutation: _an aëronaut, an aërial tour, an oeiliad, an

eyewink, an eyas, an iambus, an oäsis, an o'ersight, an oil, an oyster, an

owl, an ounce_. The initial sound of _yielding_ requires _a_, and not _an_;

but those who call the _y_ a vowel, say, it is equivalent to the unaccented

long _e_. This does not seem to me to be exactly true; because the latter

sound requires _an_, and not _a_; as, "Athens, as well as Thebes, had _an

Eëtion_."

[95] Dr. Rush, in his Philosophy of the Human Voice, has exhibited some

acuteness of observation, and has written with commendable originality. But

his accuracy is certainly not greater than his confidence. On page 57th, he

says, "The _m, n_, and _ng_, are _purely nasal_;" on page 401st, "Some of

the tonic elements, and one of the subtonics, are made _by the assistance

of the lips_; they are _o_-we, _oo_-ze, _ou_-r, and _m_." Of the intrinsic

value of his work, I am not prepared or inclined to offer any opinion; I

criticise him only so far as he strikes at grammatical principles long

established, and worthy still to be maintained.

[96] Dr. Comstock, by ¸enumerating as elementary the sound of the diphthong

_ou_, as in _our_, and the complex power of _wh_, as in _what_, (which

sounds ought not to be so reckoned,) makes the whole number of vocal

elements in English to be "_thirty-eight_." See _Comstock's Elocution_, p.

19.

[97] This word is commonly heard in two syllables, _yune'yun_; but if

Walker is right in making it three, _yu'ne-un_, the sound of _y_ consonant

is heard in it but once. Worcester's notation is "_y=un'yun_." The long

sound of _u_ is _yu_; hence Walker calls the letter, when thus sounded, a

"semi-consonant diphthong."

[98] Children ought to be accustomed to speak loud, and to pronounce all

possible sounds and articulations, even those of such foreign languages as

they will be obliged to learn; for almost every language has its particular

sounds which we pronounce with difficulty, if we have not been early

accustomed to them. Accordingly, nations who have the greatest number of

sounds in their speech, learn the most easily to pronounce foreign

languages, since they know their articulations by having met with similar

sounds in their own language."--_Spurzheim, on Education_, p. 159.

[99] If it be admitted that the two semivowels _l_ and _n_ have vocality

enough of their own to form a very feeble syllable, it will prove only that

there are these exceptions to an important general rule. If the name of

_Haydn_ rhymes with _maiden_, it makes one exception to the rule of

writing; but it is no part of the English language. The obscure sound of

which I speak, is sometimes improperly confounded with that of short _u_;

thus a recent writer, who professes great skill in respect to such matters,

says, "One of the most common sounds in our language is that of the vowel

_u_, as in the word _urn_, or as the diphthong _ea_ in the word _earth_,

for which we have no character. Writers have made various efforts to

express it, as in _earth, berth, mirth, worth, turf_, in which all the

vowels are indiscriminately used in turn. [Fist] _This defect has led_ to

the absurd method of placing the vowel after the consonants, instead of

between them, when a word _terminates with this sound_; as in the

following, _Bible, pure, centre, circle_, instead of _Bibel, puer, center,

cirkel_."--_Gardiner's Music of Nature_, p. 498. "It would be a great step

towards perfection to spell our words as they are pronounced!"--_Ibid._, p.

499. How often do the reformers of language multiply the irregularities of

which they complain!

[100] "The number of simple sounds in our tongue is twenty-eight, 9 Vowels

and 19 Consonants. _H_ is no letter, but merely a mark of

aspiration."--_Jones's Prosodial Gram. before his Dict._, p. 14.

"The number of simple vowel and consonant sounds in our tongue is

twenty-eight, and one pure aspiration _h_, making in all

twenty-nine."--_Bolles's Octavo Dict._, Introd., p. 9.

"The number of _letters_ in the English language is twenty-six; but the

number of _elements_ is thirty-eight."--_Comstock's Elocution_, p. 18.

"There are thirty-eight elements in the English alphabet, and to represent

those elements by appropriate characters, we should have thirty-eight

letters. There is, then, a deficiency in our alphabet of twelve

letters--and he who shall supply this imperfection, will be one of the

greatest benefactors of the human race."--_Ib._, p. 19. "Our alphabet is

both redundant and defective. _C, q_, and _z_, are respectively represented

by _k_ or _s, k_, and _ks_, or _gz_; and the remaining twenty-three letters

are employed to represent _forty-one_ elementary sounds."--_Wells's School

Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 36.

"The simple sounds were in no wise to be reckoned of any certain number: by

the first men they were determined to no more than ten, as spine suppose;

as others, fifteen or twenty; it is however certain that mankind in general

never exceed _twenty_ simple sounds; and of these only five are reckoned

strictly such."--_Bicknell's Grammar_, Part ii, p. 4.

[101] "When these sounds are openly pronounced, they produce the familiar

assent _ay_: which, by the old English dramatic writers, was often

expressed by _I_."--_Walker_. We still hear it so among the vulgar; as,

"_I, I_, sir, presently!" for "_Ay, ay_, sir, presently!" Shakspeare wrote,

"To sleepe, perchance to dreame; _I_, there's the rub."

--_Bucke's Classical Gram._, p. 143.

[102] Walker pronounces _yew_ and _you_ precisely alike, "_yoo_;" but,

certainly, _ew_ is not commonly equivalent to _oo_, though some make it so:

thus Gardiner, in his scheme of the vowels, says, "_ew_ equals _oo_, as in

_new, noo_."--_Music of Nature_, p. 483. _Noo_ for _new_, is a _vulgarism_,

to my ear.--G. BROWN.

[103] "As harmony is an inherent property of sound, the ear should he first

called to the attention of _simple sounds_; though, in reality, all are

composed _of three_, so nicely blended as to _appear_ but as

one."--_Gardiner's Music of Nature_, p. 8. "Every sound is a mixture of

three tones; as much as a ray of light is composed of three prismatic

colours."--_Ib._, p. 387.

[104] The titulary name of the sacred volume is "The Holy Bible." The word

_Scripture_ or _Scriptures_ is a _common_ name for the writings contained

in this inestimable volume, and, in the book itself, is seldom

distinguished by a capital; but, in other works, it seems proper in general

to write it so, by way of eminence.

[105] "Benedictus es Domine Deus Israel patris nostri ab eterno in

eternum."--_Vulgate_. "O Eternel! Dieu d'Israël, notre père, tu es béni de

tout temps et à toujours."--_Common French Bible_. "[Greek: Eulogætos ei

Kyrie ho theos Israel ho patær hæmon apo tou aionos kai heos tou

aionos.]"--_Septuagint._

[106] Where the word "_See_" accompanies the reference, the reader may

generally understand that the citation, whether right or wrong in regard to

grammar, is not in all respects _exactly_ as it will be found in the place

referred to. Cases of this kind, however, will occur but seldom; and it is

hoped the reasons for admitting a few, will be sufficiently obvious.

Brevity is indispensable; and some rules are so generally known and

observed, that one might search long for half a dozen examples of their

undesigned violation. Wherever an error is made intentionally in the

Exercises, the true reading and reference are to be expected in the Key.

[107] "Et irritaverunt ascendentes in mare, Mare rubrum."--_Latin Vulgate,

folio, Psal._ cv, 7. This, I think, should have been "Mare Rubrum," with

two capitals.--G. BROWN.

[108] The printers, from the manner in which they place their types before

them, call the small letters "_lower-case letters_," or "_letters of the

lower case_."

[109] I imagine that "_plagues_" should here be _plague_, in the singular

number, and not plural. "Ero more ius, o mors; morsus tuus ero,

inferne."--_Vulgate_. "[Greek: Pou hæ dikæ sou, thanate; pou to kentron

sou, aidæ;]"--_Septuagint, ibid._

[110] It is hoped that not many persons will be so much puzzled as are Dr.

Latham and Professor Fowler, about the application of this rule. In their

recent works on The English Language, these gentlemen say, "In certain

words of more than one syllable, _it is difficult to say_ to which syllable

the intervening Consonant belongs. For instance, _does_ the _v_ in _river_

and the _v_ in _fever_ belong to the first or to the second syllable? Are

the words to be divided thus, _ri-ver, fe-ver_? or thus, _riv-er_,

_fev-er_?"--_Fowler's E. Gram._, 1850, §85; _Latham's Hand-Book_, p. 95.

Now I suppose it plain, that, by the rule given above, _fever_ is to be

divided in the former way, and _river_ in the latter; thus, _fe-ver_,

_riv-er_. But this paragraph of Latham's or Fowler's is written, not to

disembarrass the learner, but just as if it were a grammarian's business to

confound his readers with fictitious dilemmas--and those expressed

ungrammatically! Of the two Vees, so illogically associated in one

question, and so solecistically spoken of by the singular verb "_does_,"

one belongs to the former syllable, and the other, to the latter; nor do I

discover that "it is difficult to say" this, or to be well assured that it

is right. What an admirable passage for one great linguist to _steal_ from

an other!

[111] "The usual rules for dividing [words into] syllables, are not only

_arbitrary_ but false and absurd. They contradict the very definition of a

syllable given by the authors themselves. * * * * A syllable in

pronunciation is an _indivisible_ thing; and strange as it may appear, what

is _indivisible_ in utterance is _divided_ in writing: when the very

purpose of dividing words into syllables in writing, is to lead the learner

to a just pronunciation."--_Webster's Improved Gram._, p. 156;

_Philosophical Gram._, 221.

[112] This word, like _distich_ and _monostich_, is from the Greek

_stichos_, a verse; and is improperly spelled by Walker with a final _k_.

It should be _hemistich_, with the accent on the first syllable. See

_Webster, Scott, Perry, Worcester_, and others.

[113] According to Aristotle, the compounding of terms, or the writing of

them as separate words, must needs be a matter of great importance to the

sense. For he will have the parts of a compound noun, or of a compound

verb, to be, like other syllables, destitute of any distinct signification

in themselves, whatever may be their meaning when written separately. See

his definitions of the parts of speech, in his _Poetics_, Chapter 20th of

the Greek; or Goulston's Version in Latin, Chapter 12th.

[114] Whether _worshipper_ should follow this principle, or not, is

questionable. If Dr. Webster is right in making _worship_ a _compound_ of

_worth_ and _ship_, he furnishes a reason against his own practice of using

a single _p_ in _worshiper, worshiped_, and _worshiping_. The Saxon word

appears to have been _weorthscype_. But words ending in _ship_ are

_derivatives_, rather than compounds; and therefore they seem to belong to

the rule, rather than to the exception: as, "So we _fellowshiped_

him."--_Herald of Freedom: Liberator_, Vol. ix, p. 68.

[115] When _ee_ comes before _e_, or may be supposed to do so, or when _ll_

comes before _l_, one of the letters is dropped that _three_ of the same

kind may not meet: as, _free, freer, freest, freeth, freed_; _skill,

skilless_; _full, fully_; _droll, drolly_. And, as _burgess-ship_,

_hostess-ship_, and _mistress-ship_ are derivatives, and not compounds, I

think they ought to follow the same principle, and be written _burgesship,

hostesship, mistresship_. The proper form of _gall-less_ is perhaps more

doubtful. It ought not to be gallless, as Dr. Webster has it; and galless,

the analogical form, is yet, so far as I know without authority. But is it

not preferable to the hyphened form, with three Ells, which has authority?

"GALL-LESS, a. Without gall or bitterness. _Cleaveland_."--_Chalmers,

Bolles, Worcester_.

"Ah! mild and _gall-less_ dove,

Which dost the pure and candid dwellings love,

Canst thou in Albion still delight?"--_Cowley's Odes_.

Worcester's Dictionary has also the questionable word _bellless_. _Treen_,

for _trees_, or for an adjective meaning _a tree's_, or _made of a tree_,

is exhibited in several of our dictionaries, and pronounced as a

monosyllable: but Dr. Beattie, in his Poems, p. 84, has made it a

dissyllable, with three like letters divided by a hyphen, thus:--

"Plucking from _tree-en_ bough her simple food."

[116] _Handiwork, handicraft_, and _handicraftsman_, appear to have been

corruptly written for _handwork, handcraft_, and _handcraftsman_. They were

formerly in good use, and consequently obtained a place in our vocabulary,

from which no lexicographer, so far as I know, has yet thought fit to

discard them; but, being irregular, they are manifestly becoming obsolete,

or at least showing a tendency to throw off these questionable forms.

_Handcraft_ and _handcraftsman_ are now exhibited in some dictionaries, and

_handiwork_ seems likely to be resolved into _handy_ and _work_, from which

Johnson supposes it to have been formed. See _Psalm_ xix, 1. The text is

varied thus: "And the firmament _sheweth_ his _handiwork_."--_Johnson's

Dict._. "And the firmament _sheweth_ his _handy-work_."--_Scott's Bible_;

_Bruce's Bible_; _Harrison's Gram._, p. 83. "And the firmament _showeth_

his _handy work_."--_Alger's Bible_; _Friends' Bible_; _Harrison's Gram._,

p. 103.

[117] Here a word, formed from its root by means of the termination _ize_,

afterwards assumes a prefix, to make a secondary derivative: thus, _organ_,

_organize, disorganize_. In such a case, the latter derivative must of

course be like the former; and I assume that the essential or primary

formation of both from the word _organ_ is by the termination _ize_; but it

is easy to see that _disguise, demise, surmise_, and the like, are

essentially or primarily formed by means of the prefixes, _dis, de_, and

_sur_. As to _advertise, exercise, detonize_, and _recognize_, which I have

noted among the exceptions, it is not easy to discover by which method we

ought to suppose them to have been formed; but with respect to nearly all

others, the distinction is very plain; and though there may be no _natural

reason_ for founding upon it such a rule as the foregoing, the voice of

general custom is as clear in this as in most other points or principles of

orthography, and, surely, some rule in this case is greatly needed.

[118] _Criticise_, with _s_, is the orthography of Johnson, Walker,

Webster, Jones, Scott, Bolles, Chalmers, Cobb, and others; and so did

Worcester spell it in his Comprehensive Dictionary of 1831, but, in his

Universal and Critical Dictionary of 1846, he wrote it with _z_, as did

Bailey in his folio, about a hundred years ago. Here the _z_ conforms to

the foregoing rule, and the _s_ does not.

[119] Like this, the compound _brim-full_ ought to be written with a hyphen

and accented on the last syllable; but all our lexicographers have

corrupted it into _brim'ful_, and, contrary to the authorities they quote,

accented it on the first. Their noun _brim'fulness_, with a like accent, is

also a corruption; and the text of Shakspeare, which they quote for it, is

nonsense, unless _brim_, be there made a separate adjective:--

"With ample and _brimfulness_ of his force."--_Johnson's Dict._ _et al_.

"With _ample_ and _brim fullness_ of his force," would be better.

[120] According to Littleton, the _coraliticus lapis_ was a kind of

Phrygian marble, "called _Coralius_ or by an other name _Sangarius_." But

this substance seems to be different from all that are described by

Webster, under the names of "_coralline_," "_corallinite_," and

"_corallite_." See _Webster's Octavo Dict._

[121] The Greek word for _argil_ is [Greek: argilos], or [Greek: argillos],

(from [Greek: argos], white,) meaning pure white earth; and is as often

spelled with one Lamda as with two.

[122] Dr. Webster, with apparent propriety, writes _caviling_ and

_cavilous_ with one _l_, like _dialing_ and _perilous_; but he has in

general no more uniformity than Johnson, in respect to the doubling of _l_

final. He also, in some instances, accents similar words variously: as,

_cor'alliform_, upon the first syllable, _metal'liform_, upon the second;

_cav'ilous_ and _pap'illous_, upon the first, _argil'lous_, upon the

second; _ax'illar_, upon the first, _medul'lar_, upon the second. See

_Webster's Octavo Dict._

[123] Perry wrote _crystaline, crystalize, crystalization, metaline,

metalist, metalurgist_, and _metalurgy_; and these forms, as well as

_crystalography, metalic, metalography_, and _metaliferous_, are noticed

and preferred by the authors of the _Red Book_, on pp. 288 and 302.

[124] "But if a diphthong precedes, or the accent is on the preceding

syllable, the consonant remains single: as, to toil, toiling; to offer, an

offering."--_Murray's Octavo Gram._, p. 24; _Walker's Rhym. Dict._,

Introd., p. ix.

[125] Johnson, Walker, and Webster, all spell this word _sep'ilible_; which

is obviously wrong; as is Johnson's derivation of it from _sepio_, to hedge

in. _Sepio_ would make, not this word, but _sepibilis_ and _sepible_,

hedgeable.

[126] If the variable word _control, controul_, or _controll_, is from

_con_ and _troul_ or _troll_, it should be spelled with _ll_, by Rule 7th,

and retain the _ll_ by Rule 6th. Dr. Webster has it so, but he gives

_control_ also.

[127] _Ache_, and its plural, _aches_, appear to have been formerly

pronounced like the name of the eighth letter, with its plural, _Aitch_,

and _Aitches_; for the old poets made "_aches_" two syllables. But Johnson

says of _ache_, a pain, it is "now _generally_ written _ake_, and in the

plural _akes_, of one syllable."--See his _Quarto Dict._ So Walker: "It is

now _almost universally_ written _ake_ and _akes_."--See _Walker's

Principles_, No. 355. So Webster: "_Ake_, less properly written

_ache_."--See his _Octavo Dict._ But Worcester seems rather to prefer

_ache_.--G. B.

[128] This book has, probably, more _recommenders_ than any other of the

sort. I have not patience to count them accurately, but it would seem that

_more than a thousand_ of the great and learned have certified to the

world, that they never before had seen so good a spelling-book! With

personal knowledge of more than fifty of the signers, G. B. refused to add

his poor name, being ashamed of the mischievous facility with which very

respectable men had loaned their signatures.

[129] _Scrat_, for _scratch._ The word is now obsolete, and may be altered

by taking _ch_ in the correction.

[130] "_Hairbrained, adj._ This should rather be written _harebrained_;

unconstant, unsettled, wild as a _hare._"--_Johnson's Dict._ Webster writes

it _harebrained_, as from _hare_ and _brain_. Worcester, too, prefers this

form.

[131] "The whole number of verbs in the English language, regular and

irregular, simple and compounded, taken together, is about 4,300. See, in

Dr. Ward's Essays on the English language, the catalogue of English verbs.

The whole number of irregular verbs, the defective included, is about

176."--_Lowth's Gram._, Philad., 1799, p. 59. Lindley Murray copied the

first and the last of these three sentences, but made the latter number

"about 177."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 109; _Duodecimo_, p. 88. In the latter

work, he has this note: "The whole number of _words_, in the English

language, is about thirty-five thousand."--_Ib._ Churchill says, "The whole

number of verbs in the English language, according to Dr. Ward, is about

4,300. The irregulars, including the auxilaries [sic--KTH], scarcely exceed

200."--_New Gram._, p. 113. An other late author has the following

enumeration: "There are in the English language about twenty thousand five

hundred nouns, forty pronouns, _eight thousand verbs_, nine thousand two

hundred adnouns, two thousand six hundred adverbs, sixty-nine prepositions,

nineteen conjunctions, and sixty-eight interjections; in all, above forty

thousand words."--_Rev. David Blair's Gram._, p. 10. William Ward, M. A.,

in an old grammar _undated_, which speaks of Dr. Lowth's as one with which

the public had "_very lately_ been favoured," says: "There are _four

Thousand and about Five Hundred Verbs_ in the English [language]."--_Ward's

Practical Gram._, p. 52.

[132] These definitions are numbered here, because each of them is the

first of a series now begun. In class rehearsals, the pupils may be

required to give the definitions in turn; and, to prevent any from losing

the place, it is important that the numbers be mentioned. When all have

become sufficiently familiar with the _definitions_, the exercise may be

performed _without them._ They are to be read or repeated till faults

disappear--or till the teacher is satisfied with the performance. He may

then save time, by commanding his class to proceed more briefly; making

such distinctions as are required in the praxis, but ceasing to explain the

terms employed; that is, _omitting all the definitions, for brevity's

sake._ This remark is applicable likewise to all the subsequent praxes of

etymological parsing.]

[133] The _modifications_ which belong to the different parts of speech

consist chiefly of the _inflections_ or _changes_ to which certain words

are subject. But I use the term sometimes in a rather broader sense, as

including not only _variations_ of words, but, in certain instances, their

_original forms_, and also such of their _relations_ as serve to indicate

peculiar properties. This is no questionable license in the use of the

term; for when the position of a word _modifies_ its meaning, or changes

its person or case, this effect is clearly a grammatical _modification_,

though there be no absolute _inflection_. Lord Kames observes, "_That

quality_, which distinguishes one genus, one species, or even one

individual, from an other, is termed a _modification_: thus the same

particular that is termed a _property_ or _quality_, when considered as

belonging to an individual, or a class of individuals, is termed a

_modification_, when considered as distinguishing the individual or the

class from an other."--_Elements of Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 392.

[134] Wells, having put the articles into the class of adjectives, produces

authority as follows: "'The words _a_ or _an_, and _the_, are reckoned by

_some_ grammarians a separate part of speech; but, as they in all respects

come under the definition of the adjective, it is unnecessary, as well as

_improper_, to rank them as a class by themselves.'--Cannon." To this he

adds, "The articles are also ranked with adjectives by Priestley, E.

Oliver, Bell, Elphinston, M'Culloch, D'Orsey, Lindsay, Joel, Greenwood.

Smetham, Dalton, King, Hort, Buchanan, Crane, J. Russell, Frazee, Cutler,

Perley, Swett, Day. Goodenow, Willard, Robbins, Felton, Snyder, Butler, S.

Barrett, Badgley, Howe, Whiting, Davenport, Fowle, Weld, and

others."--_Wells's School Gram._, p. 69. In this way, he may have made it

seem to many, that, after thorough investigation, he had decided the point

discreetly, and with preponderance of authority. For it is claimed as a

"peculiar merit" of this grammar, that, "Every point of practical

importance is _thoroughly investigated_, and reference is carefully made to

the _researches_ of preceding writers, in all cases which admit of being

determined by _weight of authority_."--WILLIAM RUSSELL, _on the cover_.

But, in this instance, as in sundry others, wherein he opposes the more

common doctrine, and cites concurrent authors, both he and all his

authorities are demonstrably to the wrong. For how can they be right, while

reason, usage, and the prevailing opinion, are still against them? If we

have forty grammars which reject, the articles as a part of speech, we have

more than twice as many which recognize them as such; among which are those

of the following authors: viz., Adam, D. Adams, Ainsworth, Alden, Alger, W.

Allen, Ash, Bacon, Barnard, Beattie, Beck, Bicknell, Bingham, Blair, J. H.

Brown, Bucke, Bullions, Burn, Burr, Chandler, Churchill, Coar, Cobbett,

Cobbin, Comly, Cooper, Davis, Dearborn, Ensell, Everett, Farnum, Fisk, A.

Flint, Folker, Fowler, Frost, R. G. Greene, Greenleaf, Guy, Hall, Hallock,

Hart, Harrison, Matt. Harrison, Hazen, Hendrick, Hiley, Hull, Ingersoll,

Jaudon, Johnson, Kirkham, Latham, Lennie, A. Lewis, Lowth, Maltby, Maunder,

Mennye, Merchant, T. H. Miller, Murray, Nixon, Nutting, Parker and Fox,

John Peirce, Picket, Pond, S. Putnam, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, R. C.

Smith, Rev. T. Smith, Spencer, Tower, Tucker, Walker, Webber, Wilcox,

Wilson, Woodworth, J. E. Worcester, S. Worcester, Wright. The articles

characterize our language more than some of the other parts of speech, and

are worthy of distinction for many reasons, one of which is the very great

_frequency_ of their use.

[135] In Murray's Abridgement, and in his "Second Edition," 12mo, the

connective in this place is "_or_;" and so is it given by most of his

amenders; as in _Alger's Murray_, p. 68; _Alden's_, 89; _Bacon's_, 48;

_Cooper's_, 111; _A. Flint's_, 65; _Maltby's_, 60; _Miller's_, 67; _S.

Putnam's_, 74; _Russell's_, 52; _T. Smith's_, 61. All these, and many more,

repeat both of these ill-devised rules.

[136] When this was written, Dr. Webster was living.

[137] In French, the preposition _à, (to,)_ is always carefully

distinguished from the verb _a, (has,)_ by means of the grave accent, which

is placed over the former for that purpose. And in general also the Latin

word _à, (from,)_ is marked in the same way. But, with us, no appropriate

sign has hitherto been adopted to distinguish the preposition _a_ from the

article _a_; though the Saxon _a, (to,)_ is given by Johnson with an acute,

even where no other _a_ is found. Hence, in their ignorance, thousands of

vulgar readers, and among them the authors of sundry grammars, have

constantly mistaken this preposition for an article. Examples: "Some

adverbs are composed of _the article a_ prefixed to nouns; as _a_-side,

_a_-thirst, _a_-sleep, _a_-shore, _a_-ground, &c."--_Comly's Gram._, p67.

"Repeat some [adverbs] that are composed of _the article a_ and

nouns."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 89. "To go a fishing;" "To go a hunting;"

i.e. "to go _on_ a fishing _voyage_ or _business_;" "to go _on_ a hunting

_party_."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 221; _Fisk's_, 147; _Ingersoll's_, 157;

_Smith's_, 184; _Bullions's_, 129; _Merchant's_, 101; _Weld's_, 192, _and

others._ That this interpretation is false and absurd, may be seen at once

by any body who can read Latin; for, _a hunting, a fishing_, &c., are

expressed by the supine in _um_: as, "_Venatum ire_."--Virg. Æn. I.e., "To

go _a_ hunting." "_Abeo piscatum_."--Beza. I.e. "I go _a_

fishing."--_John_, xxi, 3. Every school-boy ought to know better than to

call this _a_ an article. _A fishing_ is equivalent to the infinitive _to

fish_. For the Greek of the foregoing text is [Greek: Hupágo hálieúein,]

which is rendered by Montanus, "_Vado piscari_;" i.e., "_I go to fish_."

One author ignorantly says, "The _article a_ seems to have _no particular

meaning_, and is _hardly proper_ in such expressions as these. 'He went

_a-hunting_,' She lies _a-bed_ all day.'"--_Wilcox's Gram._, p. 59. No

marvel that he could not find the meaning of an _article_ in this _a!_ With

doltish and double inconsistency, Weld first calls this "The _article a_

employed _in the sense_ of a _preposition_," (_E. Gram._, p. 177,) and

afterwards adopts Murray's interpretation as above cited! Some, too, have

an absurd practice of joining this preposition to the participle; generally

with the hyphen, but sometimes without: thus, "A-GOING, In motion; as, to

set a mill _agoing_."--_Webster's Dict._ The doctor does not tell us what

part of speech _agoing_ is; but, certainly, "to set the mill _to_ going,"

expresses just the same meaning, and is about as often heard. In the

burial-service of the Common Prayer Book, we read, "They are even as

_asleep_;" but, in the ninetieth Psalm, from which this is taken, we find

the text thus: "They are as _a sleep_;" that is, as a dream that is fled.

Now these are very different readings, and cannot both he right.

[138] Here the lexicographer forgets his false etymology of _a_ before the

participle, and writes the words _separately_, as the generality of authors

always have done. _A_ was used as a preposition long before the article _a_

appeared in the language; and I doubt whether there is any truth at all in

the common notions of its origin. Webster says, "In the words _abed,

ashore_, &c., and before _the_ participles _acoming, agoing, ashooting_,

[he should have said, 'and _before participles_; as, _a coming, a going, a

shooting_,'] _a_ has been supposed a contraction of _on_ or _at_. It may be

so _in some cases_; but with the participles, it _is sometimes_ a

contraction of the Saxon prefix _ge, and sometimes_ perhaps of the Celtic

_ag_."--_Improved Gram._, p. 175. See _Philos. Gram._, p. 244. What

admirable learning is this! _A_, forsooth, is a _contraction_ of _ge!_ And

this is the doctor's reason for _joining_ it to the participle!

[139] The following construction may he considered an _archaism_, or a form

of expression that is now obsolete: "You have bestowed _a_ many _of_

kindnesses upon me."--_Walker's English Particles_, p. 278.

[140] "If _I_ or _we_ is set before a name, it [the name] is of the first

person: as, _I, N-- N--, declare; we, N-- and M-- do promise_."--_Ward's

Gram._, p. 83. "Nouns which relate to the person or persons _speaking_, are

said to be of the _first_ person; as, I, _William_, speak to

you."--_Fowle's Common School Gram._, Part ii, p. 22. The first person of

nouns is admitted by Ainsworth, R. W. Bailey, Barnard, Brightland, J. H.

Brown, Bullions, Butler, Cardell, Chandler, S. W. Clark, Cooper, Day,

Emmons, Farnum, Felton, Fisk, John Flint, Fowle, Frazee, Gilbert,

Goldsbury, R. G. Greene, S. S. Greene, Hall, Hallock, Hamlin, Hart,

Hendrick, Hiley, Perley, Picket, Pinneo, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, Smart,

R. C. Smith, Spear, Weld, Wells, Wilcox, and others. It is denied, either

expressly or virtually, by Alger, Bacon, Comly, Davis, Dilworth, Greenleaf,

Guy, Hazen, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Kirkham, Latham, L. Murray, Maltby,

Merchant, Miller, Nutting, Parkhurst, S. Putnam, Rev. T. Smith, and others.

Among the grammarians who do not appear to have noticed the persons of

nouns at all, are Alden, W. Allen, D. C. Allen, Ash, Bicknell, Bingham,

Blair, Buchanan, Bucke, Burn, Burr, Churchill, Coar, Cobb, Dalton,

Dearborn, Abel Flint, R. W. Green, Harrison, Johnson, Lennie, Lowth,

Mennye, Mulligan, Priestley, Staniford, Ware, Webber, and Webster.

[141] Prof. S. S. Greene most absurdly and erroneously teaches, that, "When

the speaker wishes to represent himself, _he cannot use his name_, but

_must_ use some other word, as, _I_; [and] when he wishes to represent the

hearer, he _must_ use _thou_ or _you_."--_Greene's Elements of E. Gram._,

1853, p. xxxiv. The examples given above sufficiently show the falsity of

all this.

[142] In _shoe_ and _shoes, canoe_ and _canoes_, the _o_ is sounded

slenderly, like _oo_; but in _doe_ or _does, foe_ or _foes_, and the rest

of the fourteen nouns above, whether singular or plural, it retains the

full sound of its own name, _O_. Whether the plural of _two_ should be

"_twoes_" as Churchill writes it, or "_twos_," which is more common, is

questionable. According to Dr. Ash and the Spectator, the plural of _who_,

taken substantively, is "_whos_."--_Ash's Gram._, p. 131.

[143] There are some singular compounds of the plural word _pence_, which

form their own plurals regularly; as, _sixpence, sixpences_. "If you do not

all show like gilt _twopences_ to me."--SHAKSPEARE. "The _sweepstakes_ of

which are to be composed of the disputed difference in the value of two

doubtful _sixpences._"--GOODELL'S LECT.: _Liberator_. Vol. ix, p. 145.

[144] In the third canto of Lord Byron's Prophecy of Dante, this noun is

used in the singular number:--

"And ocean written o'er would not afford

Space for the _annal_, yet it shall go forth."

[145] "They never yet had separated for their daylight beds, without a

climax to their _orgy_, something like the present scene."--_The Crock of

Gold_, p. 13. "And straps never called upon to diminish that long

whity-brown interval between shoe and _trowser_."--_Ib._, p. 24. "And he

gave them _victual_ in abundance."--_2 Chron._, xi, 23. "Store of

_victual_."--_Ib._, verse 11.

[146] The noun _physic_ properly signifies medicine, or the science of

medicine: in which sense, it seems to have no plural. But Crombie and the

others cite one or two instances in which _physic_ and _metaphysic_ are

used, not very accurately, in the sense of the singular of _physics_ and

_metaphysics_. Several grammarians also quote some examples in which

_physics, metaphysics, politics, optics_, and other similar names of

sciences are used with verbs or pronouns of the singular number; but Dr.

Crombie justly says the plural construction of such words, "is more common,

and more agreeable to analogy."--_On Etym. and Syntax_, p. 27.

[147] "Benjamin Franklin, following the occupation of a compositor in a

printing-office, at a limited weekly _wage_," &c.--_Chambers' Edinburgh

Journal_, No. 232. "WAGE, Wages, hire. The singular number is still

frequently used, though _Dr. Johnson_ thought it obsolete."--_Glossary of

Craven_. 1828.

[148] Our lexicographers generally treat the word _firearms_ as a close

compound that has no singular. But some write it with a hyphen, as

_fire-arms_. In fact the singular is sometimes used, but the way of writing

it is unsettled. Dr. Johnson, in his Dictionary, defines a _carbine_ as, "a

small sort of _fire arm_;" Webster has it, "a short gun, or _fire arm_;"

Worcester, "a small _fire-arm_;" Cobb, "a sort of small _firearms_."

Webster uses "_fire-arm_," in defining "_stock_."

[149] "But, soon afterwards, he made a glorious _amend_ for his fault, at

the battle of Platæa."--_Hist. Reader_, p. 48.

[150] "There not _a dreg_ of guilt defiles."--_Watts's Lyrics_, p. 27.

[151] In Young's Night Thoughts, (N. vii, l. 475.) _lee_, the singular of

_lees_, is found; Churchill says, (Gram., p. 211,) "Prior has used _lee_,

as the singular of _lees_;" Webster and Bolles have also both forms in

their dictionaries:--

"Refine, exalt, throw down their poisonous _lee_,

And make them sparkle in the bowl of bliss."--_Young_.

[152] "The 'Procrustean bed' has been a myth heretofore; it promises soon

to be _a shamble_ and a slaughterhouse in reality."--_St. Louis Democrat_,

1855.

[153] J. W. Wright remarks, "Some nouns admit of no plural distinctions:

as, _wine, wood_, beer, _sugar, tea, timber, fruit, meat_, goodness,

happiness, and perhaps all nouns ending in _ness_."--_Philos. Gram._, p.

139. If this learned author had been brought up in the _woods_, and had

never read of Murray's "richer _wines_," or heard of Solomon's "dainty

_meats_,"--never chaffered in the market about _sugars_ and _teas_, or read

in Isaiah that "all our _righteousnesses_ are as filthy rags," or avowed,

like Timothy, "a good profession before many _witnesses_,"--he might still

have hewed the _timbers_ of some rude cabin, and partaken of the wild

_fruits_ which nature affords. If these nine plurals are right, his

assertion is nine times wrong, or misapplied by himself seven times in the

ten.

[154] "I will not suppose it possible for my dear James to fall into either

the company or the language of those persons who talk, and even write,

about _barleys, wheats, clovers, flours, grasses_, and _malts_."--

_Cobbett's E. Gram._, p. 29.

[155] "It is a general rule, that all names of things measured or weighed,

have no plural; for in _them_ not number, but quantity, is regarded: as,

_wool, wine, oil_. When we speak, however, of different kinds, we use the

plural: as, the coarser _wools_, the richer _wines_, the finer

_oils_."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 41.

[156] So _pains_ is the regular plural of _pain_, and, by Johnson, Webster,

and other lexicographers, is recognized only as plural; but Worcester

inserts it among his stock words, with a comment, thus: "Pains, _n._ Labor;

work; toil; care; trouble. [Fist] According to the best usage, the word

_pains_, though of plural form, is used in these senses as singular, and is

joined with a singular verb; as, 'The pains they had taken _was_ very

great.' _Clarendon_. 'No pains _is_ taken.' _Pope_. 'Great pains _is_

taken.' _Priestley_. '_Much_ pains.' _Bolingbroke_."--_Univ. and Crit.

Dict._ The multiplication of anomalies of this kind is so undesirable, that

nothing short of a very clear decision of Custom, against the use of the

regular concord, can well justify the exception. Many such examples may be

cited, but are they not examples of false syntax? I incline to think "the

best usage" would still make all these verbs plural. Dr. Johnson cites the

first example thus: "The _pains_ they had taken _were_ very great.

_Clarendon_."--_Quarto Dict., w. Pain_. And the following recent example is

unquestionably right: "_Pains have_ been taken to collect the information

required."--_President Fillmore's Message_, 1852.

[157] "And the _fish_ that _is_ in the river shall die."--_Exod._, vii, 18.

"And the _fish_ that _was_ in the river died."--_Ib._, 21. Here the

construction is altogether in the singular, and yet the meaning seems to be

plural. This construction appears to be more objectionable, than the use of

the word _fish_ with a plural verb. The French Bible here corresponds with

ours: but the Latin Vulgate, and the Greek Septuagint, have both the noun

and the verb in the plural: as, "The _fishes_ that _are_ in the

river,"--"The _fishes_ that _were_," &c. In our Bible, _fowl_, as well

_fish_, is sometimes plural; and yet both words, in some passages, have the

plural form: as, "And _fowl_ that may fly," &c.--_Gen._, i, 20. "I will

consume the _fowls_ of the heaven, and the _fishes_ of the sea."--_Zeph._,

i, 3.

[158] Some authors, when they give to _mere words_ the construction of

plural nouns, are in the habit of writing them in the form of possessives

singular; as, "They have of late, 'tis true, reformed, in some measure, the

gouty joints and darning work of _whereunto's, whereby's, thereof's,

therewith's_, and the rest of this kind."--_Shaftesbury_. "Here," says Dr.

Crombie, "the genitive singular is _improperly_ used for the objective case

plural. It should be, _whereuntos, wherebys, thereofs, therewiths_."--

_Treatise on Etym. and Synt._, p. 338. According to our rules, these words

should rather be, _whereuntoes, wherebies_, _thereofs, therewiths_. "Any

word, when used as the name of itself, becomes a noun."--_Goodenow's

Gram._, p. 26. But some grammarians say, "The plural of words, considered

as words merely, is formed by the apostrophe and _s_; as, 'Who, that has

any taste, can endure the incessant, quick returns of the _also's_, and the

_likewise's_, and the _moreover's_, and the _however's_, and the

_notwithstanding's_?'--CAMPBELL."--_Wells's School Gram._, p. 54. Practice

is not altogether in favour of this principle, and perhaps it would be

better to decide with Crombie that such a use of the apostrophe is

improper.

[159] "The Supreme Being (_God, [Greek: Theos], Deus, Dieu_, &c.) is, in

all languages, masculine; in as much as the masculine sex is the superior

and more excellent; and as He is the Creator of all, the Father of gods and

men."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 54. This remark applies to all the direct

names of the Deity, but the abstract idea of _Deity itself_, [Greek: To

Theion], _Numen, Godhead_, or _Divinity_, is not masculine, but neuter. On

this point, some notions have been published for grammar, that are too

heterodox to be cited or criticised here. See _O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p.

208.

[160] That is, we give them sex, if we mean to represent them _as_ persons.

In the following example, a character commonly esteemed feminine is

represented as neuter, because the author would seem to doubt both the sex

and the personality: "I don't know what a _witch_ is, or what _it_ was

then."--_N. P. Rogers's Writings_, p. 154.