Grammar and Logic in the Nineteenth Century: As Seen in a Syntactical ...

Front matter

Google to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

Chap. I.— -The Principle for Word-Classing

Sect. L Its Enouncement . . . . i

Sect. 2. Home Tooke's Complications - - - 7

Sect. 3. Confusion Worse Confounded - - - 16

Sect. 4. Usage the Basis of Grammar - - - 18

Sect. 5. Mr. J. S. Mill's Mistake - - - 22

Chap. II.— The Nature of the Verb

Sect. 1. The Prevailing Theory - - - - 27

Sect. 2. Its Incompleteness and Inconsistency - - 34

Sect. 3. How Dr. Latham Defends it - - - 38

Sect. 4. Outrages on Common Sense - - - 41

Sect. 5. The Logicians of Port Royal - - - 43

Sect. 6. Definition of the Verb - - - - 47

Sect. 7. Consistency in Grammar - - - 49

IV

CONTENTS.

Chap. in. — The Parts of Speech.

Sect. 1. Ambiguity of the Term

Sect. 2. The Classes

PAGE

54 61

Part Ii.— The Syntactical Analysis Of The English Language

Chap. I. — The Analysis of Sentences.

Sect. 1. Definitions

Sect. 2. The Different Kinds of Sentences

Sect. 3. Assertive Sentences

Sect. 4. Non-Assertive Sentences A — Interrogative B — Optative - C — ImjpercUive -

Sect. 5. The Elements of Sentences A— The Sutdect B^The Predicate C — Enlargements D — Complements E- — MisceUaneom Bkcpressiims

Sect. 6. Order of the Elements -

Sect. 7. The System Exemplified

79 79 81 83

88 88 92 93 95 97

CONTENTS.

PAGE

Chap. IL— The Analysis of Periods.

Sect. 1. The Theory 103

Sect. 2. Examples - - -107

Chap. IIL — Supplementary.

Sect. 1. The Utility of Analysis - - - 111

Sect. 2. Its Connection with Parsing • • -114

Sect. 3. Synoptical View of the System - - 117

Sect. 4. Tabulated Forms • • - 119

Part Iii.— The Structure Of Propositions

Chap. I.— The Two Theories- - - - - 122

Chap. XL— Dr. Morell - - - . - - 125

Chap. IV. — Dr. Sullivan - - - - -137

Chap. V. — Archbishop Whately and Cardinal Newman 14CI Chap. VI. — Mr. J. S. Mill and Mr. Grote - - 145

Chap. VII. — Dr. Latham and Mr. Hobbes - - • 156

Chap. VIIL— W. S. 163

Chap. IX.— Mr. Mason - - - 165

Chap. X,— Dean Mansel - - - - - 171 ri CONTENTS.

PAGE

Chap. XI.— Professor De Morgan - • - - 180

Chap. XII. — Sir W. Hamilton and Herr Krug - - 18S

Chap. XIII.— The Rev. J. Balmes - - - 193

Chap. XIV.— Dr. Bromnson 197

Chap. XV. — Aristotle- - - - • - 19^

Chap. XVI. —Aquinas - - . - . 207

Dedication

TO THE MEMBERS OF ALL ENGLISH-SPEAKING

UNIVERSITIES.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Introduction

It has come to be widely acknowledged that Grammar, the science of words, and Logic, the science of reasoning expressed in words, have for a long time been in an unsatisfactory state. Of the former Professor Max Miiller says : —

^* Grammar, which ought to be the most logical of all sciences, is frequently the most illogical/'

Another professor, formerly holding the chair of Classical and Comparative Philology and Logic in a university, once observed to me that in his opinion "it is impossible to compose a grammar without falling into contradictions/' No further proof, I think, is needed to show that there must be something wrong with Grammar.

With respect to Logic, certain critics, as for instance Professor Blakeley, look upon that science as involved in difficulties insurmountable, or nearly so, to human reason. On the other hand, not a few writers appear under the impression that the works, which they, or the masters they follow, have given to the world, are, if not perfect, substantially correct ; while the works of an opposite school of thought are by them explicitly or implicitly condemned as fundamentally erroneous. Indeed it is not too much to assert that even yet from the definition of Logic to its latest development on almost every question of importance there is dispute among writers of mark.

The object then of this book is not so much to show that confusion exists in the kindred sciences of Grammar and Logic, as to indicate what is wanted to get both into a xii INTRODUCTION.

more satisfactory condition. From this it is seen I do not despair of the two studies named ; though I think I can understand how some have been led to do so. I have limited my efforts to a fixed range of topics, passing by many questions to the right and left of my path that every now and then thrust themselves under notice, not, however, dismissing them without consideration. The points I have touched all connect themselves with the three important questions of —

2. The Nature of Sentences ; and

3. The Nature of Propositions.

These are chief among the topics which I consider the logicians of no age or country have fully investigated; while grammarians have not given enough attention to that part of the matter which specially concerns them. Logical propositions form a species of Sentence. Without, therefore, a just apprehension of the nature of sentences, what the various species have in common and in what they differ, it is impossible to have a thoroughly clear view of the nature of propositions.

With regard to Word-classing, which logicians and grammarians claim as common ground, a settlement of that is essential to a satisfactory treatment of sentences On this question then I have bestowed some pains ; and, it is hoped, with good results. Several of the leading ideas put forward run counter to those generally entertained on the same subjects; but I greatly mistake the temper of the critical world at the present era if this prove a bar to the consideration of the views newly set forth ; for neither individual nor collective authority is now admitted as a sufficient warrant for retaining theories which will not bear investigation.

Mr. Mason, one of the most original and painstaking grammarians, in the preface to the fourteenth edition of his English Grammar claims that " no serious attempt has beep:

INTRODUCTION. xiii

made to controvert a single principle " advocated by him in the previous editions of that work. Mr. Mason will find several of the most important of his grammatical teachings impugned in the following pages, and notably his principle for word-classing, which is almost identical with that of Dr. Morell, both, I believe, following the German grammarian Becker ; also his treatment of the verb and the copula, and his taking one species of sentence as a type of all the species.

Mr. J. S. Mill holds that a system of Logic, to be sound, must be based on a sound system of Grammar. In the following pages it is shown that several of the most vital {>arts of the grammatical system on which Mr. Mill has erected his logical superstructure are unsound. If, therefore, as a critic in the Westminster Review says, '* the most enduring of Mr. Mill's works, and that on which his reputation with posterity will rest," be his System of Logic that reputation is in jeopardy.

In further illustration of the mode in which mistakes in grammatical matters may unhinge a whole philosophical system, I would refer to the effect on the logical teaching of Sir W. Hamilton, produced by the theory advanced in the third part of this work regarding the bipartite character of propositions. The Hamiltonian doctrine of predicative quantification, which once created so great a stir, is ruined by it. What renders this more noteworthy is that Mr. Mill, in laying siege to the great Scottish philosopher's position, never looked at its weakest points. Entangled in many of the same errors as his opponent, it is no wonder that Mr. Mill failed to crush Sir W. Hamilton's theory. These two leaders still share between them the allegiance of English-speaking logicians.

One of the most surprising circumstances relating to modem grammarians and logicians is that they commonly appear to ignore the revelations which philologists have made, as for instance regarding verbal terminations. They xiv INTRODUCTION.

cannot dispense with the aid of Philology. Not only, however, are many neglectful of comparative linguistics, 3but they completely overlook obvious facts which a con- :€ideration of their own language might be expected to present to their view. The bearing of Philology on Mental iScience is a topic yet untreated, so far as I am aware ; but it will ere long attract notice ; and if the present work contributes to that end it will not have been written in vain. The principal features in the following work are : —

1. An exposition of the only scientific plan for Word- -classing.

2. A consistent definition of the Verb.

3. A rectified theory of Moods.

4. A clear distinction between Assertive and Non-assertive sentences.

5. A simplified system of Syntactical Analysis for the English language.

6. A reformed scheme of Parsing.

7. The establishment, or re-establishment, as some may call it, of the Bipartite Character of Propositions.

8. An intimation of the importance to Logic of results obtained from Philology.

As a consequence of all this is shown the impossibility of retaining much of the prevalent gi*ammatical and logical teaching, if the sciences of Grammar and Logic are to keep pace with modern requirements. At the present day the boundaries of science are extending so rapidly that the quickest and easiest way of teaching and learning everything becomes imperative. So far as Grammar and Logic are concerned, I am of opinion that a satisfactory knowledge of these two necessary subjects can be imparted to students in half the time usually spent on them, and the economy so effected would of course be considerable. Should a careful perusal of this book leave a similar impression upon the minds of experienced judges, its object will have been achieved.

LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO.

N.B. — To prevent miaconeeption, it ntay be staied here that the works in the subjoined list are not cited as " atUhorities" but /or critical purposes,

dori, Parmae, 1865.

3. The Organon of Aristotle, by 0. F. Owen, M.A. London,

4. Aristotle, by Oeorge Grote, F.B.S., &c. Murray^ 1872.

5. The Diversions of Parley, by John Home Tooke. Taylor's

Edition. London, 1829.

6. Lectures on the Science of Langnage, by Professor Max Muller.

Longman and Co., 1864.

7. The English Language, by R. G. Latham, M.D. Walton and

Maberly, 1855.

8. The Analysis of Sentences, Explained and Systematized, by

J. D. Morell, LL.D. Longmans, 1867.

9. A Grammar of the English Language, together with the

Analysis of Sentences by the same.

10. The Etymology and Syntax of the English Language, by the

Rev. A. Crombie, LL.D. 1870.

11. Fundamental Philosophy, by the Bev. James Balmes, trans-

lated from the Spanish by H. F. Brownson, M.A. New York, Sadlier and Ck>., 1858.

12. A System of Logic, by J. S. MiU. Second Edition. Parker,

13. Sixth Edition of the same. Longmans, 1865.

14. The Philology of the English Tongue, by John Earle, M.A.,

Bector of Swanwick. Second Edition. The Clarendon Press, 1873.

xvi LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO.

15. Elements of Logic, by R. Whately, D.D., Archbishop of

Dublin. Parker, 1859.

16. An Attempt to Simplify English Grammar, by R. Sallivan,

LL.D. Tenth Edition ; also Hundred and Fifth Edition.

17. Dr. Latham's Edition of Todd's Johnson's Dictionary.

18. Logic in its Application to Langoage, by Dr. R. G. Latham »

Waltham and Maberly, 1856.

19. Lectures on Logic and Metaphysics, by Sir W. Hamilton.

20. An Examination of Sir W. Hamilton's Philosophy, by Mr. J»

S. Mill. Third Edition. Longmans, 1867.

21. The Port Royal Logic, translated by Mr. T. S. Baynes. Edin»

22. Formal Logic ; or, The Calculus of Inference, by Professor A.

De Morgan. Taylor and Walton, 1847.

23. The North American Review.

24. Brownson's Review, 1853-4, Dolman.

26. An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, by J. H. Newman,.

D.D. Third Edition. Bums, Gates and Co., 1870.

27. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Article on Logic, by W. S. Black,.

29. English Gnunmar, including the Principles of Grammatical

Analysis, by Mr. C. P. Mason, B. A. Walton and Maberly, 1858. Also, Fourteenth Edition.

30. Memoirs of R. Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, by W. J.

Fitzpatrick, J.P. Bentley, 1864.

31. Works of T. Reid, D.D. , edited by Sir W. Hamilton. Stewart

33. The Chinese Mission Grammar, by Philosinensis. Batavia

Mission Press, 1840.

34. A New Grammar of the English Tongue, by K J. Howard^

M.A. Used in the Government schools Bombay, the Pun» jaub, and Central India. Longmans, 1864.

N,B, — In quoted passages explanatory interpolations by the author of this book are placed within square brackets [ ].

ERRATA.

Page xvi., line 7, /or " Waltham" recvd "Walton." „ xvL , „ 34, for " Howard " read " Howard Smith." 30, /or "would" read "might."

29, for " arose " read " followed." 32, /or "arose" read "followed." 24, /or "NineTeh" read "Babylon." 14,/or "?"r«wi"!"

23, after "similarity" read "in some respects."

24, after "adverb" read "an infinitive or a participle." 31, for " beside" read " before." 21, /or " beside" read "before." 35, f(yr " by " read " before."

30, fw " beside " read " before." 30, after "preposition " read " to." 22, f(yr " with " read "before."

28, after " adjective " read " an infinitive, a participle." 21, /or " several" read "two or more." 30, after " analysis " read " often."

9, after " species " read " and then but partially so." 4, after " itself " read " and the verb in each is used

in a different manner." 7, after " the" read " simple."

18, after " word " read "or phrase."

14, /or "had"r^flk«"has."

28, after " awhile " read " thee."

24, eliminate "cause, condition, concession."

10, for " mine " read " nine."

13, for " making " read " marking."

19, /or " supposed " read "^thought."

N.B, — Some Greek accents have been accidentally omitced.

2,

M

3,

9, tx

19,

46,

63, if

63, it

64,

»y

64, j»

66,

65,

66, t

66,

71,

77,

81,

86,

J>

89, tr

89,

91,

)f

97,

,5

115,

159,

177,

210, g

PART L-WORD-CLASSING.

CHAPTER I. the prinoiple for word-classino.

Section 1. — Its Enouncement

" The classification of words being," as Dr. Sullivan well remarks, '^ the very foundation of grammar/' it is of the highest importance to secure a sound principle for the division of ^vrords into classes. In fact a large proportion of the difficulties and disputes, not only of grammarians, but also of logicians, may be traced to the want of this. It might naturally be supposed that the first care of writers on grammar would be directed towards the establishment of a satisfactory principle for word-classing ; yet at the present day "none is firmly established or universally received." Have then the authorities of the last two thousand years altogether overlooked this indispensable requisite? To affirm this would be incorrect. Different principles have by various authorities been put forward, but nowhere has the writer of these pages met with a distinct and emphaticenunciation of the only one upon which the classification of words can be satisfactorily made. Not that there is any^ thing new or startling in the principle alluded to; for, though in their theories many grammarians have passed it by, in practice all have in a measure adopted it, while some,

2 WOBD-CLASSING.

who partially adopt it even in theofj, admit aidfi bj side with it other conflicting principles which render its application ineffectual, since thej are suffered at times to throw it completely into the shade. Others, again, of the highest repute as philosophic grammarians, distinctly reject it. Hence the interminable disputes among both grammatical and logical writers concerning *^ pai*ts of speech."

Now if there be, as undoubtedly there is, a satisfactory principle for the classification of words, where are we to look for it 1 Surely in usage —

Qttem penes arhitriwm eat et jtis et norma loquendi : — and from the fact that the primary aim of grammar is to teach how words in various languages are used, may be deduced the principle—

Words mtiat be classed according to their vses.

This, however, though simple after explanation, may not at first appear so. For it may be asked — Are words to be classed by the signification they are used to convey ? If so, there would be thousands of classes, and the principle so interpreted would not lead to the " parts of speech." Its product would be, not a grammar, but a dictionary or a thesaurus in which words with the same or similar meanings would be grouped together under various categories.

A second, and equally potent, reason may be given to show that words in grammar are not to be classed as parts of speech according to their signification. A scholar, illacquainted with nautical phraseology, and hearing for the first time such an order as —

Clew up the main royal,

though ignorant of the meaning of the word clew, would know, from the way this word is used in the sentence, that it is a verb. And though he has no idea of what is meant on board ship by the word royal, he would perceive that

THE PRINCIPLE ENOUNCED. 3

this word is here a noun. Since then it is not necessary to know the meaning of the word in orderthat it may be classed, it follows that its classification is not decided by its import or signification. Yet Dr. Orombie, discussing whether infinitives are to be classed with verbs, speaks of " admitting the established principle voces valent aignificatione " to decide that question, apparently taking the Latin sentence to imply that words may be classed as"parts of speech by their signification.

Again, in a note on participles (p. 113) the same writer, alludes to '^ our classification of words agreeably to their import or the offices they perform," — ^thereby confusing the true with a false principle. Words cannot be classed by their import, but they can by the offices they perform. Thus in "^ rwn," " / rww," '' A return,'' '' I return,'* '* A swim," "/ swim," the corresponding nouns and verbs convey the same fundamental ideas, and, if here we should attempt to classify by signification or import, we might be brought to acknowledge that verbs are nouns and nouns are verbs, thereby obliterating, instead of establishing, natural distinctions, as several famous writers, such as Home Tooke and Sir W. Hamilton, attempt to do.

It is important to observe that the same spoken or written signs, in passing from one class of words to another, undergo a partial change of meaning, while retaining the primary idea ; but the change of meaning suflEered in this transition affords no tangible means of classifying the words which so change. Thus the word " calm " is a noun in " A great calm arose," a verb in " Oalm your temper," and' an adjective in '* A calm day." In all of these instances the same fundamental idea is found ; but the meaning of J the word has changed, as becomes evident when we explain or paraphrase the expressions.

Sometimes, again, a knowledge of the meaning of a word will the better enable us to distinguish how it is used, and tkeiM^ how it should be classed. Nay, there are many oases in which, without a knowledge of the meaning of a word, we cannot distinguish how it is used ; but this makes no difference in the universal rule that words are to be classed according to their uses.

It is strange that Dr. Sullivan, who styles the classification of words the f oimdation of grammar, should not himself institute a strict inquiry for the principle on which this foundation should be laid. He indeed comes very near to a distinct enotincement of the true principle for wordclassing, but afterwards goes far from it. Thus, after explaining how he thinks children are to be taught to distinguish various classes of words, he adds, as an afterthought — ** Before proceeding further great care is taken to show the pupils that the same word may, just as it is tc^ed, be a noun, an adjective, or a verb, or in fact any part of speech "

But why, if this be so, are they not told it at first ; and why is not Dr. Sullivan thence led to infer that guiding principle, which most grammarians do not so much as mention, but which is calculated, when properly applied, to throw a flood of light upon grammar, and to annihilate half the difficulties which able writers have, during the course of ages, piled up to impede the pirogress of students, whether beginners or advanced? The reason is that Dr. Sullivan confuses the use or function of a word with its 8igni/icati(yn, Thus, immediately after the last quotation, we read : —

*' If a word be used to denote a thing, it is a noun ; if to express a quality, it is an adjective ; and if it implies action, 0r to do something, it is a verb."

Here the simplifier of grammar introduces the principle ttli?«iuiy condemned. Every word <' denotes something;'' and so, according to Dr. Sullivan, every word is a noun 1 Many nouns '' express quality," and so by the same authority itiany nouns are adjectives 1 Some nouns not merely

THE PBINCIPLE ENOUNCED. 5

imply ^ but actuallj express^ action; therefore aliao some noons are verbs ! If anyone understands what nouns, adjectives and verbs are, after reading Dr. Sullivan's explanation, it is not in consequence but in spite of that explanation. The true reason too why '^grammar is one of the last things understood" is that those who teach it — or rather those who vyrite for the benefit of teacJiers — ^have £requently themselves no clear understanding of some of the most important points in the science. There is no other cause. It does not take much time or pains to make children <listinguish by excmiples several kinds of words ; but English grammar has been cultivated for more than a century, saad not only are not grammarians agreed as to what the parts of iipeech are, and how the classes should be fopned, but it would appear that each new grammar adds its quota to the ingredients of confusion. There is but one way of remedying this state of things ; and that is by carefully laying a solid foundation on a broad and secure basis before beginning to build. The basis is usage ; the foundation to be laid on that basis is a consistent division of words into <$lasses, without which there can be no thoroughly scientific procedure ; and the principle by which that foundation is to be laid has been already stated.

Before leaving Dr. Sullivan it should be remarked that his words, quoted with partial approval, are liable to a misconception he has not provided against. I^o words in English belong to aZ? of the recognized classes at different times, while few, if any, belong to more than three or four classes. In like manner it is somewhat ambiguous of Dr. Latham to say (English Langtujbge^ Prelim. Dissert. I.) that : —

<' A word with no characteristic signs at all in a language [like English] where such signs are either wanting or scarce may be anything or everything as a part of speech, inasmuch as its form is indifferent"

No word in English can be any or every part of speech ; nor is the form of words, even as regards their classification, altogether a matter of indiflference. Sometimes in English, as fi*equently in Latin, the form of a word may help to show what part of speech that word belongs to. Thus a schoolboy who has learned the Latin conjugations, might tell by the inflection that venicU is a verb, without either knowing its meaning or seeing it in use. At the same time this word is not a verb on account of its inflection. Rather it has its inflection because it is a verb. Unfortunately there are not wanting writers, as we shcdl see, who, misled by a partial consideration of the form of Latin words, go so far as to make that a criterion for their classification, forgetting that the same terminations are frequently common to different parts of speech, and that consequently ybrm, as a test for word-classing, is unreliable even in Latin.

To sum up. Grammarians and, as we shall see, logicians, have mixed up, so as to produce almost inextricable confusion, three different criteria for word-classing — (1) use or function, (2) signification, (3) form. Of these the first alone is the true one. Do we wish to classify words ? The classification must be made according to certain of their specific uses. Do we wish to refer a particular word to its class 1 We must look to the way in which it is used. Both form and meaning may help us to distinguish the use or function, but by the last alone is the class determined. Other false criteria besides the two already mentioned will thrust themselves upon our notice occasionally ; while every now and then the true principle will show itself to clear away difficulties which some of the best critics look upon a& insurmountable.

Section 2. — Hobne Tooke's Complications

If further proof be required of the necessity of bringing from the obscurity in which it has been involved the principle that words are to be classed according to their uses, abundant evidence may be obtained by carefully perusing the celebrated Diversions of Purley, That work contains, amongst other things, a partial sketch of the history of philosophic grammar down to Mr. Tooke's own time, showing the state of confusion into which the speculations of different writers had plunged the theory of grammar, and (quite unintentionally) that the grand desideratum towards its rectification is a sound principle for the division of words into classes. Several untenable principles are noticed, siich as those which were based upon a prior division of things and of ideas of which words are the signs. But unfortunately it did not occur to the writer of the entertaining work named to search for a satisfactory principle. Nay, he distinctly declines the task of finding one. ** Let them," he says (I., 82), " give the rule who thus confound together the manner of signification of words, and the abbreviations in their construction ; than which no two things in language are more distinct or ought to be more carefully distinguished." And so he leaves the whole question in a state of obscurity equal to that in which he found it ; and, when he has the true principle placed under consideration, he actually rejects it, and that too with warmth, since it happens to interfere with his own theory of derivation. This theory, never definitely enounced, but frequently implied and acted upon, is that words may be classified as parts of speech according to their derivation. There is something so preposterous in this principle when stated plainly that those who have been accustomed to look upon the author of the Diversions as one of the great master-minds in philosophic grammar will naturally revolt against the charges here brought forward. Proof, however, is at hand, and first in regard to his rejection of the true principle for word-classing. Immediately after the words last quoted, Home Tooke writes :■—

'' I do not allow that any words change their nature in this manner, so as to belong sometimes to one part of speech and sometimes to another, from the different ways of using them. I could never perceive any such fluctuation in any words whatever; though I know it is a general charge brought erroneously against words of almost every denomination. But it appears to me all error arising from the false measure which has been taken of almost every sort of words, while the words themselves appear to me to continue faithfuUy and steadily attached each to the standard under which it was originally enlisted."

What is here styled a " false measure " is the principle laid down in my previous section for the classification of words, and nothing can be more decided than its rejection in the quoted passage. But it is hard to believe that Home Tooke could not perceive, if he ever tried, the fluctuation qf words from one part of speech to another — how, for instance, the word run is a noun in A run and a verb in / run. It should be remarked that while no grammarian, so far as I am aware, consistently follows the principle of classing words by their uses, many are driven to admit this principle in certain cases where their own theories are at fault for the classing of particular words or sets of words. Home Tooke himself shows this in Vol. II., p. 440, in a passage comment on which will be found of consequence. Treating of adjectives and alluding to the fact that many nouns and adjectives convey the same fundamental idea and have the same root-meaning, he there remarks : —

"This difficulty has at all times puzzled all the grammarians who have attempted to account for the parts of speech by the single difference of the things or ideas <A.

HORNE TOOKE'S CX)MPLICATIONS. 9

inrhich the different sorts of words were supposed to be the «igns. And though everyone who made the attempt has found it miscarry in his hands, still each has pursued the beaten track and employed his time and pains to establish a criterion which, in the conclusion, each has uniformly ■abandoned."