The _second_ is formed by annexing a term to express negation. _Not_ is
a contraction from _nought_ or _naught_, which is a compound of _ne_,
negative, and ought or aught, _ne-aught_, meaning _no-thing_. _He writes
not_; he writes nothing. He does _not_ write; he does _nothing_ to
write. _Neither_ is a compound of _ne_ and _either_, _not either_. He
_can not_ read; he _can_, _kens_, _knows nothing_, has no ability _to
read_.
The third is constructed into a question by placing the verb before the
agent, or by prefixing another word before the agent, and then placing
the former verb as an infinitive after it; as, _Does_ he write? or
_writes_ he? When another verb is prefixed, one is always chosen which
will best decide the query. Does he _any thing_ to write? Does he make
any motions or show any indications to write? When the _will_ or
disposition of a person is concerned, we choose a word accordingly.
_Will_ he write? Has he the _will_ or disposition to write? _Can_ he
write? Is he able--_knows_ he how to write? A little observation will
enable you to understand my meaning.
In the fourth place, a supposition is made in the imperative mood, in
accordance with which the action is performed. "_If_ ye _love_ me, keep
my commandments." _Give_, _grant_, _allow_, _suppose_ this fact--you
_love_ me, keep my commandments. I will go if I can. I _resolve_,
_will_, or _determine_ to go; _if_, _gif_, _give_, grant, allow this
fact, I _can_, _ken_, _know_ how, or _am_ able _to go_. But more on this
point when we come to the consideration of contractions.
In this mood the verb must have an agent and object, expressed or
implied; as, "_farmers_ cultivate the _soil_." But a whole sentence,
that is, an idea written out, may perform this duty; as, "The study of
grammar, on false principles, is productive of no good." What is
productive of no good? What is the agent of _is_? "The _study_," our
books and teachers tell us. But does such a construction give the true
meaning of the sentence? I think not, for _study_ is indispensable to
knowledge and usefulness, and _the study_ of grammar, properly directed,
is a most useful branch of literature, which should never be dispensed
with. It is the study of grammar _on false principles_, which _is
productive of no good_. You discover my meaning, and will not question
its correctness. You must also see how erroneous it would be to teach
children that "_to study_ is productive of no good." The force of the
sentence rests on the "false principles" taught. Hence the whole
statement is truly the agent of the verb.
The object on which the action terminates is frequently expressed in a
similar manner; as, "He wrote to me, that he will adopt the new system
of grammar, if he can procure some books to give his scholars to learn."
Will you parse _wrote_? Most grammarians will call it an _intransitive_
verb, and make out that "he wrote" _nothing_ to me, because there is no
regular objective word after it. Will you parse _that_? It is a
"conjunction _copulative_." What does it connect? "_He wrote_" to the
following sentence, according to Rule 18 of Mr. Murray; "conjunctions
connect the _same_ moods and tenses of verbs and cases of nouns and
pronouns." Unluckily you have two different tenses connected in this
case. Will you parse _if_? It is a _copulative_ conjunction, connecting
the two members of the sentence--_he will adopt_ if _he can procure_:
Rule, as above. How exceeding unfortunate! You have _two_ different
moods, and too different tenses, connected by a _copulative_ conjunction
which the rule says "connects _the same_ moods and tenses! What
nonsense! What a falsehood! What a fine thing to be a grammarian! And
yet, I venture the opinion, and I judge from what I have seen in myself
and others, there is not one teacher in a hundred who will not learn
children to parse as above, and apply the same rule to it. "I _will go_
if I _can_." "I _do_ and _will_ contend." "As it _was_ in the beginning,
_is_ now, _and_ ever _shall be_." "I _am_ here and _must_ remain." "He
_will do_ your business _if_ he _has_ time." "I _am_ resolved _to
expose_ the errors of grammar, _and will do_ it thoroly _if_ I _can_."
In these examples you have different moods and tenses, indiscriminately,
yet correctly coupled together, despite the rules of syntax which teach
us to explain language "with propriety."
_That_, in the sentence before us, is an adjective, referring to the
following sentence, which is the _object_ of _wrote_, or is the thing
written. "He wrote to me _that_" fact, sentiment, opinion,
determination, or resolution, that writing, letter, or word--"he will
adopt the new system of grammar, if he can procure some books."
This subject properly belongs to that department of language called
syntax; but as I shall not be able to treat of that in this course of
lectures, I throw in here these brief remarks to give you some general
ideas of the arrangement of words into sentences, according to their
true meaning, as obtained from a knowledge of their etymology. You
cannot fail to observe this method of constructing language if you will
pay a little attention to it when reading; keeping all the time in view
the fact that words are only the signs of ideas, derived from an
observation of things. You all know that it is not merely the steam that
propels the boat, but that it is steam _applied to machinery_. Steam is
the more latent cause; and the engine with its complicated parts is the
direct means. In the absence of either, the boat would not be propelled.
In the formation of language, I may say correctly, "Solomon _built_ the
temple;" for he stood in that relation to the matter which supposes it
would not have been built without his direction and command. To
accomplish such an action, however, he need not raise a hammer or a
gavel, or draw a line on the trestle board. His command made known to
his ministers was sufficient to _cause_ the work to be done. Hence the
whole fact is _indicated_ or declared by the single expression, "Solomon
_built_ the temple."
The Imperative mood is unchanged in form. I can say to one man, _go_, or
to a thousand, _go_. The commander when drilling _one_ soldier, says,
_march_; and he bids the whole battalion, _march_. The agent who is _to
perform_ the action is understood when not expressed; as, _go_, _go
thou_, or _go you_. The agent is generally omitted, because the address
is given direct to the person who is expected to obey the instruction,
request, or command. This verb always agrees with an agent in the
_second_ person. And yet our "grammars made easy" have given us _three
persons_ in this mood--"_Let me love_; _love_, _love thou_, or _do_ thou
_love_; let him love." In the name of common sense, I ask, what can
children learn by such instruction? "_Let me love_," in the conjugation
of the verb _to love_! To whom is this command given? To _myself_ of
course! I command myself to "_let me love_!" What nonsense! "Let _him_
love." I stand here, you set there, and the _third_ person is in
Philadelphia. I utter these words, "Let _him love_." What is my meaning?
Why, our books tell us, that the verb to _love_ is _third_ person. Then
I command _him_ to _let himself love_! What jargon and falsehood! You
all know that we can address the _second_ person only. You would call me
insane if I should employ language according to the rules of grammar as
laid down in the standard books. In my room alone, no person near me, I
cry out, "_let me be quiet_"--imperative mood, first person of _to be_!
Do I command myself to _let_ myself _be_ quiet? Most certainly, if _be_
is the principal verb in the first person, and _let_ the auxiliary. The
teacher observes one of his pupils take a pencil from a classmate who
sets near him. He says, "_let him have it_." To whom is the command
given? It is the imperative mood, third person of the verb _to have_.
Does he command the third person, the boy who _has_ not the pencil? Such
is the resolution of the sentence, according to the authority of
standard grammars. But where is there a child five years old who does
not know better. Every body knows that he addresses the second person,
the boy who has the pencil, to _let_ the other _have_ it.
Teachers have learned their scholars the _first_ and _third_ persons of
this mood when committing the conjugation of verbs; but not one in ten
thousand ever adopted them in parsing. "_Let me love._" _Let_, all
parse, Mr. Murray not excepted, in the _second_ person, and _love_ in
the infinitive mood after it, without the sign _to_; according to the
rule, that "verbs which follow _bid_, _dare_, _feel_, _hear_, _let_,
_needs_, _speak_," etc. are in the infinitive mood. It is strange people
will not eat their own cooking.
There can be no trouble in understanding this mood, as we have explained
it, always in the future tense, that is, future to the command or
request, agreeing with the _second_ person, and never varied on account
of number.
The only variation in the infinitive mood is the omission of _to_ in
certain cases, which is considered as a part of the verb; tho in truth
it is no more so than when used in the character of an old fashioned
preposition. In certain cases, as we have before observed, it is not
expressed. This is when the infinitive verb follows small words in
frequent use; as, shall, will, let, can, must, may, bid, do, have, make,
feel, hear, etc.
This mood is always in the future tense; that is, it is future to the
circumstances or condition of things upon which it depends; as, they are
making preparations _to raise_ the building. Here _to raise_ is future
to the preparations, for if they make no preparations, the buildings
will not be raised. The boy studies his book _to learn_ his lesson. If
he does not study, he will not be likely _to learn_ his lesson.
The allied powers of Europe combined their forces _to defeat_ Napoleon.
In this instance the whole expression is in the past tense;
nevertheless, the action expressed in the infinitive mood, _was future_
to the circumstance on which it depended; that is, the _defeat_ was
_future_ to the _combination_ of the forces. Abraham raised the knife
_to slay_ his son. Not that he did _slay_ him, as that sentence must be
explained on the common systems, which teach us that _to slay_ is in the
_present tense_; but he raised the fatal knife for that purpose, the
fulfilment of which was future; but the angel staid his hand, and
averted the blow. The patriots of Poland _made_ a noble attempt _to
gain_ their liberty. But they did not _gain it_, as our grammars would
teach us. _To gain_ was future to the attempt, and failed because the
circumstances _indicated_ by the event, were insufficient to produce so
favorable a result.
No person of common discernment can fail to observe the absolute
falsehood of existing systems in respect to this mood. It is used by our
authors of grammar in the _present_ and _past_ tenses, but never in the
_future_. Let us give a moment to the consideration of this matter. Take
the following example. He _will prepare_ himself next week _to go_ to
Europe. Let the school master parse _will prepare_. It is a verb,
indicative mood, _first future_ tense. _Next week_ is the point in
futurity when the _preparation_ will be _made_. Now parse _to go_. It
is a verb, infinitive mood, _present tense_! Then _he_ is already on his
way to Europe, when he is not _to prepare_ himself till next week! An
army is collected _to fight_ the enemy. Is the fight already commenced?
_To fight_ is present tense, say the books. We shall study grammar next
year, _to obtain_ a knowledge of the principles and use of language. Is
_to obtain_ present tense? If so there is little need of spending time
and money to study for a knowledge we _already possess_.
"Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never _is_, but always =to be= blest."
_Pope._
"Who _was_, and who _is_, and who _is_ =to come=."--_Bible._ It is not
that a man thinks himself already in possession of a sufficiency, but
hopes =to be= qualified, etc.
I _am to go_ in an hour. He _is to go_ to-morrow. I _am_ ready _to hear_
you recite your lesson. He _has been waiting_ a long time _to see_ if
some new principles will not be introduced. He is prepared _to appear_
before you whenever you shall direct. We _are_ resolved _to employ_
neuter verbs, potential and subjunctive moods, im-perfect, plu-perfect,
and second future tenses, no longer. False grammars _are_ only fit-_ted
to be_ laid aside. We are in duty bound _to regard_ and _adopt_ truth,
and _reject_ error; and we _are_ determined _to do_ it in grammar, and
every thing else.
We are not surprised that people cannot comprehend grammar, as usually
taught, for it is exceedingly difficult to make error appear like truth,
or false teaching like sound sentiment. But I will not stop to moralize.
The hints I have given must suffice.
Much more might be said upon the character and use of verbs; but as
these lectures are not designed for _a system_ of grammar _to be
taught_, but to expose the errors of existing systems, and prepare the
way for a more rational and consistent exposition of language, I shall
leave this department of our subject, presuming you will be able to
comprehend our views, and appreciate their importance. We have been
somewhat critical in a part of our remarks, and more brief than we
should have been, had we not found that we were claiming too much of the
time of the Institute, which is designed as a means of improvement on
general subjects. Enough has been said, I am sure, to convince you, if
you were not convinced before, why the study of grammar is so intricate
and tedious, that it is to be accounted for from the fact that the
theories by which it is taught are false in principle, and can not be
adopted in practice; and that something ought to be done to make the
study of language easy, interesting, and practical. Such a work is here
attempted; but it remains with the public to say whether these plain
philosophical principles shall be sustained, matured, perfected, and
adopted in schools, or the old roundabout course of useless and
ineffectual teaching be still preserved.
LECTURE XIV.
ON CONTRACTIONS.
A temporary expedient.--Words not understood.--All words must have
a meaning.--Their formation.--Changes of meaning and form.--Should
be observed.--=Adverbs=.--Ending in _ly_.--Examples.--Ago.--Astray.
--Awake.--Asleep.--Then, when.--There, where, here.--While,
till.--Whether, together.--Ever, never, whenever, etc.--Oft.--Hence.
--Perhaps.--Not.--Or.--Nor.--Than.--As.--So.--Distinctions
false.--Rule 18.--If.--But.--Tho.--Yet.
We have concluded our remarks on the necessary divisions of words.
Things _named_, _defined_ and _described_, and their _actions_,
_relations_, and _tendencies_, have been considered under the classes of
Nouns, Adjectives, and Verbs. To these classes all words belong when
properly explained; a fact we desire you to bear constantly in mind in
all your attempts to understand and employ language. But there are many
words in our language as well as most others, which are so altered and
disguised that their meaning is not easily comprehended. Of course they
are difficult of explanation. These words we have classed under the head
of _Contractions_, a term better calculated than any other we have seen
adopted to express their character. We do not however lay any stress on
the appropriateness of this appellation, but adopt it as a temporary
expedient, till these words shall be better understood. They will then
be ranked in their proper places among the classes already noticed.
Under this head may be considered the words usually known as "adverbs,
conjunctions, prepositions, and interjections." That the etymology and
meaning of these words have not been generally understood will be
conceded, I presume, on all hands. In our opinion, that is the only
reason why they have been considered under these different heads, for in
numberless cases there is nothing in their import to correspond with
such distinctions. Why "an adverb expresses some _quality_ or
circumstance respecting a verb, adjective, or other adverb;" why "a
conjunction is chiefly used to connect sentences, so as out of _two_ to
make only _one_ sentence;" or why "prepositions serve to connect words
with one another, and show the relation between them," has never been
explained. They have been _passed over_ with little difficulty by
teachers, having been furnished with lists of words in each "part of
speech," which they require their pupils to commit to memory, and "for
ever after hold their peace" concerning them. But that these words have
been defined or explained in a way to be understood will not be
pretended. In justification of such ignorance, it is contended that such
explanation is not essential to their proper and elegant use. If such is
the fact, we may easily account for the incorrect use of language, and
exonerate children from the labor of studying etymology.
But these words have meaning, and sustain a most important rank in the
expression of ideas. They are, generally, abbreviated, compounded, and
so disguised that their origin and formation are not generally known.
Horne Tooke calls them "the _wheels_ of language, the _wings_ of
Mercury." He says "tho we might be dragged along without them, it would
be with much difficulty, very heavily and tediously." But when he
undertakes to show that they were _constructed_ for this object, he
mistakes their true character; for they were not invented for that
purpose, but were originally employed as nouns or verbs, from which they
have been corrupted by use. And he seems to admit this fact when he
says,[19] "_abbreviation_ and _corruption_ are always busiest with the
words which are most frequently in use. Letters, like soldiers, being
very apt to desert and drop off in a long march, and especially if their
passage happens to lie near the confines of an enemy's country."
In the original construction of language a set of literary men did not
get together and manufacture a lot of words, finished thro out and
exactly adapted to the expression of thought. Had that been the case,
language would doubtless have appeared in a much more regular, stiff,
and formal dress, and been deprived of many of its beautiful and lofty
figures, its richest and boldest expressions. Necessity is the mother of
invention. It was not until people had _ideas_ to communicate, that they
sought a medium for the transmission of thought from one to another; and
then such sounds and signs were adopted as would best answer their
purpose. But language was not then framed like a cotton mill, every part
completed before it was set in operation. Single expressions,
_sign_-ificant of things, or _ideas_ of _things_ and _actions_, were
first employed, in the most simple, plain, and easy manner.[20] As the
human mind advanced in knowledge, by observing the character,
relations, and differences of things, words were changed, altered,
compounded, and contracted, so as to keep pace with such advancement;
just as many simple parts of a machine, operating on perfect and
distinct principles, may be combined together and form a most
complicated, curious, and powerful engine, of astonishing power, and
great utility. In the adaptation of steam to locomotives, the principles
on which stationary engines operated were somewhat modified. Some
wheels, shafts, bands, screws, etc., were omitted, others of a different
kind were added, till the whole appeared in a new character, and the
engine, before fixed to a spot, was seen traversing the road with
immense rapidity. The principles of the former engine, so far from being
unessential, were indispensable to the construction of the new one, and
should be clearly understood by him who would build or _use_ the latter.
So, in the formation of language, simple _first_ principles must be
observed and traced thro all their ramifications, by those who would
obtain a clear and thoro knowledge of it, or "read and write it with
propriety."
In mathematics, the four simple rules, addition, subtraction,
multiplication, and division, form the basis on which that interesting
science depends. The modifications of these rules, according to their
various capabilities, will give a complete knowledge of all that can be
known of numbers, relations, and proportions, an acme to which all may
aspire, tho none have yet attained it. The principles of language are
equally simple, and, if correctly explained, may be as well understood.
But the difficulty under which we labor in this department of science,
is the paucity of _means_ to trace back to their original form and
meaning many words and phrases in common use among us. Language has been
employed as the vehicle of thought, for six thousand years, and in that
long space has undergone many and strange modifications. At the
dispersion from Babel, and the "confusion of tongues" occasioned
thereby, people were thrown upon their own resources, and left to pick
up by piecemeal such shreds as should afterwards be wove into a system,
and adopted by their respective nations. Wars, pestilence, and famine,
as well as commerce, enterprize, literature, and religion, brought the
different nations into intercourse with each other; and changes were
thus produced in the languages of such people. Whoever will take the
trouble to compare the idioms of speech adopted by those nations whose
affairs, civil, political, and religious, are most intimately allied,
will be convinced of the correctness of the sentiment now advanced.
In the lapse of ages, words would not only change their form, but in a
measure their meaning, so as to correspond with the ideas of those who
use them. Some would become obsolete, and others be adopted in their
stead. Many words are found in the Bible which are not in common use;
and the manner of spelling, as well as some entire words, have been
changed in that book, since it was translated and first published in
1610. With these examples you are familiar, and I shall be spared the
necessity of quoting them. I have already made some extracts from old
writers, and may have occasion to do so again before I close this
lecture.
The words which we class under the head of Contractions, are so altered
and disguised in their appearance, that their etymology and connexion
are not generally understood. It may appear like pedantry in me to
attempt an investigation into their origin and meaning. But to avoid
that charge, I will frankly acknowledge the truth, and own my inability
to do justice to this subject, by offering a full explanation of all the
words which belong to this class. I will be candid, if I am not
successful. But I think most of the words long considered difficult, may
be easily explained; enough to convince you of the feasibility of the
ground we have assumed, and furnish a sample by which to pursue the
subject in all our future inquiries into the etymology of words.
But even if I fail in this matter, I shall have one comfort left, that I
am not alone in the transgression; for no philologist, with few
exceptions, has done any thing like justice to this subject. Our common
grammars have not even attempted an inquiry into the _meaning_ of these
words, but have treated them as tho they had none. Classes, like pens or
reservoirs, are made for them, into which they are thrown, and allowed
to rest, only to be named, without being disturbed. Sometimes, however,
they are found in one enclosure, sometimes in another, more by mistake,
I apprehend, than by intention; for "prepositions" under certain
circumstances are parsed as "adverbs," and "adverbs" as "adjectives,"
and "conjunctions" as either "adverbs" or "prepositions;" and not
unfrequently the whole go off together, like the tail of the dragon,
drawing other respectable words along with them, under the sweeping
cognomen of "adverbial phrases," or "conjunctive expressions;" as, Can
you write your lesson? _Not yet quite well enough._ "_But and if_ that
evil servant,"[21] etc. Mr. Murray says, "the same word is occasionally
used _both as_ a conjunction _and as_ an adverb, and sometimes _as_ a
preposition.