the geese save the city? They made a noise, which waked the sentinels,
who roused the soldiers to arms; they fought, slew many Gauls, and
delivered the city.
"A man in New-York _transacts_ business in Canton." How does he do it?
He has an agent there to whom he sends his orders, and he transacts the
business. But how does he get his letters? The clerk writes them, the
postman carries them on board the ship, the captain commands the
sailors, who work the ropes which unfurl the sails, the wind blows, the
vessel is managed by the pilot, and after a weary voyage of several
months, the letters are delivered to the agent, who does the business
that is required of him.
The miser _denies_ himself every comfort, and spends his whole life in
hoarding up riches; and yet he dies and _leaves_ his gold to be the
possession of others.
Christians _suffer_ insults almost every day from the Turks.
Windows _admit_ light and _exclude_ cold.
Who can discover any thing like _transitive_ action--a passing from the
agent to the object--in these cases? What transitive action do the
windows perform to _admit the light_; or the christians, to _suffer
insults_; or the miser, to _leave his money_? If there is neutrality any
where, we would look for it here. The fact is, these words express
_relative_ action, as we shall explain when we come to the examination
of the true character of the verb.
_Neutrality_ signifies (transitive verb!) no action, and _neuter_ verbs
_express a state of being_! A class of words which can not act, which
apply to things in a quiescent state, _perform_ the transitive action of
"_expressing_ a state of being!"
Who does not perceive the inconsistency and folly of such distinctions?
And who has not found himself perplexed, if not completely bewildered in
the dark and intricate labyrinths into which he has been led by the
false grammar books! Every attempt he has made to extricate himself, by
the dim light of the "simplifiers," has only tended to bewilder him
still more, till he is utterly confounded, or else abandons the study
altogether.
* * * * *
An _intransitive_ verb "denotes action which is confined to the actor,
and does not pass over to another object; as, I sit, he lives, they
sleep."
"A verb _neuter_ expresses neither action nor passion, but being, or a
state of being; as, I am, I sleep, I sit."
These verbs are nearly allied in character; but we will examine them
separately and fairly. The examples are the same, with exception of the
verb _to be_, which we will notice by itself, and somewhat at large, in
another place.
Our first object will be to ascertain the _meaning_ and use of the words
which have been given as samples of neutrality. It is unfortunate for
the neuter systems that they can not define a "neuter verb" without
making it express an action which terminates on some object.
* * *
"The man _sits_ in his chair."
_Sits_, we are told, is a neuter verb. What does it mean? The man
_places_ himself in a sitting posture in his _seat_. He _keeps_ himself
in his chair by muscular energy, assisted by gravitation. The chair
_upholds_ him in that condition. Bring a small child and _sit_ it
(active verb,) in a chair beside him. Can it _sit_? No; it falls upon
the floor and is injured. Why did it fall? It was not able to _keep_
itself from falling. The lady fainted and _fell_ from her _seat_. If
there is no action in sitting, why did she not remain as she was? A
company of ladies and gentlemen from the boarding school and college,
entered the parlor of a teacher of neuter verbs; and he asked them to
_sit_ down, or be _seated_. They were neutral. He called them impolite.
But they replied, that _sit_ "expresses neither action nor passion," and
hence he could not expect them to occupy his seats.
"_Sit_ or _set_ it away; _sit_ near me; _sit_ farther along; _sit_
still;" are expressions used by every teacher in addressing his
scholars. On the system we are examining, what would they understand by
such inactive expressions? Would he not correct them for disobeying his
orders? But what did he order them to do? Nothing at all, if _sit_
denotes no action.
"I _sat_ me down and wept."
"He _sat him_ down by a pillar's base,
And drew his hand athwart his face."
_Byron._
"Then, having shown his wounds, he'd _sit him_ down,
And, all the live long day, discourse of war."
_Tragedy of Douglass._
"But wherefore _sits he_ there?
Death on my state! _This act_ convinces me
That this retiredness of the duke and her,
Is plain contempt."
_King Lear._
"_Sitting_, the _act of resting_ on a seat.
_Session_, the _act of sitting_."
_Johnson's Dictionary._
* * *
"_I sleep._"
Is sleep a neuter verb? So we are gravely told by our authors. Can
grammarians follow their own rules? If so, they may spend the "live long
night" and "its waking hours," without resorting to "tired nature's
sweet restorer, balmy sleep;" for there is no process under heaven
whereby they can procure sleep, unless they _sleep_ it. For one, I can
never _sleep_ without sleeping _sleep_--sometimes only a short _nap_. It
matters not whether the object is expressed or not. The action remains
the same. The true object is necessarily understood, and it would be
superfluous to name it. Cases, however, often occur where, both in
speaking and writing, it becomes indispensable to mention the object.
"The stout hearted have _slept_ their sleep." "They shall _sleep_ the
_sleep_ of death." "They shall _sleep_ the perpetual _sleep_, and shall
not awake." "_Sleep_ on now and _take_ your rest." The child was
troublesome and the mother sung it to sleep, and it _slept itself_
quiet. A lady took opium and _slept herself_ to death. "Many persons
sleep themselves into a kind of unnatural stupidity." Rip Van Winkle,
according to the legend, _slept_ away a large portion of a common life.
"Sleep, sleep to-day, tormenting cares."
"And _sleep_ dull _cares_ away."
Was your sleep refreshing last night? How did you procure it? Let a
person who still adheres to his _neuter_ verbs, that sleep expresses no
action, and has no object on which it terminates, put his theory in
practice; he may as well sleep with his eyes open, sitting up, as to
_lie himself_ upon his bed.
A man lodged in an open chamber, and while he was _sleeping_ (doing
nothing) he _caught_ a severe _cold_ (active transitive verb) and had a
long _run_ of the fever. Who does not see, not only the bad, but also
the false philosophy of such attempted distinctions? How can you make a
child discover any difference in the _act of sleeping_, whether there is
an object after it, or not? Is it not the same? And is not the object
necessarily implied, whether expressed or not? Can a person _sleep_,
without procuring _sleep_?
* * *
"_I stand._"
The man _stands_ firm in his integrity. Another stands in a very
precarious condition, and being unable to retain his hold, _falls_ down
the precipice and is killed. Who is killed? The man, surely. Why did he
fall? Because he could not _stand_. But there is no _action_ in
_standing_, say the books.
"_Stand_ by thyself, come not near me?" "_Stand_ fast in the liberty
wherewith Christ hath made you free, and _be_ not again entangled in the
yoke of bondage." "Let him that thinketh he _standeth_, take heed lest
he _fall_." If it requires no act to _stand_, there can be no danger of
falling.
"Two pillars stood together; the rest had fallen to the ground. The one
on the right was quite perfect in all its parts. The other _resembled
it_ very much, except it had _lost_ its capital, and _suffered_ some
other injuries." How could the latter column, while performing no action
in _standing_, act _transitively_, according to our grammars, and do
something to _resemble_ the other? or, what did it do to _lose_ its
capital, and _suffer_ other injury?
* * *
"To _lie_, or _lay_."
It has been admitted that the verbs before considered are often used as
active verbs, and that there is, in truth, action expressed by them.
But when the man has fallen from his seat and _lies_ upon the floor, it
is contended that he no longer acts, and that _lie_ expresses no action.
He has ceased from physical, muscular action regulated by his will, and
is now subject to the common laws which govern matter.
Let us take a strong example. The book _lies_ or _lays_ on the desk. Now
you ask, does that book perform any action in laying on the desk? I
answer, yes; and I will prove it on the principles of the soundest
philosophy, to the satisfaction of every one present. Nor will I deviate
from existing grammars to do it, so far as real action is concerned.
The book _lies_ on the desk. The desk _supports_ the book. Will you
parse _supports_? It is, according to every system, an active transitive
verb. It has an objective case after it on which the action terminates.
But what does the desk do to _support_ the book? It barely resists the
action which the book _performs_ in lying on it. The action of the desk
and book is reciprocal. But if the book does not act, neither can the
desk act, for that only repels the force of the book in pressing upon it
in its tendency towards the earth, in obedience to the law of
gravitation. And yet our authors have told us that the desk is _active_
in resisting no action of the book! No wonder people are unable to
understand grammar. It violates the first principles of natural science,
and frames to itself a code of laws, unequal, false, and exceptionable,
which bear no affinity to the rest of the world, and will not apply in
the expression of ideas.
I was once lecturing on this subject in one of the cities of New-York.
Mrs. W., the distinguished teacher of one of the most popular Female
Seminaries in our country, attended. At the close of one lecture she
remarked that the greatest fault she had discovered in the new system,
was the want of a class of words to express neutrality. Children, she
said, conceived ideas of things in a quiescent state, and words should
be taught them by which to communicate such ideas. I asked her for an
example. She gave the rock in the side of the mountain. It had never
moved. It could never act. There it had been from the foundation of the
earth, and there it would remain unaltered and unchanged till time
should be no longer. I remarked, that I would take another small stone
and _lay_ it on the great one which could never act, and now we say the
great rock _upholds_, _sustains_ or _supports_ the small one--all active
transitive verbs with an object expressed.
She replied, she would give it up, for it had satisfied her of a new
principle which must be observed in the exposition of all language,
which accords with _facts as developed in physical and mental science_.
I continued, not only does that rock act in resisting the force of the
small one which lays upon it, but, by the attraction of gravitation it
is able to _maintain_ its _position_ in the side of the mountain; by
cohesion it _retains_ its distinct identity and solidity, and repels all
foreign bodies. It is also subject to the laws which govern the earth in
its diurnal and annual revolutions, and moves in common with other
matter at the astonishing rate of a thousand miles in an hour! Who shall
teach children, in these days of light and improvement, the grovelling
doctrine of neutrality, this relic of the peripatetic philosophy? Will
parents send their children to school to learn falsehood? And can
teachers be satisfied to remain in ignorance, following with blind
reverence the books they have studied, and refuse to examine new
principles, fearing they shall be compelled to acknowledge former
errors and study new principles? They should remember it is wiser and
more honorable to confess a fault and correct it, than it is to remain
permanent in error.
Let us take another example of the verb "_to lie_." A country pedagogue
who has followed his authorities most devotedly, and taught his pupils
that _lie_ is a "_neuter verb_, expressing neither action nor passion,
but simply being, or a state of being," goes out, during the
intermission, into a grove near by, to _exercise himself_. In attempting
to roll a log up the hill, he _makes_ a mis-step, and _falls_
(intransitive verb, _nothing_ falls!) to the ground, and the log _rolls_
(_nothing_) on to him, and _lies_ across his legs. In this condition he
is observed by his scholars to whom he cries (nothing) for help. "Do
(nothing) come (intransitive) and help me." They obey him and remain
_neuter_, or at least act _intransitively_, and produce no effects. He
cries again for help and his _cries_ are regarded. They _present_
themselves before him. "Do roll this log off; it will break my legs."
"Oh no, master; how can that be? The log _lies_ on you, does it not?"
"Yes, and it will _press me_ to death." "No, no; that can never be. The
log can not act. =Lies= is a _neuter_ verb, signifying neither _action_
nor passion, but simply being or a state of being. You have a _state_ of
being, and the log has a state of being. It can not harm you. You must
have forgotten the practical application of the truths you have been
teaching us." It would be difficult to explain neuter verbs in such a
predicament.
"Now I _lay_ me down _to sleep_."
"She died and they _laid her_ beside her lover under the spreading
branches of the willow."
"They _laid it_ away so secure that they could never find it."
They _laid_ down to _rest themselves_ after the fatigue of a whole day's
journey.
We have now considered the model verbs of the neuter kind, with the
exception of the verb =to be=, which is left for a distinct
consideration, being the most active of all verbs. It is unnecessary to
spend much time on this point. The errors I have examined have all been
discovered by teachers of language, long ago, but few have ventured to
correct them. An alleviation of the difficulty has been sought in the
adoption of the intransitive verb, which "expresses an action that is
confined to the actor or agent."
The remarks which have been given in the present lecture will serve as a
hint to the course we shall adopt in treating of them, but the more
particular examination of their character and uses, together with some
general observation on the agents and objects of verbs, will be deferred
to our next lecture.
LECTURE IX.
ON VERBS.
Neuter and intransitive.--Agents.--Objects.--No actions as such can
be known distinct from the agent.--Imaginary actions.--Actions known
by their effects.--Examples.--Signs should guide to things
signified.--Principles of action.--=Power=.--Animals.--Vegetables.
--Minerals.--All things act.--Magnetic needle.--=Cause=.--Explained.
--First Cause.--=Means=.--Illustrated.--Sir I. Newton's example.--
These principles must be known.--=Relative= action.--Anecdote of
Gallileo.
We resume the consideration of verbs. We closed our last lecture with
the examination of _neuter verbs_, as they have been called. It appears
to us that evidence strong enough to convince the most skeptical was
adduced to prove that _sit_, _sleep_, _stand_ and _lie_, stand in the
same relation to language as other verbs, that they do not, in any case,
express neutrality, but frequently admit an objective word after them.
These are regarded as the most neutral of all the verbs except _to be_,
which, by the way, expresses the highest degree of action, as we shall
see when we come to inquire into its meaning.
Grammarians have long ago discovered the falsity of the books in the use
of a large portion of verbs which have been called neuter. To obviate
the difficulty, some of them have adopted the distinction of
_Intransitive_ verbs, which express action, but terminate on no object;
others still use the term _neuter_, but teach their scholars that when
the _object_ is _expressed_, it is active. This distinction has only
tended to perplex learners, while it afforded only a temporary expedient
to teachers, by which to dodge the question at issue. So far as the
action is concerned, which it is the business of the verb to express,
what is the difference whether "I _run_, or _run_ myself?" "A man
started in haste. He _ran_ so fast that he _ran himself_ to death." I
strike Thomas, Thomas _strikes David_, Thomas _strikes himself_. Where
is the difference in the action? What matters it whether the action
passes over to another object, or is confined within itself?
"But," says the objector, "you mistake. An intransitive verb is one
where the 'effect is confined within the subject, and does not pass over
to any object.'"
Very well, I think I understand the objection. When Thomas strikes David
the effects of the blow _passes over_ to him. And when he strikes
himself, it "is confined within the subject," and hence the latter is an
_intransitive_ verb.
"No, no; there is an object on which the action terminates, in that
case, and so we must call it a _transitive_ verb."
Will you give me an example of an _intransitive_ verb?
"I _run_, he _walks_, birds _fly_, it _rains_, the fire _burns_. No
objects are expressed after these words, so the action is confined
within themselves."
I now get your meaning. When the object is _expressed_ the verb is
transitive, when it is not it is intransitive. This distinction is
generally observed in teaching, however widely it may differ from the
intention of the makers of grammars. And hence children acquire the
habit of limiting their inquiries to what they see placed before them by
others, and do not think for themselves. When the verb has an objective
word after it _expressed_, they are taught to attach action to it; but
tho the action may be even greater, if the object is not expressed,
they consider the action as widely different in its character, and adopt
the false philosophy that a cause can exist without an effect resulting
from it.
We assume this ground, and we shall labor to maintain it, that every
verb necessarily presupposes an _agent_ or _actor_, an _action_, and an
_object_ acted upon, or affected by the action.
No action, as such, can be known to exist separate from the thing that
acts. We can conceive no idea of action, only by keeping our minds fixed
on the acting substance, marking its changes, movements, and tendencies.
"The book _moves_." In this case the eye rests on the book, and observes
its positions and attitudes, alternating one way and the other. You can
separate no action from the book, nor conceive any idea of it, as a
separate entity. Let the book be taken away. Where now is the action?
What can you think or say of it? There is the same space just now
occupied by the book, but no action is perceivable.
The boy _rolls_ his marble upon the floor. All his ideas of the action
performed by it are derived from an observation of the marble. His eye
follows it as it moves along the floor. He sees it in that acting
condition. When he speaks of the action as a whole, he thinks where it
started and where it stopped. It is of no importance, so far as the verb
is concerned, whether the marble received an impulse from his hand, or
whether the floor was sufficiently inclined to allow it to roll by its
own inherent tendency. The action is, in this case, the obvious change
of the marble.
Our whole knowledge of action depends on an observance of things in a
state of motion, or change, or exerting a tendency to change, or to
counteract an opposing substance.
This will be admitted so far as material things are concerned. The same
principle holds good in reference to every thing of which we form ideas,
or concerning which we use language. In our definition of nouns we spoke
of immaterial and imaginary things to which we gave _names_ and which we
consider as agencies capable of exerting an influence in the production
of effects, or in resisting actions. It is therefore unimportant whether
the action be real or imaginary. It is still inseparably connected with
the thing that acts; and we employ it thus in the construction of
language to express our thoughts. Thus, lions roar; birds sing; minds
reflect; fairies dance; knowledge increases; fancies err; imagination
wanders.
This fact should be borne in mind in all our attempts to understand or
explain language. The mind should remain fixed to the acting substance,
to observe its changes and relations at different periods, and in
different circumstances. There is no other process by which any
knowledge can be gained of actions. The mind contemplates the acting
thing in a condition of change and determines the precise action by the
_altered condition_ of the thing, and thus learns to judge of actions by
their effects. The only method by which we can know whether a _vegetable
grows_ or not is by comparing its form to-day with what it was some days
ago. We can not decide on the improvement of our children only by
observing the same rule.
"By their fruits ye shall know them," will apply in physics as well as
in morals; for we judge of causes only by their effects. First
principles can never be known. We observe things as they _are_, and
remember how they _have been_; and from hence deduce our conclusions in
reference to the _cause_ of things we do not fully understand, or those
consequences which will follow a condition of things as now existing. It
is the business of philosophy to mark these effects, and trace them back
to the causes which produced them, by observing all the intermediate
changes, forms, attitudes, and conditions, in which such things have, at
different times, been placed.
We say, "_trees grow_." But suppose no change had ever been observed in
trees, that they had always been as they now are; in stature as lofty,
in foliage as green and beautiful, in location unaltered. Who would then
say, "trees grow?"
In this single expression a whole train of facts are taken into the
account, tho not particularly marked. As a single expression we imply
that _trees increase their stature_. But this we all know could never be
effected without the influence of other causes. The soil where it stands
must contain properties suited to the _growth_ of the tree. A due
portion of moisture and heat are also requisite. These facts all exist,
and are indispensable to make good the expression that the "tree grows."
We might also trace the capabilities of the tree itself, its roots,
bark, veins or pores, fibres or grains, its succulent and absorbent
powers. But, as in the case of the "man that killed the deer," noticed
in a former lecture, the mind here conceives a single idea of a complete
whole, which is signified by the single expression, "trees grow."
Let the following example serve in further illustration of this point.
Take two bricks, the one heated to a high temperature, the other cold.
Put them together, and in a short time you will find them of equal
temperature. One has grown warm, the other cool. One has _imparted_ heat
and _received_ cold, the other has _received_ heat and _imparted_ cold.
Yet all this would remain forever unknown, but for the effects which
must appear obvious to all. From these effects the causes are to be
learned.
It must, I think, appear plain to all who are willing to see, that
action, as such, can never exist distinct from the thing that acts; that
all our notions of action are derived from an observance of _things_ in
an acting condition; and hence that no words can be framed to express
our ideas of action on any other principle.
I hope you will bear these principles in mind. They are vastly important
in the construction of language, as will appear when we come to speak of
the _agents_ and _objects_ of action. We still adhere to the fact, that
no rules of language can be successfully employed, which deviate from
the permanent laws which operate in the regulation of matter and mind; a
fact which can not be too deeply impressed on your minds.
In the consideration of actions as expressed by verbs, we must observe
that _power_, _cause_, _means_, _agency_, and _effects_, are
indispensable to their existence. Such principles exist _in fact_, and
must be observed in obtaining a complete knowledge of language; for
words, we have already seen, are the expression of ideas, and ideas are
the impression of things.