Morris's grammar

Front matter

t LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I

[SMITHSONIAN DEPOSIT.]

! UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !

Preface

It is often said that English Grammar is a lifetime study, and it is a fact not to be disguised, that students usually prosecute this branch of science for years, to little practical purpose, as grammar pupils rarely speak or write more correctly than others untaught. Now, grammar is unworthy of a lifetime study ; life is too important, and labor and money are too precious to be thus invested, or, rather, wasted. " Time is money." — Dr. Franklin.

Is it not a little curious, that English Grammar should be a lifetime study ? If so, who has yet mastered it ? Who is competent to teach it ? One would make rather an unprofitable effort, trying to teach what he did not understand himself. Would it not be more than unkind to require children to recite, and expect them to comprehend, what neither teachers nor authors understand, or can explain.

Many confound the grammar with the language. I apprehend, however,- that they differ widely ; the grammar simply embodies, not the language, but, digest-like, the laws of the language, which are usually comprised within a small compass — the smallest of our text-books. Then, I repeat, why should grammar be a lifetime study ? Is it for the want of application or capacity on the part of pupils? Certainly not, as they generally succeed so well in mastering many other departments of learning.

Are the teachers in fault ? They are not unskillful in imparting a knowledge of other sciences ; then, this failure is not owing to any deficiency on their part.

Grammars are not so voluminous, they are usually small books ; and, what is still more remarkable, it requires but a small portion of one of these little books to set forth all the principles of the language, much the largest portion being employed in defense of

IV PREFACE.

the peculiarities of the system, and no inconsiderable space being covered by exercises for parsing and correction ; thus, not leaving more than twenty-five, thirty, or forty pages at furthest, to exhibit the principles of the language ; so, evidently, the difficulty does not consist in the immense field to be traversed.

Is the nature of the study so abstruse that it is insurmountably difficult for instructors to impart, and impossible for learners to gain, a competent knowledge ? If so, in what does this insuperable difficulty consist ? Where is it found ? Why is the study of grammar so hard ? Is the difficulty to be detected in the intrinsic nature of the subject ?

Having taught children, that man, book, Boston, etc., are nouns, being names, is it difficult for them to perceive that all names, both of animate and inanimate things, for the same reason, are nouns ; and thus at a glance be able to parse, as nouns, the names of all things that they can see, hear, smell, taste, touch, or even think of ; thus learning the classification of hundreds and thousands of words instantly.

" John goes to school, he learns fast, and the teacher likes him." He is a pronoun, being a substitute for the noun, John ; and him is also a pronoun for the same reason. Now, what is more easy to teach than that any, and all words, used in the place of nouns, are pronouns. Goes is a verb, because it tells what John does, and agrees with its subject, John, in number and person ; for the same reason learns and likes are verbs, and all words similarly used must be verbs ; then how easy it is to distinguish verbs from all other parts of speech, notwithstanding, this is usually considered the chief difficulty in parsing.

" He learns fast." Fast is an adverb, because it qualifies the verb learns. So well, finely, slowly, rapidly, and any, and all other words qualifying learns, or any other word of verbal meaning, must, for the same reason, be adverbs. And, as this is true of no other class of words, it is obvious, that there can be no serious obstacle in distinguishing adverbs from all other words.

And, in the example just taken, is called a conjunctive (conjunction), because it simply connects the sentences, "he learns fast — the teacher likes him." This is applicable to no other part of speech ; hence, it must be equally easy to distinguish conjunctives.

From the plain and familiar illustrations just furnished, it must be evident to the meanest capacity, that there is nothing much easier than to distinguish very readily all the parts of speech, if the subject is properly presented. But is it properly presented in most of our systems ? This I am disposed to question most seriously, as I will soon show. It is the common experience of all grammar teachers, that the principal labor in learning to parse, if

PREFACE. V

not in learning the entire grammar, is chiefly in distinguishing the various parts of speech, and not in learning the various subdivisions ; for what is easier than to distinguish the genders, numbers, persons, degrees, tenses, etc. ? So, it is plain, the difficulty does not consist in distinguishing the various parts of speech, nor in marking their many subdivisions.

It is a common observation that many, very many, persons, having studied grammar, speak and write little, if any, better than Others that have not studied it. Why is this ? Is it so difficult to comprehend and acquire a practical knowledge of the art of speaking and writing correctly ? I heard an Ex-Governor say to a friend : " Col., how is your folks ?" Now, could not any child be taught that the Governor should have said : " Col., how are your folks XV Making is, are, to agree in number with its subject, folks. I recollect hearing a very respectable member of Congress say to a wagoner : " Boy, what is them shucks worth ?" Could not any child comprehend enough of grammar to have suggested to the Hon. member, that he should have said : " Boy, what are those shucks worth ?" Them being a pronoun — standing in the place of a noun — cannot be used to point out a noun. The definitive those should have been employed by the Hon. member. Bule iv. Definitives point out or limit nouns. Is should have been are, for the reasons given in the previous example.

" She cannot hear good." (Spoken by a College Professor.) Say, she cannot hear well, good, being a descriptive, may qualify a noun or pronoun, but not a verb ; therefore, the adverb well, not the descriptive good, should have been used to qualify the verb hear. Bule viii. Adverbs qualify verbs. Could not any child understand the principles of grammar well enough to make these, and any, and all such corrections for the Hon. and literary gentlemen ? Then, if both the theory, that is, parsing, and the practical part of grammar are so plain and easy, when properly presented, why should grammar be a lifetime study ?

And why should the practical results realized be so trifling ? As it has been seen that the difficulty does not consist in the want of application or capacity on the part of the learner ; in any want of industry or skill on the part of the instructor ; in the size of grammar books ; in the small part of these little books devoted to the principles of the science ; nor in the nature of the subject, as parsing, and criticism may be, as just shown, so easily comprehended and applied. Now the question necessarily recurs — if there is any insurmountable difficulty, in what does it consist, and where may it be found ? To come to the point, however, the difficulty, I am persuaded, consists in the very defective and erroneous systems of grammar now in common use. " Our schools suffer no imposition so egregious as in the cumbrous grammatical text-books in common

VI PREFACE.

use. They serve no earthly purpose except to overtask the verbal memory, and to obscure the mental perception of the pupil." — The North American Review,

If our grammatic text-books are cumbrous, let us disencumber them. If they overtask the verbal memory, let the memory be relieved of this task. If they obscure the mental perception of the pupil, rather enlighten the same. If they are impositions, why not expose them ? " Is an old error better than a new truth." " Prove all things, and hold fast that which is good." — Bible.

" The British grammars of the English language appear to me to be very imperfect, and, in some particulars, very erroneous." — N. Webster's Gram., p. 4.

If they are imperfect, why not supply their deficiencies ? If they are erroneous, why not expose and explode their errors ? And who was, or is, more competent to judge of this than "Webster ? Shall we roll sin under our tongues as a sweet morsel? It must be sin to teach what we know to be error. May it not be as serviceable to correct an old error as to teach a new truth ?

1st Our grammars are defective. "So defective and erroneous are the British grammars, and the compilations in the United States, formed on their principles, that, without some further helps, the construction of many established and legitimate phrases and sentences in our language cannot be explained."— Webster's Gram., p. 4.

In Kirkham's Grammar, p. 162, may be found the following sentences, classed as idioms, anomalies, and intricacies :

1. " The wall is three feet high."

2. " His son is eight years old."

3. " My knife is worth a shilling."

4. " She is worth him and all his connections"

5. w He has been there three times "

6. " The hat cost ten dollars."

7. " The load weighs a tun"

So, I understand this author (Kirkham) to say that, though these expressions are correct English, yet our grammars do not furnish instructions by which they may be parsed. Then our grammars must be very defective in not furnishing rules by which these examples may be parsed ; for they are but specimens of hundreds and thousands of the most familiar sentences daily occurring in common intercourse.

If these, such familiar sentences, cannot be parsed, one might ask what can be parsed.

Why can't these sentences be parsed ? " Dollars, in the 6th ; tun, in the 7th ; and feet, in the 8th, have no governing word.

PREFACE. Vll

Cost, weighs, and measure being active-intransitive verbs, which verbs neither have, nor can have, objects after them." But I am disposed to contend that these verbs do have objects after them, especially when I see them frequently, as in the examples under consideration, governing objects. I must believe my own senses, any number of grammars to the contrary notwithstanding.

" 5. He has been there three times.'' 1 What is difficult in this ? " Times is a noun without any governing word." I beg pardon — times is not a noun. It is not a name in this sentence ; consequently, times needs no governing word. " He has been there often, seldom, first, last, frequently," etc. You observe often, seldom, first, last, frequently, etc., qualify has been ; three times is used in like manner to qualify has been. Words used similarly should be parsed similarly. Every word should be parsed according to its use ; consequently, three times is an adverbial phrase, used to qualify has been.

In the 3rd, worth is a relative (preposition), and governs shilling ; so, in like manner, in the 4th example, worth governs him and connections. Kule xv. Relatives govern objects.

w The c wall is three feet high," high is a descriptive, as it describes the wall. Three zxAfeet help high describe wall, and are, for the same reason, helping descriptives. Feet is not a noun in the objective without a governing word, as some would have it. How do such persons know it to be in the objective case, if it has no governing word? (See Note 29 — Nominative and Objective casesj

" His son is eight years old." Old is a descriptive, eight and years are helping descriptives. Is not this parsing easy enough for any child's capacity ? What could be easier ?

Our grammarians have thought it important to teach the number of pronouns and verbs, and have, accordingly, furnished rules and copious exercises to impress this principle upon the student's memory. This is all well enough ; but, if it is important to learn the number of pronouns and verbs, must it not be equally important to learn . and observe the number of nouns ? For the number of pronouns and verbs must correspond with that of the nouns ; not knowing the one, the other cannot be determined. And, again, in common conversation, nouns are as frequently placed in the wrong number as pronouns and verbs, hence a double necessity for a rule and copious exercises to. teach and impress the student's mind with the importance of giving nouns their appropriate numbers. But, strange to say, our own grammars furnish neither a rule nor exercises for this purpose. To supply this deficiency, we furnish the following :

Rule. 1. Nouns denoting but one, should have the singular form ; more than one, the plural form.

Vlll PREFACE.

" The teacher derives much pleasure from instructing us." All our teachers and authors agree in denominating instructing, as used in this example, a participial noun, which word, you perceive, governs the object us ; but, curious enough, there is rarely, if ever, any rule furnished for the government of us. As verbs, participles, prepositions, etc., govern objects, and it is important to state this fact in the form of a rule, why should not a rule be given for the government of objects by participial nouns ?

Many other rules are wanting, and this deficiency must be perplexing to teachers, as well as to pupils. We furnish the following : — R. 30. Participial nouns may govern objects. Surely, this is plain and brief enough. It has been our constant aim to make our rules few, concise, and comprehensive, without any irrelative matter, and in every instance to illustrate them by examples carefully analyzed.

We have not only supplied deficiencies by adding several new rules ; but we have rendered many more intelligible ; others have been so modified as to correct numerous radical errors, and to set forth the truth in simplicity and brevity. " Truth and simplicity are twin sisters."

2nd. Want of simplicity of terms. For instance, the first part of grammar, which professes to teach only and simply spelling, nas the more difficult name, Orthography. The portion promising to teach pronunciation is called Orthoepy. The next division, which teaches the parts of speech, their subdivisions, and modifications, appropriately called parsing, assumes the more learned appellation, Etymology. These terms are wanting in simplicity ; they are absolutely unintelligible to the class of readers for whom they are designed.

" The difficulties that belong to the subject, have been increased by the use of terms merely technical in designating the parts of speech." — Webster's Gram., p. 3. "Attribute is a word better understood than adjective ; though it were to be wished we could find a jnore familiar term for that class of words." — Ibid. It may be seen that we have employed the term descriptive for this class of words. Who would desire a more familiar or appropriate name ? The best words are those that are most intelligible to our hearers, and which express our ideas most clearly and forcibly. " Speak to a child according to its capacity."

3rd. Want of propriety in terms. " In six days God created the heavens and the earth." Created is called the imperfect tense, which term denotes something unfinished, but here improperly applied. We sometimes hear it urged that the term imperfect must be used to preserve the correspondence with the Latin. It is true, the term imperfect occurs in the Latin ; but it is, by no

PREFACE. IX

means, applied as in our English Grammars. Creavit, the Latin term corresponding to created, is called perfect, and appropriately so. This plea for correspondence appears to prove too much.

" The terms used to express the tenses of English verbs, are borrowed from the Latin ; but some of them are improperly applied. Thus, he created is called the imperfect tense, denoting unfinished action ; but this is not correct." — Webster's Gram., p. 3. If one act is said to have taken place before another specified act or time, the first act is called pluperfect tense, meaning more than the perfect. But how can anything be more than the perfect ? " The words 'pluperfect and preter-pluperfect, which signify more than finished, beyond more than finished, are very awkward terms. — Webster's Gram., p. 4.

This, that, these, those, etc., are denominated adjective-pronouns. Most teachers and authors are usually quite careful to have the simple terms, adjective and pronoun, well understood by the pupil ; but, if it is essential to have the simple terms understood, must it not be more important that the compound should be intelligible ? But, as adjective means added to, and pronoun means standing in the place of, another word, such a thing as an adjective-pronoun is obviously impossible, as the same word cannot stand before, and in the place of, another at the same time. Such teaching is without a parallel in nonsense.

In this treatise, foreign, unmeaning, fictitious, and arbitrary technicalities have been supplanted by plain, familiar, intelligible, and self-defining terms. Language being the chief medium of thought, it is evidently as important to learn the correct application, as to know the true meaning-, of words. (See Note 5 — Article. Note 8 — Interjection.)

Ath. Want of precision. " Any word or short phrase that will answer to any of the questions, how ? how much ? wlien ? or where ? is an adverb." — Kirkham, p. 85. How did he write it ? " With his pen." How much did he contribute ? '' Ten dollars." When will he return ? " In a few days." Where has she been ? " To church." Now, with his pen, ten dollars, in a few clays, and to church, respectively, answer to the questions, how? how much? when? and where? and are all these answers to be regarded as adverbs ? Certainly not.

The same author, page 44, informs us, that " Any word that will make sense with to before it is a verb. Let us see : w Jane went to school ;" " Mary came to town ;" " John has returned to his farm ;" " The child has gone to a happy home." Here, school, town, his, and a make sense with to before them ; and are they necessarily verbs, because they have to before them ? Bather a strange way to teach a knowledge of verbs. This vagueness, not peculiar to Kirkham, is common to most of our grammars. Such definitions or

X PREFACE.

instructions are violations of the first, plain, and fundamental principles of rhetoric.

5th. Unnecessary Rules. — '* Note iii. The pronoun them should not be used in the place of tliese or those. 71 — R. C. Smith, p. 57. Them is never used in the place of these, hence this part of the rule, or note, is uncalled for ; therefore it is an unnecessary incumbrance, furthermore no reason is given. He that is ignorant of the reason is ignorant of the rule.

" The definite article the belongs to nouns of the singular or plural number." — R. C. Smith, p. 50. If the may be used with both numbers, why make a rule ? A rule is but another name for law, which is intended to prohibit what is wrong, and enforce what is right. But as the may be used with either, or both numbers, where is there any necessity for a rule, or law, to protect what cannot be violated or abused ; or to enforce what cannot be avoided ?

" Rule vi. The nominative case governs the verb in number and parson. Rule vii. A verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person." — R. 0. Smith, p. 21. One of these rules is sufficient, particularly the last, the other being entirely a work of supererogation.

" Lindley Murray, Blair, Cobbett, possessing each many excellences, have, more or less, failed to expound, as they really exist, the facts of the English language, and given rules as well as sanctioned forms of speech, which have no other source than the undue predominance of the logical faculty in their own minds." — Popular Educator, p. 45. At the same time, that we have studiously avoided all unnecessary rules, we have added several new rules, and given much original information ; thus, not only correcting error, but remedying many, very many, of the defects so loudly and justly complained of ; and, at the same time, furnishing instruction by which the anomalies, idioms, and perplexing intricacies may be analyzed, and a much more thorough, comprehensive, practical, and philosophical knowledge secured than formerly.

6th. Unnecessary subdivisions. — Our grammars usually assign four genders. Nature has given but two, masculine and feminine. (See Note 11 — Common Gender. Note 12 — Neuter Gender.)

Nouns are said to have three cases ; but as case means a change of termination, consequently nouns can have no more cases than they have changes of termination, therefore the so-called possessive is the only word that furnishes any foundation for case ; and, I trust, we have successfully shown that this class of words are not nouns, but deflnitives. (See Note 28 — Case. Note 16 — Possessive Case.)

"There are, properly speaking, no oblique cases in English nouns, excepting the possessive case, and yet, in some grammars, we have six ca^es specified, similar to those of Latin nouns; and in

PREFACE. XI

almost every book on grammar, three cases, at least, are considered as belonging to English nouns. On the same principle, we might affirm that there are as many cases as there are prepositions in the language ; for every combination of a preposition with a noun forms a distinct relation, and consequently maybe said to constitute a distinct case. Were it expedient in this place, many such remarks might be offered in reference to the absurdities and intricacies of our grammatical systems, and the perplexing and inefficient modes by which a knowledge of this subject is attempted to be communicated." — Thomas Dick, LL. D.

Yerbs are usually divided into active-transitive and active-intransitive, and we are accordingly furnished with the following : " Rule viii. Active-transitive verbs govern the objective case." — R. 0. Smith, p. 21. Do these active-transitive verbs always govern objective cases ? " Not always." Do not the so-called active-intransitive sometimes govern objective cases (objects) ? " She would smile him into good humor." — Addison. Smile is called an % active-intransitive verb, yet smile appears to have him for its object (objective case). Then, if the transitive do not always have objects after them, and the intransitive often do have objects, why observe the distinction made by the rule above ? The difference is not sufficient to authorize the distinction. If verbs have objects, parse them as such ; if they have not objects, you have none to parse. (See Note 38— Transitive and Intransitive verbs.)

u Rule xiv. Active participles, from active-transitive verbs, govern the objective case." — R. C. Smith, p. 86. " John is running his horse too rapidly." Running is an active participle, from the active-intransitive verb run, and governs horse in the objective case (object). Then, if the participles of both the so-called transitive and intransitive may govern the objective case, why make this needless, and erroneous distinction ? If participles govern objects, it is sufficient to say that they do ; as, Rule 28 — Participles may govern objects. And parse them accordingly.

Yerbs are not a little encumbered by a subdivision in reference to moods. " There are scarcely two authors who are agreed in the number and denominations of the moods in English." — Webster's Grammar, p. 54. " Dr. Crombie, the best of modern grammarians, says : * If we regard those only as moods which are diversified by inflections, and, as Dr. Lowth observes, there can be no others, we find that our language has only one mood and two tenses.' " — Fowle, p. 43.

If our language, as is obviously the fact, has not a diversity of inflections, corresponding to the moods, to insist upon this subdivision, is not only unnecessary, but mischievous.

Some think, however, that our grammars must have moods to correspond with the Latin and Greek grammars. But our gram-

Xll PREFACE.

mars do not correspond with the Latin and Greek grammars. For instance, what is subjunctive in Latin and Greek is potential in English. The Latin and Greek grammars do not correspond in name nor form. Those grammars, however, uniformly correspond with the forms found in their respective languages, which uniformity, we are sorry to find, has not been observed by our English grammarians. (See Note 43 — Moods.)

Tense. " Nothing can be more simple than the English verb, which, unlike the Greek and Latin verb, has only two or three varieties in its termination ; yet, we perplex the learner with no less than six different tenses — the present, the imperfect, the perfect, the pluperfect, the first future, and the future perfect, — while nature and common sense point only three distinctions of time in which an action may be performed ; namely, the past, the present, and the future" — " Method of Teaching Grammar," by Thomas Dick, LL. D.

" English grammar was first expounded by classical scholars. Familiar with the forms and usages of the Greek and Latin tongues, and holding them to be perfect in character, if not of universal obligation, they introduced those forms and usages into their manuals of English grammar, and so made complex and difficult one of the simplest and easiest grammars in the world. Hence came into our grammatical books, cases, tenses, and constructions, which have no corresponding realities in our literature. With such things the student of English grammar has nothing to do, and the sooner our manuals are disembarrassed of them, the better." — " Popular Educator," p. 45. (See Note 28— Case. Note 17— Tense.)

1th. Errors in Grammar-books. — " When the singular ends in ss, the apostrophe only is added ; as, ' For goodness' sake :' except the noun witness ; as, ' The witness's deposition.' " — K. C. Smith's Gram., p. 47 (341).

Mr. Smith, witness is not the only exception to this rule ; abbess's, countess's, duchess's, heiress's, miss's, pass's, peeress's, Mr. Bliss's, Mr. La Cross's, and all other singular nouns ending in ss, form the so-called possessive case regularly, that is, by adding the apostrophe (') and s, except only the two isolated words, witness and goodness, which omit the additional s, to avoid a disagreeable hissing.

See the following examples : Have you seen Mr. Bliss's outline maps ? Have you heard of Mr. La Cross's return ? She made an attempt to look into the dear duchess's. — Jane West's Letters to a Lady, p. 95. Miss's fine Leonardi, and miss's bonnet. — Burns, p. 44. Led slowly through the pass's jaws. — Walter Scott.

" Nouns ending in nee form the possessive case by adding the apostrophe only ; as, ■ For conscience' sake.' Ibid. (342). Mr. Smith, as well as many other grammarians, here too hastily draws

PREFACE. Xlll

broad conclusions from narrow bases ; for conscience and patience are but isolated exceptions to the general rule, while dunce, prince, Providence, benevolence, lance, and, indeed, all other nouns ending in nee, form the so-called possessive case regularly.

Our grammarians often strangely confound exceptions with examples. See the following : You may have the dunce's choice, I will have the prince's ; This sprung some doubt of Providence's sway. — Parnell. Sweet benevolence's mild command. — Lord Ltttelton. I heard the lance's shivering crash. — Sir Walter Scott.

" Eule III. — The conjunctive disjunctive has an effect contrary to that of the conjunction copulative ; for as the verb, noun, or pronoun, is referred to the preceding terms taken separately, it must be in the singular number." — L. Murray's Gram., p. 102. In the first place, this rule is a most perfect jumble of unintelligible words. Secondly, though the accompanying examples are correct, yet this rule inculcates error in two instances out of every three examples in which nouns are connected by the so-called disjunctive conjunctions. If two or more singular nouns are connected by the disjunctive conjunctions, it is true, the corresponding verbs, nouns, and pronouns should be singular ; but, if the nouns thus connected should be plural, or even one of them, custom requires the plural to be placed last, and then, of course, the corresponding terms must be plural ; so then this rule teaches two errors to one truth — so much worse than no teaching.

" From a careful survey of the history of our language, I have ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt, that the English grammars which have been published within the last forty years, have introduced more errors than they have corrected." — Webster's Gram., p. 143.