from noun, and partakes of the same meaning. Hence the _nominative_ or
_naming_ case may apply as correctly to the object as the agent. "_John_
strikes _Thomas_, and _Thomas_ strikes _John_." John and Thomas name the
boys who strike, but in the first case John is the actor or agent and
Thomas the object. In the latter it is changed. To use a _nominative
name_ is a redundancy which should be avoided. You will understand my
meaning and see the propriety of the change proposed, as the mind of the
learner should not be burthened with needless or irrelevant phrases.
But our main objection lies against the "possessive case." We regard it
as a false and unnecessary distinction. What is the possessive case?
Murray defines it as "expressing the relation of property or possession;
as, my father's house." His rule of syntax is, "one substantive governs
another, signifying a different thing, in the possessive or genitive
case; as, my father's house." I desire you to understand the definition
and use as here given. Read it over again, and be careful that you know
the meaning of _property_, _possession_, and _government_. Now let a
scholar parse correctly the example given. "_Father's_" is a common
noun, third person, singular number, masculine gender, and _governed_ by
house:" Rule, "One noun _governs_ another," &c. Then my father does not
govern his own house, but his house him! What must be the conduct and
condition of the family, if they have usurped the government of their
head? "John Jones, hatter, keeps constantly for sale all kinds of _boy's
hats_. Parse boy's. It is a noun, possessive case, _governed_ by hats."
What is the possessive case? It "signifies the _relation of property or
possession_." Do the hats belong to the boys? Oh no. Are they the
_property_ or in the _possession_ of the boys? Certainly not. Then what
relation is there of property or possession? None at all. They belong to
John Jones, were made by him, are his property, and by him are
advertised for sale. He has used the word _boy's_ to distinguish their
size, quality, and fitness for boy's use.
"The master's slave." Master's is in the possessive case, and _governed_
by slave! If grammars are true there can be no need of abolition
societies, unless it is to look after the master and see that he is not
abused. The rider's horse; the captain's ship; the general's army; the
governor's cat; the king's subject. How false it would be to teach
scholars the idea of _property_ and _government_ in such cases. The
_teacher's scholars_ should never learn that by virtue of their
grammars, or the _apostrophe_ and letter _s_, they have a right to
_govern_ their teachers; nor the mother's son, to govern his mother. Our
merchants would dislike exceedingly to have the _ladies_ understand them
to signify by their advertisements that the "ladies' merino shawls, the
ladies's bonnets and lace wrought veils, the ladies' gloves and elegant
Thibet, silk and challa dresses, were the _property_ of the ladies; for
in that case they might claim or _possess_ themselves of their
_property_, and no longer trouble the merchant with the care of it.
"Peter's wife's mother lay sick of a fever." "_His_ physician said that
_his_ disease would require _his_ utmost skill to defeat _its_ progress
in _his_ limbs." Phrases like these are constantly occurring, which can
not be explained intelligibly by the existing grammars. In fact, the
words said to be nouns in the possessive case, have changed their
character, by use, from nouns to adjectives, or definitive words, and
should thus be classed. Russia iron, Holland gin, China ware, American
people, the Washington tavern, Lafayette house, Astor house, Hudson
river, (formerly Hudson's,) Baffin's bay, Van Dieman's land, John
street, Harper's ferry, Hill's bridge, a paper book, a bound book, a red
book, John's book--one which John is known to use, it may be a borrowed
one, but generally known as some way connected with him,--Rev. Mr.
Smith's church, St. John's church, Grace church, Murray's grammar; not
the property nor in the possession of Lindley Murray, neither does it
_govern him_; for he has gone to speak a purer language than he taught
on earth. It is mine. I bought it, have possessed it these ten years;
but, thank fortune, am little _governed_ by it. But more on this point
when we come to the proper place. What I have said, will serve as a
hint, which will enable you to see the impropriety of adopting the
"possessive case."
It may be said that more cases are employed in other languages. That is
a poor reason why we should break the barriers of natural language.
Beside, I know not how we should decide by that rule, for none of them
have a _case_ that will compare with the English possessive. The
genitive of the French, Latin, or Greek, will apply in only a few
respects. The former has _three_, the latter five, and the Latin six
cases, neither of which correspond with the possessive, as explained by
Murray and his satellites. We should be slow to adopt into our language
an idiom which does not belong to it, and compel learners to make
distinctions where none exist. It is an easy matter to tell children
that the apostrophe and letter _s_ marks the possessive case; but when
they ask the difference in the meaning between the use of the noun and
those which all admit are adjectives, it will be no indifferent task to
satisfy them. What is the difference in the construction of language or
the sense conveyed, between Hudson'_s_ river, and _Hudson_ river?
Davis's straits, or Bass straits? St. John's church, or Episcopal
church? the sun's beams, or sun shine? In all cases these words are used
to define the succeeding noun. They regard "property or possession,"
only when attending circumstances, altogether foreign from any quality
in the form or meaning of the word itself, are so combined as to give it
that import. And in such cases, we retain these words as adjectives,
long after the property has passed from the hands of the persons who
gave it a name. _Field's_ point, _Fuller's_ rocks, _Fisher's_ island,
_Fulton's_ invention, will long be retained after those whose names were
given to distinguish these things, have slept with their fathers and
been forgotten. Blannerhassett's Island, long since ceased to be his
property or tranquil possession, by confiscation; but it will retain its
specific name, till the inundations of the Ohio's waters shall have
washed it away and left not a wreck behind.
The distinctions I have made in the positions of nouns, will be clearly
understood when we come to the verbs. A few remarks upon pronouns will
close the present lecture.
PRONOUNS.
Pronouns are such as the word indicates. _Pro_ is the latin word _for_;
pro-nomen, _for nouns_. They are words, originally nouns, used
specifically _for_ other nouns, to avoid the too frequent repetition of
the same words; as, Washington was the father of his country; _he_ was a
valiant officer. _We_ ought to respect _him_. The word _we_, stands for
the speaker and all present, and saves the trouble of naming them; _he_
and _him_, stand for Washington, to avoid the monotony which would be
produced by a recurrence of his name.
Pronouns are all of one kind, and few in number. I will give you a list
of them in their respective positions.
_Agents._ _Objects._
{ 1st person, I, me,
{ 2d " thou, thee,
_Singular_ { 3d " mas. { he, him,
{ " fem. { she, her,
{ it, it.
{ 1st person, we, us,
_Plural_ { 2d " ye, or you, you,
{ 3d " they, them,
who, whom.
The two last may be used in either person, number, or gender.
The frequent use of these words render them very important, in the
elegant and rapid use of language. They are so short, and their sound so
soft and easy, that the frequency of their recurrence does not mar the
beauty of a sentence, but saves us from the redundancy of other words.
They are substituted only when there is little danger of mistaking the
nouns for which they stand. They are, however, sometimes used in a very
broad sense; as, "_they say_ it is so;" meaning no particular persons,
but the general sentiment. _It_ frequently takes the lead of a sentence,
and the thing represented by it comes after; as, "It is currently
reported, that things were thus and so." Here _it_ represents the single
idea which is afterward stated at length. "_It_ is so." "_It_ may be
that the nations will be destroyed by wars, earthquakes, and famines."
But more of this when we come to speak of the composition of sentences.
The words now classed as pronouns were originally _names_ of things, but
in this character they have long been obsolete. They are now used only
in their secondary character as the representatives of other words. The
word _he_, for instance, signified originally _to breathe_. It was
applied to the living beings who inhaled air. It occurs with little
change in the various languages of Europe, ancient and modern, till at
length it is applied to the male agent which lives and acts. The word
_her_ means _light_, but is specifically applied to females which are
the objects of action.
Was it in accordance with the design of these lectures, it would give me
pleasure to go into a minute examination of the origin, changes and
meaning of these words till they came to be applied as specific words of
exceeding limited character. Most of them might be traced thro all the
languages of Europe; the Arabic, Persic, Arminian, Chaldean, Hebrew,
and, for ought I know, all the languages of Asia. But as they are now
admitted a peculiar position in the expression of thought from which
they never vary; and as we are contending about philosophic principles
rather than verbal criticisms, I shall forbear a further consideration
of these words.
In the proper place I shall consider those words formerly called
"Adjective Pronouns," "Pronoun Adjectives," or "Pronominal Adjectives,"
to suit the varying whims of those grammar makers, who desired to show
off a speck of improvement in their "simplifying" works without ever
having a new idea to express. It is a query in some minds whether the
seventy-two "simplifiers" and "improvers" of Murray's grammar ever had
any distinct notions in their heads which they did not obtain from the
very man, who, it would seem by their conduct, was unable to explain his
own meaning.
LECTURE VI.
ON ADJECTIVES.
Definition of adjectives.--General character.--Derivation.--How
understood.--Defining and describing.--Meaning changes to suit the
noun.--Too numerous.--Derived from nouns.--Nouns and verbs made from
adjectives.--Foreign adjectives.--A general list.--Difficult to be
understood.--An example.--Often superfluous.--Derived from
verbs.--Participles.--Some prepositions.--Meaning unknown.--With.--
In.--Out.--Of.
The most important sub-division of words is the class called Adjectives,
which we propose to notice this evening. _Adjective_ signifies _added_
or _joined to_. We employ the term in grammar to designate that class of
words which are _added to nouns to define or describe them_. In doing
this, we strictly adhere to the principles we have already advanced, and
do not deviate from the laws of nature, as developed in the regulation
of speech.
In speaking of things, we had occasion to observe that the mind not only
conceived ideas of things, but of their properties; as, the hardness of
flint; the heat of fire; and that we spoke of one thing in reference to
another. We come now to consider this subject more at large.
In the use of language the mind first rests on the thing which is
present before it, or the word which represents the idea of that thing.
Next it observes the changes and attitudes of these things. Thirdly, it
conceives ideas of their qualities and relations to other things. The
first use of these words is to name things. This we call _nouns_. The
second is to express their actions. This we call _verbs_. The last is to
define or describe things. This we call _adjectives_. There is a great
similarity between the words used to name things and to express their
actions; as, builders build buildings; singers sing songs; writers write
writings; painters paint paintings. In the popular use of language we
vary these words to avoid the monotony and give pleasantness and
variety. We say builders _erect_ houses, barns, and other buildings;
singers perform pieces of music; musicians play tunes; the choir sing
psalm tunes; artists paint pictures.
From these two classes a third is derived which partakes somewhat of the
nature of both, and yet from its secondary use, it has obtained a
distinctive character, and as such is allowed a separate position among
the classes of words.
It might perhaps appear more in order to pass the consideration of
adjectives till we have noticed the character and use of verbs, from
which an important portion of them is derived. But as they are used in
connexion with nouns, and as the character they borrow from the verb
will be readily understood, I have preferred to retain the old
arrangement, and consider them in this place.
_Adjectives are words added to nouns to define or describe them._ They
are derived either, 1st, from nouns; as, _window_ glass, _glass_ window,
a stone house, building stone, maple sugar, sugar cane; or, 2d, from
verbs; as, a _written_ paper, a _printed_ book, a _painted_ house, a
_writing_ desk. In the first case we employ one noun, or the name of one
thing, to define another, thus giving it a secondary use. A _glass_
window is one made of glass, and not of any thing else. It is neither a
_board_ window, nor a _paper_ window. _Maple_ sugar is not _cane_
sugar, nor _beet_ sugar, nor _molasses_ sugar; but it may be _brown_
sugar, if it has been browned, or _white_ if it has been whit_ed_ or
whit_ened_. In this case, you at once perceive the correctness of our
second proposition, in the derivation of adjectives from verbs, by which
we describe a thing in reference to its condition, in some way affected
by the operation of a prior action. A _printed_ book is one on which the
action of printing has been performed. A _written_ book differs from the
former, in as much as its appearance was produced by writing and not by
printing.
In the definition or description of things, whatever is best understood
is employed as a definitive or descriptive term, and is attached to the
object to make known its properties and relations. Speaking of nations,
if we desire to distinguish some from others, we choose the words
supposed to be best known, and talk of European, African, American, or
Indian nations; northern, southern, eastern, or western nations. These
last words are used in reference to their relative position, and may be
variously understood; for we speak of the northern, eastern, western,
and southern nations of Europe, of Africa, and the world.
Again, we read of civiliz_ed_, half-civilized, and barbarous nations;
learned, unlearned, ignorant, and enlightened; rich, powerful,
enterprising, respected, ancient or modern, christian, mahomedan or
pagan. In these, and a thousand similar cases, we decide the meaning,
not alone from the word employed as an adjective, but from the subject
of remark; for, were we to attach the same meaning to the same word,
wherever used, we could not receive correct or definite impressions from
the language of others--our inferences would be the most monstrous. A
_great_ mountain and a _great_ pin, a _great_ continent and a _great_
farm, a _great_ ocean and a _great_ pond, a _great_ grammar and a
_great_ scholar, refer to things of very different dimensions and
character; or, as Mr. Murray would say, "_qualities_." A mountain is
great by comparison with other mountains; and a pin, compared with other
pins, may be very large--exceeding great--and yet fall very far short of
the size of a very small mountain. A _small_ man may be a _great_
scholar, and a rich neighbor a poor friend. A sweet flower is often very
bitter to the taste. A _good_ horse would make a _bad_ dinner, but
_false_ grammar can never make _true_ philologists.
All words are to be understood according to their use. Their meaning can
be determined in no other way. Many words change their forms to express
their relations, but fewer in our language than in most others, ancient
or modern. Other words remain the same, or nearly so, in every position;
noun, adjective, or verb, agent or object, past or present. To determine
whether a word is an adjective, first ascertain whether it names a
thing, defines or describes it, or expresses its action, and you will
never be at a loss to know to what class it belongs.
The business of adjectives is twofold, and they may be distinguished by
the appellations of _defining_ or _describing_ adjectives. This
distinction is in many cases unimportant; in others it is quite
essential. The same word in one case may _define_, in others _describe_
the object, and occasionally do both, for we often specify things by
their descriptions. The learner has only to ascertain the meaning and
use of the adjective to decide whether it defines or describes the
subject of remark. If it is employed to distinguish one thing from the
general mass, or one class from other classes, it has the former
character; but after such thing is pointed out, if it is used to give a
description of its character or properties, its character is different,
and should be so understood and explained.
_Defining adjectives_ are used to _point out_, specify or distinguish
certain things from others of their kind, or one sort from other sorts,
and answer to the questions _which_, _what_, _how many_, or _how much_.
_Describing adjectives_ express the character and qualities of things,
and give a more full and distinct knowledge than was before possessed.
In a case before mentioned, we spoke of the "Indian nations." The word
_Indian_ was chosen to specify or define what nations were alluded to.
But all may not decide alike in this case. Some may think we meant the
aborigines of America; others, that the southern nations of Asia were
referred to. This difficulty originates in a misapprehension of the
definitive word chosen. India was early known as the name of the south
part of Asia, and the people there, were called Indians. When Columbus
discovered the new world, supposing he had reached the country of India,
which had long been sought by a voyage round the coast of Africa, he
named it India, and the people Indians. But when the mistake was
discovered, and the truth fully known, instead of effecting a change in
the name already very generally understood, and in common use, another
word was chosen to distinguish between countries so opposite and _West_
India became the word to distinguish the newly discovered islands; and
as India was little better known in Europe at that time, instead of
retaining their old name unaltered, another word was prefixed, and they
called it _East_ India. When, therefore, we desire to be definite, we
retain these words, and say, East Indians and West Indians. Without this
distinction, we should understand the native people of our own country;
but in Europe, Asia, and Africa, they would think we alluded to those in
Asia. So with all other adjectives which are not understood. _Indian_,
as an adjective, may also be employed to _describe_ the character and
condition of the aborigines. We talk of an indian temper, indian looks,
indian blankets, furs, &c.
In writing and conversation we should employ words to explain, to define
and describe, which are better understood than those things of which we
speak. The pedantry of some modern writers in this respect is
ridiculous. Not satisfied to use plain terms which every body can
understand, they hunt the dictionaries from alpha to omega, and not
unfrequently overleap the "king's english," and ransack other languages
to find an unheard of word, or a list of adjectives never before
arranged together, in so nice a manner, so that their ideas are lost to
the common reader, if not to themselves. This fault may be alleged
against too many of our public speakers, as well as the affected gentry
of the land. They are like Shakspeare's Gratiano, "who speaks an
infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice; his reasons
are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff: you shall seek
all day ere you find them; and, when you have found them, they are not
worth the search." Such sentences remind us of the painting of the young
artist who drew the form of an animal, but apprehensive that some might
mistake it, wrote under it, "_This is a horse._"
In forming our notions of what is signified by an adjective, the mind
should pause to determine the meaning of such word when used as a
distinct name for some object, in order to determine the import of it in
this new capacity. A _tallow_ candle is one made of a substance called
tallow, and is employed to distinguish it from wax or spermaceti
candles. The adjective in this case, names the article of which the
candle is made, and is thus a noun, but, as we are not speaking of
tallow, but of candles, we place it in a new relation, and give it a new
grammatical character. But you will perceive the correctness of a former
assertion, that all words may be reduced to two classes, and that
adjectives are derived from nouns or verbs.
But you may inquire if there are not some adjectives in use which have
no corresponding verb or noun from which they are derived. There are
many words in our language which in certain uses have become obsolete,
but are retained in others. We now use some words as verbs which
originally were known only as nouns, and others as nouns which are
unknown as verbs. We also put a new construction upon words and make
nouns, verbs and adjectives promiscuously and with little regard to rule
or propriety. Words at one time unknown become familiar by use, and
others are laid aside for those more new or fashionable. These facts are
so obvious that I shall be excused from extending my remarks to any
great length. But I will give an example which will serve as a clew to
the whole. Take the word _happy_, long known only as an adjective.
Instead of following this word _back_ to its primitive use and deriving
it directly from its noun, or as a past participle, such as it is in
truth, we have gone _forward_ and made from it the noun _happiness_,
and, in more modern days, are using the verb _happify_, a word, by the
way, in common use, but which has not yet been honored with a place in
our dictionaries; altho Mr. Webster has given us, as he says, the
_unauthorised_ (un-author-ised) word "_happifying_." Perhaps he had
never heard or read some of our greatest savans, who, if not the
authors, employ the word _happify_ very frequently in the pulpit and
halls of legislation, and at the bar, as well as in common parlance.
_Happy_ is the past participle of the verb _to hap_, or, as afterwards
used, with a nice shade of change in the meaning, _to happen_. It means
_happied_, or made happy by those favorable circumstances which have
_happened_ to us. Whoever will read our old writers no further back than
Shakspeare, will at once see the use and changes of this word. They will
find it in all its forms, simple and compound, as a verb, noun, and
adjective. "It may _hap_ that he will come." It happened as I was going
that I found my lost child, and was thereby made quite happy. The man
desired to _hap_pify himself and family without much labor, so he
engaged in speculation; and _hap_pily he was not so _hap_less in his
pursuit of _hap_piness as often _hap_pens to such _hap_-hazard fellows,
for he soon became very _hap_py with a moderate fortune.