Staple of News.
"And seal the news and issue _them_."----The same.
But can an English ear relish this affected correctness? Hear the
language of Cowley and Shakespear, who wrote as the nation spoke:
"A GENERAL joy at _this glad newes_ appear'd."
Cowley's Davideis, book 1.
"Now by St. Paul _this news_ is bad indeed!"
The same.
"No news so bad abroad as _this_ at home."
Rich. III. scene 1.
Such is the language at this day, and a man would expose himself to
ridicule, who should say, _these news are good_.
Late writers seem to consider _riches_ as plural; but erroneously. It
is merely a contraction of _richesse_, the French singular, which was
probably introduced into England under the Norman kings. Chaucer uses
_richesse_ as the singular:
"But for ye speken of swiche gentillesse,
As is descended out of old _richesse_."
Cant. Tales, 6691.
--"And he that ones to love doeth his homage
Full oftentymes dere bought _is the richesse_."
La Belle Dame sans mercy, 323.
The word _richesse_ here is no more plural than _gentilnesse_,
_distresse_, _doublenesse_, which the author uses in the same poem;
and _riches_ now, in strictness of speech, is no more plural than
_gentleness_, _distress_, or any other word of similar ending. When
Chaucer had occasion for a plural, he wrote the word _richesses_; as in
the Tale of Melibeus: "Thou hast dronke so muche hony of swete temporal
_richesses_ and delices and honors of this world," &c.---- Works, vol.
4. p. 170. Bell's edit.
The word _riches_ therefore is in the singular number and merely
an abbreviation of _richesse_; as _distress_ is of _distresse_;
_weakness_, of _weaknesse_, &c. and the reason why the plural
_richesses_ has been neglected, may be, that the idea it conveys does
not admit of number any more than that of _wealth_, which is also
destitute of a plural form.
"Was ever _riches_ gotten by your golden mediocrities?"----Cowley on
Cromwell's Gov.
"When love has taken all thou hast away,
His strength by too much riches will decay."
Cowley.
"The envy and jealousy which great _riches_ is always attended
with."----Moyle's Essay on Lacedem. Gov. 48.
"In one hour _is_ so great _riches_ come to nought."----Bible.
Here _riches_ is considered in its true light. Notwithstanding this,
the termination of the word has led late writers into the opinion, that
it is plural; so that we generally see it followed by a plural verb:
Should this become the unanimous opinion and a general correspondent
practice ensue, _riches_ will be established as a plural, contrary to
etymology and ancient usage.
_Alms_ is also in the singular number; being a contraction of the old
Norman French, _almesse_, the plural of which was _almesses_. So in
Chaucer:
"Ye knowen wel that I am poure and olde, Kithe (show) your
_almesse_ upon me poure wretche."
Freres Tale, 7190.
"_This almesse_ shouldest thou do of thy propre thinges," &c.---- Vol.
5. p. 217. Bell.
"These ben generally the _almesses_ and werkes of charitie of hem that
have temporel richesses."----The same.
_Alms_ is used as a noun singular in the Bible; "To ask _an alms_." "He
gave _much alms_;" that is, _almesse_, or charity. The plural of this
word is not used.
_Largess_ is a word of this class. It is from the old French
_largesse_; but the idea admits of number, and accordingly we find the
plural, _largesses_, still in use.
_Laches_, from the French _lachesse_, is still retained in the law
stile; but custom has abbreviated the word into _lache_, a single
syllable.
_Amends_ may properly be considered as in the singular number, and so
it is used by one of our best writers. "They must needs think that this
honor to him, when dead, was but _a_ necessary _amends_ for the injury
which they had done him, when living."----Middleton's L. of Cic. vol.
3. p. 131.
The idea here conveyed by _amends_ is as single as that expressed by
_compensation_. The word has no change of termination, and may be
considered as singular or plural, at the choice of the writer.
_Wages_ is a word of the same kind.
_Victuals_ is derived from the old French _vitaille_,[97] and was
formerly used in the singular form, _victual_. But the latter is now
wholly disused, and _victuals_ generally used with a singular verb and
pronoun. So Swift uses the word. "We had such very fine _victuals_ that
I could not eat _it_."[98] The editor of his works remarks, _that
here is false concord_; but I believe Swift has followed the general
practice of the English. The word seems to have lost the plurality of
ideas, annexed to many different articles included in the term, and to
have assumed the general meaning of the word _food_, which does not
admit of the plural.
The word _odds_ seems to be of the same kind. We sometimes find a
plural verb united to it, as in Pope's translation of Homer:
"On valor's side the _odds_ of combat _lie_,
The brave live glorious, or lamented die."
Iliad, b. 15. l. 670.
But in common practice _odds_ is considered as in the singular number.
We always say, "What _is_ the _odds_;" and I should rank this among the
words, which, altho they have the termination of regular plurals, more
properly belong to the singular number.
The word _gallows_ is evidently of this class. "Let _a gallows_ be
made," say the translators of the Bible, with perfect propriety.
Indeed I cannot conceive how any man who has read English authors, can
consider this word as in the plural.
_Bellows_, _tongs_, _sheers_, _scissors_, _snuffers_, _pincers_, have
no change of termination, and it is the practice to prefix to them
the word _pair_. Yet notwithstanding these articles are composed of
two principal parts, both are necessary to form a single indivisible
instrument, and the names might have been considered as nouns in the
singular.[99] _Pair_ is more properly applied to two separate articles
of the same kind, and used together; a _pair of shoes_, or _gloves_.
Custom, however, has sanctioned the use of it before the words just
enumerated, and therefore a pair of tongs, &c. must be admitted as good
English.[100]
There are many other words in our language which have the plural
termination; as _billiards_, _ethics_, _metaphysics_, _mathematics_,
_measles_, _hysterics_, and many others; which properly belong to the
singular number. _Ethics is a science_, is better English than _ethics
are_.
On the other hand, there are many words, which, without ever taking the
plural termination, often belong to the plural. _Sheep_, _deer_ and
_hose_, are often mentioned as belonging to this description. To these
we may add many names of fish; as _trout_, _salmon_, _carp_, _tench_
and others, which are in fact names of species; but which apply equally
to the individuals of the species. We say _a trout_, or _five trout_;
but never _five trouts_.
POSSESSIVE CASE.
In many instances we find two or three words used to describe or
designate a particular person or thing; in which case they are to be
considered as a single noun or name, and the sign of the possessive
annexed to the last; as, "the _King of France's_ army."
"_Fletcher of Salton's plan_ of a militia differs little from that of
Harrington."[101]---- Home, Sketch 9.
ARTICLE.
Most grammarians have given the article the first rank among the parts
of speech. To me this arrangement appears very incorrect; for the
article is a mere appendage of the noun, and without it cannot even
be defined. The _noun_ is the primary and principal part of speech,
of which the _article_, _pronoun_ and _adjective_ are mere adjuncts,
attendants, or substitutes, and the latter therefore should follow the
former in grammatical order and definition.
Under this head I will introduce a few observations on the use of
_a_. Grammarians have supposed that _a_, in the phrases _a going_,
_a hunting_, is a corruption of the preposition _on_; a supposition,
which, if we attend to the sense of the phrases, appears highly absurd,
but which etymology, in a great measure, overthrows.
In the first place, the preposition is not among the original parts of
language; its use, and consequently its formation, are not necessary
among rude nations; it is a part of speech of a late date in the
progress of language, and is itself a derivative from other words.
I have, in another place,[102] given some reasons to prove _on_ to
be an abbreviation of the numeral _one_, or _top one_. It is very
evident that _on_ is a contraction of _upon_, which was formerly
written _uppone_; and there are good reasons for believing the latter
to be derived from _top one_. In addition to the authorities quoted in
the Institute, an example or two from Chaucer will almost place the
question beyond a doubt.
"There lith on--up myn hed."
Cant. Tales, 4288.
That is, there lieth one upon my head; where _up_ is used for _upon_,
as it is in other places.
"No more, _up paine_ of losing of your hed."
Ibm. 1709.
That is, _upon pain of losing your head_.
The word _up_ is undoubtedly but a corruption of _top_, or a noun
derived from the same root, and this hypothesis is supported by the
true theory of language; which is, that rude nations converse mostly by
names. _Up myn hed_, is _top mine head_. An improvement of this phrase
would be the use of _one_, _ane_ or _an_, to ascertain particular
things; _uppone_, _upon_. In the progress of language, these words
would be contracted into _on_, which we denominate a preposition.
I am very sensible that Chaucer used _on_ in the manner mentioned
by Lowth; _on live_ for _alive_; _on hunting_; _on hawking_; which
would seem to warrant the supposition of that writer, that _a_ is a
contraction of _on_, considering _on_ originally as a preposition. But
it is contrary to all just ideas of language to allow such a primitive
part of speech. On the other hand, Chaucer uses _on_ for other
purposes, which cannot be explained on Lowth's hypothesis.
"His brede, his ale, was alway _after on_."
Cant. Tales, 343.
So also in line 1783. In this example _on_ is allowed on all hands to
be a contraction of _one_; _after one_ (way, manner) that is, _alike_,
or in the same manner.
"They were _at on_;" line 4195. They were _at one_; that is, together
or agreed.
"Ever _in on_;" line 1773, and 3878; ever _in one_ (way, course, &c.)
that is, _continually_.
If therefore we suppose _on_ to be merely a corruption of _one_, we
can easily explain all its uses. _On hunting_, or contractedly, _a
hunting_, is _one hunting_. _On live_, _on life_, or _alive_, is merely
_one life_. This form of expression is very natural, however childish
or improper it may appear to us. It seems very obvious to resolve
_ashore_, _abed_, into _on shore_, _on bed_; but even Lowth himself
would be puzzled to make us believe that _adry_, _athirst_, came from
_on dry_, _on thirst_; and Wallis would find equal difficulty to
convince us that they came from _at dry_, _at thirst_. If we suppose
_a_ to be a contraction of _one_, or the Saxon _ane_ or _an_, the
solution of all these phrases is perfectly easy, and corresponds with
Horne's theory of the particles. For if rude nations converse without
particles, they must say _go shore_, or _go one shore_; _he is bed_,
or _he is one bed_; _he is dry_, or _one dry_; _I am thirst_, or _I
am one thirst_. Indeed every person who will attend to the manner of
speaking among the American savages, must believe this explanation of
the phrases to be probably just.
That _on_ was formerly used both as a preposition and an adjective,
is acknowleged by the Editor of the British Poets;[103] but its uses
in all cases may be easily explained on the single principle before
mentioned.
This hypothesis however will be confirmed by the fact, that the
English article _a_, "is nothing more than a corruption of the Saxon
adjective, _ane_ or _an_ (one) before a substantive beginning with a
consonant." Editor of Chaucer's works, Gloss. p. 23. And the article
_a_ and the numeral _one_ have still the same signification. That
_ane_ or _an_, and _one_ are originally the same, is a point not to
be controverted. We have therefore the strongest reason to believe
that _a_ in the phrases _a going_, _a hunting_, _a fishing_ is derived
from _one_. _On_, as a contraction of _upon_, has, in modern language,
a different sense, and cannot be well substituted for _a_; for _on
going_, _on fishing_, have an awkward appearance and will not obtain in
the language, to the exclusion of _a going_, _a fishing_. The vulgar
practice is more correct than Lowth's correction, and ought by no means
to be rejected.
"O let my life, if thou so many deaths _a coming_ find,
With thine old year its voyage take."----
Cowley's Ode to the New Year.
"But these fantastic errors of our dream,
Lead us to solid wrong;
We pray God, our friend's torments to prolong,
And wish uncharitably for them,
To be as long _a dying_ as Methusalem."
Cowley.
If the foregoing opinion of the origin of _a_ in such phrases, should
not be deemed satisfactory, we may perhaps ascribe its origin to a mere
custom of forming expletive sounds in the transition from one word to
another.[104]
The following phrases, _three shillings a piece_, _a day_, _a head_, _a
bushel_, it is said are elliptical forms of speech; some preposition
being implied, as, _for_ or _by_. This assertion can proceed only from
an imperfect view of the subject. Unless grammarians can prove that
some preposition was formerly used, which is now omitted, they cannot
prove that any is implied, nor should they have recourse to implication
to find a rule to parse the phrases. The truth is, no such preposition
can be found, nor is there need of any. _A_, in this form of speech,
carries the full meaning of the Latin _per_, and the substitution
of the latter, for want, as it is said, of an English word, in the
phrases, _per day_, _per head_, _per pound_, is a burlesque upon the
English to this day. We see continually a wretched jargon of Latin
and English in every merchant's book, even to the exclusion of a pure
English phrase, more concise, more correct, and more elegant. It is to
be wished that _a_ might be restored to its true dignity, as it is used
by some of the purest English writers.
"He had read almost constantly, twelve or fourteen hours _a day_;"
that is, _one day_.---- Bolingbroke on History, letter 4.
"To the sixteen scholars twenty pounds _a piece_."----Cowley.
This is pure elegant English, and the common people have the honor of
preserving it, unadulterated by foreign words.
+VERB.+
The most difficult branch of this subject is the verb. Next to the
noun, this is the most important part of speech, and as it includes
all the terms by which we express action and existence, in their
numberless varieties, it must, in all languages, be very comprehensive.
The English verb suffers very few inflections or changes of
termination, to express the different circumstances of person, number,
time and mode. Its inflections are confined to the three persons of the
singular number, in the present tense, indicative mode, and the first
and second persons of the past tense; unless we consider the irregular
participles as a species of inflection belonging to the verb. All
the other varieties of person, number, time and mode, are expressed
by prefixing other words, by various combinations of words, or by a
particular manner of utterance.
This simplicity, as it is erroneously called, is said to render our
language easy of acquisition. The reverse however of this is true; for
the use of auxiliaries or combinations of words, constitutes the most
perplexing branch of grammar; it being much easier to learn to change
the termination of the verb, than to combine two, three or four words
for the same purpose.
Grammarians have usually divided the English verbs into _active_,
_passive_ and _neuter_. "_Active_ verbs," say they,[105] "express
action, and necessarily imply an agent and an object acted upon." But
is not a man _passive_ in _hearing_? Yet _hear_ is called an _active_
verb.
"A verb _neuter_ expresses being, or a state or condition of being;
when the agent and object coincide, and the event is properly neither
action nor passion, but rather something between both." But is there
neither _action_ nor _passion_ in _walking_, _running_, _existing_? One
would think that _running_ at least might be called _action_.
The common definitions, copied, in some measure, from the Latin
Grammars, are very inaccurate. The most correct and general division
of English verbs, is, into _transitive_ and _intransitive_; the former
term comprehending all verbs that may be followed by any object
receiving the action, or of which any thing is affirmed; the latter,
all those verbs, the affirmation in which is limited to the agent. Thus
_hear_ is a _transitive_ verb, for it affirms something of an object;
_I hear the bell_.
_Run_ is an _intransitive_ verb, for the action mentioned is confined
to the agent; _he runs_. Yet the last is an _active_ verb, and the
first, strictly speaking, is not;[106] so that there is a distinction
to be made between a verb _active_ and _transitive_.
In strict propriety, we have in English no passive verb; that is, we
have no single word which conveys the idea of passion or suffering, in
the manner of the Greek or Latin passive verb. It may be useful, in
teaching English to youth or foreigners, to exhibit a specimen of the
combinations of the verb _be_, with the participles of other verbs in
all their varieties; but each word should be parsed as a distinct part
of speech; altho two or more may be necessary to convey an idea which
is expressed by a single word in another language.
TIME.
Time is naturally divided into _past_, _present_ and _future_. The
English verb has but two variations of ending to express time; the
present, as _love_, _write_; and the past, as _loved_, _wrote_. The
usual division of tenses, or combinations of words corresponding
to the Latin tenses, is not wholly accurate. The definition of the
second tense, in the ordinary arrangement of them in Latin grammars,
may be correct, as it relates to the Roman tongue; but does not apply
to the English tense, which is commonly called by the same name, the
_Imperfect_. The Latin words _movebam_, _legebam_, are translated _I
moved_, _I read_. Now the English words express actions _perfectly
past_, and therefore the time or tense cannot be justly denominated
_imperfect_. If the Latin words expressed, in the Roman tongue, actions
_imperfectly past_, they should be rendered by us, _I was moving_,
_was reading_, which convey ideas of actions, as taking place at some
preceding period, but not then past. In this sense, the name of the
tense might have been used with propriety. But the English form of
expression, _he moved_, conveys the idea of an action completely past,
and does not fall within the definition of the Latin _Imperfect_.
It is surprizing that the great Lowth should rank this form of the
verb, _they moved_, under the head of _indefinite_ or _undetermined_
time; and yet place this form, _have moved_, or what is called the
perfect tense, under the head of _definite_ or _determined_ time. The
truth is, the first is the most _definite_. _I have loved_, or _moved_,
expresses an action performed and completed, generally within a period
of time not far distant; but leaves the particular point of time
wholly _indefinite_ or _undetermined_. On the other hand, _I loved_ is
necessarily employed, when a particular _period_ or _point_ of time is
specified. Thus it is correct to say, _I read a book yesterday_, _last
week_, _ten years ago_, &c. but it is not grammatical to say, _I have
read a book yesterday_, _last week_, &c. so that, directly contrary to
Lowth's rule, _I moved_, is the _definite_, and _I have moved_, the
_indefinite_ time.
Great inaccuracy is likewise indulged in the usual description of the
English future tense. There is no variation of the verb to express
a future action; to remedy this defect, the English use _shall_ and
_will_, before the verb in its radical form. But these words are both
in the present time; being merely the Teutonic verbs _sollen_ and
_wollen_, which formerly had, and in the German still have, most of the
inflections of regular verbs. Thus:
Ind. Pref. _Ich soll_, I ought or should. _Ich will_, I will.
Imp. _Ich sollt_, I ought or should. _Ich wollt_, I would.
Preter. _Ich habe gesollt_, I ought or should have. _Ich habe
gewollt_, I would or would have, &c. &c.[107]
_I will go_ is really nothing more than a _present_ promise of a
_future_ action. I _shall go_ is a _present_ prediction of a _future_
action. In the second and third persons, _will_ expresses the
prediction; and as one cannot promise for a second or third person,
_shall_, in these persons, implies a promise of the first person, that
he will _command_ or _oblige_ the second or third person to do an
action in some future time. The whole may be thus explained:
_I will go_,
Is my own _present_ promise to do a future action.
_Thou wilt go_--_He will go_,
are my (the speaker's) _present_ predictions that the persons mentioned
will do a future action; or perhaps more properly, a declaration of
their inclination or intention.
_I shall go_,
is my _present_ prediction of a future action.
_Thou shalt go_--_He shall go_,
are my (the speaker's) _present_ promise that the second and third
persons will do a future action. But as a man cannot compel a superior,
he can promise only for himself or inferiors; therefore these last
expressions imply a promise in the speaker, and a right to command the
second and third persons to do the thing promised; for which reason
they are used only in addressing or speaking of, inferiors or subjects.
The same remarks apply to the three persons in the plural number.
Hence we observe the inaccuracy of translating the future tense of the
Greeks, Romans, and French, by _shall_ or _will_ indifferently. It
is probable that the future tense in those languages, and perhaps in
others, where the tense is formed by inflections, was employed merely
to _foretell_. If so, _shall_ only should be used in the first person
of the English translation, and _will_, in the second and third. Thus:
_Latin._ _French._ _English._
Habebo, J'aurai, I shall have.
Habebimus, nous aurons, we shall have.
Habebis, tu auras, thou wilt have.
Habebit, il aura, he will have.
Habebitis, vous aurez, you will have.
Habebunt, ils auront, they will have.
On the other hand, a promise in the first person expressed in English
by _will_, and a promise or command in the second and third, expressed
by _shall_, seem, in these languages, to be communicated by other words
or a circumlocution.
In strictness of speech therefore, we have no future tense of the
verb in English; but we use auxiliaries, which, in the present tense,
express a prediction of an action, or a disposition of mind to produce
an action. These auxiliaries, united with the verb or affirmation,
answer the purposes of the future tenses of verbs in other languages;
and no inconvenience can arise from calling such a combination a
_tense_.
MODE.
Most languages are so constructed, that the verbs change their
terminations for the purpose of expressing the _manner_ of being or
action. In this particular, the English is singular; there being but
one inflection of a single verb, which can be said to be peculiar to
the conditional or subjunctive mode.[108] In all other respects, the
verbs in the declaratory and conditional modes are the same; and the
condition is known only by some other word prefixed to the verb.