IV. VERSIFICATION (part 1 of 2)
FALSE PROSODY, OR ERRORS OF METRE, CORRECTED.
LESSON I.--RHYTHM RESTORED.
"Where thy true treasure? Gold says, 'Not in me.'" --Young.
"Canst thou grow sad, thou say'st, as earth grows bright." --Dana.
"It must be so;--Plato, thou reason'st well" --CATO: Enfield, p. 321.
"Slow rises worth by poverty depressed." --Wells's Gram., Late Ed., p. 211.
"Rapt into future times, the bard begun." --POPE.--Ib., p. 165.
"Is there not rain enough in the sweet heavens To wash it white as snow? Whereto serves mercy But to confront the visage of offence?" --Shak., Hamlet.
"Look! in this place ran Cassius' dagger through." --Id., J. Cæsar.
"And when they list, their lean and flashy songs Grate on their scrannel pipes of wretched straw." --Milton, Lycidas.
"Did not great Julius bleed for justice' sake?" --Dodd and Shak. cor.
"May I express thee' unblam'd? since God is light" --Milton, B. iii, l. 3.
"Or hear'st thou rather pure ethereal stream?" --Id., B. iii, l. 7.
"Republics, kingdoms, empires, may decay; Great princes, heroes, sages, sink to nought." --Peirce or La-Rue cor.
"Thou bringst, gay creature as thou art, A solemn image to my heart." --Hallock cor.
"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is Man." --Pope, on Man, Ep. ii, l. 1.
"Raised on pilasters high of burnished gold." --Dr. S. Butler cor.
"Love in Adalgise' breast has fixed his sting." --Id.
"Thirty days each have September, April, June, and old November; Each of the rest has thirty-one, Bating February alone, Which has twenty-eight in fine, Till leap-year gives it twenty-nine." --Dean Colet cor.
LESSON II.--RHYTHM RESTORED.
"'Twas not the fame of what he once had been, Or tales in records old and annals seen." --Rowe cor.
"And Asia now and Afric are explored For high-priced dainties and the citron board." --Rowe cor.
"Who knows not how the trembling judge beheld The peaceful court with arm~ed legions fill'd?" --Rowe cor.
"With thee the Scythian wilds we'll wander o'er, With thee the burning Libyan sands explore." --Rowe cor.
"Hasty and headlong, different paths they tread, As impulse blind and wild distraction lead." --Rowe cor.
"But Fate reserv'd him to perform its doom, And be the minister of wrath to Rome." --Rowe cor.
"Thus spoke the youth. When Cato thus express'd The sacred counsels of his inmost breast." --Rowe cor.
"These were the rigid manners of the man, This was the stubborn course in which they ran; The golden mean unchanging to pursue, Constant to keep the purpos'd end in view." --Rowe cor.
"What greater grief can on a Roman seize, Than to be forced to live on terms like these!" --Rowe cor.
"He views the naked town with joyful eyes, While from his rage an arm~ed people flies." --Rowe cor.
"For planks and beams, he ravages the wood, And the tough oak extends across the flood." --Rowe cor.
"A narrow pass the horn~ed mole divides. Narrow as that where strong Euripus' tides Beat on Euboean Chalcis' rocky sides." --Rowe cor.
"No force, no fears their hands unarm~ed bear,"--or, "No force, no fears their hands unarm'd now bear, But looks of peace and gentleness they wear." --Rowe cor.
"The ready warriors all aboard them ride, And wait return of the retiring tide." --Rowe cor.
"He saw those troops that long had faithful stood, Friends to his cause, and enemies to good, Grown weary of their chief, and satiate with blood." --Rowe cor.
END OF THE KEY.
APPENDIX I. TO PART FIRST, OR ORTHOGRAPHY. OF THE SOUNDS OF THE LETTERS.
In the first chapter of Part I, the powers of the letters, or the elementary sounds of the English language, were duly enumerated and explained; for these, as well as the letters themselves, are few, and may be fully stated in few words: but, since we often express the same sound in many different ways, and also, in some instances, give to the same letter several different sounds,--or, it may be, no sound at all,--any adequate account of the powers of the letters considered severally according to usage,--that is, of the sound or sounds of each letter, with its mute positions, as these occur in practice,--must, it was thought, descend to a minuteness of detail not desirable in the first chapter of Orthography. For this reason, the following particulars have been reserved to be given here as an Appendix, pertaining to the First Part of this English Grammar.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.--A proper discrimination of the different vowel sounds by the epithets most commonly used for this purpose,--such as long and short, broad and slender, open and close, or open and shut,--is made difficult, if not impossible, by reason of the different, and sometimes directly contradictory senses in which certain orthoepists [sic--KTH] have employed such terms. Wells says, "Vowel sounds are called open or close, according to the relative size of the opening through which the voice passes in forming them. Thus, a in father, and o in nor, are called open sounds, because they are formed by a wide opening of the organs of speech; while e in me, and u in rule, are called close sounds, because the organs are nearly closed in uttering them."--School Grammar, 1850, p. 32. Good use should fix the import of words. How does the passage here cited comport with this hint of Pope?
"These equal syllables alone require, Though oft the ear the open vowels tire." --Essay on Criticism, l. 344.
OBS. 2.--Walker, too, in his Principles, 64 and 65, on page 19th of his Critical Pronouncing Dictionary, mentions a similar distinction of vowels, "which arises from the different apertures of the mouth in forming them;" and says, "We accordingly find vowels denominated by the French, ouvert and fermé; by the Italians, aperto and chiuso; and by the English [,] open and shut. But whatever propriety there may be in the use of these terms in other languages, it is certain they must be used with caution in English for fear of confounding them with long and short. Dr. Johnson and other grammarians call the a in father the open a: which may, indeed, distinguish it from the slender a in paper; but not from the broad a in water, which is still more open. Each of these letters [the seven vowels] has a short sound, which may be called a shut sound; but the long sounds cannot be so properly denominated open as more or less broad; that is, the a in paper, the slender sound; the a in father, the broadish or middle sound; and the a in water, the broad sound. The same may be observed of the o. This letter has three long sounds, heard in move, note, nor; which graduate from slender to broadish, and broad [,] like [those three sounds of] the a. The i also in mine may be called the broad i, and that in machine, the slender i; though each of them is equally long; and though these vowels that are long [,] may be said to be more or less open according to the different apertures of the mouth in forming them, yet the short vowels cannot be said to be more or less shut; for as short always implies shut (except in verse,) though long does not always imply open, we must be careful not to confound long and open, and close and shut, when we speak of the quantity and quality of the vowels. The truth of it is," continues he, "all vowels either terminate a syllable, or are united with a consonant. In the first case, if the accent be on the syllable, the vowel is long, though it may not be open: in the second case, where a syllable is terminated by a consonant, except that consonant be r, whether the accent be on the syllable or not, the vowel has its short sound, which, compared with its long one, may be called shut: but [,] as no vowel can be said to be shut that is not joined to a consonant, all vowels that end syllables may be said to be open, whether the accent be on them or not."--Crit. Pron. Dict., New York, 1827, p. 19.
OBS. 3.--These suggestions of Walker's, though each in itself may seem clear and plausible, are undoubtedly, in several respects, confused and self-contradictory. Open and shut are here inconsistently referred first to one principle of distinction, and then to another;--first, (as are "open and close" by Wells,) to "the relative size of the opening," or to "the different apertures of the mouth;" and then, in the conclusion, to the relative position of the vowels with respect to other letters. These principles improperly give to each of the contrasted epithets two very different senses: as, with respect to aperture, wide and narrow; with respect to position, closed and unclosed. Now, that open may mean unclosed, or close be put for closed, is not to be questioned; but that open is a good word for wide, or that shut (not to say close) can well mean narrow, is an assumption hardly scholarlike. According to Walker, "we must be careful not to confound" open with long, or shut with short, or close with shut; and yet, if he himself does not, in the very paragraph above quoted, confound them all,--does not identify in sense, or fail to distinguish, the two words in each of these pairs,--I know not who can need his "caution." If there are vowel sounds which graduate through several degrees of openness or broadness, it would seem most natural to express these by regularly comparing the epithet preferred; as, open, opener, openest; or broad, broader, broadest. And again, if "all vowels that end syllables may be said to be open," then it is not true, that "the long sounds" of a in paper, father, water, cannot be so "denominated;" or that to "call the a in father the open a, may, indeed, distinguish it from the slender a in paper." Nor, on this principle, can it be said that "the broad a in water is still more open;" for this a no more "ends a syllable" than the others. If any vowel sound is to be called the open sound because the letter ends a syllable, or is not shut by a consonant, it is, undoubtedly, the primal and most usual sound, as found in the letter when accented, and not some other of rare occurrence.
OBS. 4.--Dr. Perley says, "It is greatly to be regretted that the different sounds of a vowel should be called by the names long, short, slender, and broad, which convey no idea of the nature of the sound, for mat and not are as long in poetry as mate and note. The first sound of a vowel[,] as [that of a in] fate[,] may be called open, because it is the sound which the vowel generally has when it ends a syllable; the second sound as [that of a in] fat, may be called close, because it is the sound which the vowel generally has when it is joined with a consonant following in the same syllable, as fat-ten; when there are more than two sounds of any vowel[,] they may be numbered onward; as 3 far, 4 fall."--Perley's Gram., p. 73.
OBS. 5.--Walker thought a long or short vowel sound essential to a long or short quantity in any syllable. By this, if he was wrong in it, (as, in the chapter on Versification, I have argued that he was,) he probably disturbed more the proper distinction of quantities, than that of vowel sounds. As regards long and short, therefore, Perley's regret seems to have cause; but, in making the same objection to "slender and broad," he reasons illogically. So far as his view is right, however, it coincides with the following earlier suggestion: "The terms long and short, which are often used to denote certain vowel sounds; being also used, with a different import, to distinguish the quantity of syllables, are frequently misunderstood; for which reason, we have substituted for them the terms open and close;--the former, to denote the sound usually given to a vowel when it forms or ends an accented syllable; as, ba, be, bi, bo, bu, by;--the latter, to denote the sound which the vowel commonly takes when closed by a consonant; as, ab, eb, ib, ob, ub"--Brown's Institutes, p. 285.
I. OF THE LETTER A.
The vowel A has four sounds properly its own; they are named by various epithets: as,
1. The English, open, full, long, or slender a; as in aid, fame, favour, efficacious.
2. The French, close, curt, short, or stopped a; as in bat, banner, balance, carrying.
3. The Italian, broadish, grave, or middle a; as in far, father, aha, comma, scoria, sofa.
4. The Dutch, German, Old-Saxon, or broad a; as in wall, haul, walk, warm, water.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.--Concerning the number of sounds pertaining to the vowel a, or to certain other particular letters, and consequently in regard to the whole number of the sounds which constitute the oral elements of the English language, our educational literati,--the grammarians, orthoepists [sic--KTH], orthographers, elocutionists, phonographers, and lexicographers,--are found to have entertained and inculcated a great variety of opinions. In their different countings, the number of our phonical elements varies from twenty-six to more than forty. Wells says there are "about forty elementary sounds."--School Gram., §64. His first edition was more positive, and stated them at "forty-one." See the last and very erroneous passage which I have cited at the foot of page 162. In Worcester's Universal and Critical Dictionary, there appear to be noted several more than forty-one, but I know not whether this author, or Walker either, has anywhere told us how many of his marked sounds he considered to be severally different from all others. Sheridan and Jones admitted twenty-eight. Churchill acknowledges, as undisputed and indisputable, only twenty-six; though he enumerates, "Of simple vowel sounds, twelve, or perhaps thirteen" (New Grammar, p. 5,) and says, "The consonant sounds in the English language, are nineteen, or rather twenty."--P. 13.
OBS. 2.--Thus, while Pitman, Comstock, and others, are amusing themselves with the folly of inventing new "Phonetic Alphabets," or of overturning all orthography to furnish "a character for each of the 38 elementary sounds," more or fewer, one of the acutest observers among our grammarians can fix on no number more definite or more considerable than thirty-one, thirty-two, or thirty-three; and the finding of these he announces with a "perhaps," and the admission that other writers object to as many as five of the questionable number. Churchill's vowel sounds, he says, "may be found in the following words: 1. B_a_te, 2. B_a_t, 3. B_a_ll; 4. B_e_t, 5. B_e_; 6. B_i_t; 7. B_o_t, 8. B_o_ne, 9. B_oo_n; 10. B_u_t, 11. B_u_ll; 12. Lovel_y_; 13. _W_ool."--New Grammar, p. 5. To this he adds: "Many of the writers on orthoepy [sic--KTH], however, consider the first and fourth of the sounds above distinguished as actually the same, the former differing from the latter only by being lengthened in the pronunciation. They also reckon the seventh sound, to be the third shortened; the twelfth, the fifth shortened; and the eleventh, the ninth shortened. Some consider the fifth and sixth as differing only in length; and most esteem the eleventh and thirteenth as identical."--Ib.
OBS. 3.--Now, it is plain, that these six identifications, or so many of them as are admitted, must diminish by six, or by the less number allowed, the thirteen vowel sounds enumerated by this author. By the best authorities, W initial, as in "_W_ool." is reckoned a consonant; and, of course, its sound is supposed to differ in some degree from that of oo in "B_oo_n," or that of u in "B_u_ll,"--the ninth sound or the eleventh in the foregoing series. By Walker, Murray, and other popular writers, the sound of y in "Lovel_y_" is accounted to be essentially the same as that of e in "B_e_." The twelfth and the thirteenth, then, of this list, being removed, and three others added,--namely, the a heard in far, the i in fine, and the u in fuse,--we shall have the fourteen vowel sounds which are enumerated by L. Murray and others, and adopted by the author of the present work.
OBS. 4.--Wells says, "A has six sounds:--1. Long; as in late. 2. Grave; as in father. 3. Broad; as in fall. 4. Short; as in man. 5. The sound heard in care, hare. 6. Intermediate between a in man and a in father; as in grass, pass, branch."--School Grammar, 1850, p. 33. Besides these six, Worcester recognizes a seventh sound,--the "A obscure; as in liar, rival"--Univ. and Crit. Dict., p. ix. Such a multiplication of the oral elements of our first vowel.--or, indeed, any extension of them beyond four,--appears to me to be unadvisable; because it not only makes our alphabet the more defective, but is unnecessary, and not sustained by our best and most popular orthoepical [sic--KTH] authorities. The sound of a in liar, (and in rival too, if made "obscure") is a borrowed one, pertaining more properly to the letter u. In grass, pass, and branch, properly uttered, the a is essentially the same as in man. In care and hare, we have the first sound of a, made as slender as the r will admit.
OBS. 5.--Concerning his fifth sound of a, Wells cites authorities thus: "Walker, Webster, Sheridan, Fulton and Knight, Kenrick, Jones, and Nares, give a in care the long sound of a, as in late. Page and Day give it the short sound of a, as in mat. See Page's Normal Chart, and Day's Art of Elocution. Worcester and Perry make the sound of a in care a separate element; and this distinction is also recognized by Russell, Mandeville, and Wright. See Russell's Lessons in Enunciation, Mandeville's Elements of Reading and Oratory, and Wright's Orthography."--Wells's School Grammar, p. 34. Now the opinion that a in care has its long, primal sound, and is not properly "a separate element," is maintained also by Murray, Hiley, Bullions, Scott, and Cobb; and is, undoubtedly, much more prevalent than any other. It accords, too, with the scheme of Johnson. To count this a by itself, seems too much like a distinction without a difference.
OBS. 6.--On his sixth sound of a, Wells remarks as follows: "Many persons pronounce this a incorrectly, giving it either the grave or the short sound. Perry, Jones, Nares, Webster, and Day, give to a in grass the grave sound, as in father; while Walker, Jamieson, and Russell, give it the short sound, as in man. But good speakers generally pronounce a in grass, plant, etc., as a distinct element, intermediate between the grave and the short sound."--School Gram., p. 34. He also cites Worcester and Smart to the same effect; and thinks, with the latter, "There can be no harm in avoiding the censure of both parties by shunning the extreme that offends the taste of each."--Ib., p. 35. But I say, that a needless multiplication of questionable vowel powers difficult to be discriminated, is "harm," or a fault in teaching; and, where intelligent orthoepists [sic--KTH] dispute whether words have "the grave or the short sound" of a, how can others, who condemn both parties, acceptably split the difference, and form "a distinct element" in the interval? Words are often mispronounced, and the French or close a may be mistaken for the Italian or broadish a, and vice versa; but, between the two, there does not appear to be room for an other distinguishable from both. Dr. Johnson says, (inaccurately indeed,) "A has three sounds, the slender, [the] open, and [the] broad. A slender is found in most words, as face, mane. A open is the a of the Italian, or nearly resembles it; as father, rather, congratulate, fancy, glass. A broad resembles the a of the German; as all, wall, call. [fist] The short a approaches to the a open, as grass."--Johnson's Grammar, in his Quarto Dictionary, p. 1. Thus the same word, grass, that serves Johnson for an example of "the short a" is used by Wells and Worcester to exemplify the "a intermediate;" while of the Doctor's five instances of what he calls the "a open," three, if not four, are evidently such as nearly all readers nowadays would call close or short!
OBS. 7.--There are several grammarians who agree in ascribing to our first vowel five sounds, but who nevertheless oppose one an other in making up the five. Thus, according to Hart, "A has five sounds of its own, as in fate, fare, far, fall, fat,"--Hart's E. Gram., p. 26. According to W. Allen, "A has five sounds;--the long or slender, as in cane; the short or open, as in can; the middle, as in arm; the broad, as in all; and the broad contracted, as in want."--Allen's E. Gram., p. 6. P. Davis has the same sounds in a different order, thus: "a [as in] mane, mar, fall, mat, what."--Davis's E. Gram., p. xvi. Mennye says, "A has five sounds; as, 1 fame, 2 fat, 3 false, 4 farm, 5 beggar."--Mennye's E. Gram., p. 55. Here the fifth sound is the seventh of Worcester,--the "A obscure."
DIPHTHONGS BEGINNING WITH A.
The only proper diphthong in which a is put first, is the word ay, meaning yes: in which a has its middle sound, as in ah, and y is like open e, or ee, uttered feebly--ah-ee. Aa, when pronounced as an improper diphthong, and not as pertaining to two syllables, usually takes the sound of close a; as in Balaam, Canaan, Isaac. In many words, as in Baäl, Gaäl, Gaäsh, the diæresis occurs. In baa, the cry of a sheep, we hear the Italian sound of a; and, since we hear it but once, one a or the other must be silent.
Æ, a Latin improper diphthong, common also in the Anglo-Saxon, generally has, according to modern orthoëpists, the sound of open e or ee; as in Cæsar, ænigma, pæan;--sometimes that of close or short e; as in aphæresis, diæresis, et cætera. Some authors, judging the a of this diphthong to be needless, reject it, and write Cesar, enigma, &c.
Ai, an improper diphthong, generally has the sound of open or long a; as in sail, avail, vainly. In a final unaccented syllable, it sometimes preserves the first sound of a; as in chilblain, mortmain: but oftener takes the sound of close or short i; as in certain, curtain, mountain, villain. In said, saith, again, and against, it takes the sound of close or short e; and in the name Britain, that of close or short u.
Ao, an improper diphthong, occurs in the word gaol, now frequently written as it is pronounced, jail; also in gaoler, which may be written jailer; and in the compounds of gaol: and, again, it is found in the adjective extraordinary, and its derivatives, in which, according to nearly all orthoëpists, the a is silent. The name Pharaoh, is pronounced F=a'r=o.
Au, an improper diphthong, is generally sounded like broad a; as in cause, caught, applause. Before n and an other consonant, it usually has the sound of grave or middle a; as in aunt, flaunt, gaunt, launch, laundry. So in laugh, laughter, and their derivatives. Gauge and gauger are pronounced gage and gager, and sometimes written so.
Aw, an improper diphthong, is always sounded like broad a; as in draw, drawn, drawl.
Ay, an improper diphthong, like ai, has usually the sound of open or long a; as in day, pay, delay: in sayst and says, it has the sound of close or short e.
TRIPHTHONGS BEGINNING WITH A.
Awe is sounded au, like broad a. Aye, an adverb signifying always, has the sound of open or long a only; being different, both in sound and in spelling, from the adverb ay, yes, with which it is often carelessly confounded. The distinction is maintained by Johnson, Walker, Todd, Chalmers, Jones, Cobb, Maunder, Bolles, and others; but Webster and Worcester give it up, and write "ay, or aye," each sounded ah-ee, for the affirmation, and "aye," sounded =a, for the adverb of time: Ainsworth on the contrary has ay only, for either sense, and does not note the pronunciation.
II. OF THE LETTER B.
The consonant B has but one sound; as in boy, robber, cub. B is silent before t or after m in the same syllable; as in debt, debtor, doubt, dumb, lamb, climb, tomb. It is heard in subtile, fine; but not in subtle, cunning.
III. OF THE LETTER C.
The consonant C has two sounds, neither of them peculiar to this letter; the one hard, like that of k, and the other soft, or rather hissing, like that of s. C before a, o, u, l, r, t, or when it ends a syllable, is generally hard, like k; as in can, come curb, clay, crab, act, action, accent, flaccid. C before e, i, or y, is always soft, like s; as in cent, civil, decency, acid.
In a few words, c takes the flat sound of s, like that of z; as in discern, suffice, sacrifice, sice. C before ea, ia, ie, io, or eou, when the accent precedes, sounds like sh; as in ocean, special, species, gracious, cetaceous. C is silent in czar, czarina, victuals, indict, muscle, corpuscle, and the second syllable of Connecticut.
Ch is generally sounded like tch, or tsh, which is the same to the ear; as in church, chance, child. But in words derived from the learned languages, it has the sound of k; as in character, scheme, catechise, chorus, choir, chyle, patriarch, drachma, magna charta: except in chart, charter, charity. Ch, in words derived from the French, takes the sound of sh; as in chaise, machine. In Hebrew words or names, in general, ch sounds like k; as in Chebar, Sirach, Enoch: but in Rachel, cherub, and cherubim, we have Anglicized the sound by uttering it as tch. Loch, a Scottish word, sometimes also a medical term, is heard as lok.
"Arch, before a vowel, is pronounced ark; as in archives, archangel, archipelago: except in arched, archer, archery, archenemy. Before a consonant it is pronounced artch; as in archbishop, archduke, archfiend."--See W. Allen's Gram., p. 10. Ch is silent in schism, yacht, and drachm. In schedule, some utter it as k; others, as sh; and many make it mute: I like the first practice.
IV. OF THE LETTER D.
The general sound of the consonant D, is that which is heard in dog, eddy, did. D, in the termination ed, preceded by a sharp consonant, takes the sound of t, when the e is suppressed or unheard: as in faced, stuffed, cracked, tripped, passed; pronounced faste, stuft, cract, tript, past. D before ia, ie, io, or eou, when the accent precedes, generally sounds like j; as in Indian, soldier, tedious, hideous. So in verdure, arduous, education.
V. OF THE LETTER E.
The vowel E has two sounds properly its own,--and I incline to think, three:--
1. The open, long, full, or primal e; as in me, mere, menial, melodious.
2. The close, curt, short, or stopped e; as in men, merry, ebony, strength.
3. The obscure or faint e; as in open, garden, shovel, able. This third sound is scarcely perceptible, and barely sufficient to articulate the consonant and form a syllable.
E final is mute and belongs to the syllable formed by the preceding vowel or diphthong; as in age, eve, ice, ore. Except--1. In the words, be, he, me, we, she, in which it has the open sound; and the article the, wherein it is open before a vowel, and obscure before a consonant. 2. In Greek and Latin words, in which it has its open sound, and forms a distinct syllable, or the basis of one; as in Penelope, Pasiphaë, Cyaneë, Gargaphië, Arsinoë, apostrophe, catastrophe, simile, extempore, epitome. 3. In the terminations ere, gre, tre, in which it has the sound of close or curt u, heard before the r; as in acre, meagre, centre.
Mute e, after a single consonant, or after st or th, generally preserves the open or long sound of the preceding vowel; as in cane, here, pine, cone, tune, thyme, baste, waste, lathe, clothe: except in syllables unaccented; as in the last of genuine;--and in a few monosyllables; as bade, are, were, gone, shone, one, done, give, live, shove, love.
DIPHTHONGS BEGINNING WITH E.
E before an other vowel, in general, either forms with it an improper diphthong, or else belongs to a separate syllable. We do not hear both vowels in one syllable, except perhaps in eu or ew.
Ea, an improper diphthong, mostly sounds like open or long e; as in ear, fear, tea; frequently like close or curt e; as in head, health, leather: sometimes, like open or long a; as in steak, bear, forswear: rarely, like middle a; as in heart, hearth, hearken. Ea in an unaccented syllable, sounds like close or curt u; as in vengeance, pageant.
Ee, an improper diphthong, mostly sounds like one open or long e; as in eel, sheep, tree, trustee, referee. The contractions e'er and ne'er, are pronounced air and nair, and not like ear and near. E'en, however, preserves the sound of open e. Been is most commonly heard with the curt sound of i, bin.
Ei, an improper diphthong, mostly sounds like the primal or long a; as in reign, veil: frequently, like open or long e; as in deceit, either, neither, seize: sometimes, like open or long i; as in height, sleight, heigh-ho: often, in unaccented syllables, like close or curt i; as in foreign, forfeit, surfeit, sovereign: rarely, like close e; as in heifer, nonpareil.
Eo, an improper diphthong, in people, sounds like open or long e; in leopard and jeopard, like close or curt e; in yeoman, according to the best usage, like open or long o; in George, Georgia, georgic, like close o; in dungeon, puncheon, sturgeon, &c., like close u. In feoff, and its derivatives, the close or short sound of e is most fashionable; but some prefer the long sound of e; and some write the word "fief." Feod, feodal, feodary, feodatory, are now commonly written as they are pronounced, feud, feudal, feudary, feudatory.
Eu and ew are sounded alike, and almost always with the diphthongal sound of open or long u; as in feud, deuce, jewel, dew, few, new. These diphthongs, when initial, sound like yu. Nouns beginning with this sound, require the article a, and not an, before them; as, A European, a ewer. After r or rh, eu and ew are commonly sounded like oo; as in drew, grew, screw, rheumatism. In sew and Shrewsbury, ew sounds like open o: Worcester, however, prefers the sound of oo in the latter word. Shew and strew, having the same meaning as show and strow, are sometimes, by sameness of pronunciation, made to be the same words; and sometimes distinguished as different words, by taking the sounds shu and stroo.
Ey, accented, has the sound of open or long a; as in bey, prey, survey: unaccented, it has the sound of open e; as in alley, valley, money. Key and ley are pronounced kee, lee.
TRIPHTHONGS BEGINNING WITH E.
Eau, a French triphthong, sounds like open o; as in beau, flambeau, portmanteau, bureau: except in beauty, and its compounds, in which it is pronounced like open u, as if the word were written buty.
Eou is a combination of vowels sometimes heard in one syllable, especially after c or g; as in crus-ta-ceous, gor-geous. Walker, in his Rhyming Dictionary, gives one hundred and twenty words ending in eous, in all of which he separates these vowels; as in ex-tra-ne-ous. And why, in his Pronouncing Dictionary, he gave us several such anomalies as fa-ba-ce-ous in four syllables and her-ba-ceous in three, it is not easy to tell. The best rule is this: after c or g, unite these vowels; after the other consonants, separate them.
Ewe is a triphthong having the sound of yu, and forming a word. The vulgar pronunciation yoe should be carefully avoided.
Eye is an improper triphthong which also forms a word, and is pronounced like open i, or the pronoun I.
VI. OF THE LETTER F.
The consonant F has one unvaried sound, which is heard in fan, effort, staff: except of, which, when simple, is pronounced ov.
VII. OF THE LETTER G.
The consonant G has two sounds;--the one hard, guttural, and peculiar to this letter; the other soft, like that of j. G before a, o, u, l, r, or at the end of a word, is hard; as in game, gone, gull, glory, grace, log, bog; except in gaol. G before e, i, or y, is soft; as in gem, ginger, elegy. Except--1. In get, give, gewgaw, finger, and a few other words. 2. When a syllable is added to a word ending in g: as, long, longer; fog, foggy.
G is silent before m or n in the same syllable; as in phlegm, apothegm, gnaw, design. G, when silent, usually lengthens the preceding vowel; as in resign, impregn, impugn.
Gh at the beginning of a word has the sound of g hard; as in ghastly, gherkin, Ghibelline, ghost, ghoul, ghyll: in other situations, it is generally silent; as in high, mighty, plough, bough, though, through, fight, night, bought. Gh final sometimes sounds like f; as in laugh, rough, tough; and sometimes, like g hard; as in burgh. In hough, lough, shough, it sounds like k, or ck; thus, hock, lock, shock.
VIII. OF THE LETTER H.
The sound of the consonant H, (though articulate and audible when properly uttered,) is little more than an aspirate breathing. It is heard in hat, hit, hot, hut, adhere.
H at the beginning of a word, is always sounded; except in heir, herb, honest, honour, hospital, hostler, hour, humble, humour, with their compounds and derivatives. H after r, is always silent; as in rhapsody, rhetoric, rheum, rhubarb. H final, immediately following a vowel, is always silent; as in ah, Sarah, Nineveh, Shiloh.
IX. OF THE LETTER I.
The vowel I has three sounds, each very common to it, and perhaps properly its own:--
1. The open, long, full, or primal i; as in life, fine, final, time, bind, child, sigh, pint, resign. This is a diphthongal sound, equivalent to the sounds of middle a and open e quickly united.
2. The close, curt, short, or stopped i; as in ink, limit, disfigure, mimicking.
3. The feeble, faint, or slender i, accentless; as in divest, doctrinal, diversity.
This third sound is equivalent to that of open e, or ee uttered feebly. I generally has this sound when it occurs at the end of an unaccented syllable: except at the end of Latin words, or of ancient names, where it is open or long; as in literati, Nervii, Eli, Levi.
In some words, (principally from other modern languages,) i has the full sound of open e, under the accent; as in Porto Rico, machine, magazine, antique, shire.
Accented i followed by a vowel, has its open or primal sound; and the vowels belong to separate syllables; as in pliant, diet, satiety, violet, pious. Unaccented i followed by a vowel, has its feeble sound; as in expatiate, obedient, various, abstemious.
DIPHTHONGS BEGINNING WITH I.
I, in the situation last described, readily coalesces with the vowel which follows, and is often sunk into the same syllable, forming a proper diphthong: as in fustian, quotient, question. The terminations cion, sion, and tion, are generally pronounced shun; and cious and tious are pronounced shus.
Ie is commonly an improper diphthong. Ie in die, hie, lie, pie, tie, vie, and their derivatives, has the sound of open i. Ie in words from the French, (as cap-a-pie, ecurie, grenadier, siege, bier,) has the sound of open e. So, generally, in the middle of English roots; as in chief, grief, thief; but, in sieve, it has the sound of close or short i. In friend, and its derivatives or compounds, it takes the sound of close e.
TRIPHTHONGS BEGINNING WITH I.
The triphthongs ieu and iew both sound like open or long u; as in lieu, adieu, view.
The three vowels iou, in the termination ious, often fall into one syllable, and form a triphthong. There are two hundred and forty-five words of this ending; and more than two hundred deriva- tives from them. Walker has several puzzling inconsistencies in their pronunciation; such as fas-tid-i-ous and per-fid-ious, con-ta-gi-ous and sac-ri-le-gious. After c, g, t, or x, these vowels should coalesce: as in gra-cious, re-li-gious, vex-a-tious, ob-nox-ious, and about two hundred other words. After the other consonants, let them form two syllables; (except when there is a syn- seresis in poetry;) as in dw-bi-ou-s, o-di-ous, va-ri-ous, en-vi-ous.
X. OF THE LETTER J.
The consonant J, the tenth letter of the English alphabet, has invariably the sound of soft g, like the g in giant, which some say is equivalent to the complex sound dzh; as, jade, jet, jilt, joy, justice, jewel, prejudice.
XI. OF THE LETTER K.
The consonant K, not silent, has uniformly the sound of c hard; and occurs where c would have its soft sound: as in keep, looking, kind, smoky.
K before n is silent; as in knave, know, knuckle. In stead of doubling c final, we write ck; as in lack, lock, luck, attack. In English words, k is never doubled, though two Kays may come together in certain compounds; as in brickkiln, jackknife. Two Kays, belonging to different syllables, also stand together in a few Scripture names; as in Akkub, Bakbakkar, Bukki, Bukkiah, Habakkuk. Hakkoz, Ikkesh, Sukkiims. C before k, though it does not always double the sound which c or k in such a situation must represent, always shuts or shortens the preceding vowel; as in rack, speck, freckle, cockle, wicked.
XII. OF THE LETTER L.
The consonant L, the plainest of the semivowels, has a soft, liquid sound; as in line, lily, roll, follow. L is sometimes silent; as in Holmes, alms, almond, calm, chalk, walk, calf, half, could, would, should. L, too, is frequently doubled where it is heard but once; as in hill, full, travelled. So any letter that is written twice, and not twice sounded, must there be once mute; as the last in baa, ebb, add, see, staff, egg, all, inn, coo, err, less, buzz.
XIII. OF THE LETTER M.
The consonant M is a semivowel and a liquid, capable of an audible, humming sound through the nose, when the mouth is closed. It is heard in map, murmur, mammon. In the old words, compt, accompt, comptroller, (for count, account, controller,) the m is sounded as n. M before n, at the beginning of a word, is silent; as in Mnason, Mnemosyne, mnemonics.
XIV. OF THE LETTER N.
The consonant N, which is also a semivowel and a liquid, has two sounds;--the first, the pure and natural sound of n; as in nun, banner, cannon;--the second, the ringing sound of ng, heard before certain gutturals; as in think, mangle, conquer, congress, singing, twinkling, Cen'chreä. The latter sound should be carefully preserved in all words ending in ing, and in such others as require it. The sounding of the syllable ing as if it were in, is a vulgarism in utterance; and the writing of it so, is, as it would seem by the usage of Burns, a Scotticism.
N final preceded by m, is silent; as in hymn, solemn, column, damn, condemn, autumn. But this n becomes audible in an additional syllable; as in autumnal, condemnable, damning.
XV. OF THE LETTER O.
The vowel O has three different sounds, which are properly its own:--
1. The open, full, primal, or long o; as in no, note, opiate, opacity, Roman.
2. The close, curt, short, or stopped o; as in not, nor, torrid, dollar, fondle.
3. The slender or narrow o, like oo; as in prove, move, who, to, do, tomb.
O, in many words, sounds like close or curt u; as in love, shove, son, come, nothing, dost, attorney, gallon, dragon, comfit, comfort, coloration. One is pronounced wun; and once, wunce. In the termination on immediately after the accent, o is often sunk into a sound scarcely perceptible, like that of obscure e; as in mason, person, lesson.
DIPHTHONGS BEGINNING WITH O.
Oa, an improper diphthong, has the sound of open or long o; as in boat, coal, roach, coast, coastwise: except in broad and groat, which have the sound of broad a.
Oe, an improper diphthong, when final, has the sound of open or long o: as in doe, foe, throe: except in canoe, shoe, pronounced canoo, shoo. OE, a Latin diphthong, generally sounds like open e; as in Antoeci, foetus: sometimes, like close or curt e; as in foetid, foeticide. But the English word f~etid is often, and perhaps generally, written without the o.
Oi is generally a proper diphthong, uniting the sound of close o or broad a, and that of open e; as in boil, coil, soil, rejoice. But the vowels, when they appear together, sometimes belong to separate syllables; as in Stoic, Stoicism. Oi unaccented, sometimes has the sound of close or curt i; as in avoirdupois, connoisseur, tortoise.
Oo, an improper diphthong, generally has the slender sound of o; as in coo, too, woo, fool, room. It has, in some words, a shorter or closer sound, (like that of u in bull,) as in foot, good, wood, stood, wool;--that of close u in blood and flood;--and that of open o in door and floor. Derivatives from any of these, sound as their primitives.
Ou is generally a proper diphthong, uniting the sound of close or curt o, and that of u as heard in bull,--or u sounded as oo; as in bound, found, sound, ounce, thou. Ou is also, in certain instances, an improper diphthong; and, as such, it has six different sounds:--(l.) That of close or curt u; as in rough, tough, young, flourish. (2.) That of broad a; as in ought, bought, thought. (3.) That of open or long o; as in court, dough, four, though. (4.) That of close or curt o; as in cough, trough, lough, shough: which are, I believe, the only examples. (5.) That of slender o, or oo; as in soup, you, through. (6.) That of u in bull, or of oo shortened; only in would, could, should.
Ow generally sounds like the proper diphthong ou,--or like a union of short o with oo; as in brown, dowry, now, shower: but it is often an improper diphthong, having only the sound of open or long o; as in know, show, stow.
Oy is a proper diphthong, equivalent in sound to oi; as in joy, toy, oyster.
TRIPHTHONGS BEGINNING WITH O.
OEu is a French triphthong, pronounced in English as oo, and occurring in the word manoeuvre, with its several derivatives. Owe is an improper triphthong, and an English word, in which the o only is heard, and heard always with its long or open sound.
XVI. OF THE LETTER P.
The consonant P, when not written before h, has commonly one peculiar sound; which is heard in pen, pine, sup, supper. The word cupboard is usually pronounced kubburd. P, written with an audible consonant, is sometimes itself silent; as in psalm, psalter, pseudography, psychology, ptarmigan, ptyalism, receipt, corps.
Ph generally sounds like f; as in philosophy. In Stephen and nephew, ph has the sound of v. The h after p, is silent in diphthong, triphthong, naphtha, ophthalmic; and both the p and the h are silent in apophthegm, phthisis, phthisical. From the last three words, ph is sometimes dropped.
XVII. OF THE LETTER Q.
The consonant Q, being never silent, never final, never doubled, and not having a sound peculiar to itself, is invariably heard, in English, with the power of k; and is always followed by the vowel u, which, in words purely English, is sounded like the narrow o, or oo,--or, perhaps, is squeezed into the consonantal sound of w;--as in queen, quaver, quiver, quarter, request. In some words of French origin, the u after q is silent; as in coquet, liquor, burlesque, etiquette.
XVIII. OF THE LETTER R.
The consonant R, called also a semivowel and a liquid, has usually, at the beginning of a word, or before a vowel, a rough or pretty strong sound; as in roll, rose, roam, proudly, prorogue. "In other positions," it is said by many to be "smooth" or "soft;" "as in hard, ford, word."--W. Allen.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.--The letter R turns the tip of the tongue up against or towards the roof of the mouth, where the sound may be lengthened, roughened, trilled, or quavered. Consequently, this element may, at the will of the speaker, have more or less--little or nothing, or even very much--of that peculiar roughness, jar, or whur, which is commonly said to constitute the sound. The extremes should here be avoided. Some readers very improperly omit the sound of r from many words to which it pertains; pronouncing or as awe, nor as knaw, for as faugh, and war as the first syllable of water. On the other hand, "The excessive trilling of the r, as practised by some speakers, is a great fault."--D. P. Page.
OBS. 2.--Dr. Johnson, in his "Grammar of the English Tongue," says, "R has the same rough snarling sound as in other tongues."--P. 3. Again, in his Quarto Dictionary, under this letter, he says, "R is called the canine letter, because it is uttered with some resemblance to the growl or snarl of a cur: it has one constant sound in English, such as it has in other languages; as, red, rose, more, muriatick." Walker, however, who has a greater reputation as an orthoepist [sic--KTH], teaches that, "There is a distinction in the sound of this letter, which is," says he, "in my opinion, of no small importance; and that is, the [distinction of] the rough and [the] smooth r. Ben Jonson," continues he, "in his Grammar, says, 'It is sounded firm in the beginning of words, and more liquid in the middle and ends, as in rarer, riper; and so in the Latin.' The rough r is formed by jarring the tip of the tongue against the roof of the mouth near the fore teeth: the smooth r is a vibration of the lower part of the tongue, near the root, against the inward region of the palate, near the entrance of the throat."--Walker's Principles, No. 419; Octavo Dict., p. 48.
OBS. 3.--Wells, with his characteristic indecision, forbears all recognition of this difference, and all intimation of the quality of the sound, whether smooth or rough; saying, in his own text, only this: "R has the sound heard in rare."--School Grammar, p. 40. Then, referring the student to sundry authorities, he adds in a footnote certain "quotations," that are said to "present a general view of the different opinions which exist among orthoepists respecting this letter." And so admirably are these authorities or opinions balanced and offset, one class against an other, that it is hard to tell which has the odds. First, though it is not at all probable that Wells's utterance of "rare" exhibits twice over the rough snarl of Johnson's r, the "general view" seems intended to confirm the indefinite teaching above, thus: "'R has one constant sound in English.'--Johnson. The same view is adopted by Webster, Perry, Kendrick, Sheridan, Jones, Jameson, Knowles, and others."--School Grammar, p. 40. In counterpoise of these, Wells next cites about as many more--namely, Frazee, Page, Russell, Walker, Rush, Barber, Comstock, and Smart,--as maintaining or admitting that r has sometimes a rough sound, and sometimes a smoother one.
XIX. OF THE LETTER S.
The consonant S has a sharp, hissing, or hard sound; as in sad, sister, thus: and a flat, buzzing, or soft sound, like that of z; as in rose, dismal, bosom, husband. S, at the beginning of words, or after any of the sharp consonants, is always sharp; as in see, steps, cliffs, sits, stocks, smiths. S, after any of the flat mutes, or at the end of words when not preceded by a sharp consonant, is generally flat; as in eyes, trees, beds, bags, calves. But in the English termination ous, or in the Latin us, it is sharp; as joyous, vigorous, hiatus.
Ss is generally sharp; as in pass, kiss, harass, assuage, basset, cassock, remissness. But the first two Esses in possess, or any of its regular derivatives, as well as the two in dissolve, or its proximate kin, sound like two Zees; and the soft or flat sound is commonly given to each s in hyssop, hussy, and hussar. In scissel, scissible, and scissile, all the Esses hiss;--in scissors, the last three of the four are flat, like z;--but in the middle of scissure and scission we hear the sound of zh.
S, in the termination sion, takes the sound of sh, after a consonant; as in aspersion, session, passion, mission, compulsion: and that of zh, after a vowel; as in evasion, elision, confusion.
In the verb assure, and each of its derivatives, also in the nouns pressure and fissure, with their derivatives, we hear, according to Walker, the sound of sh for each s, or twice in each word; but, according to the orthoëpy of Worcester, that sound is heard only in the accented syllable of each word, and the vowel in each unaccented syllable is obscure.
S is silent or mute in the words, isle, island, aisle, demesne, corps, and viscount.
XX. OF THE LETTER T.
The general sound of the consonant T, is heard in time, letter, set. T, immediately after the accent, takes the sound of tch, before u, and generally also before eou; as in nature, feature, virtue, righteous, courteous: when s or x precedes, it takes this sound before ia or io; as in fustian, bastion, mixtion. But the general or most usual sound of t after the accent, when followed by i and an other vowel, is that of sh; as in creation, patient, cautious.
In English, t is seldom, if ever, silent or powerless. In depot, however, a word borrowed from the French, we do not sound it; and in chestnut, which is a compound of our own, it is much oftener written than heard. In often and soften, some think it silent; but it seems rather to take here the sound of f. In chasten, hasten, fasten, castle, nestle, whistle, apostle, epistle, bustle, and similar words, with their sundry derivatives, the t is said by some to be mute; but here it seems to take the sound of s; for, according to the best authorities, this sound is beard twice in such words. Th, written in Greek by the character called Theta, ([Greek: th] or O capital, [Greek: th] or [Greek: th] small,) represents an elementary sound; or, rather, two distinct elementary sounds, for which the Anglo-Saxons had different characters, supposed by Dr. Bosworth to have been applied with accurate discrimination of "the hard or sharp sound of th," from "the soft or flat sound."--(See Bosworth's Compendious Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, p. 268.) The English th is either sharp, as in thing, ethical, thinketh; or flat, as in this, whither, thither.
"Th initial is sharp; as in thought: except in than, that, the, thee, their, them, then, thence, there, these, they, thine, this, thither, those, thou, thus, thy, and their compounds."--W. Allen's Grammar, p. 22.
Th final is also sharp; as in south: except in beneath, booth, with, and several verbs formerly with th last, but now frequently (and more properly) written with final e; as loathe, mouthe, seethe, soothe, smoothe, clothe, wreathe, bequeathe, unclothe.
Th medial is sharp, too, when preceded or followed by a consonant; as in Arthur, ethnic, swarthy, athwart: except in brethren, burthen, farther, farthing, murther, northern, worthy. But "th between two vowels, is generally flat in words purely English; as in gather, neither, whither: and sharp in words from the learned languages; as in atheist, ether, method"--See W. Allen's Gram., p. 22.
"Th, in Thames, Thomas, thyme, asthma, phthisis, and their compounds, is pronounced like t."--Ib.
XXI. OF THE LETTER U.
The vowel U has three sounds which may be considered to be properly its own:--
1. The open, long, full, primal, or diphthongal u; as in tube, cubic, juvenile.
2. The close, curt, short, or stopped u; as in tub, butter, justice, unhung.
3. The middle u, resembling a short or quick oo; as in pull, pulpit, artful.
U forming a syllable by itself or U as naming itself is nearly equivalent in sound to you, and requires the article a, and not an, before it; as, a U, a union.
U sometimes borrows the sound of some other vowel; for bury is pronounced berry, and busy is pronounced bizzy. So in the derivatives, burial, buried, busied, busily, and the like.
The long or diphthongal u, commonly sounded as yu, or as ew in ewer,--or any equivalent diphthong or digraph, as ue, ui, eu, or ew.--when it follows r or rh, assumes the sound of slender o or oo; as in rude, rhubarb, rue, rueful, rheum, fruit, truth, brewer.
DIPHTHONGS BEGINNING WITH U.
U, in the proper diphthongs, ua, ue, ui, uo, uy, has the sound of w or of oo feeble; as in persuade, query, quell, quiet, languid, quote, obloquy.
Ua, an improper diphthong, has the sound--1. Of middle a; as in guard, guardian. 2. Of close a; as in guarantee, piquant. 3. Of obscure e; as in victuals and its compounds or kindred. 4. Of open u; as in mantuamaker.
Ue, an improper diphthong, has the sound--1. Of open u; as in blue, ensue, ague. 2. Of close e; as in guest, guesser. 3. Of close u; as in leaguer. Ue final is sometimes silent; as in league, antique. Ui, an improper diphthong, has the sound--1. Of open i; as in guide, guile. 2. Of close i; as in conduit, circuit. 3. Of open u; as in juice, sluice, suit.
Uo can scarcely be called an improper diphthong, except, perhaps, after q in liquor, liquorice, liquorish, where uor is heard as ur.
Uy, an improper diphthong, has the sound--1. Of open y; as in buy, buyer. 2. Of feeble y, or of ee feeble; as in plaguy, roguy.
TRIPHTHONGS BEGINNING WITH U.
Uai is pronounced nearly, if not exactly, like way; as in guai-a-cum, quail, quaint. Uaw is sounded like wa in water; as in squaw, a female Indian. Uay has the sound of way; as in Par-a-guay: except in quay, which nearly all our orthoepists pronounce kee. Uea and uee are each sounded wee; as in queasy, queer, squeal, squeeze. Uoi and woy are each sounded woi; as in quoit, buoy. Some say, that, as u, in these combinations, sounds like w, it is a consonant; others allege, that w itself has only the sound of oo, and is therefore in all cases a vowel. U has, certainly, in these connexions, as much of the sound of oo, as has w; and perhaps a little more.
XXII. OF THE LETTER V.
The consonant V always has a sound like that of f flattened; as in love, vulture, vivacious. In pure English, it is never silent, never final, never doubled: but it is often doubled in the dialect of Craven; and there, too, it is sometimes final.
XXIII. OF THE LETTER W.
W, when reckoned a consonant, (as it usually is when uttered with a vowel that follows it,) has the sound heard at the beginning of wine, win, woman, woody; being a sound less vocal than that of oo, and depending more upon the lips.
W before h, is usually pronounced as if it followed the h; as in what, when, where, while: but, in who, whose, whom, whole, whoop, and words formed from these, it is silent. Before r, in the same syllable, it is also silent; as in wrath, wrench, wrong. So in a few other cases; as in sword, answer, two.
W is never used alone as a vowel; except in some Welsh or foreign names, in which it is equivalent to oo; as in "Cwm Cothy," the name of a mountain in Wales; "Wkra" the name of a small river in Poland.--See Lockhart's Napoleon, Vol. ii, p. 15. In a diphthong, when heard, it has the power of u in bull, or nearly that of oo; as in new, now, brow, frown. Aw and ow are frequently improper diphthongs, the w being silent, the a broad, and the o long; as in law, flaw,--tow, snow. W, when sounded before vowels, being reckoned a consonant, we have no diphthongs or triphthongs beginning with this letter.
XXIV. OF THE LETTER X.
The consonant "X has a sharp sound, like ks; as in ox: and a flat one, like gz; as in example. X is sharp, when it ends an accented syllable; as in exercise, exit, excellence: or when it precedes an accented syllable beginning with a consonant; as in expand, extreme, expunge. X unaccented is generally flat, when the next syllable begins with a vowel; as in exist, exemption, exotic. X initial, in Greek proper names, has the sound of z; as in Xanthus, Xantippe, Xenophon, Xerxes"--See W. Allen's Gram., p. 25.
XXV. OF THE LETTER Y.
Y, as a consonant, has the sound heard at the beginning of yarn, young, youth; being rather less vocal than the feeble sound of i, or of the vowel y, and serving merely to modify that of a succeeding vowel, with which it is quickly united. Y, as a vowel, has the same sounds as i:--
1. The open, long, full, or primal y; as in cry, crying, thyme, cycle.
2. The close, curt, short, or stopped y; as in system, symptom, cynic.
3. The feeble or faint y, accentless; (like open e feeble;) as in cymar, cycloidal, mercy.
The vowels i and y have, in general, exactly the same sound under similar circumstances, and, in forming derivatives, we often change one for the other: as in city, cities; tie, tying; easy, easily.
Y, before a vowel heard in the same syllable, is reckoned a consonant; we have, therefore, no diphthongs or triphthongs commencing with this letter.
XXVI. OF THE LETTER Z.
The consonant Z, the last letter of our alphabet, has usually a soft or buzzing sound, the same as that of s flat; as in Zeno, zenith, breeze, dizzy. Before u primal or i feeble, z, as well as s flat, sometimes takes the sound of zh, which, in the enumeration of consonantal sounds, is reckoned a distinct element; as in azure, seizure, glazier; osier, measure, pleasure.
END OF THE FIRST APPENDIX.
APPENDIX II.
TO PART SECOND, OR ETYMOLOGY.
OF THE DERIVATION OF WORDS.
Derivation, as a topic to be treated by the grammarian, is a species of Etymology, which explains the various methods by which those derivative words which are not formed by mere grammatical inflections, are deduced from their primitives. Most of those words which are regarded as primitives in English, may be traced to ulterior sources, and many of them are found to be compounds or derivatives in the other languages from which they have come to us. To show the composition, origin, and literal sense of these, is also a part, and a highly useful part, of this general inquiry, or theme of instruction.
This species of information, though insignificant in those whose studies reach to nothing better,--to nothing valuable and available in life,--is nevertheless essential to education and to science; because it is essential to a right understanding of the import and just application of such words. All reliable etymology, all authentic derivation of words, has ever been highly valued by the wise. The learned James Harris has a remark as follows: "How useful to ETHIC SCIENCE, and indeed to KNOWLEDGE in general, a GRAMMATICAL DISQUISITION into the Etymology and Meaning of WORDS was esteemed by the chief and ablest Philosophers, may be seen by consulting Plato in his Cratylus; Xenophon's Memorabilia, IV, 5, 6; Arrian. Epict. I, 17; II, 10; Marc. Anton. III, 11;" &c.--See Harris's Hermes, p. 407.
A knowledge of the Saxon, Latin, Greek, and French languages, will throw much light on this subject, the derivation of our modern English; nor is it a weak argument in favour of studying these, that our acquaintance with them, whether deep or slight, tends to a better understanding of what is borrowed, and what is vernacular, in our own tongue. But etymological analysis may extensively teach the origin of English words, their composition, and the import of their parts, without demanding of the student the power of reading foreign or ancient languages, or of discoursing at all on General Grammar. And, since many of the users of this work may be but readers of our current English, to whom an unknown letter or a foreign word is a particularly uncouth and repulsive thing, we shall here forbear the use of Saxon characters, and, in our explanations, not go beyond the precincts of our own language, except to show the origin and primitive import of some of our definitive and connecting particles, and to explain the prefixes and terminations which are frequently employed to form English derivatives.
The rude and cursory languages of barbarous nations, to whom literature is unknown, are among those transitory things which, by the hand of time, are irrecoverably buried in oblivion. The fabric of the English language is undoubtedly of Saxon origin; but what was the particular form of the language spoken by the Saxons, when about the year 450 they entered Britain, cannot now be accurately known. It was probably a dialect of the Gothic or Teutonic. This Anglo-Saxon dialect, being the nucleus, received large accessions from other tongues of the north, from the Norman French, and from the more polished languages of Rome and Greece, to form the modern English. The speech of our rude and warlike ancestors thus gradually improved, as Christianity, civilization, and knowledge, advanced the arts of life in Britain; and, as early as the tenth century, it became a language capable of expressing all the sentiments of a civilized people. From the time of Alfred, its progress may be traced by means of writings which remain; but it can scarcely be called English, as I have shown in the Introduction to this work, till about the thirteenth century. And for two or three centuries later, it was so different from the modern English, as to be scarcely intelligible at all to the mere English reader; but, gradually improving by means upon which we need not here dilate, it at length became what we now find it,--a language copious, strong, refined, impressive, and capable, if properly used, of a great degree of beauty and harmony.
SECTION I.--DERIVATION OF THE ARTICLES.
1. For the derivation of our article THE, which he calls "an adjective," Dr. Webster was satisfied with giving this hint: "Sax. the; Dutch, de."--Amer. Dict. According to Horne Tooke, this definite article of ours, is the Saxon verb "THE," imperative, from THEAN, to take; and is nearly equivalent in meaning to that or those, because our that is "the past participle of THEAN," and "means taken."--Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 49. But this is not very satisfactory. Examining ancient works, we find the word, or something resembling it, or akin to it, written in various forms, as se, see, ye, te, de, the, thá, and others that cannot be shown by our modern letters; and, tracing it as one article, or one and the same word, through what we suppose to be the oldest of these forms, in stead of accounting the forms as signs of different roots, we should sooner regard it as originating in the imperative of SEON, to see.
2. AN, our indefinite article, is the Saxon oen, ane, an, ONE; and, by dropping n before a consonant, becomes a. Gawin Douglas, an ancient English writer, wrote ane, even before a consonant; as, "Ane book,"--"Ane lang spere,"--"Ane volume."
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.--The words of Tooke, concerning the derivation of That and The, as nearly as they can be given in our letters, are these: "THAT (in the Anglo-Saxon Thæt, i.e. Thead, Theat) means taken, assumed; being merely the past participle of the Anglo-Saxon verb Thean, Thegan, Thion, Thihan, Thicgan, Thigian; sumere, assumere, accipere; to THE, to get, to take, to assume.
'Ill mote he THE That caused me To make myselfe a frere.'--Sir T. More's Workes, pag. 4.
THE (our article, as it is called) is the imperative of the same verb Thean: which may very well supply the place of the correspondent Anglo-Saxon article Se, which is the imperative of Seon, videre: for it answers the same purpose in discourse, to say.... see man, or take man."--Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 49.
OBS. 2.--Now, between Thæt and Theat, there is a considerable difference of form, for æ and ea are not the same diphthong; and, in the identifying of so many infinitives, as forming but one verb, there is room for error. Nor is it half so probable that these are truly one root, as that our article The is the same, in its origin, as the old Anglo-Saxon Se. Dr. Bosworth, in his Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, gives no such word as Thean or Thegan, no such participle as Thead or Theat, which derivative is perhaps imaginary; but he has inserted together "Thicgan, thicgean, thigan, to receive, or take;" and separately, "Theon, to thrive, or flourish,"--"Thihan, to thrive,"--and "Thion, to flourish;" as well as the preterit "Theat, howled," from "Theotan, to howl." And is it not plain, that the old verb "THE," as used by More, is from Theon, to thrive, rather than from Thicgan, to take? "Ill mote he THE"--"Ill might he thrive," not, "Ill might he take."
OBS. 3.--Professor Hart says, "The word the was originally thæt, or that. In course of time [,] it became abbreviated, and the short form acquired, in usage, a shade of meaning different from the original long one. That is demonstrative with emphasis; the is demonstrative without emphasis."--Hart's E. Grammar, p. 32. This derivation of The is quite improbable; because the shortening of a monosyllable of five letters by striking out the third and the fifth, is no usual mode of abbreviation. Bosworth's Dictionary explains THE as "An indeclinable article, often used for all the cases of Se, seo, thæt, especially in adverbial expressions and in corrupt Anglo-Saxon, as in the Chronicle after the year 1138."
OBS. 4--Dr. Latham, in a section which is evidently neither accurate nor self-consistent, teaches us--"that there exist in the present English two powers of the word spelled t-h-e, or of the so-called definite article;" then, out of sixteen Anglo-Saxon equivalents, he selects two for the roots of this double-powered the; saying, "Hence the the that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon thy is one word; whilst the the that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon the, [is] another. The latter is the common article: the former the the in expressions like all the more, all the better--more by all that, better by all that, and the Latin phrases eo majus, eo melius."--Latham's Hand-Book, p. 158. This double derivation is liable to many objections. The Hand-Book afterwards says, "That the, in expressions like all the more, all the better, &c., is no article, has already been shown."--P. 196. But in fact, though the before comparatives or superlatives be no article, Dr. Latham's etymologies prove no such thing; neither does he anywhere tell us what it is. His examples, too, with their interpretations, are all of them fictitious, ambiguous, and otherwise bad. It is uncertain whether he meant his phrases for counterparts to each other or not. If the means "by that," or thereby, it is an adverb; and so is its equivalent "eo" denominated by the Latin grammarians. See OBS. 10, under Rule I.
SECTION II.--DERIVATION OF NOUNS.
In English, Nouns are derived from nouns, from adjectives, from verbs, or from participles.
I. Nouns are derived from Nouns in several different ways:--
1. By the adding of ship, dom, ric, wick, or, ate, hood, or head: as, fellow, fellowship; king, kingdom; bishop, bishopric; bailiff, or baily, bailiwick; senate, senator; tetrarch, tetrarchate; child, childhood; God, Godhead. These generally denote dominion, office, or character.
2. By the adding of ian: as, music, musician; physic, physician; theology, theologian; grammar, grammarian; college, collegian. These generally denote profession.
3. By the adding of r, ry, or ery: as, grocer, grocery; cutler, cutlery; slave, slavery; scene, scenery; fool, foolery. These sometimes denote state or habit; sometimes, an artificer's wares or shop.
4. By the adding of age or ade: as, patron, patronage; porter, porterage; band, bandage; lemon, lemonade; baluster, balustrade; wharf, wharfage; vassal, vassalage.
5. By the adding of kin, let, ling, ock, el, erel, or et: as, lamb, lambkin; ring, ringlet; cross, crosslet; duck, duckling; hill, hillock; run, runnel; cock, cockerel; pistol, pistolet; eagle, eaglet; circle, circlet. All these denote little things, and are called diminutives.
6. By the addition of ist: as, psalm, psalmist; botany, botanist; dial, dialist; journal, journalist. These denote persons devoted to, or skilled in, the subject expressed by the primitive.
7. By the prefixing of an adjective, or an other noun, so as to form a compound word: as, foreman, broadsword, statesman, tradesman; bedside, hillside, seaside; bear-berry, bear-fly, bear-garden; bear's-ear, bear's-foot, goat's-beard.
8. By the adoption of a negative prefix to reverse the meaning: as, order, disorder; pleasure, displeasure; consistency, inconsistency; capacity, incapacity; observance, nonobservance; resistance, nonresistance; truth, untruth; constraint, unconstraint.
9. By the use of the prefix counter, signifying against or opposite: as, attraction, counter-attraction; bond, counter-bond; current, counter-current; movement, counter-movement.
10. By the addition of ess, ix, or ine, or the changing of masculines to feminines so terminating: as, heir, heiress; prophet, prophetess; abbot, abbess; governor, governess; testator, testatrix; hero, heroine.
II. Nouns are derived from Adjectives in several different ways:--
1. By the adding of ness, ity, ship, dom, or hood: as, good, goodness; real, reality; hard, hardship; wise, wisdom; free, freedom; false, falsehood.
2. By the changing of t into ce or cy: as, radiant, radiance; consequent, consequence; flagrant, flagrancy; current, currency; discrepant, discrepance, or discrepancy.
3. By the changing of some of the letters, and the adding of t or th: as, long, length; broad, breadth; wide, width; high, height. The nouns included under these three heads, generally denote abstract qualities, and are called abstract nouns.
4. By the adding of ard: as, drunk, drunkard; dull, dullard. These denote ill character.
5. By the adding of ist: as, sensual, sensualist; separate, separatist; royal, royalist; fatal, fatalist. These denote persons devoted, addicted, or attached, to something.
6. By the adding of a, the Latin ending of neuter plurals, to certain proper adjectives in an: as, Miltonian, Miltoniana; Johnsonian, Johnsoniana. These literally mean, Miltonian things, sayings, or anecdotes, &c.; and are words somewhat fashionable with the journalists, and are sometimes used for titles of books that refer to table-talk.
III. Nouns are derived from Verbs in several different ways:--
1. By the adding of ment, ance, ence, ure, or age: as, punish, punishment; abate, abatement; repent, repentance; condole, condolence; forfeit, forfeiture; stow, stowage; equip, equipage; truck, truckage.
2. By a change of the termination of the verb, into se, ce, sion, tion, ation, or ition: as, expand, expanse, expansion; pretend, pretence, pretension; invent, invention; create, creation; omit, omission; provide, provision; reform, reformation; oppose, opposition. These denote either the act of doing, or the thing done.
3. By the adding of er or or: as, hunt, hunter; write, writer; collect, collector; assert, assertor; instruct, instructer, or instructor. These generally denote the doer. To denote the person to whom something is done, we sometimes form a derivative ending in ee: as, promisee, mortgagee, appellee, consignee.
4. Nouns and Verbs are sometimes alike in orthography, but different in pronunciation: as, a house, to house; a use, to use; a reb'el, to rebel'; a rec'ord, to record'; a cem'ent, to cement'. Of such pairs, it may often be difficult to say which word is the primitive.
5. In many instances, nouns and verbs are wholly alike as to form and sound, and are distinguished by their sense and construction only: as, love, to love; fear, to fear; sleep, to sleep;--to revise, a revise; to rebuke, a rebuke. In these, we have but the same word used differently.
IV. Nouns are often derived from Participles in ing; as, a meeting, the understanding, murmurings, disputings, sayings, and doings: and, occasionally, one is formed from such a word and an adverb or a perfect participle joined with it; as, "The turning-away,"--"His goings-forth,"--"Your having-boasted of it."
SECTION III.--DERIVATION OF ADJECTIVES.
In English, Adjectives are derived from nouns, from adjectives, from verbs, or from participles.
I. Adjectives are derived from Nouns in several different ways:--
1. By the adding of ous, ious, eous, y, ey, ic, al, ical or ine: (sometimes with an omission or change of some of the final letters:) as, danger, dangerous; glory, glorious; right, righteous; rock, rocky; clay, clayey; poet, poetic, or poetical; nation, national; method, methodical; vertex, vertical; clergy, clerical; adamant, adamantine. Adjectives thus formed, generally apply the properties of their primitives, to the nouns to which they relate.
2. By the adding of ful: as, fear, fearful; cheer, cheerful; grace, graceful; shame, shameful; power, powerful. These come almost entirely from personal qualities or feelings, and denote abundance.
3. By the adding of some: as, burden, burdensome; game, gamesome; toil, toilsome. These denote plenty, but do not exaggerate.
4. By the adding of en: as, oak, oaken; silk, silken; wheat, wheaten; oat, oaten; hemp, hempen. Here the derivative denotes the matter of which something is made.
5. By the adding of ly or ish: as, friend, friendly; gentleman, gentlemanly; child, childish; prude, prudish. These denote resemblance. The termination ly signifies like.
6. By the adding of able or ible: as, fashion, fashionable; access, accessible. But these terminations are generally, and more properly, added to verbs. See Obs. 17th, 18th, &c., on the Rules for Spelling.
7. By the adding of less: as, house, houseless; death, deathless; sleep, sleepless; bottom, bottomless. These denote privation or exemption--the absence of what is named by the primitive.
8. By the adding of ed: as, saint, sainted; bigot, bigoted; mast, masted; wit, witted. These have a resemblance to participles, and some of them are rarely used, except when joined with some other word to form a compound adjective: as, three-sided, bare-footed, long-eared, hundred-handed, flat-nosed, hard-hearted, marble-hearted, chicken-hearted.
9. Adjectives coming from proper names, take various terminations: as, _America, American; England, English; Dane, Danish; Portugal, Portuguese; Plato, Platonic_.
10. Nouns are often converted into adjectives, without change of termination: as, paper currency; a gold chain; silver knee-buckles.
II. Adjectives are derived from Adjectives in several different ways:--
1. By the adding of ish or some: as, white, whitish; green, greenish; lone, lonesome; glad, gladsome. These denote quality with some diminution.
2. By the prefixing of dis, in, or un: as, honest, dishonest; consistent, inconsistent; wise, unwise. These express a negation of the quality denoted by their primitives.
3. By the adding of y or ly: as, swarth, swarthy; good, goodly. Of these there are but few; for almost all the derivatives of the latter form are adverbs.
III. Adjectives are derived from Verbs in several different ways:--
1. By the adding of able or ible: (sometimes with a change of some of the final letters:) as, perish, perishable; vary, variable; convert, convertible; divide, divisible, or dividable. These, according to their analogy, have usually a passive import, and denote susceptibility of receiving action. 2. By the adding of ive or ory: (sometimes with a change of some of the final letters:) as, elect, elective; interrogate, interrogative, interrogatory; defend, defensive; defame, defamatory; explain, explanatory.
3. Words ending in ate, are mostly verbs; but some of them may be employed as adjectives, in the same form, especially in poetry; as, reprobate, complicate.
IV. Adjectives are derived from Participles, not by suffixes, but in these ways:--
1. By the prefixing of un, meaning not; as, unyielding, unregarded, unreserved, unendowed, unendeared, unendorsed, unencountered, unencumbered, undisheartened, undishonoured. Of this sort there are very many.
2. By a combining of the participle with some word which does not belong to the verb; as, way-faring, hollow-sounding, long-drawn, deep-laid, dear-purchased, down-trodden. These, too, are numerous.
3. Participles often become adjectives without change of form. Such adjectives are distinguished from participles by their construction alone: as, "A lasting ornament;"--"The starving chymist;"--"Words of learned length;"--"With counterfeited glee."
SECTION IV.--DERIVATION OF THE PRONOUNS.
I. The English Pronouns are all of Saxon origin; but, in them, our language differs very strikingly from that of the Anglo-Saxons. The following table compares the simple personal forms:--
Eng. I, My or Me; We, Our or Us. Mine, Ours, Sax. Ic, Min, Me or We, Ure or Us. Mec; User, Eng. Thou, Thy or Thee; Ye, Your You. Thine, or Yours, Sax. Thu, Thin, The or Ge Eower, Eow or Thec; Eowie. Eng. He, His Him; They, Their or Them. Theirs, Sax. He, His or Him or Hi or Hira or Heom or Hys, Hine; Hig, Heora, Hi. Eng. She, Her or Her; They, Their or Them. Hers, Theirs, Sax. Heo, Hire or Hi; Hi or Hira or Heom or Hyre, Hig, Heora, Hi. Eng. It, Its, It; They, Their or Them. Theirs, Sax. Hit, His or Hit; Hi or Hira or Heom or Hys, Hig, Heora, Hi.
Here, as in the personal pronouns of other languages, the plurals and oblique cases do not all appear to be regular derivatives from the nominative singular. Many of these pronouns, perhaps all, as well as a vast number of other words of frequent use in our language, and in that from which it chiefly comes, were very variously written by the Middle English, Old English, Semi-Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon authors. He who traces the history of our language, will meet with them under all the following forms, (or such as these would be with Saxon characters for the Saxon forms,) and perhaps in more:--
1. I, J, Y, y, i, ay, ic, che, ich, Ic;--MY, mi, min, MINE, myne, myn;--ME, mee, me, meh, mec, mech;--WE, wee, ve;--OUR or OURS, oure, ure, wer, urin, uren, urne, user, usse, usser, usses, ussum;--Us, ous, vs, uss, usic, usich, usig, usih, uz, huz.
2. THOU, thoue, thow, thowe, thu, tou, to, tu;--THY or THINE, thi, thyne, thyn, thin;--THEE, the, theh, thec;--YE, yee, yhe, ze, zee, ge, ghe;--YOUR or YOURS, youre, zour, hure, goure, yer, yower, yowyer, yorn, yourn, youre, eower;--You, youe, yow, gou, zou, ou, iu, iuh, eow, iow, geow, eowih, eowic, iowih.
3. HE, hee, hie, se;--His, hise, is, hys, ys, hyse, hus;--HIM, hine, hiene, hion, hen, hyne, hym, im;--THEY, thay, thei, the, tha, thai, thii, yai, hi, hie, heo, hig, hyg, hy;--THEIR or THEIRS, ther, theyr, theyrs, thair, thare, theora, hare, here, her, hir, hire, hira, hiora, hiera, heora, hyra;--THEM, thym, theym, thaym, thaim, thame, tham, em, hem, heom, hiom, eom, hom, him, hi, hig.
4. SHE, shee, sche, scho, sho, shoe, scæ, seo, heo, hio, hiu, hoo, hue;--HER, (possessive,) hur, hir, hire, hyr, hyre, hyra, hera;--HER, (objective,) hire, hyre, hur, hir, hi. The plural forms of this feminine pronoun are like those of the masculine He; but the "Well-Wishers to Knowledge," in their small Grammar, (erroneously, as I suppose,) make hira masculine only, and heora feminine only. See their Principles of Grammar, p. 38.
5. IT, yt, itt, hit, hyt, hytt. The possessive Its is a modern derivative; His or Hys was formerly used in lieu of it. The plural forms of this neuter pronoun, It, are like those of He and She. According to Horne Tooke, who declares hoet to have been one of its ancient forms, "this pronoun was merely the past participle of the verb HAITAN, hætan, nominare," to name, and literally signifies "the said;" (Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 46; W. Allen's Gram., p. 57;) but Dr. Alexander Murray, exhibiting it in an other form, not adapted to this opinion, makes it the neuter of a declinable adjective, or pronoun, inflected from the masculine, thus: "He, heo hita, this"--Hist. of Lang., Vol. i, p. 315.
II. The relatives and interrogatives are derived from the same source, the Anglo-Saxon tongue, and have passed through similar changes, or varieties in orthography; but, the common relative pronoun of the Anglo-Saxons being like their article the,--or, with the three genders, se, seo, thæt,--and not like our who, which, and what, it is probable that the interrogative use of these words was the primitive one. They have been found in all the following forms:--
1. WHO, ho, hue, wha, hwa, hua, wua, qua, quha;--WHOSE, who's, whos, whois, whoise, wheas, quhois, quhais, quhase, hwæs;--WHOM, whome, quham, quhum, quhome, hwom, hwam, hwæm, hwæne, hwone.
2. WHICH, whiche, whyche, whilch, wych, quilch, quilk, quhilk, hwilc, hwylc, hwelc, whilk, huilic, hvilc. For the Anglo-Saxon forms, Dr. Bosworth's Dictionary gives "hwilc, hwylc, and hwelc;" but Professor Fowler's E. Grammar makes them "huilic and hvilc."--See p. 240. Whilk, or quhilk, is a Scottish form.
3. WHAT, hwat, hwet, quhat, hwæt. This pronoun, whether relative or interrogative, is regarded by Bosworth and others as a neuter derivative from the masculine or femine [sic--KTH] hwa, who. It may have been thence derived, but, in modern English, it is not always of the neuter gender. See the last note on page 312.
4. THAT, Anglo-Saxon Thæt. Tooke's notion of the derivation of this word is noticed above in the section on Articles. There is no certainty of its truth; and our lexicographers make no allusion to it. W. Allen reaffirms it. See his Gram., p. 54.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.--In the Well-Wishers' Grammar, (p. 39,) as also in L. Murray's and some others, the pronoun Which is very strangely and erroneously represented as being always "of the neuter gender." (See what is said of this word in the Introduction, Chap. ix, ¶ 32.) Whereas it is the relative most generally applied to brute animals, and, in our common version of the Bible, its application to persons is peculiarly frequent. Fowler says, "In its origin it is a Compound."--E. Gram., p. 240. Taking its first Anglo-Saxon form to be "Huilic," he thinks it traceable to "hwa, who," or its ablative "hwi," and "lie, like."--Ib. If this is right, the neuter sense is not its primitive import, or any part of it.
OBS. 2.--From its various uses, the word That is called sometimes a pronoun, sometimes an adjective, and sometimes a conjunction; but, in respect to derivation, it is, doubtless, one and the same. As a relative pronoun, it is of either number, and has no plural form different from the singular; as, "Blessed is the man that heareth me."--Prov., viii, 34. "Blessed are they that mourn."--Matt., v, 4. As an adjective, it is said by Tooke to have been formerly "applied indifferently to plural nouns and to singular; as, 'Into that holy orders.'--Dr. Martin. 'At that dayes.'--Id. 'That euyll aungels the denilles.'--Sir Tho. More. 'This pleasure undoubtedly farre excelleth all that pleasures that in this life maie be obteined.'--Id."--Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, pp. 47 and 48. The introduction of the plural form those, must have rendered this usage bad English.
SECTION V.--DERIVATION OF VERBS.
In English, Verbs are derived from nouns, from adjectives, or from verbs.
I. Verbs are derived from Nouns in the following different ways:--
1. By the adding of ize, ise, en, or ate: as, author, authorize; critic, criticise; length, lengthen; origin, originate. The termination ize is of Greek origin, and ise is most probably of French: the former is generally preferable in forming English derivatives; but both are sometimes to be used, and they should be applied according to Rule 13th for Spelling.
2. Some few verbs are derived from nouns by the changing of a sharp or hard consonant to a flat or soft one, or by the adding of a mute e, to soften a hard sound: as, advice, advise; price, prize; bath, bathe; cloth, clothe; breath, breathe; wreath, wreathe; sheath, sheathe; grass, graze.
II. Verbs are derived from Adjectives in the following different ways:--
1. By the adding of ize or en: as legal, legalize; immortal, immortalize; civil, civilize; human, humanize; familiar, familiarize; particular, particularize; deaf, deafen; stiff, stiffen; rough, roughen; deep, deepen; weak, weaken.
2. Many adjectives become verbs by being merely used and inflected as verbs: as, warm, to warm, he warms; dry, to dry, he dries; dull, to dull, he dulls; slack, to slack, he slacks; forward, to forward, he forwards.
III. Verbs are derived from Verbs in the following modes, or ways:--
1. By the prefixing of dis or un to reverse the meaning: as, please, displease; qualify, disqualify; organize, disorganize; fasten, unfasten; muzzle, unmuzzle; nerve, unnerve.
2. By the prefixing of a, be, for, fore, mis, over, out, under, up, or with: as, rise, arise; sprinkle, besprinkle; bid, forbid; see, foresee; take, mistake; look, overlook; run, outrun; go, undergo; hold, uphold; draw, withdraw.
SECTION VI.--DERIVATION OF PARTICIPLES.
All English Participles are derived from English verbs, in the manner explained in Chapter 7th, under the general head of Etymology; and when foreign participles are introduced into our language, they are not participles with us, but belong to some other class of words, or part of speech.
SECTION VII.--DERIVATION OF ADVERBS.
1. In English, many Adverbs are derived from adjectives by the addition of ly: which is an abbreviation for like, and which, though the addition of it to a noun forms an adjective, is the most distinctive as well as the most common termination of our adverbs: as, candid, candidly; sordid, sordidly; presumptuous, presumptuously. Most adverbs of manner are thus formed.
2. Many adverbs are compounds formed from two or more English words; as, herein, thereby, to-day, always, already, elsewhere, sometimes, wherewithal. The formation and the meaning of these are, in general, sufficiently obvious.
3. About seventy adverbs are formed by means of the prefix, or inseparable preposition, a; as, Abreast, abroach, abroad, across, afar, afield, ago, agog, aland, along, amiss, atilt.
4. Needs, as an adverb, is a contraction of need is; prithee, or pr'ythee, of I pray thee; alone, of all one; only, of one-like; anon, of the Saxon an on; i.e., in one [instant]; never, of ne ever; i.e., not ever. Prof. Gibbs, in Fowler's Grammar, makes needs "the Genitive case of the noun need."--P. 311.
5. Very is from the French veray, or vrai, true; and this, probably, from the Latin verus. Rather appears to be the regular comparative of the ancient rath, soon, quickly, willingly; which comes from the Anglo-Saxon "Rathe, or Hrathe, of one's own accord."--Bosworth. But the parent language had also "Hrathre, to a mind."--Id. That is, to one's mind, or, perhaps, more willingly.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.--Many of our most common adverbs are of Anglo-Saxon derivation, being plainly traceable to certain very old forms, of the same import, which the etymologist regards but as the same words differently spelled: as, All, eall, eal, or æll; Almost, ealmæst, or ælmæst; Also, ealswa, or ælswa; Else, elles; Elsewhere, elleshwær; Enough, genog, or genoh; Even, euen, efen, or æfen; Ever, euer, æfer, or æfre; Downward, duneweard; Forward, forweard, or foreweard; Homeward, hamweard; Homewards, hamweardes; How, hu; Little, lytel; Less, læs; Least, læst; No, na; Not, noht, or nocht; Out, ut, or ute; So, swa; Still, stille, or stylle; Then, thenne; There, ther, thar, thær; Thither, thider, or thyder; Thus, thuss, or thus; Together, togædere, or togædre; Too, tó; When, hwenne, or hwænne; Where, hwær; Whither, hwider, hwyder, or hwyther; Yea, ia, gea, or gee; Yes, gese, gise, or gyse.
OBS. 2.--According to Horne Tooke, "Still and Else are the imperatives Stell and Ales of their respective verbs Stellan, to put, and Alesan, to dismiss."--Diversions, Vol. i, p. 111. He afterwards repeats the doctrine thus: "Still is only the imperative Stell or Steall, of Stellan or Steallian, ponere."--Ib., p. 146. "This word Else, formerly written alles, alys, alyse, elles, ellus, ellis, ells, els, and now else; is, as I have said, no other than Ales or Alys, the imperative of Alesan or Alysan, dimittere."--Ib., p. 148. These ulterior and remote etymologies are perhaps too conjectural.
SECTION VIII.--DERIVATION OF CONJUNCTIONS.
The English Conjunctions are mostly of Anglo-Saxon origin. The best etymological vocabularies of our language give us, for the most part, the same words in Anglo-Saxon characters; but Horne Tooke, in his Diversions of Purley, (a learned and curious work which the advanced student may peruse with advantage,) traces, or professes to trace, these and many other English particles, to Saxon verbs or participles. The following derivations, so far as they partake of such speculations, are offered principally on his authority:--
1. ALTHOUGH, signifying admit, allow, is from all and though; the latter being supposed the imperative of Thafian or Thafigan, to allow, to concede, to yield.
2. AN, an obsolete or antiquated conjunction, signifying if, or grant, is the imperative of the Anglo-Saxon verb Anan or Unan, to grant, to give.
3. AND, [Saxon, And,] add, is said by Tooke to come from "An-ad, the imperative of Ananad, Dare congeriem."--D. of P., Vol. i, p. 111. That is, "To give the heap." The truth of this, if unapparent, I must leave so.
4. AS, according to Dr. Johnson, is from the Teutonic als; but Tooke says that als itself is a contraction for all and the original particle es or as, meaning it, that, or which.
5. BECAUSE, from be and cause, means by cause; the be being written for by.
6. BOTH, the two, is from the pronominal adjective both; which, according to Dr. Alexander Murray, is a contraction of the Visigothic Bagoth, signifying doubled. The Anglo-Saxons wrote for it butu, butwu, buta, and batwa; i. e., ba, both, twa, two.
7. BUT,--(in Saxon, bute, butan, buton, or butun--) meaning except, yet, now, only, else than, that not, or on the contrary,--is referred by Tooke and some others, to two roots,--each of them but a conjectural etymon for it. "BUT, implying addition," say they, "is from Bot, the imperative of Botan, to boot, to add; BUT, denoting exception, is from Be-utan, the imperative of Beon-utan, to be out."--See D. of P., Vol. i, pp. 111 and 155.
8. EITHER, one of the two, like the pronominal adjective EITHER, is from the Anglo-Saxon Æther, or Egther, a word of the same uses, and the same import.
9. EKE, also, (now nearly obsolete,) is from "Eac, the imperative of Eacan, to add."
10. EVEN, whether a noun, an adjective, an adverb, or a conjunction, appears to come from the same source, the Anglo-Saxon word Efen or Æfen.
11. EXCEPT, which, when used as a conjunction, means unless, is the imperative, or (according to Dr. Johnson) an ancient perfect participle, of the verb to except.
12. FOR, because, is from the Saxon preposition For; which, to express this meaning, our ancestors combined with something else, reducing to one word some such phrase as, For that, For this, For this that; as, "Fortha, Fortham, Forthan, Forthamthe, Forthan the."--See Bosworth's Dict.
13. IF, give, grant, allow, is from "Gif, the imperative of the Anglo-Saxon Gifan, to give."--Tooke's Diversions, Vol. i, p. 111.
14. LEST, that not, dismissed, is from "Lesed, the perfect participle of Lesan, to dismiss."
15. NEITHER, not either, is a union and contraction of ne either: our old writers frequently used ne for not; the Anglo-Saxons likewise repeated it, using ne--ne, in lieu of our corresponsives neither--nor; and our modern lexicographers still note the word, in some of these senses.
16. NOR, not other, not else, is supposed to be a union and contraction of ne or.
17. NOTWITHSTANDING, not hindering, is an English compound of obvious formation.
18. OR, an alternative conjunction, seems to be a word of no great antiquity. It is supposed to be a contraction of other, which Johnson and his followers give, in Saxon characters, either as its source, or as its equivalent.
19. PROVIDED, the perfect participle of the verb provide, becomes occasionally a disjunctive conjunction, by being used alone or with the particle that, to introduce a condition, a saving clause, a proviso.
20. SAVE, anciently used with some frequency as a conjunction, in the sense of but, or except is from the imperative of the English verb save, and is still occasionally turned to such a use by the poets.
21. SEEING, sometimes made a copulative conjunction, is the imperfect participle of the verb see. Used at the head of a clause, and without reference to an agent, it assumes a conjunctive nature.
22. SINCE is conjectured by Tooke to be "the participle of Seon, to see," and to mean "seeing, seeing that, seen that, or seen as."--Diversions of P., Vol. i, pp. 111 and 220. But Johnson and others say, it has been formed "by contraction from sithence, or sith thence, from sithe, Sax."--Joh. Dict.
23. THAN, which introduces the latter term of a comparison, is from the Gothic than, or the Anglo-Saxon thanne, which was used for the same purpose. 24. THAT, when called a conjunction, is said by Tooke to be etymologically the same as the adjective or pronoun THAT, the derivation of which is twice spoken of above; but, in Todd's Johnson's Dictionary, as abridged by Chalmers, THAT, the conjunction, is referred to "thatei, Gothic;" THAT, the pronoun, to "that, thata, Gothic; thæt, Saxon; dat, Dutch."
25. THEN, used as a conjunction, is doubtless the same word as the Anglo-Saxon Thenne, taken as an illative, or word of inference.
26. "THOUGH, allow, is [from] the imperative Thaf, or Thafig, of the verb Thafian or Thafigan, to allow."--Tooke's Diversions, Vol. i, pp. 111 and 150.
27. "UNLESS, except, dismiss, is [from] Onles, the imperative of Onlesan, to dismiss."--Ib.
28. WHETHER, a corresponsive conjunction, which introduces the first term of an alternative, is from the Anglo-Saxon hwæther, which was used for the same purpose.
29. YET, nevertheless, is from "Get, the imperative of Getan, to get."--Tooke.
SECTION IX.--DERIVATION OF PREPOSITIONS.
The following are the principal English Prepositions, explained in the order of the list:--
1. ABOARD, meaning on board of, is from the prefix or preposition a and the noun board, which here means "the deck of a ship" or vessel. Abord, in French, is approach, arrival, or a landing.
2. ABOUT, [Sax. Abútan, or Abúton,] meaning around, at circuit, or doing, is from the prefix a, meaning at, and the noun bout, meaning a turn, a circuit, or a trial. In French, bout means end; and about, end, or but-end.
3. ABOVE, [Sax. Abufan, Abufon, A-be-ufan.] meaning over, or, literally, at-by-over, or at-by-top, is from the Saxon or Old English a, be, and ufa, or ufan, said to mean "high, upwards, or the top."
4. ACROSS, at cross, athwart, traverse, is from the prefix a and the word cross.
5. AFTER, [Sax. Æfter, or Æftan,] meaning behind, subsequent to, is, in form, the comparative of aft, a word common to seamen, and it may have been thence derived.
6. AGAINST, opposite to, is probably from the Anglo-Saxon, Ongean, or Ongegen, each of which forms means again or against. As prefixes, on and a are often equivalent.
7. ALONG, [i.e., at-long,] meaning lengthwise of, near to, is formed from a and long.
8. AMID, [i. e., at mid or middle,] is from a and mid; and AMIDST [, i.e., at midst,] is from a and midst, contracted from middest, the superlative of mid.
9. AMONG, mixed with, is probably an abbreviation of amongst; and AMONGST, according to Tooke, is from a and mongst, or the older "Ge-meneged," Saxon for "mixed, mingled."
10. AROUND, about, encircling, is from a and round, a circle, or circuit.
11. AT, gone to, is supposed by some to come from the Latin ad; but Dr. Murray says, "We have in Teutonic AT for AGT, touching or touched, joined, at."--Hist. of Lang., i, 349.
12. ATHWART, across, is from a and thwart, cross; and this from the Saxon Thweor.
13. BATING, a preposition for except, is the imperfect participle of bate, to abate.
14. BEFORE, [i.e., by-fore,] in front of, is from the prefix be and the adjective fore.
15. BEHIND, [i.e., by-hind,] in rear of, is from the prefix be and the adjective hind.
16. BELOW, [i.e., by-low,] meaning under, or beneath, is from be and the adjective low.
17. BENEATH [, Sax. or Old Eng. Beneoth,] is from be and neath, or Sax. Neothe, low.
18. BESIDE [, i.e., by-side,] is probably from be and the noun or adjective side.
19. BESIDES [, i.e., by-sides,] is probably from be and the plural noun sides.
20. BETWEEN, [Sax. Betweonan, or Betwynan,] literally, by-twain, seems to have been formed from be, by, and twain, two--or the Saxon Twegen, which also means two, twain.
21. BETWIXT, meaning between, [Sax. Betweox, Betwux, Betwyx, Betwyxt, &c.,] is from be, by, and twyx, originally a "Gothic" word signifying "two, or twain."--See Tooke, Vol. i, p. 329.
22. BEYOND, past, [Sax. Begeond,] is from the prefix be, by, and yond, [Sax. Geond,] past, far.
23. BY [, Sax. Be, Bi, or Big,] is affirmed by Tooke to be "the imperative Byth, of the Anglo-Saxon verb Beon, to be."--Diversions of P., Vol. i, p. 326. This seems to be rather questionable.
24. CONCERNING, the preposition, is from the first participle of the verb concern.
25. DOWN, the preposition, is from the Anglo-Saxon Dune, down.
26. DURING, prep. of time, is from the first participle of an old verb dure, to last, formerly in use; as, "While the world may dure."--Chaucer's Knight's Tale.
27. ERE, before, prep. of time, is from the Anglo-Saxon Ær, a word of like sort.
28. EXCEPT, bating, is from the imperative, or (according to Dr. Johnson) the ancient perfect participle of the verb to except; and EXCEPTING, when a preposition, is from the first participle of the same verb.
29. FOR, because of, is the Anglo-Saxon preposition For, a word of like import, and supposed by Tooke to have come from a Gothic noun signifying cause, or sake.
30. FROM, in Saxon, Fram, is probably derived from the old adjective Frum, original.
31. IN, or the Saxon In, is the same as the Latin in: the Greek is [Greek: en]; and the French, en.
32. INTO, like the Saxon Into, noting entrance, is a compound of in and to.
33. MID and MIDST, as English prepositions, are poetical forms used for Amid and Amidst.
34. NOTWITHSTANDING, not hindering, is from the adverb not, and the participle withstanding, which, by itself, means hindering, or preventing. 35. OF is from the Saxon Of, or Af; which is supposed by Tooke to come from a noun signifying offspring.
36. OFF, opposed to on, Dr. Johnson derives from the "Dutch af."
37. ON, a word very often used in Anglo-Saxon, is traced by some etymologists to the Gothic ana, the German an, the Dutch aan; but no such derivation fixes its meaning.
38. OUT, [Sax. Ut, Ute, or Utan,] when made a preposition, is probably from the adverb or adjective Out, or the earlier Ut; and OUT-OF, [Sax. Ut-of,] opposed to Into, is but the adverb Out and the preposition Of--usually written separately, but better joined, in some instances.
39. OVER, above, is from the Anglo-Saxon Ofer, over; and this, probably, from Ufa, above, high, or from the comparative, Ufera, higher.
40. OVERTHWART, meaning across, is a compound of over and thwart, cross.
41. PAST, beyond, gone by, is a contraction from the perfect participle passed.
42. PENDING, during or hanging, has a participial form, but is either an adjective or a preposition: we do not use pend alone as a verb, though we have it in depend.
43. RESPECTING, concerning, is from the first participle of the verb respect.
44. ROUND, a preposition for about or around, is from the noun or adjective round.
45. SINCE is most probably a contraction of the old word Sithence; but is conjectured by Tooke to have been formed from the phrase, "Seen as."
46. THROUGH [, Sax. Thurh, or Thurch,] seems related to Thorough, Sax. Thuruh; and this again to Thuru, or Duru, a Door.
47. THROUGHOUT, quite through, is an obvious compond of through and out.
48. TILL, [Sax. Til or Tille,] to, until, is from the Saxon Til or Till, an end, a station.
49. TO, whether a preposition or an adverb, is from the Anglo-Saxon particle To.
50. TOUCHING, with regard to, is from the first participle of the verb touch.
51. TOWARD or TOWARDS, written by the Anglo-Saxons Toweard or Toweardes, is a compound of To and Ward or Weard, a guard, a look-out; "Used in composition to express situation or direction."--Bosworth.
52. UNDER, [Gothic, Undar; Dutch, Onder,] beneath, below, is a common Anglo-Saxon word, and very frequent prefix, affirmed by Tooke to be "nothing but on-neder," a Dutch compound = on lower.--See Diversions of Purley, Vol. i, p. 331.
53. UNDERNEATH is a compound of under and neath, low; whence nether, lower.
54. UNTIL is a compound from on or un, and till, or til, the end.
55. UNTO, now somewhat antiquated, is formed, not very analogically, from un and to.
56. UP is from the Anglo-Saxon adjective, "Up or Upp, high, lofty."
57. UPON, which appears literally to mean high on, is from two words up and on.
58. WITH comes to us from the Anglo-Saxon With, a word of like sort and import; which Tooke says is an imperative verb, sometimes from "Withan, to join," and sometimes from "Wyrthan, to be."--See his Diversions, Vol. i, p. 262.
59. WITHIN [, i.e., by-in,] is from with and in: Sax. Withinnan, Binnan, or Binnon.
60. WITHOUT [, i.e., by-out,] is from with and out: Sax. Withútan, -úten, -úton; Bútan, Búton, Bútun.
OBSERVATION.
In regard to some of our minor or simpler prepositions, as of sundry other particles, to go beyond the forms and constructions which present or former usage has at some period given them as particles, and to ascertain their actual origin in something ulterior, if such they had, is no very easy matter; nor can there be either satisfaction or profit in studying what one suspects to be mere guesswork. "How do you account for IN, OUT, ON, OFF, and AT?" says the friend of Tooke, in an etymological dialogue at Purley. The substance of his answer is, "The explanation and etymology of these words require a degree of knowledge in all the antient northern languages, and a skill in the application of that knowledge, which I am very far from assuming; and though I am almost persuaded by some of my own conjectures concerning them, I am not willing, by an apparently forced and far-fetched derivation, to justify your imputation of etymological legerdemain."--Diversions, Vol. i, p. 370.
SECTION X.--DERIVATION OF INTERJECTIONS.
Those significant and constructive words which are occasionally used as Interjections, (such as Good! Strange! Indeed!,) do not require an explanation here; and those mere sounds which are in no wise expressive of thought, scarcely admit of definition or derivation. The Interjection HEY is probably a corruption of the adjective High;--ALAS is from the French Hélas:--ALACK is probably a corruption of Alas;--WELAWAY or WELLAWAY, (which is now corrupted into WELLADAY,) is said by some to be from the Anglo-Saxon Wá-lá-wá, i.e., Wo-lo-wo;--"FIE," says Tooke, "is the imperative of the Gothic and Anglo-Saxon verb Fian, to hate;"--Heyday is probably from high day;--AVAUNT, perhaps from the French avant, before;--LO, from look;--BEGONE, from be and gone;--WELCOME, from well and come;--FAREWELL, from fare and well.
SECTION XI--EXPLANATION OF THE PREFIXES.
In the formation of English words, certain particles are often employed as prefixes; which, as they generally have some peculiar import, may be separately explained. A few of them are of Anglo-Saxon origin, or character; and the greater part of these are still employed as separate words in our language. The rest are Latin, Greek, or French prepositions. The roots to which they are prefixed, are not always proper English words. Those which are such, are called SEPARABLE RADICALS; those which are not such, INSEPARABLE RADICALS.
CLASS I--THE ENGLISH OR ANGLO-SAXON PREFIXES.
1. A, as an English prefix, signifies on, in, at, or to: as in a-board, a-shore, a-foot, a-bed, a-soak, a-tilt, a-slant, a-far, a-field; which are equal to the phrases, on board, on shore, on foot, in bed, in soak, at tilt, at slant, to a distance, to the fields. The French à, to, is probably the same particle. This prefix is sometimes redundant, adding little or nothing to the meaning; as in awake, arise, amend.
2. BE, as a prefix, signifies upon, over, by, to, at, or for: as in be-spatter, be-cloud, be-times, be-tide, be-howl, be-speak. It is sometimes redundant, or merely intensive; as in be-gird, be-deck, be-loved, be-dazzle, be-moisten, be-praise, be-quote.
3. COUNTER, an English prefix, allied to the French Contre, and the Latin Contra, means against, or opposite; as in counter-poise, counter-evidence, counter-natural.
4. FOR, as a prefix, unlike the common preposition For, seems generally to signify from: it is found in the irregular verbs for-bear, for-bid, for-get, for-give, for-sake, for-swear; and in for-bathe, for-do, for-pass, for-pine, for-say, for-think, for-waste, which last are now disused, the for in several being merely intensive.
5. FORE, prefixed to a verb, signifies before; as in fore-know, fore-tell: prefixed to a noun, it is usually an adjective, and signifies anterior; as in fore-side, fore-part.
6. HALF, signifying one of two equal parts, is much used in composition; and, often, merely to denote imperfection: as, half-sighted, seeing imperfectly.
7. MIS signifies wrong or ill; as in mis-cite, mis-print, mis-spell, mis-chance, mis-hap.
8. OVER denotes superiority or excess; as in over-power, over-strain, over-large.
9. OUT, prefixed to a verb, generally denotes excess; as in out-do, out-leap, out-poise: prefixed to a noun, it is an adjective, and signifies exterior; as in out-side, out-parish.
10. SELF generally signifies one's own person, or belonging to one's own person; but, in self-same, it means very. We have many words beginning with Self, but most of them seem to be compounds rather than derivatives; as, self-love, self-abasement, self-abuse, self-affairs, self-willed, self-accusing.
11. UN denotes negation or contrariety; as in un-kind, un-load, un-truth, un-coif.
12. UNDER denotes inferiority; as in under-value, under-clerk, under-growth.
13. UP denotes motion upwards; as in up-lift: sometimes subversion; as in up-set.
14. WITH, as a prefix, unlike the common preposition With, signifies against, from, or back; as in with-stand, with-hold, with-draw, with-stander, with-holdment, with-drawal.
CLASS II.--THE LATIN PREFIXES.
The primitives or radicals to which these are prefixed, are not many of them employed separately in English. The final letter of the prefix Ad, Con, Ex, In, Ob, or Sub, is often changed before certain consonants; not capriciously, but with uniformity, to adapt or assimilate it to the sound which follows.
1. A, AB, or ABS, means From, or Away: as, a-vert, to turn from, or away; ab-duce, to lead from; ab-duction, a carrying-away; ab-stract, to draw from, or away.
2. AD,--forming ac, af, al, an, ap, as, at,--means To, or At: as, ad-vert, to turn to; ac-cord, to yield to; af-flux, a flowing-to; al-ly, to bind to; an-nex, to link to; ap-ply, to put to; as-sume, to take to; at-test, to witness to; ad-mire, to wonder at.
3. ANTE means Fore, or Before: as, ante-past, a fore-taste; ante-cedent, foregoing, or going before; ante-mundane, before the world; ante-date, to date before.
4. CIRCUM means Round, Around, or About: as circum-volve, to roll round; circum-scribe, to write round; circum-vent, to come round; circum-spect, looking about one's self.
5. CON,--which forms com, co, col, cor,--means Together: as, con-tract, to draw together; compel, to drive together; co-erce, to force together; col-lect, to gather together; cor-rade, to rub or scrape together; con-junction, a joining-together.
6. CONTRA, or CONTRO, means Against, or Counter: as, contra-dict, to speak against; contra-vene, to come against; contra-mure, countermure; contro-vert, to turn against.
7. DE means Of, From, or Down: as, de-note, to be a sign of; de-tract, to draw from; de-pend, to hang down; de-press, to press down; de-crease, to grow down, to grow less.
8. DIS, or DI, means Away, or Apart: as, dis-pel, to drive away; dis-sect, to cut apart; di-vert, to turn away.
9. E, or Ex,--making also ec, ef,--means Out: as, e-ject, to cast out; e-lect, to choose out; ex-clude, to shut out; ex-cite, to summon out; ec-stacy, a raising out; ef-face, to blot out.
10. EXTRA means Beyond, or Out of: as, extra-vagant, syllabled ex-trav'a-gant, roving be-yond; extra-vasate, ex-trav'a-sate, to flow out of the vessels; extra-territorial, being out of the territory.
11. IN,--which makes also il, im, ir,--means In, Into, or Upon: as, in-spire, to breathe in; il-lude, to draw in by deceit; im-mure, to wall in; ir-ruption, a rushing in; in-spect, to look into; in-scribe, to write upon; in-sult, to jump upon. These syllables, prefixed, to English nouns or adjectives, generally reverse their meaning; as in in-justice, il-legality, im-partiality, ir-religion, ir-rational, in-secure, in-sane.
12. INTER means Between, or In between: as, inter-sperse, to scatter in between; inter-jection, something thrown in between; inter-jacent, lying between; inter-communication, communication between.
13. INTRO means In, Inwards, or Within: as, intro-duce, to lead in; intro-vert, to turn inwards; intro-spect, to look within; intro-mission, a sending-in.
14. OB,--which makes also oc, of, op,--means Against: as, ob-trude, to thrust against; oc-cur, to run against; of-fer, to bring against; op-pose, to place against; ob-ject, to cast against.
15. PER means Through or By: as, per-vade, to go through; per-chance, by chance; per-cent, by the hundred; per-plex, to tangle through, or to entangle thoroughly.
16. POST means After: as, post-pone, to place after; post-date, to date after.
17. PRÆ, or PRE, means Before: as, pre-sume, to take before; pre-position, a placing-before, or thing placed before; præ-cognita, things known before.
18. PRO means For, Forth, or Forwards: as, pro-vide, to take care for; pro-duce, to bring forth; pro-trude, to thrust forwards; pro-ceed, to go forward; pro-noun, for a noun.
19. PRETER means By, Past, or Beyond: as, preter-it, bygone, or gone by; preter-imperfect, past imperfect; preter-natural, beyond what is natural; preter-mit, to put by, to omit.
20. RE means Again or Back: as, re-view, to view again; re-pel, to drive back.
21. RETRO means Backwards, Backward, or Back: as, retro-active, acting backwards; retro-grade, going backward; retro-cede, to cede back again.
22. SE means Aside or Apart: as, se-duce, to lead aside; se-cede, to go apart.
23. SEMI means Half: as, semi-colon, half a colon; semi-circle, half a circle.
24. SUB,--which makes suf, sug, sup, sur, and sus,--means Under, and sometimes Up: as, sub-scribe, to write under; suf-fossion, an undermining; sug-gest, to convey under; sup-ply, to put under; sur-reption, a creeping-under; sus-tain, to hold up; sub-ject, cast under.
25. SUBTER means Beneath: as, subter-fluous, flowing beneath.
26. SUPER means Over or Above: as, super-fluous, flowing over; super-natant, swimming above; super-lative, carried over, or carrying over; super-vise, to overlook, to oversee.
27. TRANS,--whence TRAN and TRA,--means Beyond, Over, To another state or place: as, trans-gress, to pass beyond or over; trans-cend, to climb over; trans-mit to send to an other place; trans-form, to change to an other shape; tra-montane, from beyond the mountains; i.e., Trans-Alpine, as opposed to Cis-Alpine.
CLASS III.--THE GREEK PREFIXES.
1. A and AN, in Greek derivatives, denote privation: as, a-nomalous, wanting rules; an-ony-mous, wanting name; an-archy, want of government; a-cephalous, headless.
2. AMPHI means Two, Both, or Double: as, amphi-bious, living in two elements; amphi-brach, both [sides] short; amphi-theatre, a double theatre.
3. ANTI means Against: as, anti-slavery, against slavery; anti-acid, against acidity; anti-febrile, against fever; anti-thesis, a placing-against.
4. APO, APH,--From: as, apo-strophe, a turning-from; aph-aeresis, a taking from.
5. DIA,--Through: as, dia-gonal, through the corners; dia-meter, measure through.
6. EPI, EPH,--Upon: as, epi-demic, upon the people; eph-emera, upon a day.
7. HEMI means Half: as, hemi-sphere, half a sphere; hemi-stich, half a verse.
8. HYPER means Over: as, hyper-critical, over-critical; hyper-meter, over measure. 9. HYPO means Under: as, hypo-stasis, substance, or that which stands under; hypo-thesis, supposition, or a placing-under; hypo-phyllous, under the leaf.
10. META means Beyond, Over, To an other state or place: as, meta-morphose, to change to an other shape; meta-physics, mental science, as beyond or over physics.
11. PARA means Against: as, para-dox, something contrary to common opinion.
12. PERI means Around: as, peri-phery, the circumference, or measure round.
13. SYN,--whence Sym, Syl,--means Together: as, syn-tax, a putting-together; sym-pathy, a suffering-together; syl-lable, what we take together; syn-thesis a placing-together.
CLASS IV.--THE FRENCH PREFIXES.
1. A is a preposition of very frequent use in French, and generally means To. I have suggested above that it is probably the same as the Anglo-Saxon prefix a. It is found in a few English compounds or derivatives that are of French, and not of Saxon origin: as, a-dieu, to God; i.e., I commend you to God; a-larm, from alarme, i e., à l'arme, to arms.
2. DE means Of or From: as in de-mure, of manners; de-liver, to ease from or of.
3. DEMI means Half: as, demi-man, half a man; demi-god, half a god; demi-devil, half a devil; demi-deify, to half deify; demi-sized, half sized; demi-quaver, half a quaver. 4. EN,--which sometimes becomes em,--means In, Into, or Upon: as, en-chain, to hold in chains; em-brace, to clasp in the arms; en-tomb, to put into a tomb; em-boss, to stud upon. Many words are yet wavering between the French and the Latin orthography of this prefix: as, embody, or imbody; ensurance, or insurance; ensnare, or insnare; enquire, or inquire.
5. SUR, as a French prefix, means Upon, Over, or After: as, sur-name, a name upon a name; sur-vey, to look over; sur-mount, to mount over or upon; sur-render, to deliver over to others; sur-feit, to overdo in eating; sur-vive, to live after, to over-live, to outlive.
END OF THE SECOND APPENDIX
APPENDIX III TO PART THIRD, OR SYNTAX.
OF THE QUALITIES OF STYLE.
Style, as a topic connected with syntax, is the particular manner in which a person expresses his conceptions by means of language. It is different from mere words, different from mere grammar, in any limited sense, and is not to be regulated altogether by rules of construction. It always has some relation to the author's peculiar manner of thinking; involves, to some extent, and shows his literary, if not his moral, character; is, in general, that sort of expression which his thoughts most readily assume; and, sometimes, partakes not only of what is characteristic of the man, of his profession, sect, clan, or province, but even of national peculiarity, or some marked feature of the age. The words which an author employs, may be proper in themselves, and so constructed as to violate no rule of syntax, and yet his style may have great faults.
In reviews and critical essays, the general characters of style are usually designated by such epithets as these;--concise, diffuse,--neat, negligent,--terse, bungling,--nervous, weak,--forcible, feeble,--vehement, languid,--simple, affected,--easy, stiff,--pure, barbarous,--perspicuous, obscure,--elegant, uncouth,--florid, plain,--flowery, artless,--fluent, dry,--piquant, dull,--stately, flippant,--majestic, mean,--pompous, modest,--ancient, modern. A considerable diversity of style, may be found in compositions all equally excellent in their kind. And, indeed, different subjects, as well as the different endowments by which genius is distinguished, require this diversity. But, in forming his style, the learner should remember, that a negligent, feeble, affected, stiff, uncouth, barbarous, or obscure style is always faulty; and that perspicuity, ease, simplicity, strength, neatness, and purity, are qualities always to be aimed at.
In order to acquire a good style, the frequent practice of composing and writing something, is indispensably necessary. Without exercise and diligent attention, rules or precepts for the attainment of this object, will be of no avail. When the learner has acquired such a knowledge of grammar, as to be in some degree qualified for the undertaking, he should devote a stated portion of his time to composition. This exercise will bring the powers of his mind into requisition, in a way that is well calculated to strengthen them. And if he has opportunity for reading, he may, by a diligent perusal of the best authors, acquire both language and taste as well as sentiment;--and these three are the essential qualifications of a good writer.
In regard to the qualities which constitute a good style, we can here offer nothing more than a few brief hints. With respect to words and phrases, particular attention should be paid to three things--purity, propriety, and precision; and, with respect to sentences, to three others,--perspicuity, unity, and strength. Under each of these six heads, we shall arrange, in the form of short precepts, a few of the most important directions for the forming of a good style.
SECTION I.--OF PURITY.
Purity of style consists in the use of such words and phrases only, as belong to the language which we write or speak. Its opposites are the faults aimed at in the following precepts.
PRECEPT I.--Avoid the unnecessary use of foreign words or idioms: such as the French words fraicheur, hauteur, delicatesse, politesse, noblesse;--the expression, "He repented himself;"--or, "It serves to an excellent purpose."
PRECEPT II.--Avoid obsolete or antiquated words, except there be some special reason for their use: that is, such words as acception, addressful, administrate, affamish, affrontiveness, belikely, blusterous, clergical, cruciate, rutilate, timidous.
PRECEPT III.--Avoid strange or unauthorized words: such as, flutteration, inspectator, judgematical, incumberment, connexity, electerized, martyrized, reunition, marvelize, limpitude, affectated, adorement, absquatulate. Of this sort is O. B. Peirce's "assimilarity," used on page 19th of his English Grammar; and still worse is Jocelyn's "irradicable," for uneradicable, used on page 5th of his Prize Essay on Education.
PRECEPT IV.--Avoid bombast, or affectation of fine writing. It is ridiculous, however serious the subject. The following is an example: "Personifications, however rich the depictions, and unconstrained their latitude; analogies, however imposing the objects of parallel, and the media of comparison; can never expose the consequences of sin to the extent of fact, or the range of demonstration."--Anonymous.
SECTION II.--OF PROPRIETY.
Propriety of language consists in the selection and right construction of such words as the best usage has appropriated to those ideas which we intend to express by them. Impropriety embraces all those forms of error, which, for the purpose of illustration, exercise, and special criticism, have been so methodically and so copiously posted up under the various heads, rules, and notes, of this extensive Grammar. A few suggestions, however, are here to be set down in the form of precepts.
PRECEPT I.--Avoid low and provincial expressions: such as, "Now, says I, boys;"--"Thinks I to myself;"--"To get into a scrape;"--"Stay here while I come back;"--"By jinkers;"--"By the living jingoes."
PRECEPT II.--In writing prose, avoid words and phrases that are merely poetical: such as, morn, eve, plaint, corse, weal, drear, amid, oft, steepy;--"what time the winds arise."
PRECEPT III.--Avoid technical terms: except where they are necessary in treating of a particular art or science. In technology, they are proper.
PRECEPT IV.--Avoid the recurrence of a word in different senses, or such a repetition of words as denotes paucity of language: as, "His own reason might have suggested better reasons."--"Gregory favoured the undertaking, for no other reason than this; that the manager, in countenance, favoured his friend."--"I want to go and see what he wants."
PRECEPT V.--Supply words that are wanting: thus, instead of saying, "This action increased his former services," say, "This action increased the merit of his former services."--"How many [kinds of] substantives are there? Two; proper and common."--See E. Devis's Gram., p. 14. "These changes should not be left to be settled by chance or by caprice, but [should be determined] by the judicious application of the principles of Orthography."--See Fowlers E. Gram., 1850, p. 170.
PRECEPT VI.--Avoid equivocal or ambiguous expressions: as, "His memory shall be lost on the earth."--"I long since learned to like nothing but what you do."
PRECEPT VII.--Avoid unintelligible, inconsistent, or inappropriate expressions: such as, "I have observed that the superiority among these coffee-house politicians proceeds from an opinion of gallantry and fashion."--"These words do not convey even an opaque idea of the author's meaning."
PRECEPT VIII.--Observe the natural order of things or events, and do not put the cart before the horse: as, "The scribes taught and studied the Law of Moses."--"They can neither return to nor leave their houses."--"He tumbled, head over heels, into the water."--"'Pat, how did you carry that quarter of beef?' 'Why, I thrust it through a stick, and threw my shoulder over it.'"
SECTION III.--OF PRECISION.
Precision consists in avoiding all superfluous words, and adapting the expression exactly to the thought, so as to say, with no deficiency or surplus of terms, whatever is intended by the author. Its opposites are noticed in the following precepts.
PRECEPT I.--Avoid a useless tautology, either of expression or of sentiment; as, "When will you return again?"--"We returned back home again."--"On entering into the room, I saw and discovered he had fallen down on the floor and could not rise up."--"They have a mutual dislike to each other."--"Whenever I go, he always meets me there."--"Where is he at? In there."--"His faithfulness and fidelity should be rewarded."
PRECEPT II.--Repeat words as often as an exact exhibition of your meaning requires them; for repetition may be elegant, if it be not useless. The following example does not appear faulty: "Moral precepts are precepts the reasons of which we see; positive precepts are precepts the reasons of which we do not see."--Butler's Analogy, p. 165.
PRECEPT III.--Observe the exact meaning of words accounted synonymous, and employ those which are the most suitable; as, "A diligent scholar may acquire knowledge, gain celebrity, obtain rewards, win prizes, and get high honour, though he earn no money." These six verbs have nearly the same meaning, and yet no two of them can here be correctly interchanged.
PRECEPT IV.--Observe the proper form of each word, and do not confound such as resemble each other. "Professor J. W. Gibbs, of Yale College," in treating of the "Peculiarities of the Cockney Dialect," says, "The Londoner sometimes confounds two different forms; as contagious for contiguous; eminent for imminent; humorous for humorsome; ingeniously for ingenuously; luxurious for luxuriant; scrupulosity for scruple; successfully for successively."--See Fowler's E. Gram., p. 87; and Pref., p. vi.
PRECEPT V.--Think clearly, and avoid absurd or incompatible expressions. Example of error: "To pursue those remarks, would, probably, be of no further service to the learner than that of burdening his memory with a catalogue of dry and uninteresting peculiarities; which may gratify curiosity, without affording information adequate to the trouble of the perusal."--Wright's Gram., p. 122.
PRECEPT VI.--Avoid words that are useless; and, especially, a multiplication of them into sentences, members, or clauses, that may well be spared. Example: "If one could really be a spectator of what is passing in the world around us without taking part in the events, or sharing in the passions and actual performance on the stage; if we could set ourselves down, as it were, in a private box of the world's great theatre, and quietly look on at the piece that is playing, no more moved than is absolutely implied by sympathy with our fellow-creatures, what a curious, what an amusing, what an interesting spectacle would life present."--G. P. R. JAMES: "The Forger," commencement of Chap. xxxi. This sentence contains eighty-seven words, "of which sixty-one are entirely unnecessary to the expression of the author's idea, if idea it can be called."--Holden's Review.
OBSERVATION.
Verbosity, as well as tautology, is not so directly opposite to precision, as to conciseness, or brevity. From the manner in which lawyers usually multiply terms in order to express their facts precisely, it would seem that, with them, precision consists rather in the use of many words than of few. But the ordinary style of legal instruments no popular writer can imitate without becoming ridiculous. A terse or concise style is very apt to be elliptical: and, in some particular instances, must be so; but, at the same time, the full expression, perhaps, may have more precision, though it be less agreeable. For example: "A word of one syllable, is called a monosyllable; a word of two syllables, is called a dissyllable: a word of three syllables, is called a trisyllable: a word of four or more syllables, is called a polysyllable."--O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 19. Better, perhaps, thus: "A word of one syllable is called a monosyllable; a word of two syllables, a dissyllable; a word of three syllables, a trissyllable; and a word of four or more syllables, a polysyllable."--Brown's Institutes, p. 17.
SECTION IV.--OF PERSPICUITY.
Perspicuity consists in freedom from obscurity or ambiguity. It is a quality so essential to every kind of writing, that for the want of it no merit of other name can compensate. "Without this, the richest ornaments of style, only glimmer through the dark, and puzzle in stead of pleasing the reader."--Dr. Blair. Perspicuity, being the most important property of language, and an exemption from the most embarrassing defects, seems even to rise to a degree of positive beauty. We are naturally pleased with a style that frees us from all suspense in regard to the meaning; that carries us through the subject without embarrassment or confusion; and that always flows like a limpid stream, through which we can "see to the very bottom." Many of the errors which have heretofore been pointed out to the reader, are offences against perspicuity. Only three or four hints will here be added.
PRECEPT I.--Place adjectives, relative pronouns, participles, adverbs, and explanatory phrases near enough to the words to which they relate, and in a position which will make their reference clear. The following sentences are deficient in perspicuity: "Reverence is the veneration paid to superior sanctity, intermixed with a certain degree of awe."--Unknown. "The Romans understood liberty, at least, as well as we."--See Murray's Gram., p. 307. "Taste was never made to cater for vanity."--J. Q. Adams's Rhet., Vol. i, p. 119.
PRECEPT II.--In prose, avoid a poetic collocation of words. For example: "Guard your weak side from being known. If it be attacked, the best way is, to join in the attack."--KAMES: Art of Thinking, p. 75. This maxim of prudence might be expressed more poetically, but with some loss of perspicuity, thus: "Your weak side guard from being known. Attacked in this, the assailants join."
PRECEPT III.--Avoid faulty ellipses, and repeat all words necessary to preserve the sense. The following sentences require the words which are inserted in crotchets: "Restlessness of mind disqualifies us, both for the enjoyment of peace, and [for] the performance of our duty."--Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 166. "Double Comparatives and [Double] Superlatives should be avoided."--Fowler's E. Gram., 1850, p. 489.
PRECEPT IV.--Avoid the pedantic and sense-dimming style of charlatans and new theorists, which often demands either a translation or a tedious study, to make it at all intelligible to the ordinary reader. For example: "RULE XL Part 3. An intransitive or receptive asserter in the unlimited mode, depending on a word in the possessive case, may have, after it, a word in the subjective case, denoting the same thing: And, when it acts the part of an assertive name, depending on a relative, it may have after it a word in the subjective case. EXAMPLES:--John's being my friend, saved me from inconvenience. Seth Hamilton was unhappy in being a slave to party prejudice."--O. B. Peirce's Gram., 1839, p. 201. The meaning of this third part of a Rule of syntax, is, in proper English, as follows: "A participle not transitive, with the possessive case before it, may have after it a nominative denoting the same thing; and also, when a preposition governs the participle, a nominative may follow, in agreement with one which precedes." In doctrine, the former clause of the sentence is erroneous: it serves only to propagate false syntax by rule. See the former example, and a note of mine, referring to it, on page 531 of this work.
SECTION V.--OF UNITY.
Unity consists in avoiding needless pauses, and keeping one object predominant throughout a sentence or paragraph. Every sentence, whether its parts be few or many, requires strict unity. The chief faults, opposite to this quality of style, are suggested in the following precepts. PRECEPT I.--Avoid brokenness, hitching, or the unnecessary separation of parts that naturally come together. Examples: "I was, soon after my arrival, taken out of my Indian habit."--Addison, Tattler, No. 249. Better: "Soon after my arrival, I was taken out of my Indian habit."--Churchill's Gram., p. 326. "Who can, either in opposition, or in the ministry, act alone?"--Ib. Better: "Who can act alone, either in opposition, or in the ministry?"--Ib. "I, like others, have, in my youth, trifled with my health, and old age now prematurely assails me."--Ib., p. 327. Better: "Like others, I have trifled with my health, and old age now prematurely assails me."
PRECEPT II.--Treat different topics in separate paragraphs, and distinct sentiments in separate sentences. Error: "The two volumes are, indeed, intimately connected, and constitute one uniform system of English Grammar."--Murray's Preface, p. iv. Better thus: "The two volumes are, indeed, intimately connected. They constitute one uniform system of English grammar."
PRECEPT III.--In the progress of a sentence, do not desert the principal subjects in favour of adjuncts, or change the scene unnecessarily. Example: "After we came to anchor, they put me on shore, where I was welcomed by all my friends, who received me with the greatest kindness, which was not then expected." Better: "The vessel having come to anchor, I was put on shore; where I was unexpectedly welcomed by all my friends, and received with the greatest kindness."--See Blair's Rhet., p. 107.
PRECEPT IV.--Do not introduce parentheses, except when a lively remark may be thrown in without diverting the mind too long from the principal subject. Example: "But (saith he) since I take upon me to teach the whole world, (it is strange, it should be so natural for this man to write untruths, since I direct my Theses only to the Christian world; but if it may render me odious, such Peccadillo's pass with him, it seems, but for Piæ Fraudes:) I intended never to write of those things, concerning which we do not differ from others."--R. Barclay's Works, Vol. iii. p. 279. The parts of this sentence are so put together, that, as a whole, it is scarcely intelligible.
SECTION VI.--OF STRENGTH.
Strength consists in giving to the several words and members of a sentence, such an arrangement as shall bring out the sense to the best advantage, and present every idea in its due importance. Perhaps it is essential to this quality of style, that there be animation, spirit, and vigour of thought, in all that is uttered. A few hints concerning the Strength of sentences, will here be given in the form of precepts.
PRECEPT I.--Avoid verbosity; a concise style is the most favourable to strength. Examples: "No human happiness is so pure as not to contain any alloy."--Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 270. Better: "No human happiness is unalloyed." "He was so much skilled in the exercise of the oar, that few could equal him."--Ib., p. 271. Better: "He was so skillful at the oar, that few could match him." Or thus: "At the oar, he was rarely equalled." "The reason why they [the pronouns] are considered separately is, because there is something particular in their inflections."-- Priestley's Gram., p. 81. Better: "The pronouns are considered separately, because there is something peculiar in their inflections."
PRECEPT II.--Place the most important words in the situation in which they will make the strongest impression. Inversion of terms sometimes increases the strength and vivacity of an expression: as, "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me."--Matt., iv, 9. "Righteous art thou, O Lord, and upright are thy judgements."--Psalms, cxix, 137. "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints."--Ps., cxvi, 15.
PRECEPT III.--Have regard also to the relative position of clauses, or members; for a weaker assertion should not follow a stronger; and, when the sentence consists of two members, the longer should be the concluding one. Example: "We flatter ourselves with the belief that we have forsaken our passions, when they have forsaken us." Better: "When our passions have forsaken us, we flatter ourselves with the belief that we have forsaken them."--See Blair's Rhet., p. 117; Murray's Gram., p. 323.
PRECEPT IV.--When things are to be compared or contrasted, their resemblance or opposition will be rendered more striking, if a pretty near resemblance in the language and construction of the two members, be preserved. Example: "The wise man is happy, when he gains his own approbation; the fool, when he recommends himself to the applause of those about him." Better: "The wise man is happy, when he gains his own approbation; the fool, when he gains the applause of others."--See Murray's Gram., p. 324.
PRECEPT V.--Remember that it is, in general, ungraceful to end a sentence with an adverb, a preposition, or any inconsiderable word or phrase, which may either be omitted or be introduced earlier. "For instance, it is a great deal better to say, 'Avarice is a crime of which wise men are often guilty,' than to say, 'Avarice is a crime which wise men are often guilty of.'"--Blair's Rhet., p. 117; Murray's Gram., p. 323.
END OF THE THIRD APPENDIX.
APPENDIX IV.
TO PART FOURTH, OR PROSODY.
OF POETIC DICTION.
Poetry, as defined by Dr. Blair, "is the language of passion, or of enlivened imagination, formed, most commonly, into regular numbers."--Rhet., p. 377. The style of poetry differs, in many respects, from that which is commonly adopted in prose. Poetic diction abounds in bold figures of speech, and unusual collocations of words. A great part of the figures, which have been treated of in one of the chapters of Prosody, are purely poetical. The primary aim of a poet, is, to please and to move; and, therefore, it is to the imagination, and the passions, that he speaks. He may also, and he should, have it in his view, to instruct and to reform; but it is indirectly, and by pleasing and moving, that such a writer accomplishes this end. The exterior and most obvious distinction of poetry, is versification: yet there are some forms of verse so loose and familiar, as to be hardly distinguishable from prose; and there is also a species of prose, so measured in its cadences, and so much raised in its tone, as to approach very nearly to poetic numbers.
This double approximation of some poetry to prose, and of some prose to poetry, not only makes it a matter of acknowledged difficulty to distinguish, by satisfactory definitions, the two species of composition, but, in many instances, embarrasses with like difficulty the attempt to show, by statements and examples, what usages or licenses, found in English works, are proper to be regarded as peculiarities of poetic diction. It is purposed here, to enumerate sundry deviations from the common style of prose; and perhaps all of them, or nearly all, may be justly considered as pertaining only to poetry.
POETICAL PECULIARITIES.
The following are among the chief peculiarities in which the poets indulge, and are indulged:--
I. They not unfrequently omit the ARTICLES, for the sake of brevity or metre; as,
"What dreadful pleasure! there to stand sublime, Like shipwreck'd mariner on desert coast!" --Beattie's Minstrel, p. 12.
"Sky lour'd, and, muttering thunder, some sad drops Wept at completing of the mortal sin." --Milton, P. L., B. ix, l. 1002.
II. They sometimes abbreviate common NOUNS, after a manner of their own: as, amaze, for amazement; acclaim, for acclamation; consult, for consultation; corse, for corpse; eve or even, for evening; fount, for fountain; helm, for helmet; lament, for lamentation; morn, for morning; plaint, for complaint; targe, for target; weal, for wealth.
III. By enallage, they use verbal forms substantively, or put verbs for nouns; perhaps for brevity, as above: thus,
1. "Instant, without disturb, they took alarm." --P. Lost: Joh. Dict., w. Aware.
2. "The gracious Judge, without revile reply'd." --P. Lost, B. x, l. 118.
3. "If they were known, as the suspect is great." --Shakspeare.
4. "Mark, and perform it: seest thou? for the fail Of any point in't shall be death." --Shakspeare.
IV. They employ several nouns that are not used in prose, or are used but rarely; as, benison, boon, emprise, fane, guerdon, guise, ire, ken, lore, meed, sire, steed, welkin, yore.
V. They introduce the noun self after an other noun of the possessive case; as,
1. "Affliction's semblance bends not o'er thy tomb, Affliction's self deplores thy youthful doom."--Byron.
2. "Thoughtless of beauty, she was beauty's self."--Thomson.
VI. They place before the verb nouns, or other words, that usually come after it; and, after it, those that usually come before it: as,
1. "No jealousy their dawn of love o'ercast, Nor blasted were their wedded days with strife." --Beattie.
2. "No hive hast thou of hoarded sweets." --W. Allen's Gram.
3. "Thy chain a wretched weight shall prove." --Langhorne.
4. "Follows the loosen'd aggravated roar." --Thomson.
5. "That purple grows the primrose pale." --Langhorne.
VII. They more frequently place ADJECTIVES after their nouns, than do prose writers; as,
1. "Or where the gorgeous East, with richest hand, Show'rs on her kings barbaric, pearl and gold." --Milton, P. L., B. ii, l. 2.
2. "Come, nymph demure, with mantle blue." --W. Allen's Gram., p. 189.
3. "This truth sublime his simple sire had taught." --Beattie's Minstrel, p. 14.
VIII. They ascribe qualities to things to which they do not literally belong; as,
1. "The ploughman homeward plods his weary way." --Gray's Elegy, l. 3.
2. "Or drowsy tinklings lull the distant folds." --Ibidem, l. 8.
3. "Imbitter'd more and more from peevish day to day." --Thomson.
4. "All thin and naked, to the numb cold night." --Shakspeare.
IX. They use concrete terms to express abstract qualities; (i. e., adjectives for nouns;) as,
1. "Earth's meanest son, all trembling, prostrate falls, And on the boundless of thy goodness calls." --Young.
2. "Meanwhile, whate'er of beautiful or new, Sublime or dreadful, in earth, sea, or sky, By chance or search, was offer'd to his view, He scann'd with curious and romantic eye." --Beattie.
3. "Won from the void and formless infinite." --Milton.
4. "To thy large heart give utterance due; thy heart Contains of good, wise, just, the perfect shape." --Id., P. R., B. iii, l. 10.
X. They often substitute quality for manner; (i. e., adjectives for adverbs;) as,
1. ----"The stately-sailing swan Gives out his snowy plumage to the gale, And, arching proud his neck, with oary feet, Bears forward fierce, and guards his osier isle." --Thomson.
2. "Thither continual pilgrims crowded still." --Id., Cos. of Ind., i, 8.
3. "Level at beauty, and at wit; The fairest mark is easiest hit." --Butler's Hudibras.
XI. They form new compound epithets, oftener than do prose writers; as,
1. "In world-rejoicing state, it moves sublime." --Thomson.
2. "The dewy-skirted clouds imbibe the sun." --Idem.
3. "By brooks and groves in hollow-whispering gales." --Idem.
4. "The violet of sky-woven vest." --Langhorne.
5. "A league from Epidamnum had we sail'd, Before the always-wind-obeying deep Gave any tragic instance of our harm." --Shakspeare.
6. "'Blue-eyed, strange-voiced, sharp-beaked, ill-omened fowl, What art thou?' 'What I ought to be, an owl.'" --Day's Punctuation, p. 139.
XII. They connect the comparative degree to the positive, before a verb; as,
1. "Near and more near the billows rise." --Merrick.
2. "Wide and wider spreads the vale." --Dyer's Grongar Hill.
3. "Wide and more wide, the overflowings of the mind Take every creature in, of every kind." --Pope.
4. "Thick and more thick the black blockade extends, A hundred head of Aristotle's friends." --Id., Dunciad.
XIII. They form many adjectives in y, which are not common in prose; as, The dimply flood,--dusky veil,--a gleamy ray,--heapy harvests,--moony shield,--paly circlet,--sheety lake,--stilly lake,--spiry temples,--steely casque,--steepy hill,--towery height,--vasty deep,--writhy snake.
XIV. They employ adjectives of an abbreviated form: as, dread, for dreadful; drear, for dreary; ebon, for ebony; hoar, for hoary; lone, for lonely; scant, for scanty; slope, for sloping: submiss, for submissive; vermil, for vermilion; yon, for yonder.
XV. They employ several adjectives that are not used in prose, or are used but seldom; as, azure, blithe, boon, dank, darkling, darksome, doughty, dun, fell, rife, rapt, rueful, sear, sylvan, twain, wan.
XVI. They employ the personal PRONOUNS, and introduce their nouns afterwards; as,
1. "It curl'd not Tweed alone, that breeze." --Sir W. Scott.
2. "What may it be, the heavy sound That moans old Branksome's turrets round?" --Idem, Lay, p. 21.
3. "Is it the lightning's quivering glance, That on the thicket streams; Or do they flash on spear and lance, The sun's retiring beams" --Idem, L. of L., vi, 15.
XVII. They use the forms of the second person singular oftener than do others; as,
1. "Yet I had rather, if I were to chuse, Thy service in some graver subject use, Such as may make thee search thy coffers round, Before thou clothe my fancy in fit sound." --Milton's Works, p. 133.
2. "But thou, of temples old, or altars new, Standest alone--with nothing like to thee." --Byron, Pilg., iv, 154.
3. "Thou seest not all; but piecemeal thou must break, To separate contemplation, the great whole." --Id., ib., iv, 157.
4. "Thou rightly deemst, fair youth, began the bard; The form then sawst was Virtue ever fair." --Pollok, C. of T., p. 16.
XVIII. They sometimes omit relatives that are nominatives; (see Obs. 22, at p. 555;) as,
"For is there aught in sleep can charm the wise?" --Thomson.
XIX. They omit the antecedent, or introduce it after the relative; as,
1. "Who never fasts, no banquet e'er enjoys, Who never toils or watches, never sleeps." --Armstrong.
2. "Who dares think one thing and an other tell, My soul detests him as the gates of hell." --Pope's Homer.
XX. They remove relatives, or other connectives, into the body of their clauses; as,
1. "Parts the fine locks, her graceful head that deck." --Darwin.
2. "Not half so dreadful rises to the sight Orion's dog, the year when autumn weighs." --Pope, Iliad, B. xxii, l. 37.
XXI. They make intransitive VERBS transitive, changing their class; as,
1. ----"A while he stands, Gazing the inverted landscape, half afraid To meditate the blue profound below." --Thomson.
2. "Still in harmonious intercourse, they liv'd The rural day, and talk'd the flowing heart." --Idem.
3. ----"I saw and heard, for we sometimes Who dwell this wild, constrain'd by want, come forth." --Milton, P. R., B. i, l. 330.
XXII. They make transitive verbs intransitive, giving them no regimen; as,
1. "The soldiers should have toss'd me on their pikes, Before I would have granted to that act." --Shakspeare.
2. "This minstrel-god, well-pleased, amid the quire Stood proud to hymn, and tune his youthful lyre." --Pope.
XXIII. They give to the imperative mood the first and the third person; as,
1. "Turn we a moment fancy's rapid flight." --Thomson.
2. "Be man's peculiar work his sole delight." --Beattie.
3. "And what is reason? Be she thus defin'd: Reason is upright stature in the soul." --Young.
XXIV. They employ can, could, and would, as principal verbs transitive; as,
1. "What for ourselves we can, is always ours." --Anon.
2. "Who does the best his circumstance allows, Does well, acts nobly; angels could no more." --Young.
3. "What would this man? Now upward will he soar, And, little less than angel, would be more." --Pope.
XXV. They place the infinitive before the word on which it depends; as,
1. "When first thy sire to send on earth Virtue, his darling child, design'd" --Gray.
2. "As oft as I, to kiss the flood, decline; So oft his lips ascend, to close with mine." --Sandys.
3. "Besides, Minerva, to secure her care, Diffus'd around a veil of thicken'd air." --Pope.
XXVI. They place the auxiliary verb after its principal, by hyperbaton; as,
1. "No longer heed the sunbeam bright That plays on Carron's breast he can" --Langhorne.
2. "Follow I must, I cannot go before." --Beauties of Shakspeare, p. 147.
3. "The man who suffers, loudly may complain; And rage he may, but he shall rage in vain." --Pope.
XXVII. Before verbs, they sometimes arbitrarily employ or omit prefixes: as, bide, or abide; dim, or bedim; gird, or begird; lure, or allure; move, or emove; reave, or bereave; vails, or avails; vanish, or evanish; wail, or bewail; weep, or beweep; wilder, or bewilder:--
1. "All knees to thee shall bow, of them that bide In heav'n, or earth, or under earth in hell." --Milton, P. L., B. iii, l. 321.
2. "Of a horse, ware the heels; of a bull-dog, the jaws; Of a bear, the embrace; of a lion, the paws." --Churchills Cram., p. 215.
XXVIII. Some few verbs they abbreviate: as list, for listen; ope, for open; hark, for hearken; dark, for darken; threat, for threaten; sharp, for sharpen.
XXIX. They employ several verbs that are not used in prose, or are used but rarely; as, appal, astound, brook, cower, doff, ken, wend, ween, trow.
XXX. They sometimes imitate a Greek construction of the infinitive; as,
1. "Who would not sing for Lycidas? he knew Himself to sing, and build the lofty rhyme." --Milton.
2. "For not, to have been dipp'd in Lethè lake, Could save the son of Thetis from to die." --Spenser.
XXXI. They employ the PARTICIPLES more frequently than prose writers, and in a construction somewhat peculiar; often intensive by accumulation: as,
1. "He came, and, standing in the midst, explain'd The peace rejected, but the truce obtain'd." --Pope.
2. "As a poor miserable captive thrall Comes to the place where he before had sat Among the prime in splendor, now _depos'd, Ejected, emptied, gaz'd, unpitied, shunn'd_, A spectacle of ruin or of scorn." --Milton, P. R., B. i, l. 411.
3. "Though from our birth the faculty divine Is chain'd and tortured--cabin'd, cribb'd, confined." --Byron, Pilg., C. iv, St. 127.
XXXII. In turning participles to adjectives, they sometimes ascribe actions, or active properties, to things to which they do not literally belong; as,
"The green leaf quivering in the gale, The warbling hill, the lowing vale." --MALLET: Union Poems, p. 26.
XXXIII. They employ several ADVERBS that are not used in prose, or are used but seldom; as, oft, haply, inly, blithely, cheerily, deftly, felly, rifely, starkly.
XXXIV. They give to adverbs a peculiar location in respect to other words; as,
1. "Peeping from forth their alleys green." --Collins.
2. "Erect the standard there of ancient Night" --Milton.
3. "The silence often of pure innocence Persuades, when speaking fails." --Shakspeare.
4. "Where Universal Love not smiles around." --Thomson.
5. "Robs me of that which not enriches him." --Shakspeare.
XXXV. They sometimes omit the introductory adverb there: as,
"Was nought around but images of rest." --Thomson.
XXXVI. They briefly compare actions by a kind of compound adverbs, ending in like; as,
"Who bid the stork, Columbus-like, explore Heavens not his own, and worlds unknown before?" --Pope.
XXXVII. They employ the CONJUNCTIONS, or--or, and nor--nor, as correspondents; as,
1. "Or by the lazy Scheldt or wandering Po." --Goldsmith.
2. "Wealth heap'd on wealth, nor truth, nor safety buys." --Johnson.
3. "Who by repentance is not satisfied, Is nor of heaven, nor earth; for these are pleas'd." --Shakspeare.
4. "Toss it, or to the fowls, or to the flames." --Young, N. T., p. 157.
5. "Nor shall the pow'rs of hell, nor wastes of time, Or vanquish, or destroy." --Gibbon's Elegy on Davies.
XXXVIII. They oftener place PREPOSITIONS and their adjuncts, before the words on which they depend, than do prose writers; as,
"Against your fame with fondness hate combines; The rival batters, and the lover mines." --Dr. Johnson.
XXXIX. They sometimes place a long or dissyllabic preposition after its object; as,
1. "When beauty, Eden's bowers within, First stretched the arm to deeds of sin, When passion burn'd and prudence slept, The pitying angels bent and wept." --James Hogg.
2. "The Muses fair, these peaceful shades among, With skillful fingers sweep the trembling strings." --Lloyd.
3. "Where Echo walks steep hills among, List'ning to the shepherd's song." --J. Warton, U. Poems, p. 33.
XL. They have occasionally employed certain prepositions for which, perhaps, it would not be easy to cite prosaic authority; as, adown, aloft, aloof, anear, aneath, askant, aslant, aslope, atween, atwixt, besouth, traverse, thorough, sans. (See Obs. 10th, and others, at p. 441.)
XLI. They oftener employ INTERJECTIONS than do prose writers; as,
"O let me gaze!--Of gazing there's no end. O let me think!--Thought too is wilder'd here." --Young.
XLII. They oftener employ ANTIQUATED WORDS and modes of expression; as,
1. "Withouten that, would come an heavier bale." --Thomson.
2. "He was, to weet, a little roguish page, Save sleep and play, who minded nought at all." --Id.
3. "Not one eftsoons in view was to be found." --Id.
4. "To number up the thousands dwelling here, An useless were, and eke an endless task." --Id.
5. "Of clerks good plenty here you mote espy." --Id.
6. "But these I passen by with nameless numbers moe." --Id.
THE END OF APPENDIX FOURTH
INDEX TO THE GRAMMAR OF ENGLISH GRAMMARS.
[Asterism] In the following Index, the page of the Grammar is directly referred to: Obs. or N. before a numeral, stands for Observation or Observations, or for Note or Notes of the text: R. after a reference, stands for RULE. The small letter n., with an asterisk or other mark affixed to it, relates to a footnote with such mark in the Grammar. Occasionally, t., m., or b., or u., or l., accompanies a reference, to indicate the top, middle, or bottom, or the upper or the lower half, of the page referred to. Few abbreviations are employed beyond those of the ordinary grammatical terms. The Index is not intended to supersede the use of the Table of Contents, which stands after the Preface. It is occupied wholly with the matter of the Grammar proper; hence there are in it no references to the Introduction Historical and Critical, which precedes the didactic portion of the work. In the Table before-mentioned must be sought the general division of English grammar, and matters pertaining to praxis, to examination, and to the writing of exercises.
A.
A, lett., names itself --its plur. --sounds properly its own --numb. of sounds pertaining to, orthoëpists differ concerning --diphthongs beginning with, --triphth. do. --its true sound to be carefully preserved at end of words, A, as prep, or prefix --before part, in ing. A and an, in Gr. derivatives. A or an, art., see An, A
Abbreviations, frequent in writt. lang. --rule of punct. for. C, M, D, &c., as numerals, see Letters. Needless abbreviations, to be avoided
Able, ible, class of adjectives in, numerous in Eng.; difficulty with resp. to the prop. form and signif. of; to what able most properly belongs --application of able to nouns, its propriety doubtf. --Able or ible, prop. application of, how far determined from Lat. etymol. --Able and ible, words of the same meaning in, how formed from different roots,
About, with infin., as substitute for Lat. fut. part, in rus --About, with of preced., ("OF ABOUT one hundred feet") --About, derivat. of, from Sax.
Abrupt transitions in the Bible
Absolute, when, and in what case, a noun or a pron. is put --Absol., case, defect of the common rule for --in how many ways the nom. case is put --nom. case put, with part., to what often equivalent; what part. frequently understood after nouns put --case, its existence denied by what authors --words put, punct. of,
Abstract numbers, synt. of the phraseology used in speaking of, ("Twice two IS four," or "Twice two ARE four")
Absurd or incompatible expressions, to be avoided
Absurdities of expression, Crit. N. concerning
Acatalectic, when a line is said to be
Accent and quantity, critical observations on
Accent, difficulty with respect to the import of the word --various definitions of, cited --Accent, confounded by some with emphasis --defined, as commonly understood --chief or primary and secondary --Accent, by what regulated --compared with emphasis --as affected by do. --is distinct from quantity --as understood by DR. JOH. --SHERID. teachings concerning; mostly adopted by MURR. --what lett. of a word receives the mark of --stress on a monosyl. more properly emphasis than --Accents, more than one on a word --DR. ADAM'S view of
Accentuation, modern, of Gr. and Lat. words, by what regulated; SANCTIUS'S rule for, new vers. of
According to, as to, resolved. Accordingly, whether may be said for the questionable according
Accusative before infin., in Lat. and Gr., of what reckoned the subject --whether the construc. can in general be imitated in Eng. --who adopt the Lat. doctrine of --what our nearest approach to the Lat. construc. of
Active, in reference to verbs, in what sense may be used
Active-transitive verb, defined --Act.-trans. verbs gov. obj. case --place of agent and object in respect to --Act.-trans. verb, or part., has some noun or pron. for its object --with two words in appos. ("Proclaim THEE KING,") --with do., neither in appos. nor connected by conjunc., ("I paid HIM the MONEY,") --with redund. me, thee, you --should not be used without an object --should not assume a governm. incompatible with its signif.
Active-intransitive verb, defined --Act.-intrans. verb, with prep. and its object, put in the pass. form --in pass. form with neut. signif. ("I AM COME,") --should not be used transitively
Addison, undeservedly criticised by BLAIR, for his frequent use of that, as a relative
Addition, enumeration, of numbers, by what number of the verb to be expressed
Address, ordinary fashion of, in Eng., the plur. numb. --has introduced the anomal. compound yourself --Address, direct, nom. absol. by --terms of, your Majesty, your Highness, &c., in what construc. used --general usage of, in Fr.; in Span., Portug., or Germ.
ADJECTIVES, Etymol. of --Classes of, named and defined --Modifications of --Comparison of, reg.; by adverbs; irreg. --Adjectives in able and ible, (see Able, Ible.) --Adjectives, number of, in Eng. --how have been otherwise called --how distinguished from nouns --other parts of speech may become --MURR., on nouns assuming the nature of --whether nouns plur. can assume the character of --Adjectives that cannot be compared --that are compared by means of adverbs --(See Comparison, Comparative Deg., and Superlative Deg.) --Adjectives requiring the article the --denoting place or situation, comparison of --become adverbs --use of, for adv., improper --with prep., ellipt., equivalent to adv. --poet., for nouns --do., for adverbs --Adjectives, Synt. of --do., in what consists --to what relate --substituted ellipt. for their abstr. nouns --relate to nouns or pronouns understood --used with def. art., ellipt., as nouns --two or more before a noun, order of --two, joined by hyphens --denoting unity or plurality, how agree with their nouns --connected, position of --differing in numb., connected without repetition of noun ("ONE _or more letters_,") --much, little, &c., preceded by too, how, &c., taken substantively --Adjectives, punct. of --derivation of, from nouns, from adjectives, &c. --poet. peculiarities in respect to --Adjective, taken abstractly with infin. or part. --following a finite verb, without a noun --do. an infin. or a part. --position of, in Eng. --when may either precede or follow its noun --Whether adj. or adv. is required, how determined --Adjective, one superadded to an other, without conjunc., position of --when the figure of, affects the sense, what to be done --should not be represented by a pronoun --ellipsis of, shown
Adjectives, common, probable numb. of, in Eng. --enumeration of, according to their endings
Adjectives, compound, analogies of their formation, traced --nouns derived from, generally disapproved
Adjectives, numeral, kinds of, named --Cardinal numb. and its corresponding numeral, what denote --Construction and figure of the numerals
Adjectives, participial, what words to be referred to the class of --cannot be construed to govern obj. case
Adjectives, pronominal, list of --which, sometimes used adverbially --which, sometimes used partitively, appar. as nouns --without nouns expressed, how parsed --distribution of, by CHURCH See Other, &c.
Adjectives, proper, peculiarities of, considered --rule for initial capital in
Adjuncts of nominative in the agreement of a verb
Admitting, allowing, &c., appar. independent, to what may relate
ADVERBS, Etymol. of --Adverb, defined --Adverbs, serve to abbreviate expression --other classes of words sometimes take the nature of --appar. take the nat. of other parts of speech --how distinguished from adjectives --Classes of, named and defined --proper classification of, by what indicated --of time, place, and manner, with what connected; of degree, do. --conjunctive (see Conjunctive Adverb:) --Modifications of --number of, in Eng. --Whether adverb or adjective required, how determined --Adverbs, Synt. of --in what do. consists --to what relate --Adverb before a prep. ("CONSIDERABLY beyond,") --Adverbs, whether sometimes qualify nouns --of participles which become nouns, how managed --above, then, &c., as relating directly to a noun, how parsed --Adverbs, of degree, to what adjectives not applicable --direct use of, for pronouns, inelegant --position of --needless use of, for adjectives --hither, &c., for here, &c., with verb of motion --hence, &c., with from prefixed --when, &c., not to follow is in a definition ("Concord is WHEN," &c.,) --ever and never, to be carefully distinguished --in ly, when preferable to other forms --Adverb, appar. made object of a prep. ("At ONCE,") --emphatic, with verb of self-motion suppressed ("I'll HENCE,") --Adverb HOW, misuse of ("He said HOW," &c.,) --NO, not to be used in reference to a verb or a part. --Adverbial form or character, words of, how parsed --Adverbs, punct. of --Adverb, ellips. of, shown --Adverbs, derivation of, --many common Eng., of Anglo-Sax. origin --poet. peculiarities in the use of --peculiar use of those of two syllables in ly, by MILT. and his contemporaries --Adverbial phrase, a needless and improper designation in analysis
Affectation of fine writing, PREC. against
Ago and since, difference between
AGREEMENT, of words, defined --with what synonymous --Agreement, how many of the parts of speech in Eng., incapable of; none necessary between words unrelated --as differing from relation --of words in the same construc., not easy to determine --rules of, as applied to articles, impertinent --Agreements, syntactical, in Eng., specified --Agreement, general principles of --figurative, of pronouns with antecedents
Ah, sometimes departs from usage
Alexandrine verse, description of
Alias, for the equivocal or, use of, in judicial proceedings
All, when may be reckoned a noun
Allegory, defined --Allegory includes most parables of Script., and some fables
Alphabet, Eng., names and plur. numb. of the letters --Hebrew, names and characters of, given, --Greek, do. --Latin, names of the letters of, scarcely known even to the learned; account of its letters --A perfect alphabet in Eng., what it would effect --Letters of the alphabet, when and how used in the sciences
Alphabetic writing, its advantage over the syllabic
Ambiguous, construc., with respect to the class of a word --do., with resp. to the case of a word --expressions, PREC. against
Amen, use and import of
Among and amongst, amid and amidst, different in sense and construc. from between and betwixt --incompatible with the distributive one an other --derivation of, from Sax.
Amphibrach, defined
Amphimac, amphimacer, or Cretic, defined.
An, conjunc., obsolete for if ("Nay, AN thou 'lt mouthe," &c., SHAK.,) --derivation of, from Sax.
An, a, art., one and the same --preferable form before a particular sound --A or an before genus --how commonly limits the sense --belongs to sing. numb. only --with adjective of numb. --its effect upon proper and common nouns --is without agreem. --Whether an is from a or a from an --An, a, origin of --of proportion --with numerals --by what definitives superseded --implies unity; sometimes precedes collective noun conveying the idea of plurality --present usage of, how differs from that of ancient writers --use of, before humble, and its compounds and derivatives --erroneous use of, as relating to a plural --not to be used for the, to denote emphat. a whole kind
Analysis, "to analyze a sentence," what --Analysis of sentences shown in five different methods; which method BROWN calls "the best and most thorough" --Analysis, notices of the different methods of --importance of, in teaching grammar; the truest method of, parsing
Anapest, defined
Anapestic verse, treated --what syll. of, has stress; first foot of, how may be varied --what variation of, produces composite verse --whether a surplus syll. in, may compensate for a deficient one --what number of syllables in the longest measure of --Anapestic verse shown in its four measures --Anapestic, measures, why few --poetry, pieces in general short --(instance of a long piece, L. HUNT'S "Feast of the Poets,")
And, discriminated from or --when preferable to with, or, or nor --whether emphatic of word or phrase following it ("Part pays, AND justly;" &c., POPE,) --derivation of, from Sax.
Anglo-Saxon dialect, and accessions thereto, as forming the modern Eng. lang.
An other, see Other
Antecedent, proper sense of the term --sometimes placed after its pronoun --sometimes doubly restricted --of pron., applied figuratively --sing., with the adj. many, and a plur. pron. --suppressed --Antecedents of different persons, numbers, and genders, disjunctively connected, how represented --joint, agreem. of pron. in ellipt. construct. of
Antibacchy, or hypobacchy, defined
Antiquated words and modes of expression, more frequent in poetry than in prose
Antithesis, defined
Aorist, or indefinite, may be applied to imperf. tense pot. and subjunc.
Aphæresis, defined
Apocope, defined
Apophasis, or paralipsis, explained
Apostrophe, mark, what denotes; for what sometimes used --at what period introduced into the poss. case Apostrophe, figure, defined
Apposition, Synt. --agreement between words in --Apposition, what, and from whom received this name --different from same cases put after verbs and participles not trans.; false teachings of MURR. et al. hereon --the rule for, to which apposed term applied; whether words in, should be parsed separately --common rule and definition of, wherein faulty --which word of, the explanatory term; when explan. word placed first --in what case of, either word may be taken as the explan. term, --why two possessive words cannot be in --two or more nouns in, where sign of possession put --whether compat. with, to supply relative and verb between the apposed words --Apposition, appar., of noun without poss. sign, with pron. possess. ("YOUR success as an INSTRUCTER,") --noun or pron. emphat. repeated ("Cisterns, broken CISTERNS," &c.,) --appar., of a noun to a sentence --of words differing in numb. ("Go YE every MAN,") --of proper nouns with appellatives ("The river THAMES,") --act. verb followed by two words in --whether requires any other agreem. than that of cases --words in, punct. of --of a common with a prop. name, use of capital lett.
Archaism, what
Aristotle, division of the Greek letters --what neoterics wiser than; how considers the compounding or non-compounding of terms
Arithmetical numbers, relation of the terms in
ARRANGEMENT of words, term defined --Arrang. of words, of what importance in synt.; whether it affects the method of parsing words
ARTICLES, Etymol. of --Article, defined --Article, common noun without; Eng. nouns without, taken indefinitely partitive --words of mere being, used without --Articles, how often inserted --needless, to be omitted --Classes of, named and defined --Modificat. (an short, to a, the only,) --Articles, the frequent use of; freq. misapplication of --to be distinguished from adjectives, and from each other --appar. used for adverbs --Article, Eng., its demonstrative character --do., compared with the Gr. def. art.; no rule for agreement of, appropriate in Eng. --use of, before names of rivers --Articles, Synt. of --to what RELATE --Article, with the poss. and its governing noun, only one, used --one noun admits of one, only; before an adj., relates to a noun understood --why not repeated, as in Fr., before every noun of a series; why the omission of, cannot constitute a proper ellips. --position of, with respect to its noun; ditto, with respect to an adj. and noun --relative position of, and adj., not a matter of indifference --excluded by certain pronom. adjectives; what ones precede it; its position in respect to an adj. of quality, limited by too, so, as, or how --position of, when an adj. is preceded by another adv. than _too, so, as_, or how --do., when an adj. follows its noun --whether the insertion or the omission of, can greatly affect the import of a sentence --Article, repetition of, with nouns connected --do. with adjectives connected, and, oppos. --added to each of two or more nouns sing., or a plural put ("THE nominative and THE objective CASE," or "THE _nominative and objective_ CASES,") --use of, in special correspondence of phrases --do., in correspondence peculiar --do., in a series of terms --erroneous use of, before the species, for THE; do., when the species is said to be of the genus ("A JAY is a sort of A BIRD,") --not used before names of the virtues, vices, &c., before limited terms, and before nouns of definite signif. --do. before titles or names mentioned merely as such --do. before a part. not taken as a noun --insertion or omission of, with respect to a comparison or an alternation made with two nouns --required in the construc. which converts a part. into a verbal noun --Articles, what the false synt. of, includes --Ellips. of article, shown --Articles, derivation of --frequently omitted by the poets See also Definite Article, and _An, A_
Articulate or elementary sound, nature of
Articulation, as defined by COMST.; do. by BOLLES --Articulation, how differs from pronunciation --the principles of, what they constitute --a good one, what, in the view of COMST.; do., in what consists, according to SHERID.; do. importance of; do., how delivers words
As, as subject or object of a verb, its CLASS --with a clause or sentence as anteced., do. As, as relative, WEBST. absurd explanation of; CHAND. do.; BULL. denial --to what construc. limited --peculiarities with respect to position --declined --derivation of, from Teuton., DR. JOH. --As follow, as follows, &c., construction of; MURR., himself perplexed by TOOKE and CAMPB., delivers dubious instructions concerning --Opinion of NIX. and CROMB. concerning. As, as a conjunc., uniting words in appos. --between adj. or part. and its noun ("Actions AS such") --with ellips. of latter term of comparison ("For such AS HE") --As and than, character and import of --words connected by, generally put in the same case --_As --as; as --so; so_ (preceded by a negative,) --_as; so --as_ (with an infin. following;) correspondents
Asking and exclaiming, simple and appropriate names for the marks of, desirable
Aspirates, see Semivowels
Asterisk, use of. Asterism, do.
Ate, particular words ending in, peculiarities of
Auxiliary, defined --Auxiliary, form of a verb, when preferable to the simp. --verbs, are mostly defective --do., are needful in the conjug. of English verbs --do., inflection of, shown --Auxiliaries used as expletives --Auxiliary, poet. placed after verb
Averse, aversion, whether to be construed with from or to
Avoiding, verbs of, with part. in stead of infin.
Awkwardness, literary, Crit. N. censuring
Ay, I, assentive adv. --Ay, sometimes improp. written for ah
B.
B, its name and plur. number --its sound --in what situations silent
Bacchy, described
BE, how varied --CONJUGATED, affirmat. --Use of the form be for the pres. indic. --Be, ellips. of the infin. often needlessly supposed by ALLEN _et al._ --whether it should be inserted after the verb make --Is, contracted, giving its nom. the same form as that of the poss. case ("A WIT'S a feather," &c., POPE)
Become, &c., whether they demand the auxiliary am or have
Besides, prep., in what cases proper to be used after else or other, in lieu of than
Between, cannot refer to more than two things --Between or betwixt, how differs in use from among or amongst --Between, betwixt, derivation of, from Sax.
Bible, the Holy, application of the name --what is shown by Italics in the text of --quotations in, how indicated --abrupt transitions in --its general accuracy of lang. --in the lang. of, ye and you, in what constructions not found
Bid, as commanding, or as promising, its construction with the infin.
Blair, Dr., unjustly censures Addison's frequent use of that, as a relative
Blank verse, as distinguished from rhyme
Blunders, as readily copied, as originated, by makers of school-books --literary, Crit. N. concerning
Bombast, as opposed to purity, PREC. against Books, mentioned by name, rule for capitals
Both, as conjunc., corresponding to and --as adj. --derivation of, acc. to DR. MURR.
Brace, its purpose
Breve, or stenotone, for what used
Brevity of expression, sought in the ordinary business of life
Brokenness, or hitching, as a fault of style, PREC. censuring
But, save, as well as, construc. of two nouns connected by --But, how has acquired the signif. of only --in ambiguous construc. ("There cannot be BUT one," &c., KAMES) --as used for that, contrary to its import --derivation of, from Sax. --But and save, whether they ever govern the obj. case as prepositions --Cannot but, construc. and signif. of --Not but, to what equivalent, and the class of but
C.
C, name and plur. numb. of --sounds of --where silent --with cedilla placed under (ç) --written for a number --Ch, sounds of --Arch, sound of, before a vowel, and before a conson. --Ck, final, for double c
Cadence, explained --faulty, precept against, by RIPP. --MURR. direction concerning
Cadmus, carried the Phoenician alphabet into Greece
Cæsura, signif. and application of --Cæsural or divisional pause; demi-cæsuras, or minor rests; (see Pauses)
Can, verb, varied --derivation and signif. of --Can not and cannot, with what distinction used --Cannot, with a verb of avoiding, or with BUT --Can, could, would, as principal verbs, by poet. use
Capital letters, capitals, for what used; how marked for the printer, in manuscript --what things are exhibited wholly in, --Rules for the use of, --use of, in comp. prop, names, --needless, --lavish use of, its effect, --discrepancies with respect to, abound in books.
Cardinal numeral, distinguished from its corresponding ordinal, --should follow the ordinal, in a specification of a part of a series, ("The first TWO,").
Caret, in what used, and for what purpose.
Cases, in grammar, what, --named and defined, --nom. and obj., alike in form, how distinguished, --on what founded, and to what parts of speech belong. --(See Nominative Case, &c.) --Cases, whether infinitives, participles, &c., can take the nature of, --what is the proper number of, to be assigned to Eng. nouns, --what authorities for the true doctrine of three, --discordant doctrine of sundry grammarians concerning the numb, of, --WEBST. and MURR. opposite instructions concerning do. --Cases, whether personal pronouns have two, only, --rules for the construc. of, --whether a noun may be in two, at once, --whether Eng. verbs govern two, --whether in Eng., as in Lat., when a verb governs two, the pass. retains the latter case. --Cases, same, (see Same Cases.) --Cases, what kinds of words take different, after them. --Case of noun or pron. after part. governed by prep., whether undetermined; err. of SANB. and BULL. hereon expos.; GREE. false teaching, do., --doubtful, after participles, in what kind of examples found; canon concerning do.
Case, technical term with printers, ("Letters of the lower case.")
Catachresis, how commonly explained, and what sort of fig.
Catalectic, when a measure is said to be.
Cedilla, from whom borrowed, and how applied.
Change, of numb. in the second pers., ineleg., --of the connective of two nominatives appar. requiring a plur. verb, canon concerning. --Changing the scene, or deserting the principal subj., in a sent., PREC. against.
Chaucer's imperfect measures, DRYDEN'S remarks on.
Cherokee alphabet, some account of.
Cherubim and seraphim, Heb. plurals, sometimes mistaken for singulars.
Chief terms, or principal parts, of a verb, necessary to be first ascertained. --Chief words may be distinguished by capitals.
Circumflex, inflection, (see Inflection,) --mark, use of.
Classes under the parts of speech, what meant by.
Classification of words, explanations to assist beginners in making, --DR. WILSON'S observations on.
Clause, see Member.
Climax, defined.
Cognomination, relation of the article, in instances of, ("Alexander the Great").
Collective noun, defined. --Collective nouns, forms of, sing. and plur.; how understood, --gend. of, how determined, --by what relative represented. --Collec. noun, represented by plur. pron., --in what two ways may be taken, and with what accord of pron.; the plur. construc. of, under what fig. of synt. ranked by the old grammarians, --whether with a sing. definitive, admits a plur. verb or pronoun. --Collec. nouns generally admit of plur. form. --Collect. noun, represented by sing. pron. neut., --uniformity of numb. to be preserved in words constructed with, --agreem. of verb with, --how determined whether it conveys the idea of plurality or not, --strictures on the rules of ADAM, LOWTH, et. al., concerning, --NIX. notion of the construc. of verb and. --Coll. nouns, partitive of plur., construc. of, --as expressing collections of persons, or coll. of things, which most often taken plurally, --when not plur. in form, whether it admits of plur. adj. before it.
Colon, from what takes its name, --for what used, --in what year adopted in England, --its utility maintained against some objectors, --Rules for the use of, --used by some between numb. of chap. and that of verse, in quotations from the Bible.
Comma, from what takes its name, --what denotes, --less common in Germ. than in Eng., --its ancient form, --Rules for the use of, --use of, in a series of words.
Commanding, desiring, expecting, &c., verbs of, to what actions or events, refer.
Commandments, the ten, how expressed as to forms of verb, --by what points divided in books, --example of, versified in iamb. hexameter, by DR. WATTS.
Common gender, unnecessary and improper term in Eng. gram.
Common noun, defined, --when admits of no art., --with def. art. sometimes becomes proper, --by personif. often do. --Common nouns include the classes, collective, abstract, and verbal. --Common nouns, their nature and numerical distribution, as distinguished from proper.
Comparative degree, defined. --Compar. degree, why BROWN presents a new definit. of, in place of his former one, --true nature of --whether always required in a comparison of two objects --with what construc. proper in exclusive comparisons, canon of BROWN --Comparatives, certain, not construed with the conjunc. than --double, how to be considered and treated --Comparative terminations, to what adjectives not to be applied --Compar. degree in Gr. and in Lat., construc. of --poet. connected to the positive
Comparison, defined --Comparison, degrees of, named and defined --what adjectives admit not of --CHURCH. on the different, (and BROWN on CHURCH.) --character of BROWN'S definitions of; do. of those of MURR. et al., exhibited --MURR. definitions of, criticised --relative nature of --Comparison, regular --to what adjectives applicable --when preferable to the comparison by adverbs --Comparison, HARR. on the degrees of; the positive a degree --(in oppos. to HARR. et al.) --Comparison of equality, what; sometimes involves solec., ("Nothing SO uncertain AS,") --Comparison of equality and of ineq., canon on --Comparison, adaptation of the terms of, to the deg. to be expressed --belongs chiefly to comm. adjectives --Comparis., irregular --Comparis., whether to be mentioned in parsing adverbs --inclusive, and exclusive --Comparisons, extra, their impropriety --Crit. N. on, See also Comparative Degree, and Superlative Degree.
Comparison or contrast of things, the resemblance or opposition how rendered more striking
Complex prepositions, how may be formed
Composite orders of verse, what uniformity of construc. they require --Composite verse --description of; why requires rhythm --kinds of, unlimited; which preferable --liable to doubtful scansion
Composition, the frequent practice of, necessary, in order to acquire a good style, Composition of language, two kinds of
Compound or progressive form of verb, how made --exemplified in the verb READ, conjugated, what verbs do not admit of; what it implies --verbs of, having a pass. signif.
Compound word, defined, Compounds, permanent, consolidated; temporary, formed by hyphen --Comp. words, not to be needlessly broken --two or more, not to be split --when to be written with hyphen; when without it --Compounding of words, unsettled usage respecting; manner of, in Lat. and Gr.; arbitrary practice of, in Eng., its effect --does not necessarily preclude their separate use --propriety of, sometimes difficult to decide --Compounds, orthog. of --Compounding the words of a reg. phrase, its impropriety --Compound adjectives, see Adjectives, Compound.
Concord, (see Agreement.) --Concords and governments, examples of false ones from the grammarians --in Lat., diversely enumerated by the Lat. grammarians
_Concrete _terms for abstract qualities, poet. use of
Confusion of senses, in use of pron., to be avoided
Conjugation of a verb, defined --what some teachers choose to understand by --Conjugating a verb, four ways of, named --Conjugation of an Eng. verb, what the simplest form of --Conjug. of verbs, shown in five Examples --(See also Compound or Progressive, &c.) --Conjugat. negative, how made, interrogative, do. --interrog. and negative, do.
CONJUNCTIONS, Etymol. of --Conjunction, defined --Conjunctions, how differ from other connectives --nature and office of; R. F. MOTT quot. --nature of the connexions made by --how many in common use --how parsed --as "connecting the same moods, &c.," strictures on the doctrine of MURR. et al., concerning --Conjunctions, classes of, named and defined --(See Copulative Conjunction, Disjunc. Conj., and _Corresp. Conjunc.) --Conjunctions_, List of --appar. used as adverbs --peculiar phrases having the force of --importance of, as copulative or as disjunctive, to be carefully observed --Conjunctions, Synt. of --do., in what consists, (MURR. et al. teaching erron.) --what connect --declinable words connected by, why in the same case --power and position of those that connect sentences or clauses --absurd and contradictory notions concerning the office of, by LENN., BULL., et al. --two or three coming together, how parsed --Conjunction, followed by a phrase, and not a whole member --connecting two terms to one --do. two terms the same in kind or quality --Conjunctions, to be used with due regard to import and idiom --punct. of --ellips. of, shown --derivation of --are mostly of Anglo-Sax. origin --H. TOOKE'S derivations of, given --poet. usage of _or --or_, and _nor --nor_
Conjunctive adverbs, what office perform; what classes of words embrace --often relate equally to two verbs in different clauses --list of --whence, whither, &c., sometimes partake of the nature of pronouns Connected terms, two, limited by a third, what both must be --should be the same in kind or quality. Connected adjectives, how should be placed. Connective words, or connectives, kinds of, named --do., how may be distinguished
Consonants, divisions and subdivisions of --properties of, as sharp, flat, labial, &c.
Construing, whether differs from parsing
Continuance of action, see Compound or Progressive
Contractions, in the orthog. and the pronunciation of words --ocular, in printing poetry, not important
Correlatives, combinations of, ("Father's son,") how to be regarded
Corresponding, or corresponsive conjunctions, in what manner used --named and exemplified in their several pairs --nature of the terms standing in the relat. of --the former of two, how parsed --CHURCH. canon on the use of --Or --or, and nor --nor, by poet. usage Crotchets, or brackets, how used --confused and inaccurate teaching of WEBST. et al., concerning
Cum with an ablative, Lat., ("Dux CUM aliquibus," &c.,) the construc. imitated in Eng. --canon on do.
Curves, or marks of parenthesis --have been in use for centuries --the use of, not to be discarded --confused teaching of WEBST. et al., respecting do. --what used to distinguish --clause enclosed by, how to be uttered; pause of do. --Rules for the application of
Customary actions require to be expressed by indic. pres.
D.
D, name and plur. numb. --sounds of --written for a number
Dactyl, defined
Dactylic verse --stress, on what syll. laid; what rhyme it generally forms --is not very common; seldom pure and regular --shown in its eight measures --has been but little noticed by prosodists and grammarians --misconceived and misrepresented Rev. D. BLAIR
Dare, construc. with infin. foll. --Use of the form DARE for the third pers. sing.
Dash, the mark, explanation of --LOWTH et al. make no mention of --Rules for the application of --Dash, needless, how to be treated --between quotation and name of the author --applied to side-title --used to signify omission
Dates, ordinarily abbreviated; how best written --objectives in, without their prepositions
Dative case, faulty relic, in Eng., of old Sax., ("It ascends ME into," &c., SHAK.)
Days of the week, names of, to be reckoned prop. names, and written with capital
Deaf and dumb --The deaf and dumb, to whom the letters represent no sounds, learn to read and write; what inferred herefrom
Defective verb, what verb so called --which tenses of, wanting --Defective verbs, whether they should be reckoned a distinct class --may, can, must, and shall, not to be referred to the class of --will, beware, &c., construc. and import of explained --Defec. verbs, List of
Definite article, defined --Definite art., its demonstrative character --used before names of rivers --do. by way of eminence --no rule of agreem. for, in Eng. --prefixed as an adv., to comparatives and superlatives --repeated before every term in a series of adjectives used ellipt. as nouns --used for a poss. pron., ("Full in THE face") --position with respect to its noun --required before antecedent to a restricted relative. See also The
Definition, defined --A perfect definition, what --Definitions, needful qualities of certain, in gram. --bad, peculiar vice of --Crit. N. on
Definitives, what, in Eng., and how to be classed --example to show what is meant by --Definitive word required before antecedent to restricted relative
Degrees of comparison, see Comparison
Deity, names of, use of capitals in --in all languages, masc.; direct names of, do.. The sing. numb, universally employed in reference to the Supreme Being
Demonstratives, from the class, pronominal adjectives
Derivation, as a topic of gram., what explains --importance of --a knowledge of what languages will throw light on the subject of Eng.
Desiring, verbs of; see Commanding
Desisting, verbs of; with part., in stead of infin.
Despauter, (Despauterius Joannes,) grammarian, when died --his Lat. Gram. --his remark on the origin of using plur. pron. of second pers. for sing. --gives the rule that the verb governs the nominative before it
Diæresis, or dialysis, mark, place and use of --explained
Diesis, or double dagger, for what purpose used. Dimeter, line, iambic, examples of --trochaic, do. --anapæstic, do. --dactylic, do.
Diphthong, defined --Diphthongs, distinction of --enumeration and specification of the Eng.
Discourse, or narration, its nature and requirements
Disjunctive conjunction, defined --Disjunctives, List of --Disjunctive OR, see Or
Distance, see Time, &c.
Distribution, of words into classes, a matter of some difficulty; explanations concerning, for learners --of verbs in Lat., grammarians have disputed respecting
Distributives, of the class pronominal adjectives --Distributive term sing. in apposit. with a plur.
Division, literary, see Literary Division
Do, verb, how varied: --particular uses of --in what manner may be substituted for an other term
Double comparatives and double superlatives, how may be regarded; canon; (LATH. and CHILD)
Double negatives, see Negation, and Negatives
Doubling of the final consonant before additional syll.; not doubling, before do. --Double letter retained --Doubling, certain letters incline to; others, do not
Doubtful case after a part., in what kind of examples found; the construc. to be avoided
Drink, verb, grammarians greatly at variance respecting the pret. and the perf. part. of
Dual number, found in Gr. and in Arab., what denotes
Duplication, see Doubling
Du Vivier, G., his Grammaire des Grammaires, and his Traité des Participes, a copious treatment of the Fr. participle
E.
E, (as A, O, I, and U,) self-naming: --how spoken and written --its plur. --sounds properly its own --final, mute, and to what belongs; exceptions --effect on preced. vowel, of e mute after a sing. conson., or after st, or th --diphthongs beginning with --triphthongs do.
Each, pronom. adj., always of the third pers. sing.; its agreements. Each other, see Other
Ecphoneme, or note of exclamation --occasional introduction into the classics --diversely called by MURR. et al. --for what used, and of what a sign --Rules for the application of
Ecphonesis, defined
Either and neither, pronom. adjectives, relate to two only --M. HARR. on the illegit. use of --their numb. and pers.; what agreements they require, when they are the leading words in their clauses --derivation of, from the Sax.
_Either --or, neither --nor_, corresponsives: --transposed, with repeated disjunction or negat.
Elegiac stanza, description of
Elementary sound, or elements of speech, defined. See Sounds
Ellipsis, figure defined --either not defined by grammarians in general, or absurdly defined --frequent in comp. sentences --to be supplied in parsing --supposed, may change the construc. without affecting the sense --the principle of, as explaining several questionable but customary expressions, ("Fair and softly GOES far") --MURR. on "THE ellipsis" --Ellipsis supplied, EXAMPLES of --Needless ellipses, the supposition of, to be avoided --Ellipses, faulty, as opposed to perspicuity, PREC. against. Ellipsis, or suppression, mark of, how figured, and what used to denote
Elliptical construction of nouns, ("A horse, a horse," &c., SHAK.)
Elocution, defined
Else, other, &c., with than, in exclusive comparisons --Else or other, sometimes construed with besides --Else, derivation of
Emphasis, defined: --comparative view of accent and --as connected with quantity, MURR. --as affecting accent --what the guide to a right. --Emphatic words, not to be multiplied
Enallage, defined --signif. of the Gr. word --special application of the term --with what other terms synonymous --the most common forms of, in Eng. --examples of, how differ from solecisms --too much latitude was given to the fig. by Despauter, and by others
Enallixis, see Enallage
Ending of a sentence with an adv., a prep., or any inconsid. word or phrase, PREC. concerning
English Grammar, see Grammar
English language, some account of its origin --its character --its simplicity and facility asserted by LOWTH --its chief defect, according to DR. JOH.
Enumeration of numbers, see Addition
Epicene nouns, see Generic Names Epithets, new compound, poets frequently form
Equivalence, the argument of, has often led into errors
Equivocal, or ambiguous construc. of cases, to be avoided --of rel. pron., by misplacement --of prep. with converted part., how amended --of the word but, ("There cannot be BUT one," &c.) --of words, leaving the classification doubtful, Crit. N. concerning --Equiv., or ambig. expressions, as opposed to propriety, PREC. against
Eroteme, its form in Greek --derivation; fitness of the name --diversely called by MURR. et al. --its use --Rules for do. --its value as a sign of pause --retained by a quoted question
Erotesis, explained
Errors, incorrigible, Crit. N. concerning
ETYMOLOGY --Etymol., of what treats --when and how should be taught --figures of, term defined; the principal do., named and defined --Etymology and meaning of words, HARRIS on the usefulness of disquisitions into
Ever, contrac., e'er; so in comp. rel. pronouns --Ever a one, contrac. by the comm. people into e'er a one --Ever and never, opposite to each other in sense, yet freq. confounded and misapplied; canon on the employment of --Ever so, (prop., everso,) signif. of --Ever so wisely, its propriety determined, against the false phraseology never so wisely --Ever, derivation of, from Sax.
Example, as used in teaching, meaning of --Examples, use of capitals in
Exception, noun, and except, verb, whether more properly followed by from or by to
Exclamation, note of, (see Ecphoneme) --Exclamation, nom. absolute by --the case of nouns used in
Exclusive and inclusive terms of a comparison
Exercise, in grammar, what
Expecting, &c., verbs of, see Commanding
Extended compositions, gradation of the parts in
F.
F, its name and plur. numb. --final in monosyllables, to be doubled --formation of the plur. of nouns in, and in ff --its sound
Fable, how may be defined --What the term denotes in the Scriptures
Fall short of, make bold with, &c., how the adjective in such phrases is to be explained in parsing
False identification, (under synt. of SAME CASES,) Note exposing the error of
Falsities in sentences, Crit. N. directed against
Feel, its construc. with the infin.
Few and many, form and construc. of. Fewer, see Little
FIGURES, treated --Figure, in gram., what --Figures, distinctive names of some; frequent occurrence of those of rhetoric --Figure of words, signif. of the term --Figure of words, Rules for --suggestions additional to do. --unsettled and variable usage in that which relates to --Figure of orthog., what; what the principal figures of do. --Figure of etymol., what --Figures of etymol., the principal, named and defined --Figure of synt., what --Figures of synt., the principal, named and defined --Figure of rhet., what --Figures of rhet., why certain are called tropes --on what mostly founded --the principal, named and defined --affect the agreem. of pronouns with their antecedents --Figures, how many BROWN deems it needful to define and illustrate --Figures, definitions of sundry, in the lang. of authors, corrected, KEY. Figures, Arabic, in what cases pointed by some
Final f, l, or s, in spelling; other finals than, in do. --ck or c, use of --ll, to what confined --e of a primitive, when omitted; when retained --y of a prim. word before a terminat., how managed --ise or ize, which termination to be taken --Finals, what letters may assume the position of; what may not, and why
Finite verbs, agreem. of, with subjects, a principle of Univ. Gram. --Rules concerning --Fin. verb understood, punct. of First words, initial capital to --faulty practice of grammarians with respect to
Foot, poetic, see Poetic Feet
Foreign words or idioms, unnecessary use of, in opposition to purity
For, with all, as equivalent to although --For as much as, &c., having the nature of conjunctions --For that --For, with perf. part., ("FOR lost") --with ever --before TO and infin. --as introducing its object before an infin.. For, conj., because, from Sax.; anc. expressed for that
Forever, or for ever, its class
Former and latter, nature and applic. of Forms of letters, in type or character --Forms OF VERBS, a knowledge of THE TRUE, nothing more important in gram. than Forsooth, signif. and use of
Friends, the Society of; their employment, in familiar discourse, of the sing. pron. of the second pers. --generally neglect to compound their numeral names of the months and days --their misemployment of thee for thou --their manner of speaking, different from the solemn style --examples of their manner of forming the verb with the pron. thou; their simplificat. of the verb
From, derivation of, from Sax. --From forth, from out, construc. of, explained --Off from, examp. of the use of
Full, in permanent compounds, how written; in temporary do., do. --compounds in, (spoonful, handful, &c.,) how pluralized
Future, contingency, how best expressed
Future tense, FIRST, how formed, and what expresses --SECOND, do., do., and how varied
Futurity, often denoted by the infin., ("The world TO COME")
G.
G, its name and plur. --its sounds --when silent --Gh, sounds of, and silence
Gardiner, W., his new analysis of the Eng. alphab., noticed
Genders, term defined --Genders, the diff., named and defined --on what founded, and to what belong --Gender, inconsistent views of, as given by many of the grammarians; WELLS and MURR. criticised --confounded with sex by some writers; others otherwise confuse the matter --Common gender, of the old grammarians, the term objectionable with respect to Eng. --Gender, how in many instances determined --figuratively ascribed, how indicated --denoted by he and she prefixed to nouns --denied by MURR. et al. to pronouns of the first and second persons --of pron., the preference of, when joint antecedents are of different genders
General truths and customary actions, to be expressed by the indic. pres.
Generic names, sense and construc. of
"Genitives, double," discovered by our grammarians, the true explanation of all such
Gentile names, nature and construc. of
German language, form of its type --use of the comma less freq. in, than in Eng.
Gerund, Lat., explanation of --what form of an Eng. participle corresponds to --"Gerund in English," how becomes "a substantive," according to DR. ADAM et al., Gerundives, what
Giving, paying, procuring, &c., verbs of, with ellips. of to or for before the objective of the person
GOVERNMENT, of words, defined --to what parts of speech has respect --the rules of, whether to be applied to the governing or the governed words --do., how many in the best Lat. grammars; usual faults in the distribution of these --Governments in Eng. synt. how many --false, examples of, cited from grammarians
Grecism, literal, in Eng., ("Before Abraham was, I AM") comp.
GRAMMAR, defined --An English Grammar, what professes to be --ENGLISH GRAMMAR, what in itself; what knowledge implies --when worthy to be named a science --Grammar, how to be taught, and its principles how made known --the true principles of, in whose possession --a rule of, what --Grammar, how divided; its parts, of what severally treat --what it requires --rightly learned, what ability it confers --what many vain pretenders to, have shown by their works --on questions of, the practice of authors should have more weight than the dogmatism of grammarians. Grammars of different languages, how far must needs differ; strictures on those of PROF. BULL., _A grammar designed for English_, the chief end of. Grammatical doctrine, the truth of, in what consists
Granting, supposing, &c., see Admitting
Grave accent, as opposed to acute --as preserving the vocality of e
Greek alphabet, characters of, shown and named
Guillemets, or quotation points, what words they distinguish --how applied to a quotation within a quotation --not used in our common Bibles; the defect in what measure relieved
H.
H, its name and plur. numb. --its sound --in what words silent --in what positions do. --an used formerly before all words beginning with
Hand, or index, use of
Handwriting, script letters in
Harmonical pauses, see Pauses
Have, verb, how varied --derivation of; with perf. part., import of the tense --Had, with better, rather, &c., before the infin.
He and she, sometimes used as nouns --as prefixed to nouns to denote gend. --whether to be connected by a hyphen to the nouns to which prefixed
Hear, with objective, and an infin. without to --with infin. alone, perhaps ellipt, ("I HAVE HEARD TELL") --Heard, verb, why irregular --its pronunc.
Hebrew letters, some account of; names, characters, and significations of --whether they are, or are not, all consonants, long a subject of dispute --The
Hebrew names for the months, were prop. nouns --Hebrew, what pointing adopted in
Hence, thence, whence, with from prefixed. "I'll HENCE," see Adverbs
Heptameter line, iambic, examples of --trochaic, do --dactylic, do.
Here, there, where, force of, when compounded with prepositions --with verb of motion, perh. allowable for hither, thither, whither. Hereof, thereof, whereof, placed after nouns, what to be called. Herein, therein, &c., their class and nature
Heroic verse, see Pentameter
Heterogeneous terms, in general, two such not to be connected by a conjunc.
Hexameter line, iambic, examples of --trochaic, do --dactylic, do.
Hissing sounds, concurrence of, in forming the poss. case, how avoided
Hold, noun, after lay, take, &c., whether preferably construed with of, on, or upon
Hoping, &c., verbs of, see Commanding
How, after nouns of manner, its nature --not to be used before that, or in stead of it --derivation of, from Anglo-Sax.
Hyperbaton, explained --its frequency in poetry; how should be used --is diff. from synchysis
Hyperbole, defined --Hyperboles, by what commonly expressed
Hypermeter, meaning of, in scansion
Hyphen, its uses --present use in compound names --Rules for the insertion of, in compounds --signif. of the name --Hyphen, abuse of --CHURCH, on the use of, in comp. words --in the figure of an adj., with a change of the synt. and sense --necessary with a verbal noun and an adjunct --do. with comp. participles, converted
Hypobacchy, or antibacchy, defined
I.
I, lett., self-naming; its plur. --its usual sounds --diphthongs beginning with; triphth. do., I, pron. with cap. lett., I, as written for a number. I, adv., see Ay
Iambic verse, treated --Iamb. verse, stress where laid in; effect of a short syll. added to a line of --shown in its eight measures --is seldom pure through a long succession of lines --some of its diversifications shown. See also Dimeter, Trimeter, &c.
Iambus, or iamb, defined
Idea of unity, and of plurality, how formed
Identity of words, the principle of, considered --Identity, proper, RULE for, ("Same Cases.") Identification, false, N. concerning
Idioms or peculiarities of expression, when to be approved or valued
If, the Biblical use of, to express an emphat. negation --its derivation from Sax.
Ignorance, literary, Crit. N. concerning
Imagery, or Vision, explained
Imperative mood, defined --Imperat. mood, why so called; in what manner applied --its one tense, and the import of do --its inflection shown in the verb LOVE, conjugated --what nominatives only it takes --use of, in the Gr. lang.; do., in Lat., Ital., Fr., and Span --may have all the persons and numbers --poet.
Imperfect tense, defined --Imperf. tense, the form, how far applicable to the Eng. tense so called --in its simple form is the preterit --in the pot. and subj. moods, an aorist --of the indic. and the subj., how distinguished --of the sub., to express a mere supposition, with indef. time
Imperfect participle, or first part., defined --its form --The first part., has been variously called --why rightly termed imperfect participle --for what forms of the Lat. gram., stands --is applicable to time pres., past, or fut.; is not always active, even when derived from an act. verb --may be turned to a multiplicity of uses --appar. put absolute, (_Admitting, --Allowing_, &c.) --distinguished, with respect to governm., from a particip. noun --as equivalent to infin. mood; heads of regular equivalence --how compares with the Lat. gerund --its nature and construc.
Impersonal verbs, so called, their peculiarity of use --called monopersonal by some
Impropriety of language, what embraces
In and into, difference between; nature of the relation expressed by each; derivation of, from Sax.
Inclusive and exclusive terms of a comparison
Incorrigible errors, Crit. N. concerning
Indefinite article, see An, A Indefinite pronouns, of the class pronom. adjectives
Independent, see Absolute
Index, or hand, use of
Indicative mood, defined --Indic. mood, why so called; its nature and use --use of its pres. tense --do. of its form of the pluperf. in lieu of the pot. pluperf. --wherein differs characteristically from the subj.; the two moods continually confounded by writers --Indic. mood, format, and inflec. of its tenses shown in the verb LOVE, conjug. --employed to express a conditional circumstance assumed as a fact
Inelegance of language, see Awkwardness.
Infinitive mood, defined --Infin. mood, so called in oppos. to the other moods --usually distinguished by the prep. to before it --its pres., the ROOT, or radical verb; what time it expresses --archaic form in en --its two tenses shown in the verb LOVE, conjug. --Synt. of --Infin. mood, by what governed; (see To:) --true construc. of, explained by the 18th Rule of the Synt. --why simple of solution in Eng.; whether ever governed by a prep, in Fr., Span., or Ital. --whimsical account of, given by NIX. --how expressed in the Anglo-Sax. of the 11th century --why may not, as some grammarians teach, be | considered a noun --DR. WILS. on the charac. and import of --to what other terms may be connected --what in its nature, and for what things chiefly may stand --taken abstractly, as subject of finite verb --Loose infinitives, improp. in precise language --Infin. mood, position of --misplacement of, to be avoided --distinction of voice in, often disregarded, ("You are to BLAME;") hypercrit. teachings of SANB. and BLAIR hereon --Infin., after bid, dare, &c., without TO --whether used with TO after have, help, and find --Infin., BY WHAT governed, often imposs. to say, according to the instructions of MURR. --Infinitives connected, governed by one preposition --Infinitive, ellipsis of, after to, whether to be approved --sometimes doubtful whether transitive or intransitive --in pause, or in remote dependence, punct. of --poet. placing of --Greek construc. of, in poetic use
Inflections, defined --rising and falling, explained; do., as applied to questions --notation of, in writing and printing --the rising more numerous than the falling; predominance of the rising in oral lang.; the falling, for what used, COMST. --what kind of rules for, have been given by writers --the rising and the falling, to be used with prop. discrimination; what should determine the direction of --Inflection, what constitutes the circumflex
Innovation extravagant, into the system of synt. or gram., a particular instance of, noticed
Inscriptions appear best in full capitals
Instead, what reckoned, and how best written
Intending, &c., verbs of, see Commanding.
Intensive nature of comparatives and superlatives, A. MURR.
Interrogative pronouns, defined --what they severally demand --their use and construc. --in what differ from relatives --are always of the third pers. --declined --their place in a sentence --their construc. of cases, to what similar
Interrogative sentences, agreem. of verbs in
INTERJECTIONS, Etymol. of --Interjection, defined --derivation and signif. of the term; LOWTH'S error in describing the interjections --Interjections, numb. of, in common use --List of --Interjections, the frequent use of, an indication of thoughtlessness; expressiveness of some interjections in earnest utterance, &c. --should be discriminatively used --chief characteristics of; referred to the class of adverbs by the Gr. grammarians --significant words uttered as, ("Out! out!") --appar. taken substantively --Synt. of --absolute construc. of --have no construc. with cases, as in Lat. and Gr. --appar., sometimes connected to other words by a prep., or by that --place of --punct. of --ellips. of, shown --derivation of --frequency of, in poet. lang.
Inversion of terms, sometimes of advantage, in respect to strength and vivacity of expression.
Irony, figure explained
Is being, with a perf. part., or the subject of the UNCO-PASSIVE form of verbs, canvassed
Ise or ize, which of these terminations to be taken in forming derivatives under Deriv. of Verbs
Ish, termination, whether it may be accounted a degree of comparison
It. its chief use --declined --to what creatures may be applied --put for the distance, ("How far do you call IT?" &c., PRIESTL.,) --without definite reference to an anteced. --as explet., and referring to something expressed afterwards; faulty omission of, before verb, in such construc. --had formerly no variation of cases --its poss. form ITS, for of it, of recent origin, and not found in the text of the common Bible --wrongly excluded by some from the list of pers. pronouns: --its derivation from Sax., traced
Italic letters, Italics, some account of --for what purpose used --how denoted in preparing manuscripts
J.
J, its name and plur. numb. --why never doubled --why never ends a word in Eng. --impropriety of dividing on the letter, in syllabication --sounds of,
Johnson, Dr. S., his authority in Eng. orthography
Joint nominatives, agreem. of verb with --whether words connected by with can be used as. _Joint antecedents_, agreem. of pron. with --of different persons, agreem. of verb or pron. with, in ellipt. construc.
Jumbling together of the active voice and the passive, the manner of some --Jumbling, senseless, Crit. N. censuring
K.
K, its name and plur. --in general, not needed in words derived from the learned languages --its sounds --when silent --Two Kays standing together
Kind, sort, with these or those improp. preceding
L.
L, its name and plur. numb. --of the class liquids --final, monosyllables ending in --final double, to what words peculiar --its sound; in what words silent --where doubled --written for a number
Labial letters, how articulated
Language, the primitive sense of the term, what embraced; signif. of do., as now used --in opposition to some grammarians, BROWN confines the term to speech and writing --loose explanations of the word by certain slack thinkers; WEBST. notion of --SHERID. idea of; KIRKH. wild and contradictory teachings concerning --Language, PROPRIETY of, in what consists; IMPROPRIETY of, what embraces --PRECISION of, in what consists; Precepts concerning its opposites --Language, Eng., (see English Language) --Languages, uniform SERIES OF GRAMMARS for teaching the Eng., Lat., and Gr., that of DR. BULL., noticed
Lay, pay, and say, how written in the pret. and the perf. part.
Leading principles in the construc. of sentences, in what embraced in the Grammar
Least parts of language, as written, as spoken, &c., what constituents so called
Legal phraseology, in contrast with that of common life
Less, improper use of, for fewer, ("No LESS than three dictionaries," DR. WEBST.)
Lest, use of, for THAT, without due regard to its import, ("I feared LEST," &c.) --derivation of, from Sax.
Let, verb, its construc, with an infin. following
LETTERS, in the Eng. alphabet, numb. of, and numb. of sounds which they represent --a knowledge of, in what consists --infinite variety in, yet the letters always THE SAME --different sorts of types, or styles of, used in Eng. --names of, in Eng.; do., sing, and plur. --Classes of, named and defined --powers of --the JUST POWERS of, (see Power) --Forms of, and their distinctions, in the Eng. lang. --different sorts of, to be kept distinct --slanting strokes of the Roman, described --Italic, chief use of --capital, employment of --small, do. --Letters, history of --the names of, are words of a peculiar kind --the names and powers of, not always identical --general neglect of learning to write the names of, in Eng. --importance of learning to write do. --erron. teaching with respect to certain names of --Letters of the Heb. alphabet given, with their names, and the significations of do. --of the Gr. alphabet, with their names --of the Lat. alphab., their names nearly lost --of do., as now printed --Letters, the twenty-six, possible combinations and mutations of --of the alphab., read by their names, how taken --do., written for numbers, what their nature; omission of period after such letters --DAY'S account of do. --Letters, the SOUNDS of, treated --Letters, the small, period of their adoption --used for references --Letter, definition of --Letter, the sound of, called its POWER; yet its power not necessarily identified with its sound --A letter, in what consists Like, near, nigh, appar., prepositions; why not placed by BROWN with the prep. Lily, W., grammarian, his arrangement of Lat. syntax
Lines, poetic, technical denominations of
Liquids, what letters so called
Literary division of a work, common order of, downwards, and throughout; but all literary works not thus divided. Literary blunders, Crit. N. concerning --awkwardness, do. --ignorance, do. --silliness, do.
Little, lesser, less, different uses and import of --Little, much, &c., preceded by not, too, or other such adv., how taken --Less, improp. used as an adj. of number; does not signify fewer; not to be used in the sense of do. --Less, least, adv., to be parsed separately, in the comparison of adjectives and adverbs
LOVE, verb active-trans., CONJUGATED affirmatively --BE LOVED, pass., do. --LOVE, conjug. negatively --do., interrogatively --do., interrogatively and negatively
Low and provincial expressions, use of, as opp. to purity, PREC. against
Ly, most common terminal of Eng. adverbs; added to nouns to form adjectives
(I,) u; 1055, b; 1053, L: --when adverbs ending in, are preferable to those of other forms.
M.
M, its name and plur. numb., --of the class liquids, --its sounds, --when silent, --as written for a number.
Macron, or macrotone, mark, its use.
Make, verb, whether to should be suppressed, and be, inserted, after, ("MAKE yourself BE heard," BLAIR,) --its construc. with infin. following.
Man and woman, comp. nouns in, (man-servant, woman-servant, &c.,) how pluralized.
Many a, with noun sing. represented by a plur. pronoun.
Marks, or points, used in literary composition, the principal; occasional. See Punctuation.
May, verb, how varied, --derivation and uses of.
Mean, means, use and construc. of.
Measure, &c., see Time. Measure, poetical, see Verse.
Melody or beauty of a sentence, words necessary to, rarely to be omitted.
Member, or clause, defined. --Memb. and clause, generally used as synonymous, are discriminated by some, --Clause and phrase, confounded by some, --Members, simple, of a sent., punct. of, --complex, do., do., --Members of a sentence, arrangem. of, as affecting STRENGTH.
Metaphor, defined, --what commonly understood to be, --agreem. of pron. with antecedent in cases of.
Methinks, explanation of; the lexicographers on the word.
Metonymy, defined, --Meton., on what founded, --agreem. of pron. with its antecedent, in cases of.
Metres, more found in actual use, than those acknowledged in the ordinary schemes of prosody. Metre, see Verse.
Milton, MURR. proposed amendment of the "unintelligible" language of a certain passage of, criticised, --double solec. in a pass, of, noticed, --his poem, L'Allegro, what its versificat.; what the management of the orders of its verse, --do., Il Penseroso, what its extent and construction.
Miss or Misses, Mr. or Messrs., what the proper applicat. of, when name and title are to be used together, in a plur. sense.
Mistaken, to be, irregularity of the verb; its import as applied to persons, and as applied to things.
Mimesis, explained; droll examples of.
Minus, plus, versus, viâ, Lat., use of, in Eng., in partic. constructions.
Mixing of synt. with etymol., the manner of INGERS., KIRKH., et al., censured. Mixture of the forms of style, inelegance of.
Modifications, defined, --sense of the term as employed by BROWN.
Moloss, defined.
Monometer, scarcely constitutes a line, yet is sometimes so placed. --Monometer line, iambic, examples of, --trochaic, do., --anapestic, do., --dactylic, an examp. of.
Monopersonal verbs, see Impersonal Verbs.
Monotone, what, and how produced in elocution.
Months and days, names of, appar. proper names, and require capitals, --how best expressed in literary compositions.
Moods of a verb, term defined, --the five, named and defined, --Mood, or MODE, the name. See Infinitive Mood, Indic. Mood, &c.
More and most, in ambiguous construction, ("Some people MORE than them," MURR.,) --how parsed in comparisons of adjectives and adverbs.
Moses, in what characters, is supposed to have written.
Most, for almost, by vulgarism.
Motion, verbs of, with hither, &c., in stead of here.
Much, little, all, &c., as nouns, --preceded by not, too, or other such adv., --This much, in stead of thus much, DR. BLAIR.
Mulkey, W., strictures on his system of orthoëpy.
Multiplication, subject of the verb in, see Abstract Numbers.
Multiplicative numerals, as running on in a series; how written above decuple or tenfold.
Multitude, noun of, see Collective Noun.
Mute or silent, epithet applied to what letters. --Mutes, what so reckoned; of these, which imperfect. --Where a letter must be once mute.
My and mine, thy and thine, as duplicate forms of the poss. case, use of.
N.
N, its name and plur. numb., --of the class liquids, --its sounds, --in what position silent.
Name and title, see Proper Names.
Naming the letters of the alphab., importance of.
Narration, see Discourse.
Nasals, what consonants so called.
Near and nigh, see Like.
Need, as an uninflected third pers. sing. of the verb, --has perh. become an auxiliary of the pot. mood, --to what tenses must be understood to belong, if to be recognized as an auxil. of the pot. mood, --that good writers sometimes inflect the verb, and sometimes do not, and that they sometimes use to after it, and sometimes do not, how may be accounted for --three authorized forms of expression, with respect to the verb. Needs, as an adv., its composition
Needless, mixing of characters in printing, bad effect of --capitals; effect of --articles, to be omitted --ellipses, the supposition of, a common error among grammarians --use of participles for nouns, or nouns for participles --words, ineleg. --possessive or art. before a part., how corrected --periods, or other points, after certain numeral expressions --abbreviations, offend against taste --dashes inserted, how to be treated
Negation, expressed in the early Eng. by multiplied negatives; such manner of expression now obsolete and improper --Effect on a negation, of two negatives in the same clause
Negatives, the comm. rule of the grammars, that "two negatives, in Eng., destroy each other, or &c.," whether a correct one
Neither, see Either
Neuter verb, defined --Neuter verbs, the active-trans. verbs are so called in most grammars and dictionaries; the absurdity of this --extent of this class of verbs; their existence in any lang. denied by some grammarians --Neut. verb BE, conjugated --Neuter verbs, made from active-transitives, (am come, is gone, &c.;) these called by some, "neuter passives" --of passive form, (am grown, are flown, &c.,) as errors of conjugat., or of synt. --do., how may be distinguished from pass. verbs --do., DR. PRIESTL. mistaken notions concerning their nature and propriety --Neut. verbs, and their participles, take the same case after as before them --Neuter verb between two nominatives, its agreem.
Nevertheless, its composition and class
No or none, pronom. adj. No, as negative adj., "remarkable ambiguity in the use of," noticed by PRIESTL., ("No laws are better than the English;") how the ambiguity may be avoided --as a simple negation, its construc. --as an adv. of deg., relating only to comparatives, ("NO more," --"NO better") --set before a noun, is an adj., corresponding to Lat. nullus --In the phrases, no longer, no more, no where, DR. JOH. appar. suggests wrongly the class; its true class according to its several relations --No, or an other independent negative, repeated, its effect --No, adv., not to be used with reference to a verb or part. --derivation of, from Anglo-Sax.
Nominative case, defined --Nom. case, how distinguished from the objective in nouns --as subj. of a finite verb --different ways of using --Nominative and verb, usual position of, and when varied --Nom. case and object., at the same time, noun placed in the relation of --Nom. following a verb or part, with what must accord in signif. See also Subject, &c.
Nominative sentences, examples of what MURR. erron. so terms; the prop. construc. shown
Nor, see Or.
Not, its place in negative questions --how spoken in grave discourse, and how ordinarily --vulg. contractions of, with certain verbs --used with other negatives --do. with nor (in stead of or) following, whether correctly, or not --derivation of, from Anglo-Sax. Not but, how resolved. _Not only, not merely_, to what are correspondents
Notwithstanding, import and construc. of; misunderstood by DR. WEBST. --formation and signif. of
NOUNS, Etymol. of --Noun, defined --Nouns, Classes of, named and defined --Modifications of, named --Persons of, named and defined; (see Persons) --Numbers of, do.; (see Plural Number) --Genders of, do.; (see Genders) --Cases of, do.; (see Cases) --Declension of --Nouns, number of, in Eng. --the sense of, how made indefinitely partitive --examples of words commonly belonging to other classes, used as --collective, abstract, and verbal or participial, included among common nouns; (see Collective Noun, and Particip. Noun) --proper, (see Proper Names) --Nouns, Synt. of --Noun, why may not be put in the relation of two cases at once --taken figuratively sing. for literally plur. --required to be repeated, or inserted, in stead of a pronoun --ellips. of, shown --Nouns of time, measure, distance, &c., (see Time) --Nouns, derivation of, from nouns, adjectives, verbs, or participles --poet. peculiarities of
Numbers, the distinction of, to what belongs, and how applied. (See Plural Number.) Numbers, cardinal, ordinal, &c., (see Cardinal Numbers, &c.) --Numbers, abstract, expressions of multiplication in, ("Twice one IS two," --"Twice two ARE four," &c.,) seven different opinions of grammarians respecting, examined by BROWN; who determines the prop. forms of expression --Numbers, expressed by letters, how to be considered; whether to be marked by the period --combined arithmetical, one adjective relating to an other
Numerals, numeral adjectives, see Adjectives, Numeral. Numerical figures used for references
O.
O, lett., as A, E, I, and U, self-naming --its plural --formation of the plur. of nouns in --sounds properly its own --where sounded as short u --do. as obscure e --diphthongs beginning with --triphth. do. O, interj., with cap. lett. --what emotion indicates --differs from oh --as denoting earnestness, before nouns or pronouns put absol. by direct address; is no positive index of the vocative --O, &c., MURR., erron. doctrine concerning, to what teaching it has given rise --O, &c., with a case following, Lat. construc. of, examined --O, not unfreq. confounded with oh, even by grammarians.
Obelisk, or dagger, as mark of reference.
Objective case, defined --Obj. case, how distinguished from the nom. in nouns --before the infin. mood, how taken in Eng. --as governed by active-trans. verb or part. --"Active verbs govern the obj. case," MURR., defect of this brief assertion; its uselessness as a RULE for "the syntax of verbs." --Obj. case, of how many constructions susceptible --whether infinitives, participles, &c., can be in --two nouns in, after a verb, how parsed, --Whether any verb in Eng. governs two objectives not coupled --Obj. case as governed by passive verbs, erron. allowed by some --what verbs not to be employed without --Obj. case as governed by prep. --"Prepositions gov. the obj. case," why the brief assertion is exceptionable, as the sole RULE, in parsing prep.
Obsolete or antiquated words, use of, as opposed to purity, PREC. against --Things obsolete in Eng., DR. LATHAM'S attempts to revive.
Ocean, figurative representation of, as uttering his voice in tones of varied quantity.
Octometer line, may be reduced to tetrameter --iambic, examples of --trochaic, do --dactylic, example of --Octometer, trochaic, rhyme and termination of; its pauses, and how may be divided; the most common form of.
Of and on or upon, difference between.
Old English, characters of its alphabet, shown --occasional use of do.
Omissions of words that are needful to the sense, Crit. N. against.
Omitting, verbs of, with part. in stead of infin.
One, employment of, as a noun or as a substitute for a noun; how classed by some grammarians --may be preceded by the articles, or by adjectives --like Fr. on or l'on, used indef. for any person; in this sense preferable to a pers. pron. applied indefinitely --CHURCH., citation ridiculing the too frequent use of, for pers. pron. --as pronom. adj., requires verb and pron. in the third pers. sing. to agree with it. One an other, see Other. One, or a unit, whether it is a number.
Only, derivation of; class and meaning of, in its several different relations --strictures on the instructions of grammarians respecting the classification and placing of --ambiguous use of, (as also of but,) --use of, for but, or except that, not approved of by BROWN --_Not only, not merely --but_, &c., correspondents.
Onomatopoeia described and exemplified (extr. from SWIFT.)
Or, as expressing an alternation of terms, (Lat., sive.) --in Eng., is frequently equivocal; the ambiguity how avoided --Or, perh. contracted from other --Or and nor discriminated --Or, nor, grammarians dispute which of these words should be adopted after an other negative than neither or nor; MURR., following PRIESTL., teaches that either word may be used with equal propriety; BURN'S doctrine; BROWN, after revising CHURCH., attempts to settle the question, --Or ever, ("OR EVER the earth was,") the term explained.
Or or our, terminat., number of Eng. words in; how many of these may be written with our; BROWN'S practice and views in respect to this matter.
Oral spelling, the advantage of, to learners.
Order of things or events, the natural, PREC. directing the observance of, in the use of lang.
Orders of verse, see Verse.
Ordinal numeral, (see Numerals.) --Ordinal adjectives may qualify card. numbers; cannot properly be qualified by do.
Orthoëpy, see Pronunciation.
ORTHOGRAPHY --Orthography, of what treats --difficulties attending it in Eng. --DR. JOHNSON'S improvements in --DR. WEBSTER'S do., in a different direction --ignorance of, with respect to any word used, what betokens in the user (See also Spelling.) Orthography, figures of, MIMESIS and ARCHAISM --its substantive or pronominal character; (with one.) how classed by some; may be preceded by the articles --requires than before the latter term of an exclusive comparison; yet sometimes perhaps better takes the prep. _besides. Each other one an other_, import and just application of, --misapplication of, frequent in books, --DR. WEBST. erron. explanation of other, as "a correlative to each," --One and other, frequently used as terms relative and partitive, appar. demanding a plur. form, --An other, in stead of another. Somehow or other, somewhere or other, how other is to be disposed of.
Ought, principal verb, and not auxiliary, as called by MURR. et al., --originally part of the verb to OWE; now used as defec. verb, --its tense, as limited by the infin. which follows.
Ourself, anomalous form peculiar to the regal style, --peculiar construc. of.
Own, its origin and import; its class and construc., --strangely called a noun by DR. JOH.
P.
P, its name and plur. numb., --its sound, --when silent, --Ph, its sounds.
Pairs, words in, punct. of.
Palatals, what consonants so called.
Parables, in the Scriptures, see Allegory.
Paragoge, explained.
Paragraph mark, for what used.
Paralipsis, or apophasis, explained.
Parallels, as marks of reference.
Parenthesis, signif. and twofold application of the term, --Parenthesis, marks of, (see Curves.) --What clause to be inclosed within the curves as a PARENTHESIS, and what should be its punct., --Parentheses, the introduction of, as affecting unity.
Parsing, defined. --Parsing, its relation to grammar, --what must be considered in, --the distinction between etymological and syntactical, to be maintained, against KIRKH. et al., --character of the forms of etymological adopted by BROWN, --what implied in the right performance of, --whether different from analysis, --what to be supplied in. --Parsing, of a prep., how performed, --of a phrase, implies its separation, --the RULES OF GOVERNM., how to be applied in, --of words, is not varied by mere transposition. --Parsing, etymological and syntactical, in what order to be taken, --the SENSE, why necessary to be observed in; what required of the pupil in syntactical, --syntactical, EXAMPLE of. --Parsing or CORRECTING, which exercise perh. the more useful.
Participial adjectives, see Adjectives, Participial.
Participial or verbal noun, defined, --how distinguished from the participle. --Participial noun and participle, the distinction between, ill preserved by MURR. and his amenders. --Participial noun, distinc. of VOICE in, sometimes disregarded, ("The day of my BURYING,") --with INFIN. following, strictures on MURR., LENN., and BULL., with respect to examples of.
PARTICIPLES, Etymol. of. --Participle, defined. --Participles, whether they ought to be called verbs, --appropriate naming of the kinds of, --often become adjectives, --become adjectives by composition with something not belonging to the verb, --number of, simp. and comp., --imply time, but do not divide it, --retain the essential meaning of their verbs, but differ from them in the formal, --in Eng., from what derived, --H. TOOKE'S view of the time of; with whom BROWN differs. --Participles, Classes of, named and defined, --(See Imperfect Participle and Perfect Part.) --Participles, grammarians differ in their opinion with respect to the time and voice of, --how have been called and treated by some, --explanation of the different, --how distinguished from particip. nouns, --elegantly taken as plur. nouns, ("All his REDEEMED,") --appar. used for adverbs, --some become prepositions. --Participle and ADJUNCTS, as forming "one name," and as such, governing the poss., whence the doctrine; PRIESTL. criticised; MURR. et al. adopt PRIESTL. doctrine, which they badly sustain; teachers of do. disagree among themselves, --governm. of possessives by, how BROWN generally disposes of; how determines with respect to such governm. --Participles, Synt. of, --regular synt. of, twofold; nature of the two constructions; OTHER less regular constructions; which two constructions of all, are legitimate uses of the participle; which constructions are of doubtf. propriety. --Participles, to what RELATE, or in what state GOVERNED. --Participle, as relating to a phrase or sentence, --taken abstractly, --irregularly used in Eng. as substitute for infin. mood, --in irreg. and mixed construc. --Participle, transitive, what case governs, --nom. absol. with, to what equivalent, --each requires its appropriate FORM, --questionable uses of, admitted by MURR. et al.; why BROWN is disposed to condemn these irregularities. --Participle and particip. noun, distinction between, with respect to governm. --Participle in ing, multiplied uses of, lawful and forced, illustrated, --equivalence of do. to infin. mood, instances of, --every mixed construc. of, how regarded by BROWN, --the "double nature" of, CROMB. on; his views, how accord with those of MURR. et al., HILEY'S treatment of; BROWN'S strictures on do. --Participles, place of: --active, governm. of. --Participle, trans., converted to a noun: --converted, when the expression should be changed: --followed by an adj., its conversion into a noun appar. improper: --comp. converted, how managed: --not to be used for infin., or other more appropriate term: --use of, for a nominative after be, is, was, &c., faulty: --following a verb of preventing, how to be managed. --Participles, converted, disposal of their adverbs: --must be construed with a regard to the leading word in sense: --should have a clear reference to their subjects: --needless use of, for nouns, to be avoided: --punct. of: --derivation of: --poet. peculiarities in the use of.
Parts of speech, meaning of the term: --Parts of speech, named and defined: --what explanations may aid learners to distinguish the different: --why needful that learners be early taught to make for themselves the prop. distribution of: --WILS. on the distribution of: --the preferable number with respect to; the office of, specifically stated. --The parts of speech, passage exemplifying all. --Examples of a partic. part of speech accumulated in a sentence. --Etymol. and Synt. of the different parts of speech, see _Article, Noun, Adjective_, &c.
Passions of the mind, by what tones to be expressed.
Passive verb, defined. --Pass. verbs contrasted with active-trans, verbs, in respect to the object or the agent of the action; their compos, and construc.: --their FORM in Eng. --Pass. verb BE LOVED, conjug. affirmatively. --Pass. verbs, how distinguished from neuters of the same form: --having active forms nearly equivalent to them, (_is rejoiced, rejoices_; am resolved, know, &c.,): --erroneously allowed by some to govern the obj. case in Eng.; CROMB. in this category, cited, canon, pseudo-canons. --Pass. verb, what should always take for its subj. or nom.: --takes the same case after as before it, when both words refer to the same thing: --between two nominatives, with which should be made to agree, ("Words ARE wind,"). See Unco-Passive, &c.
Passive form of an active-intrans. verb followed by a prep. and its objective, ("He WAS LAUGHED AT,"). Passive sense of the act. form of the verb, ("The books continue SELLING,").
Past for future, see Prophecy.
Pauses, term defined. --Pauses, kinds of, named and explained: --the distinctive, duration of: --after what manner should be formed: --forced, unintentional, their effect: --emphatic or rhetorical, applicat. and office of: --harmonic, kinds of; these, essential to verse. --Pauses, abrupt, punct.: --emphatic, do.
Pedantic and sense-dimming style of charlatans &c., as offending against purity.
Pentameter line, iambic, examples of: --is the regular Eng. HEROIC; its quality and adaptation: --embraces the elegiac stanza: --trochaic, example of, said by MURR. et al. to be very uncommon; was unknown to DR. JOH. and other old prosodists: --the two examples of. in sundry grammars, whence came; a couplet of these scanned absurdly by HIL.; HART mistakes the metre of do.: --dactylic, example of, ("Salutation to America,").
Perfect, adj., whether admits of comparison; why its comparis. by adverbs not wholly inadmissible.
Perfect definition, what.
Perfect participle, or second part., defined: --its form: --how has been variously called: --its character and name as distinguished from the imperf. part: --why sometimes called the passive part.; why this name liable to objection: --how may be distinguished from the preterit of the same form: --should not be made to govern an objective term. ("The characters MADE USE OF," MURR.,): --not to be used for the pret., nor confounded with the pres.: --what care necessary in the employment of; when to be distinguished from the preterits of their verbs.
Perfect tense, defined. --Perf. tense of indic., as referring to time relatively fut.
Period, or full stop, its pause. --Period, or circuit, nature of. --Period, probably the oldest of the points; how first used: --how used in Hebrew: --what used to mark: --Rules for the use of: --not required when short sentences are rehearsed as examples: --whether to be applied to letters written for numbers: --with other points set after it: --whether proper after Arabic figures used as ordinals. --Period of abbreviation, whether always supersedes other points.
Permanent propositions, to be expressed in the pres. tense.
Permitting, &c., verbs of, see Commanding.
Personal pronoun, defined. --Personal pronouns, simple, numb, and specificat. of: --declension of: --often used in a reciprocal sense, ("Wash YOU," &c.,). --(See also It.) --Personal pronouns, compound, numb. and specificat. of. 298: --explanat. and declension of: --CHURCH. account of: --of the first and second persons, placed before nouns to distinguish their persons.
Personification, defined, --MURR. definition of, blamed, --what constitutes the purest kind of, --change of the gend. of inanimate objects by, --whether it always changes the gender of anteced. term, --agreem. of pronouns with their antecedents in cases of, --Rule for capitals in do., --comp., --Personifications, CHURCH, on the determination of gender in, --Personified objects, names of, put in the second pers., and why, --how pronouns agree with,
Persons, term defined, --Persons, named and defined, --the distinction of, on what founded, --Persons, numbers, &c., character of BROWN'S definitions of, --Persons, in gram., nature of; absurd teachings of some grammar-makers concerning, --distinctions of, in written lang., --Person and number of a verb, what, --Persons, second and third, of a verb, distinctive formations of, --do., in Lat., shown, --Person, nouns of the second, in Eng., in how many ways can be employed, --the third, put with the pron. I, by vulgarism, ("THINKS I _to myself_,") --the first, place of, --Persons, whether the imperat. mood may have three, --connected antecedents of different, agreem. of pron. with, --connected nominatives of different, agreem. of verb with,
Perspicuity, as a quality of style, in what consists, --is essential in composition; BLAIR quoted, --the excellence of, --Precepts aiming at offences against,
Perversions of Eng. grammar, the design, in part, of BROWN'S code of synt, is to make intelligent judges of, --Perversions, literary, Crit. N. concerning,
Phonetics, phonography, phonotopy, BROWN'S estimate of; DR. JOH. cited, --account of, --TRENCH'S views of, --Phonographic system of stenography, its practical value; phonotopy, to what may be advantageously applied,
Phrase, defined, --Phrase made the subject of a verb, how to be taken, --Phrases, distinct, conjunctively connected, agreem. of verb with, --distinct, disjunctively connected, do., --unconnected, do., --BAD phrases, examples of, from authors, --do., corrected, --Phrases or clauses, ellips. of, shown, --Adverbial phrase, (so termed by some,) see Adverb.
Place or position of the different parts of speech, see Article, Noun, Adjective, &c.
Pleonasm, defined, --Pleonasm, when allowable with respect to a pron., --in what instances impressive and elegant; when, the vice of ill writing, --occurs sundry times in the Bible,
Pluperfect tense, defined, --Pluperf. tense, what implies when used conditionally; what, in the negative form of supposition, --how formed in the indic. mood; do. in the potential, --indic. form of, put by enall. for pluperf. of the pot., --PLUPERFECT, signif. of the term; several innovators (as BULL., BUTL., et al.) have been fain to discard it,
Plural number, of nouns, how formed, --of most nouns in Eng., is simple and regular, --of nouns ending in a vowel preceded by a vowel, --of do. in y preceded by a consonant, --of do. in o preceded by a consonant, --construc. of, when several persons of the same name are spoken of ("The Stuarts,") --of prop. names, its formation, --of nouns in i, o, u, or y, preceded by a consonant, --when name and title are to be used together, ("_The Miss Bells_,") --of nouns in f, --of nouns not formed in s or es, --of compounds, --of certain compound terms, ("Ave-Maries," &c.,) --wanting to some nouns, --of nouns of multitude, --Plural, nouns made so by nature or art, --of foreign nouns, 253, --improperly formed by adding apostrophic s, --of mere characters, how denoted,
Plurality, the idea of; see Unity, &c.
Poetic feet, treated, --(See Iambus, Trochee, &c.) --Poetic foot, of what consists, --Poet. feet, number to be recognized in Eng., --principal Eng., named and defined, --kinds of, which form ORDERS OF VERSE, --what combinations of, severally form dimeter, trimeter, &c., --(See Dimeter, Trimeter, &c.) --Poetic collocation of words, in prose, as offending against perspicuity, PREC. respecting, --Poetic diction, treated, --in what abounds, --Poetical Peculiarities,
Poetry, as defined by BLAIR, --character of its style, --aim and end of, --exterior distinction of, --why difficult, by a definition, to be distinguished from prose, --inept directions of some grammatists respecting the parsing of, --Poetry, every line in, should begin with a capital,
Points, or stops, the principal, named, and their forms shown, --the purpose of, --length of pauses denoted by, --often variously used in different editions of the same work, --origin of, See Punctuation.
Points of the compass, adjectives for; modes of varying them,
Possession, relation of, see Property.
Possessive case, defined, --Poss. case, how formed --disputes of the earlier grammarians respecting, --CARD. et al. attempt to revive exploded error concerning, --form of, --origin of, in Eng., --odd notions of some grammarians concerning the regular formation of --exceptions or irregularities in the formation of --Poss. case, PEI. on, criticised --ASH and PRIESTL. on the plur. --use of the two forms of, in pers. pronouns --of the simp. pers. pronouns, grammarians differ with respect to; should not be considered mere adjectives --are pronom. adjectives, according to DR. LOWTH and his followers, --whose doctrine BROWN canvasses, also, WEBSTER'S, WILSON'S, MURRAY'S --Poss. case, its equivalence to of and the objective, not a sameness of case, (in oppos. to Nix.) --of pronouns, not to be written with apostrophe --of nouns in appos., application of the possessive sign to --by what governed --whether the rule for, has true exceptions --appos. of one with an other, ("For DAVID my SERVANT'S sake,") the construc. examined --appar. in abstract construc., ("All MINE are THINE,") --as governed by a part, the construc. examined; COROL. --why the governm. of, should be limited to nouns only --whether before a real part., denotes the possession of something --Possessive sign, omission oL not a true ellips. --always implies a governing word, --how taken by compounds --liable to be added to adjunct of the former noun --whether it can be rightly added to separate adjectives, ("The GUILTY'S prayer,") --which noun of connected possessives takes --Poss. case, place and order of --generally equivalent to prep. of and the objective, --governed by something not expressed, ("St. Paul's,") --Possessives, connected, how to be taken, --Poss. singular, with s omitted, ("For CONSCIENCE' sake") --Poss. case of nouns sing, in ss, false teaching of KIRKH. _et al._, respecting the formation of --MURR. rule for the construc. of, why objectionable, --compounds embracing, lack uniformity in writing, --peculiarity of, with respect to correlatives, ("Father's son,") --Possessive relation between a portion of time and its correlative action, ("THREE YEARS' hard work" or, "Three years OF HARD WORK,") --Poss. case, appropriate form of, to be observed, --plural, with a noun in forced agreem., ("For OUR PARTS,") ib., N. iv: --needless use of, before a participle, ("In THEIR _pronouncing the Greek_,") --Possessive pronouns, my, thy, his, &c., how often should be inserted, or repeated
Potential mood, defined --Potential mood, why so called; by what signs distinguished, --may, like the indic., be used in asking questions; why by some included in the subj. --in what tenses used; nature of the imperf. tense --formation and inflection of its tenses, shown in the verb LOVE, conjugated,
Power of a letter, the powers of the letters, what meant by, when spoken of, --The power of a letter is not its sound, as MURR. et al incorrectly teach --The simple powers of the letters, many irreconcileable doctrines have been advanced thereon; GARDINER'S notions concerning, stated in brief, --RUSH'S explanations of, his pretentious scheme of the alphab. how estimated by BROWN --The just powers of the letters, what, and how are to be learned, --Powers of the letters, variable; how become so; WALK, cited
Praxis, defined; lit. signif. of the word, as from the Gr.
Precision, as a quality of style, in what consists, --Precepts aiming at offences against --conciseness, or brevity, as opposed to
Prefixes, their management in syllabication, R.: --Explanation of --import and character of the particles used as, in Eng.; the roots to which prefixed, not always proper Eng. words --Prefixes, ENG. or ANGLO-SAX., --Prefixes, poet, usage with respect to,
Preperfect participle, defined --Preperf. part., its form --its nature and name,
PREPOSITIONS, Etymol. of --Preposition defined --importance of a right use, and a right explan. of --HARR. explanation of, as cited by LOWTH, stricture on HARR. --its simplicity among the parts of speech; how should be explained in parsing, --no sufficient RULE for the synt. of, in most of the Eng. grammars, Prepositions and their objects, as preceding the words on which they depend, ("Of man's first disobedience, &c., Sing" MILC.,) --Prepositions, what it is, to find the terms of relations of; disput. text cited in illustration --the special adaptation of; example of misuse by MURR., remarked on --HARR., on the purpose for which almost all prepositions were orig. formed, and on the nature of their relations; his views controverted by BROWN, --Prepositions and their governed objects, the true determination of; examples of joint objects, and of joint antecedents, wrong views of MURR. and his followers concerning this matter. --Prepositions, two connected, for what different purposes used --two coming together, ("FROM AMONG the just,") --Prepositions complex, what their character, and how may be resolved; are occasionally compounded by the hyphen --Prepositions, how might be divided into classes; the inutility in parsing of the division into "separable and inseparable;"
HALL'S absurd idea of a divis., noticed --whether "two in immediate succession require a noun to be understood between them," (NUTT.) --words commonly reckoned, (in, on, of, &c.,) used after infinitives or participles, in adverbial construc., ("Houses to eat and drink IN") --Prepositions, List of --grammarians differ considerably in their tables of; do. concerning the characteristics of; what BROWN supposes, in oppos. to the assertion that "Every prep. requires an obj. case after it" --LENN. and BULL. on "prepositions becoming adverbs," criticised --MURR. on "prepositions appearing to be adverbs," criticised --Preposition, whether it can be justly said to take a sent. for its object --Prepositions, words in the list of, sometimes used as other parts of speech --extension of the list of --examples of the less usual, a, and others beginning with a --do. of unusual ones beginning with b, c, or d --unusual, quotations illustrating further the list of --Preposition, RULE of synt. for the word governed by --Prepositions, in Eng., govern no other case than the obj.; most, may take the imperf. part. for their obj. --The brief assertion, that "Prepositions govern the obj. case," wherein is exceptionable as the sole rule for both terms --Prepositions, ellipt. construc. of, with adjectives, (_in vain, in secret_, &c.) --sometimes appar. govern adverbs --Preposition, appar. governing a perf. part., ("To give it up FOR LOST") --Prepositions, Synt. of --do., in what consists --what RELATIONS, show; (see To and For) --the parsing of; why tolerable writers are liable to err most in their use of --Preposition, the true terms of the relat. of, how may be discovered --when beginning or ending a sent. or clause, what the construc. --the terms of relation of, what may be; both usually expressed --position of, with respect to the governed word --Prepositions, several, dependent on one anteced. term, ("_A declaration_ FOR virtue and AGAINST vice," BUTL.) --two coming together between the same terms of relat.; do. in the same construc.; erron. remark of PRIESTL., MURR., et al., concerning the latter --Preposition, the separating of, from its noun, false doctrine of LOWTH, MURR., et al., concerning --Prepositions, prop, choice of --do., with respect to the allowable uses of --as adapted in meaning to two objects, or to more --Preposition, ellips. or omiss. of, where ineleg. --insertion of, when do. --Prep. and its object, position of, in respect to other words --do., punc. of --Prep., ellips. of, shown --Prepositions, derivation of --poet. usage with respect to
Present tense, defined --Pres. tense, described --of the indic., used to express general truths --deceased authors spoken of in, and why --for the past, by Grecism; in animated narrative, for do., by enall. --of the indic. and the subj., when preceded by as soon as, &c., to what time, refers --of the infin., what time is expressed by; expedients used to express fut. time by --of the INFINITIVE, the ROOT, or RADICAL VERB --of the subj., its use, and how considered by some --Pres. tense, sometimes improp. with the conjunc. that, ("_Others said_, THAT it is Elias")
Preter, preterimperfect, &c., disused terms for past, imperfect, &c. --Preter, prefix, its meaning
Preterit, defined --Preterit, described --its form and variations --present tendency to a reg. orthog. of, to be encouraged --groundless rule of some, for forming second pers. of, when the pres. and the pret. are alike --not to be used in forming the comp. tenses of a verb
Preventing, verbs of, with part., in stead of infin. --what construc. is proper for
Primitive word, defined --Primitive words regarded as such in Eng., may generally be traced to ulterior sources
Principal parts, of a verb, (see Chief Terms) --of a sent., how many, and what
Priscian, ancient grammarian, delivers the names of most of the Lat. letters
Progressive form of a verb, see Compound &c.
Pronominal adjectives, see Adjectives, Pronominal
PRONOUNS, Etymol. of --Pronoun, definition of --Pronouns in Eng., number of, and their variations --nature of the representation by; are put substantively, relatively, or adjectively; difference in these three modes of substitution --Classes of, named, and defined; (see _Personal Pronoun, Relative Pron._, and Interrogative Pron.) --Pronouns, compound, constructional peculiarities of --Pronouns, faultiness and discordance of most Eng. grammars, with respect to the classification and treatment of; specification of different modes of distribution by diff. authors --Modifications of, named; these properties how distinguished in the personal pronouns; do. how ascertained in the relat. and interrog. pronouns --Declension of; simp. personals declined; comp. personals do.; comp. relatives do. --appar. used for adverbs --Pronouns, Synt. of --Pronoun, agreem. of, with its anteced. --do., with anteced. indefinite --plur., put by enall. for the sing., agreem. of --sometimes disagreeing with the anteced. in one sense, because taking it in an other --what the main point with respect to; what application of the rule of agreem., in parsing --Pronouns, agreem. of, with their antecedents, as affected by the figures of rhetoric --place of --Pronoun, as representing a phrase or sentence --under what circumstances can agree with either of two antecedents --the parsing of, commonly requiring the application of two rules --with suppressed anteced. --needless introduction of, ("PALLAS, HER glass," BACON) --with change of numb. in the second pers., or promisc. use of ye and you --must present the same idea as the anteced., and never confound the name with the thing signified --employment of the same, with respect to connected relative clauses --in what instances the noun must be repeated, or inserted in stead of --should never be used to represent an adj., ("Be ATTENTIVE; without WHICH," &c.) --change of anteced. to accord with --agreem. with collective nouns --do. with joint antecedents --do. with connected antecedents in apposition --do. with connected antecedents emphat. distinguished --do. with connected antecedents preceded by each, every, or no --do. with connected antecedents of different persons --agreeing with implied nominatives --agreem. with disjunct antecedents --what agreem. with disjunct. antecedents of different persons, numbers, and genders --do. with antecedents taken affirmatively and negatively --do. with two antecedents connected by as well as, &c. --ellips. of, shown --punct. of, without pause --Pronouns, derivation of, from Sax. --poet. peculiarities of
Pronunciation, importance of an early habit of distinct --how best taught to children --Pronunc., as distinguished from elocution, what; how differs from articulation --Pronunc. of the Eng. lang., what knowledge requires; its difficulties; whether we have any system of, worthy to be accounted a STANDARD
Proof-texts, not to be perverted in the quotation, Crit. N. --not quoted, but invented, by some, in their false illustrations of gram.
Proper names begin with capitals --Comm. and proper name associated, how written --Prop. names, derivatives from, do. --(Names of Deity, see Deity.) --Prop. names, application of rule concerning; distinc. between do. and common appellatives --of places, comparative difficulty of writing them --modern compound, sparing use of hyphen in --Prop. names, what their relative importance in lang. --structure and signif. of; how should be written --of plur. form, preceded by def. art. --Prop. name, with def. art., acquires the import of a comm. --Proper, from a comm. noun personified --Prop. names of individuals, strictly used as such, have no plur.; prop. name, how made plur., and how then considered --when they form a plur., how form it --of persons, generally designate their sex --Prop. name, in appos. with an appellative --represented by which, ("Herod --WHICH is," &c.) --Prop. name and title, when taken together in a plur. sense, in what form to be written
Property, the relation of, how may be otherwise expressed than by the poss. case
Prophecy, the past tenses substituted for the fut., in the lang. of
Propositions, permanent, in what tense should be expressed
Propriety, as a quality of style, in what consists --its oppos., impropriety, what embraces --Precepts aiming at offences against
Prose and verse, in the composition of lang., how differ
PROSODY --Prosody, of what subjects treats --etymol. and signif. of the word --Prosody, meagrely and immethodically treated in the works of many grammarians --undetermined usage as to what things belong to; how treated by some of the old prosodists; account of SMETIUS'S treatise of; do. GENUENSIS'S
Prosthesis, explained
Proverbs, their elliptical character
Provincial expressions, use of, as opposed to purity
PUNCTUATION, arranged under the head of Prosody --Punct., what --principal marks of, named and shown; what they severally denote --RULES of: for Comma; for Semicolon; for Colon; for Period; for Dash; for Eroteme; for Ecphoneme; for Curves --description of the other marks of --(See Comma, Semicolon, &c.) --Punct., the present system of, in Eng., common to many languages --why often found diverse, in diff. editions and diff. versions of the same work --duty of writers in respect to, and of publishers in reproducing ancient books --some account of the orig. and prog. of --"improvement" in, which is no improvement --confused and discordant explanations, by some, of certain of the marks of
Purity, as a quality of style, in what consists --Precepts aiming at offences against
Pyrrhic, defined
Q.
Q, its name and plur. numb. --has no sound peculiar to itself; its power --is always followed by u
Quakers, or Friends, their style of address, see Friends
Qualities of style, treated --See Style Quantity, or time in pronunciation, explained --as defined by the lexicographers --its effect in the prolation of sounds --WALKER'S views of, unsatisfac. to BROWN --as regulated by emphasis, MURR. --Quant. of a syll., how commonly explained --by what marks may be indicated --Quantities poetic, how denominated, and how proportioned --What quantity coincides with accent or emphasis --Quantity, on what depends --where variable, and where fixed, in Eng. --Crit. observations on accent and quantity --Quantity, its distinction from accent --Accent and quantity, differing views of authors relative to --Quantity, impropriety of affirming it to be the same as accent --DR. JOH. identification of accent with; such, also, that of others; (not so HARRIS;) NOEHD. rightly defines; so FISK, (in Eschenb. Man. Class. Lit.,) et al. --our grammarians seem not to have understood the distinc. of long and short, e. g., FISHER; so SHERID., WALK., MURR., et al. --CHAND. absurd and confused scheme of, noticed --suggestion of WEBST. on, approved
Questions, can be asked only in the indic. or the pot. mood --direct, to be marked by the eroteme --united, how to be marked --indirect, do. --a series of, how may be united and marked --exclamatory, how to be marked --Question, mentioned in due form, how marked --declaratively put, how uttered and marked --in Spanish, doubly marked, ("¿Quien llama?";) in Greek, how
Quite, with art. and adj., construc. how differs according to position of art.
Quotation, direct, first word of, written with capital --Quotations of proof-texts, &c., should be literally given --dependent, separated from say, &c., by comma --indep., preceded by colon --Quotat. within a quotat., how usually marked
Quoth and quod, signif. and use of, in ludicrous lang. or in the old writers
R.
R, name and plur. numb. --of the class liquids --sound of; do., how can be varied in utterance --what faults to be avoided in do. --DR. JOH. account of; WALK. do.
Radicals, separable and inseparable, what are so called in Eng. derivation
Rath, adv., used only in the compar. deg. --Rather, with the exclusive term of comparis. introduced by than --derivation of
Reading, to read, in gram., what the signif. of --READ, verb, CONJUGATED affirmatively in Comp. Form
Reciprocal terms, reciprocals, what pronom. adjectives may be so termed --Reciprocals, EACH OTHER, ONE AN OTHER, their nature and import --misapplicat. of, frequent in books; WEBST. errs in the signif. and applicat. of other. See also Other
Reciprocal or reflected verbs, constructions in imitation of the French
Recurrence of a word in different senses, a fault opposed to propriety
Redundant verb, defined --Redund. verbs, why made a separate class --treated --List of
Reference, marks of, ASTERISK, OBELISK, &c., shown; in what order are introduced --what other signs of, may be used. Reference, doubtful, Crit. N. concerning
Reformers of the Eng. alphabet and orthog., some account of
Rejoice, resolve, incline, &c., import of, in the pass. form
Relations of things, their infinitude and diversity; the nature of RELATION --Relation of words, what --is diff. from agreem., but may coincide with it --Relation according to the sense, an important principle in Eng. synt.; what rules of relation commonly found in the grammars --Simple relation, what parts of speech have no other syntact. property than; what simp. relations there are in Eng. --Relation, with respect to a prep., anteced. term, what may be; subseq., do. --Relation, do., terms of, to be named in parsing a prep.; how the terms may be ascertained by a learner --terms of, to a prep., may be transposed; are very various; both usually expressed
Relative pronouns, defined --Relative pronouns, and their compounds, named; declined --chief constructional peculiarities of --two faulty special rules given by the grammarians, for construc. of, noticed --construc. of, with respect to CASE --ellips. of, in famil. lang., ("The man I trust;") do., poet. --Relative and prep. governing it, when should not be omitted --Relative pron., place of --clauses, connected, employment of, with same pron. in each --Rel. pronouns, exclude conjunctions --derivat. of, from Sax. --poet, peculiarities with respect to. See also Who, Which, &c.
Repetition, of a noun or pronoun, what construc. it produces --of words, emphatic, punct. --of words, through paucity of lang.; against propriety --of do., as demanded by precision --Repetitions, see Pleonasm
Restrictive and resumptive senses of the rel. pronouns, distinc. between, expl. --Restrictive, relation, most approp. expressed by the pron. THAT --admits not a comma before the relative --adj., admits not a comma before it --part., do.
Rhetoric, figure of, defined --Figures of rhetoric, see Figures
Rhetorical pauses, see Pauses
Rhode Island, the name how acquired; peculiarity of its application
Rhyme, defined --Rhyming syllables, their nature and quality
Rhythm, of verse, defined --Fancifully explained by E. A. POE, (who without intelligence derives the term from [Greek: hurithmos]) --sense and signif. of the word
Roman letters, some account of
Rules, of RELATION, what, commonly found in grammars --of SYNT., those common in grammars ill adapted to their purpose; examples of such --of do., exposition of the faulty charac. of those in Eng. grammars --Rules of grammar, advantage of, in the written language
Rush, Dr. J., his new doctrine of the vowels and consonants, in oppos. to the old, how estimated by BROWN --his doctrine of a duplicity of the vocal elements, perstringed --his strange division of the vowels "into two parts," and conversion of most of them into diphthongs; his enumeration and specification of the alphabetic elements
S.
S, its name and plur. numb. --final, in monosyllables, spell. --of the poss. case, occas. dropping of; the elis. how to be regarded, and when to be allowed --its sounds --in what words silent --Ss, sound of
S or es, verbal termin., DR. LOWTH'S account of
Sans, from Fr., signif., and where read
Sabaoth, see Deity
Same cases, construc. of --do., on what founded --what position of the words, admitted by the construc. --Same case, after what verbs, except those which are pass., taken --Same cases, notice of the faulty rules given by LOWTH, MURR., _et al._, for the construc. of
Sameness of signif., what should be that of the nom. following a verb or part. --Sameness of words, see Identity
Sapphic, verse, described --stanza, composition of; examp. from HOR. --Sapphic verse, difficulty of; Eng. Sapphics few; scansion of; "The Widow," of SOUTHEY, scanned --Eng. Sapphic, DR. WATTS'S ode, (in part.) "The Day of Judgement," "attempted in" --HUMPH. on, cited --Sapphics, burlesque, examples of
Save, saving, as denoting exception, class and construc. of --Save, derivation of
Saxon, alphabet, some account of --lang., its form about the year 450; do. subsequently
Scanning, or scansion, explained --Why, in scanning, the principal feet are to be preferred to the secondary --The poetry of the earliest Eng. poets, not easy of scansion
Script letters, the alphabet exhibited in --the forms of, their adaptation to the pen
Scripture names, many discrepancies in, found in different editions of the Bible. Scriptures, see Bible
Section, mark, uses of
SEE, verb, irreg., act., CONJUGATED affirmatively --takes infin. without prep. TO --its construc. with infin. without to
Seeing and provided, as connectives, their class
Seldom, adv., its comparison; use of, as an adj.
Self, in the format, of the comp. pers. pronouns --CHURCH. explan. of --signif. and use of --as an Eng. prefix --after a noun poss., in poet. diction
Self-contradiction, Crit. N. respecting
Self-naming letters
Semicolon, point --for what purpose used --from what takes its name --when adopted in England --is useful and necessary, though discarded by some late grammarians --Rules for the use of
Semivowel, defined --Semivowels named; nature of w and y; sound of certain, as aspirates
Sense and construc. to be considered, in joining together or writing separately words otherw. liable to be misunderstood --Sense or meaning, necessary to be observed in parsing
Senseless jumbling, Crit. N. concerning
Sentence, defined --Sentence, its parts, principal and subordinate --Sentences, the two kinds of, named and defined --whether a tripartite distribut. of is expedient --Simple sent., false notions amongst grammarians of what constitutes one; the parsing of words not affected thereby --Sentences, simp. and comp., DR. WILS. explanation of --component parts of, what these are --whether all, can be divided into clauses --in what FIVE WAYS, can be analyzed --Sentences, simp., punct.
of, --distinct, do., --allied, do., --short, rehearsed in close succession, how pointed.
Series, of terms, proper use of the articles in, --of words, how to be commaed.
Set and sit, signif. and employment of.
Sex, to what persons ascribed; why a young child may be spoken of without distinc. of, --whether animals may be represented as of no, --inanimate objects fig. represented as having. --Sexes, distinction of, by words, in diff. ways, --denoted by terminat. of words, --designated by proper names.
Shall, verb, how varied, --original signif. of, --explet. use of. --Shall and will, discriminative application of, in the fut. indic.
Sheridan, T., actor and orthoëpist, his literary reputation; the worth of his writings.
Side, noun, peculiarities of usage in regard to.
Silent, or mute, when a letter is said to be.
Silliness, literary, Crit. N. concerning.
Simile, explained.
Since, improp. use of, for ago, --derivation of, from Anglo-Sax.
Sit and set, use and signif. of.
So, as expressing the sense of a preced. word or phrase, --derivation of, from Sax. --_So --as, as --so_, correspondents.
Soever or soe'er, whether a word or only a part of an other word; how explained by WEBST.
Solemn style, as distinguished from the familiar, --should not be displaced from the paradigms in a grammar, --is not adapted to familiar discourse, --pres. and pret. terminations of, what, and how uttered, --examp. of, second pers. sing., negat., throughout the verb LOVE, conjugated.
Some, classed, --vulg. used for somewhat, or in some degree, ("SOME longer," SANB.). Somehow or other, somewhere or other, what the construc. Somewhere, nowhere, anywhere, &c., their class, and how should be written.
Sort, see Kind.
Sound, of a letter, commonly called its power, --elementary, of the voice, defined. --Sounds, simp. or primary, numb. in Eng., --elementary, what meant by; are few in numb.; their combinations may be innumerable. --Vowel sounds, or vocal elements, how produced, and where heard; what those in Eng., and how may be modified in the format. of syllables; do., how may be written, and how uttered. --Consonant sounds, simp., in Eng., how many, and what; by what letters marked; in what words heard. --Sounds, long and short, SIGNS used to denote them. --Sounds, a knowledge of, how acquired, --importance of being early taught to pronounce those of one's native lang. --Passage exemplifying all the letters, and all the SOUNDS, in Eng. --Sounds of the Letters, treated.
Speak, to speak, what is meant by.
Speaker, why often speaks of himself in the third pers., --represents himself and others by we, --in Eng., should mention himself last. --The elegant speaker, by what distinguished.
Species and figure of words, what so called, --unsettled usage of the lang. with regard to what relates to the latter. Species and genus of things, how admits limitation by the article.
SPELLING, defined. --Spelling, how to be acquired, --cause of the difficulty of its acquisition, --Rules for, --usage, as a law of, --uniformity and consistency in, how only can be attained. --The right spelling of a word, what, PHILOLOG. Mus. --Oral spelling, how should be conducted. --Charac. of BROWN'S rules for spelling.
Spondee, defined.
St, unsyllab. suffix, whether, wherever found, is a modem contrac. of the syllable est.
Standards of English orthog., the books proposed as such, abound in errors and inconsistencies. --Whether we have a system of Eng. ORTHOEPY worthy to be accounted a STANDARD.
Stanza, defined. --Stanzas, uniformity of, in the same poem, --varieties of, --Elegiac stanza, described. --Stanzas, lyric, examples of, --"A GOOD NAME," ("two beautiful little stanzas," BROWN).
Star, or asterisk, use of. --Three stars, or asterism,
Stenotone, or breve, for what used.
Stops, in printing or writing, see Points.
Strength, as a quality of style, in what consists, --essentials of, --Precepts aiming at offences against.
Strew, whether, or not, an other mode of spelling strow; whether to be distinguished in utterance from do.; whether reg. or irreg.
STYLE, qualities of, treated. --Style, as connected with synt., what, --differs from mere words and mere grammar; not regulated entirely by rules of construc., --what relation has to the author himself, and what shows, --general characters of, by what epithets designated. --What must be remembered by the learner, in forming his style; a good style how acquired. --Style, solemn, familiar, &c., as used in gram., what meant by. --(See Solemn Style.)
Subaudition, meaning of the term. Subdisjunctive particle, of the Latins, expressed in Eng. by or of alternat.
Subject of a finite verb, what, and how may be known, --must be the NOM. CASE, --what besides a noun or pronoun may be. --Subject phrases, joint, what agreements require. --Subject and predicate, in analysis. See also Nominative Case.
Subjunctive mood, defined. --Subj. mood, why so called; what denotes, --differing views of grammarians in regard to the numb. and form of its tenses. --The true subj. mood rejected by some late grammarians; strictures on WELLS. --WELD'S erroneous teaching respecting the subj., noticed, --CHAND. do., do. --Chief characteristical diff. between the indic. and the subj. mood. --Subj. mood described, --its two tenses do., and their forms shown, in the verb LOVE, conjugated, --whether ever put after a rel. pronoun, --proper limits of, --how properly employed. --False subj. --Subj. mood, not necessarily governed by if, lest, &c.
Such, corresponding to that, with infin. foll., --with rel. as following, in stead of who or which.
Sui generis, what thing is thus designated.
Superlative degree, defined, --BROWN'S definit. of, and of the other degrees, new; the faulty charac. of those of MURR., shown, --the true nature of; how may be used; to what is applicable; the explanations of, by the copyists of MURR., criticised, --whether not applicable to two objects, --when employed, what construc. of the latter term should follow. --Double superlatives, to be avoided. --Superl. termination, contractions of.
Supplied, in parsing, what must be. See also Ellipsis.
Suppression, mark of, see Ellipsis.
Syllabic writing, far inferior to the alphabetic, BLAIR.
Syllabication, Rules of, --the doctrine of, why attended with difficulty, --object of; WALK. on; strictures on MULK. rules of, --which of the four purposes of, is preferable in spelling-books and dictionaries, --DR. LOWTH on, --nature of BROWN'S six Rules of; advantage of a system of, founded on the pronunciat., --LATH. and FOWL. fictitious dilemmas in. --Syllabication, erroneous, samples of, from MURR., WEBST., et al.
SYLLABLES, treated. --Syllable defined. --Syllable, cannot be formed without a vowel, --cannot be broken. --Syllables, numb. of, in a word, --words denominated from their numb. of, --the ear chiefly directs in the division of words into. --(See Syllabication.) --Syllable, its quantity in poetry, --do., on what depends.
Syllepsis, explained, --literal signif. of the term; extended applicat. of do. by the grammarians and rhetoricians; BROWN, by his definition, gives it a more restricted applicat.; disapproves of WEBST. explanat. of the term, --what definition or what applicat. of the term is the most approp., has become doubtful.
Synæresis, explained.
Synchysis, what was so termed by some of the ancients; is different from hyperbaton; its import in gram.; its literal signif.
Syncope, explained.
Synecdoche, (comprehension,) explained. --Synecd., agreem. of pron. with anteced., in cases of.
Synonymous, words so accounted, PREC. concerning the use of.
Syntactical parsing, see Parsing.
SYNTAX. --Synt., of what treats, --the relation of words, the most important principle of; defects of the grammars in treating of do., --false exhibitions of grammarians with respect to the scope and parts of, --character of the rules of, found in most grammars, --divided by some grammarians into concord and governm., and yet treated by them without regard to such division, --common fault of grammarians, noticed, of joining together diff. parts of speech in the same rule of, --do., of making the rules of, double or triple in their form, --whether the principles of etymol. affect those of. --All synt., on what founded. --Why BROWN deemed it needful to add to his code of synt. a GENERAL RULE and CRITICAL NOTES. Figures of syntax.
T.
T, name and plur. numb. of, --substitution of, for ed, how far allowable, --sounds of, --is seldom silent; in what words not sounded. Th, ([Greek: Th], [Greek: alt-th], or [Greek: alt2-th], Gr.,) what represents; how was represented in Anglo-Sax., and to what sounds applied; the two sounds of. To a Tee, the colloq. phrase, explained.
Tautology of expression or of sentiment, a fault opposed to precision.
Teacher, what should be his aim with respect to gram.
Technical terms, unnec. use of, as opposed to propriety. Technically, words and signs taken, how to be construed.
Tenses, term defined. --Tenses, the difierent, named and defined, --whether the names of, are approp., or whether they should be changed, --whether all express time with equal precision, --who reckon only three, and who two; who still differently and variously name their tenses, --Tenses, past and present, occurring together. See Present Tense, Imperf. Tense, &c.
Terminating a sentence with a prep. or other small particle
Terminations, of words, separated in syllabicat. --of verbs, numb. of different, in each tense --of the Eng. verb; DR. A. MURR. account of --tendency of the lang. to lay aside the least agreeable --usage of famil. discourse in respect to those of second pers. sing. --verbal or particip., how are found written in old books --the only reg. ones added to Eng. verbs; utterance of ed and edst --ed, participial, and n, verbal, WALK. on the contrac. of --Termination t, for ed, forced and irreg.
Terms of relation, see Relation. Tetrameter line, iambic, examples of --a favorite with many Eng. writers; BUTL. Hudib., GAY'S Fab., and most of SCOTT'S poems, writt. in couplets of this meas. --admits the doub. rhyme adapted to familiar and burlesque style --trochaic, examples of --character of do. --EVERETT'S fanciful notions about do. --anapestic, examples of --L. HUNT'S "Feast of the Poets," an extended examp. of do. --dactylic, examples of
Than, as, with ellips. in latter term of comparison --character and import of --declinable words connected by, put in same case --Than WHOM, as Gr. genitive governed by comparat., MILT. --what grammarians have inferred from the phrase --MURR. expedient to dispose of do. --CHURCH. makes the rel. in do. "the obj. case absol.," --BROWN determines with respect to the construc. --Than, as demanded after else, other, &c., and Eng. comparatives --derivation of, from Goth. or Anglo-Sax.
That, its class determined --its various uses --as REL. PRONOUN, to what applied --as used in anomalous construc., --its peculiarity of construc. as a relative --its especial use as the restrictive relative --the frequent employment of, by Addison, wrongly criticised by BLAIR --as a relative, in what cases more appropriate than who or which --That, ellipt., repeating the import of the preceding words, ("And THAT," --[Greek: kai tauta],) --That, in the phrases in that, &c., how to be reckoned --That, as introducing a dependent clause, how to be ranked --as introducing a sent. made the subj. or obj. of a finite verb --its power at the head of a sent. or clause --its derivation
The, before the species, what may denote --how commonly limits the sense --applied to nouns of either numb. --before what adjectives, required --distinctive use of ("The Psalmist") --as relating to comparatives and superlatives --used for poss. pron. --repetition of, how avoided --derivation of, from Sax. --pronunc. of e in. See also Definite Article.
Them, in vulg. use as an adj., for those
Thence, &c., with from prefixed, whether allowable
There, introductory and idiomatic, notions of grammarians concerning; its posit. and use; is a regular adv. of place, and not "without signification," --derivation of, from Anglo-Sax. --poet. omission of
They, put indefinitely for men or people
This and that, as explained by CHURCH. --placed before conjoint singulars, ("THIS POWER AND WILL do," &c.,) --in contrasted terms
Three stars, or asterism, use of
Time, the order and fitness of, to be observed in constructions expressing it --nouns of, with adv. WHEN, as a special relative, following Time, measure, or weight, part made possessive of the whole, ("An HOUR'S time") --noun of, not poss., immediately before an other, ("A POUND WEIGHT,") Time, place, &c., the obj. case in expressions of, taken after the fashion of an adv. Time, measure, distance, or value, nouns of, their peculiarity of construc.; the parsing of Time, obj. noun of, qualifying a subsequent adj., ("A child OF ten years OLD,") Four times, five times, &c., how to be reckoned. TIMES, before an other noun, by way of MULTIPLICATION, the nature and construc. of, discussed; decision. Times, in what construc. may be called the objective of repetition, or of time repeated. Time in pronunciation, or quantity
Titles, of books, are printed in capitals --of office, &c., begin with do. --merely mentioned as such, are without art. --Name and TITLE, (see Proper Names.) Side-titles, use of dash in application to
Tmesis, explained
To, as governing infin. mood --do., variously explained by grammarians --is a sign of inf., but not a part of it --what BROWN claims for his RULE respecting the _infin. as gov. by the prep._ TO, &c.; he shows that the doctrine originated not with himself --TO and the verb, what FISHER (anno 1800) taught respecting; what, LOWTH, and what, absurdly, MURR., his copyist --To, as governing infin., traced from the Sax. to the Eng. of WICKL., --To, before infin., evasive teachings of the later grammarians concerning its class and construc. --do., how considered by most Eng. grammarians --do., how proved to be a prep. --do., preceded by for, anc. --after what verbs, omitted, --whether to be repeated before infinitives in the same construe. --sometimes required, and sometimes excluded, after than or as --whether it may be separated from its verb by an adv.; is placed more elegantly AFTER an adv., ("PROPERLY TO respect,") --in what cases has no prop, antec. term of relat. --To suppressed and be inserted after MAKE, whether correctly --To, prep, or adv., from Anglo-Sax. --To, as prefix to noun, (to-day, to-night, to-morrow,).
Tones of the voice, what; why deserving of j particular attention --what denominated by SHERID.; what should be their character --BLAIR'S remark on; HIL. do. --Tones of the passions, WALK, observation on.
Topics, different, to be treated in separate paragraphs, PREC. of Unity.
Transposition, of the terms of relat., when a preposition begins or ends a sentence or clause --rhetorical, of words, or hyperbaton.
Tribrach, defined.
Trimeter line, iambic, the measure seldom used alone; examples of, --and do., with diversifications --trochaic, examples of --anapestic, examples of --alternated with the tetram., examp., "The Rose," of COWP.; the same scanned --dactylic, examples of. Triphthong, defined --proper, do., the only, in Eng. --improp., do.; and the improp. triphthongs named.
Trochaic verse, treated --Troch. verse, the stress in --nature of the single-rhymed; error of MURR. et al. concerning the last syll. in --how may be changed to coincide with other measures; how is affected by retrenchment --confounded with iambic by several gramm. and prosodists --Strictures on CHURCH., who doubts the existence of the troch. ord. of verse --Troch. verse shown in its eight measures --Trochaics, Eng., the TETRAMETER the most common meas. of --DR. CAMPB. on --"Trochaic of One foot," account of.
Trochee, or choree, defined.
Tropes, what figures of rhetoric are so called; signif. of the term.
Trow, its signif., and where occurs; in what person and tenses read.
Truisms and senseless remarks, how to be dealt with in gram.
Tutoyant, to what extent prevalent among the French. See Youyouing, &c.
Type or character, two forms of the letters in every kind of.
U.
U, lett., which (as A, E, I, or O) names itself --its plur. numb. --sounds properly its own --as self-naming, to what equivalent; requires art. a, and not an, before it --pronounced with borrowed sound --long or diphthongal sound, as yu; sound of slender o or oo, after r or rh.
Unamendable imperfections sometimes found in ancient writings, remarks in relation to.
Unauthorized words, use of, as opposed to purity, PREC. concerning.
Unbecoming, adj., from participle compounded, error of using transitively words of this form; such error how corrected.
Uncertain, the part of speech left, see Equivocal, &c.
Unco-passive voice, or form, of the verb, ("Is being built,") the use of. conflicts with the older and better usage of the lang. --the subject of, discussed by BROWN --the true principle with respect to, stated.
Underlining words, in preparing manuscripts, to denote Italics &c.
Understood, words said, in technical phrase, to be, what such, (Lat., subaudita)
Ungrammatical language by which grammar itself is professedly taught, sample from MURR.; from PINNEO; et al. e diversis, Gram. of E. Gram., passim.
Unity, as a quality of style, in what consists --required by every sentence --Precepts aiming at offences against. Unity, THE IDEA OF, how generally determined, in respect to a collect. noun, whether it conveys such idea or not.
Usage, as a law of orthography for particular words --Usage, as it has been, and as it is, the advantage of an exhibition of, by the grammarian.
Useless words, employment of, as opposed to precision.
UTTERANCE, treated --Utterance, what, and what includes.
V.
V, name and plur. of: --written for a number: --sound of,
Value, &c., nouns of, see Time.
Verbal or participial noun, (see Participial, &c.) --Verbal forms used substantively, by poet pecul.
VERBS, Etymol. of; --Verb, defined: --why so called: --a perf. definition of, why difficult to form; --CHIEF TERMS, or PRINCIP. PARTS, of an Eng. verb, named and defined. --Verbs. Classes of, with respect to their FORM, named and defined: --do., with respect to their signif., do. --(See Active-Transitive Verb, &c.) Verbs, whole numb, of, in Eng.; the regular, far the most numerous; account of the others --how divided with respect to signif. in most grammars and dictionaries; BROWN'S division --divided by certain grammarians into act., pass., and neut. --MURR, on the distribution of --NIX. on do. --Verbs, in Lat., grammarians of old differed respecting the distribut. of --different methods of distribut. of, by several other authors, noticed --Verbs, most act., may be used either as trans. or as intrans. --some may be used either in an act. or a neut. sense --act. form of, used in a pass. sense; so also PART. in ing, ("_The books continue_ SELLING") --Verbs, Modifications of, named --Moods of, named and defined; (see Infinitive Mood, Indic. Mood, &c.) --Tenses of, named and defined; (see Present Tense, Imperf. Tense, &c.) --Persons and numbers of, what --Conjugations of --how principally conjugated --(See Conjugation) --Verbs, Irreg., List of --simp. irreg., numb. of; whence derived --Redundant, List of --Defective, do. --Verbs irreg. and redund., of what character all former lists of, have been --Verbs, of asking and teaching, construc. of --whether any, in Eng., can govern two cases --suppressed in exclamat. &c. --Verbs, Synt. of --Verbs requiring a regimen, should not be used without an object --Verb, AGREEM. of, with its subject --do., inferred --do., by sylleps., in plur., title of a book --do., in imperat. mood --Verb of the third pers. sing. with a plur. noun of the neut. gend., the use of, a strange custom of the Greeks; such use not existent in Eng. --Verb, AGREEM. of, with infin. phrase or sentence as subject --do., with infin. subject limited, ("FOR MEN TO SEARCH _their own glory_, IS," &c.) --do., with a nom. in interrog. sentences --do., with a rel., according to the true anteced. of the pron.; (examp. of error from DR. BLAIR) --do., with a nom. limited by adjuncts --do., with composite or converted subjects --do., with each, every, one, &c., as leading words --do., by change of nominative --Verb, the form of, to be adapted to the style --when requires a separate nom. expressed --Verb, AGREEM. of, with a nom. noun collective --do., with joint nominatives --do., with two connected nominatives in appos. --do., with two conn. nominatives emphatically distinguished --do., with two conn. nominatives preceded by each, every, or no --do., with nearest of connected nominatives, and understood to the rest; whether the usage is proper in Eng. --do., with connected nominatives of different persons --do., with connected subjects, one taken affirmat. and the other negat. --do., with two subjects connected by as well as, but, or save --do., with connected subjects preceded by each, every, or no --do., in ellipt. construc. of joint nominatives --do., with distinct subject phrases connected by and --do., with disjunct. nominatives --do., with disagreeing nominatives connected disjunctively --do., when connected nominatives require different forms of the verb --do., with distinct phrases disjunct, connected --Verbs, connected by and, or, or nor, how must agree --discordant, how managed with respect to agreem. --Verb, mixture of the diff. styles of, ineleg. --diff. moods of, not to be used under the same circumstances --when two connected terms require diff. forms of, what insertion is necessary --Verbs of commanding, desiring, expecting, &c., to what actions or events refer --of desisting, omitting, &c., with a part. following, rather than an infin. --of preventing, what should be made to govern --Verb, finite, punc. of --ellips. of, shown --derivation of, from nouns, adjectives, and verbs --poet. peculiarities in the use of
Verbosity, as affecting strength
Verse, in oppos. to prose, what --Blank verse, as distinguished from rhyme --Verse, general sense of the term; its derivation and literal signif.; the visible form of verse --Verse, as defined by JOH., WALK., et al.; do. by WEBST. --Verse, Eng., the difficulty of treating the subject of, and from what this arises --A verse, or line of poetry, of what consists --Verse, or poetic measure, the kinds, or orders of, named; (see Iambic Verse, Trochaic Verse, &c.) --Verse, the proper reading of
VERSIFICATION, treated --Versification, defined --Versification, POE'S (E. A.) notions concerning; his censure of BROWN'S former definition of; his rejection of the idea of versif. from the principle of rhythm; his unfortunate derivat. of rhythm from [Greek: hurithmos,] and vain attempts to explain the term: the farrago summarily disposed of by BROWN --EVERETT'S "System of Eng. Versification," account of, and strictures on
Vision, or imagery, explained
Vocative case of Lat. and Gr. gram., not known in Eng.
Voice, ACTIVE, and PASSIVE, whether necessary terms in Eng. gram.
Vowel, defined --Vowels named --W and Y, when vowels; comp. --Vowel sounds, or vocal elements, the different, how produced --what are those in Eng. --how each may be variously expressed by letters; notation of --Vowels, two coming together, where may be parted in syllabication.
W.
W, its name and plur. numb. --simpler term than Double-u perhaps desirable; DR. WEBST. on the lett. --W, when a vowel --with vowel foll., sound of --before h, how pronounced --in Eng. never used alone as a vowel --no diphthongs or triphth. in Eng., beginning with.
Wages, noun, plur. by formation; its construe, with a verb.
Walker, J., estimate of his Critical Pronouncing Dictionary --in his lexicography how far followed DR. JOH.
Was, contrary to usage preferred by some to were, in the imperf. sing, of the subj.
We, plur., as representing the speaker and others; how sometimes used in stead of the sing.; sometimes preferred by monarchs to I.
Webster, Dr. N., describes language as comprehending the voice of brutes --never named the Eng. letters rightly --his orthography as a standard; do. compared with that of DR. JOH. --the result to himself of his various attempts to reform our orthog.; the value of his definitions.
Weight, measure, &c., see Time.
Wert, as used in lieu of wast --its mood not easy to determine; authorities for a various use of.
What, its class and nature --to what usually applied; its twofold relat. explained --its numb.; example of solec. in the use of --as a mere adj., or as a pron. indef. --its use both as an adj. and as a relative at the same time; do. for who or which, ludic. and vulg. --declined --how to be disposed of in etymolog. parsing; how to be parsed syntactically --how becomes an interj. --used appar. for an adv.; uttered exclamatorily before an adj., to be taken as an adj., ("WHAT PARTIAL judges are our," &c.,) --followed by that, by way of pleonasm, ("WHAT _I tell you in darkness_, THAT," &c.,) --with but preceding, ("To find a friend, BUT WHAT" &c.,) --vulg. use of, for that --derivation of, from Sax., shown.
Whatever or whatsoever, its peculiarities of construe., the same as those of what; its use in simp, relation --its construc. as a double relative; whether it may be supposed ellipt. --its declension.
When, where, or while, in what instance not fit to follow the verb is --When, where, whither, as partaking of the nature of a pron.; construc, of do., with antecedent nouns of time, &c., how far allowable --derivation of, from Anglo-Sax.
Whether, as an interrog. pron.; as a disjunc. conjunc. --conjunc. corresponsive to or --as do., its derivation from Sax.
Which, relative --its former use; to what objects now confined --its use after a personal term taken by meton. for a thing; do., as still applicable to persons --is of all the genders, (in oppos. to MURR., WEBST., et. al.,) --is less approp. than who, in all personifications --its construc. when taken in its discrim. sense, --how differs from the rel. that --BLAIR'S incorrect remarks respecting --Which, as rel. or interrog., declined --Which, sometimes takes whose for its poss., --represents a prop. name taken merely as a name, ("Herod --WHICH is but," &c.,) --do. nouns of mult, expressing persons, when such are strictly of the neut. gend., ("The COMMITTEES WHICH" &c.,) --in what cases is less approp. than that --does not fitly represent an indicative assertion, ('"Be ATTENTIVE, without WHICH," &c.,) --its Sax. derivation shown --The which, obsol., --Which, interrog., what demands, --to what objects applied --now used for the obsol. whether.
Whichever, whichsoever, signif. and construc. of --declension of.
Who, relative --to what usually applied --has superseded which, formerly applied to persons, ("Our Father WHO art" &c.,) --to be preferred to which, in all personifications --how differs from the rel. that --Who, as rel. or interrog., declined, --Whose, use of, for the defec. poss., of which --Than whom, (see Than.) --Who, interrog., what demands --may be the anteced. of the rel. that --Who, derivation of, from Sax.
Whoever, and whoso or whosoever, signif. and construc. of --declens. of --Whoso and whatso, antiq., import and use of,
Whole, improp. use of, for all. ("Almost the WHOLE inhabitants," HUME.,).
Why, after nouns of cause, (see When, &c.) --Why, wherefore, therefore, their class.
Will, verb, how varied --use of, as a principal verb.
Wis, verb, pret. wist, signif. and use of --Had I wist,
With, for and, (see Cum:) --added to adv. of direc., with emphat. imperat. ("Up WITH it"). Withal its class and construc. Without, obsol. use of, for unless or except. Withouten, paragog. and poet. form. Withinside of Won't, whence formed; its pronunc.
Worcester, Dr. J. E., his Universal and Critical Dictionary WORDS, treated. --Word, defined. --Words distinguished, and the divisions of, defined. --(See Compound Word.) --Words, Rules for the figure of; --simp., when compounding is to be avoided --when to be joined, or to be written separately --Words, the nature of, explained --the consid. of, as comm., and as prop., --brevity sought in the comm. use of --the identity of, in what consists --unsettled and variable usage with respect to the figure of --Words that may constitute diff. parts of speech, their construc. not to be left doubtf. --the reference of, to other words, do. --senselessly jumbled, charac. of --entirely needless, how to be disposed of --unintelligently misapplied, what indicates, --Words, PUNCT. of: in pairs; alternated; put absol.; in appos.; repeated --Words, derivation of, treated --most of those regarded as primitives in Eng., may be traced to ulterior sources --the study of, its importance --how the knowledge of, may be promoted with respect to Eng. --Words, the use of, as affecting Purity --do., as affect. Propriety --do., as affect. Precision --do., as affect. Perspicuity --do., as affect. Strength
Worshiper, whether properly written with a single or a double p
Worth, its class and construc.
Worthy, admits not ellips. of prep, of before obj. following
Writing, to write, what meant by
X.
X, its name and plur. num. --format. of the plur. of nouns in --why never doubled --written for a number --its sounds
Y.
Y, its name and plur. numb.; --borrowed first by the Romans from the Greeks, by whom called Ypsilon --in Eng. is either a vowel or a conson. --classed with the semivowels --final, changed or unchanged before terminations --do., when, by former practice, retained in verbs ending in y, before conson. terminations --sounds of --in poet. format. of adjectives
Ye, nom. plur., solemn style --its use as the obj. case --as a mere explet. in burlesque --its use in the lang. of tragedy --used for thee --in the Eng. Bible not found in the obj. case --Ye and you, promisc. use of, in the same case and the same style, ineleg.
Yes, yea, in a simp. affirmation, construc. and class of --derivation of, from Anglo-Sax.
You, use of, for thou --You, with was, ("YOU WAS BUILDING,") approved by DR. WEBST. et al., as the better form for the sing. numb. --You, and VERB PLUR., in reference to one person, how to be treated in parsing. Your, facet. in conversation, and how uttered ("Dwells, like YOUR miser, sir," &c., SHAK.,) Yourself, its pecul. of construc.
Your Majesty, your Highness, &c., see Address.
Youyouing and theethouing, history of
Z.
Z, its name and plur. --has been called by several names; WALK., on the name --peculiarity of its ordinary form --its sounds described
Zeugma, (i.e., JUGATIO, vel CONNEXIO, Sanct.,) the various forms of, were named and noticed, but not censured, by the ancient grammarians --constructions of adjectives, referred to the figure, ("ONE or a FEW judges,"); do. of verbs, ("But HE NOR I FEEL more," YOUNG,)
THE END OF THE INDEX,
AND OF THE GRAMMAR OF ENGLISH GRAMMARS.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Ben Jonson's notion of grammar, and of its parts, was as follows: "Grammar is the art of true and well-speaking a language: the writing is but an accident.
The Parts of Grammar are
Etymology \ which is / the true notation of words, Syntaxe / \ the right ordering of them.
A word is a part of speech or note, whereby a thing is known or called; and consisteth of one or more letters. A letter is an indivisible part of a syllable, whose prosody, or right sounding, is perceived by the power; the orthography, or right writing, by the form. Prosody, and Orthography, are not parts of grammar, but diffused, like blood and spirits, through the whole."--Jonson's Grammar, Book I.
[2] Horne Tooke eagerly seized upon a part of this absurdity, to prove that Dr. Lowth, from whom Murray derived the idea, was utterly unprepared for what he undertook in the character of a grammarian: "Dr. Lowth, when he undertook to write his Introduction, with the best intention in the world, most assuredly sinned against his better judgment. For he begins most judiciously, thus--'Universal grammar explains the principles which are common to all languages. The grammar of any particular language, applies those common principles to that particular language.' And yet, with this clear truth before his eyes, he boldly proceeds to give a particular grammar; without being himself possessed of one single principle of universal grammar."--Diversions of Purley, Vol. 1, p. 224. If Dr. Lowth discredited his better judgement in attempting to write an English grammar, perhaps Murray, and his weaker copyists, have little honoured theirs, in supposing they were adequate to such a work. But I do not admit, that either Lowth or Murray "begins most judiciously," in speaking of Universal and Particular grammar in the manner above cited. The authors who have started with this fundamental blunder, are strangely numerous. It is found in some of the most dissimilar systems that can be named. Even Oliver B. Peirce, who has a much lower opinion of Murray's ability in grammar than Tooke had of Lowth's, adopts this false notion with all implicitness, though he decks it in language more objectionable, and scorns to acknowledge whence he got it. See his Gram., p. 16. De Suey, in his Principles of General Grammar, says, "All rules of Syntax relate to two things, Agreement and Government."--Foxdick's Tr., p. 108. And again: "None of these rules properly belong to General Grammar, as each language follows, in regard to the rules of Agreement and Government, a course peculiar to itself."--Ibid., p. 109." "It is with Construction [i.e., Arrangement] as with Syntax. It follows no general rule common to all languages."--Ibid. According to these positions, which I do not admit to be strictly true, General or Universal Grammar has no principles of Syntax at all, whatever else it may have which Particular Grammar can assume and apply.
[3] This verb "do" is wrong, because "to be contemned" is passive.
[4] "A very good judge has left us his opinion and determination in this matter; that he 'would take for his rule in speaking, not what might happen to be the faulty caprice of the multitude, but the consent and agreement of learned men.'"--Creighton's Dict., p. 21. The "good judge" here spoken of, is Quintilian; whose words on the point are these: "Necessarium est judicium, constituendumque imprimis, id ipsum quid sit, quod consuetudinem vocemus. * * * In loquendo, non, si quid vitiose multis insederit, pro regula sermonis, amplendum est. * * * Ergo consuetudinem sermonis, vocabo consensum eruditorum sicut vivendi, consenum honorum."--De Inst. Orat., Lib. i. Cap. 6, p. 57.
[5] "The opinion of plenty is amongst the causes of want; and the great quantity of books maketh a show rather of superfluity than lack; which surcharge, nevertheless, is not to be removed by making no more books, but by making more good books, which, as the serpent of Moses, might devour the serpents of the enchanters."--Bacon. In point of style, his lordship is here deficient; and he has also mixed and marred the figure which he uses. But the idea is a good one.
[6] Not, "Oldham, in Hampshire," as the Universal Biographical Dictionary has it; for Oldham is in Lancashire, and the name of Lily's birthplace has sometimes been spelled "Odiam."
[7] There are other Latin grammars now in use in England; but what one is most popular, or whether any regard is still paid to the ancient edict or not, I cannot say. Dr. Adam, in his preface, dated 1793, speaking of Lily, says: "His Grammar was appointed, by an act which is still in force, to be taught in the established schools of England." I have somehow gained the impression, that the act is now totally disregarded.--G. Brown.
[8] For this there is an obvious reason, or apology, in what his biographer states, as "the humble origin of his Grammar;" and it is such a reason as will go to confirm what I allege. This famous compilation was produced at the request of two or three young teachers, who had charge of a small female school in the neighbourhood of the author's residence: and nothing could have been more unexpected to their friend and instructor, than that he, in consequence of this service, should become known the world over, as Murray the Grammarian. "In preparing the work, and consenting to the publicaton, he had no expectation that it would be read, except by the school for which it was designed, and two or three other schools conducted by persons who were also his friends."--Life of L Murray, p. 250.
[9] Grammatici namque auctoritas per se nulla est; quom ex sola doctissimorum oraturum, historicorum, poetarum, et aliorum ideonorum scriptorum observatione, constet ortam esse veram grammaticam. Multa dicenda forent, si grammatistarum ineptias refellere vellem: sed nulla est gloria præterire asellos."--DESPAUTERII Præf. Art. Versif., fol. iii, 1517.
[10] The Latin word for participle is participium, which makes participio in the dative or the ablative case; but the Latin word for partake is participo, and not "participio."--G. BROWN.
[11] This sentence is manifestly bad English: either the singular verb "appears" should be made plural, or the plural noun "investigations" should be made singular.--G. BROWN.
[12] "What! a book have no merit, and yet be called for at the rate of sixty thousand copies a year! What a slander is this upon the public taste! What an insult to the understanding and discrimination of the good people of these United States! According to this reasoning, all the inhabitants of our land must be fools, except one man, and that man is GOOLD BROWN!"--KIRKHAM, in the Knickerbocker, Oct. 1837, p. 361.
Well may the honest critic expect to be called a slanderer of "the public taste," and an insulter of the nation's "understanding," if both the merit of this vaunted book and the wisdom of its purchasers are to be measured and proved by the author's profits, or the publisher's account of sales! But, possibly, between the intrinsic merit and the market value of some books there may be a difference. Lord Byron, it is said, received from Murray his bookseller, nearly ten dollars a line for the Fourth Canto of Childe Harold, or about as much for every two lines as Milton obtained for the whole of Paradise Lost. Is this the true ratio of the merit of these authors, or of the wisdom of the different ages in which they lived?
[13] Kirkham's real opinion of Murray cannot be known from this passage only. How able is that writer who is chargeable with the greatest want of taste and discernment? "In regard to the application of the final pause in reading blank verse, nothing can betray a greater want of rhetorical taste and philosophical acumen, than the directions of Mr. Murray."--Kirkham's Elocution, p. 145. Kirkham is indeed no judge either of the merits, or of the demerits, of Murray's writings; nor is it probable that this criticism originated with himself. But, since it appears in his name, let him have the credit of it, and of representing the compiler whom he calls "that able writer" and "that eminent philologist," as an untasteful dunce, and a teacher of nonsense: "To say that, unless we 'make every line sensible to the ear,' we mar the melody, and suppress the numbers of the poet, is all nonsense."--Ibid. See Murray's Grammar, on "Poetical Pauses;" 8vo, p. 260; 12mo, 210.
[14] "Now, in these instances, I should be fair game, were it not for the trifling difference, that I happen to present the doctrines and notions of other writers, and NOT my own, as stated by my learned censor."--KIRKHAM, in the Knickerbocker, Oct. 1837, p. 360. If the instructions above cited are not his own, there is not, within the lids of either book, a penny's worth that is. His fruitful copy-rights are void in law: the "learned censor's" pledge shall guaranty this issue.--G. B. 1838.
[15] I am sorry to observe that the gentleman, Phrenologist, as he professes to be, has so little reverence in his crown. He could not read the foregoing suggestion without scoffing at it. Biblical truth is not powerless, though the scornful may refuse its correction.--G. B. 1838.
[16] Every schoolboy is familiar with the following lines, and rightly understands the words "evil" and "good" to be nouns, and not adjectives.
"The evil that men do, lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones."--SHAKSPEARE.
Julius Cæsar, Act 3: Antony's Funeral Oration over Cæsar's Body.
Kirkham has vehemently censured me for omitting the brackets in which he encloses the words that be supposes to be understood in this couplet. But he forgets two important circumstances: First, that I was quoting, not the bard, but the grammatist; Second, that a writer uses brackets, to distinguish his own amendments of what he quotes, and not those of an other man. Hence the marks which he has used, would have been improper for me. Their insertion does not make his reading of the passage good English, and, consequently, does not avert the point of my criticism.
The foregoing Review of Kirkham's Grammar, was published as an extract from my manuscript, by the editors of the Knickerbocker, in their number for June, 1837. Four months afterwards, with friendships changed, they gave, him the "justice" of appearing in their pages, in a long and virulent article against me and my works, representing me, "with emphatic force," as "a knave, a liar, and a pedant." The enmity of that effusion I forgave; because I bore him no personal ill-will, and was not selfish enough to quarrel for my own sake. Its imbecility clearly proved, that in this critique there is nothing with which he could justly find fault. Perceiving that no point of this argument could be broken, he changed the ground, and satisfied himself with despising, upbraiding, and vilifying the writer. Of what use this was, others may judge.
This extraordinary grammarian survived the publication of my criticism about ten years, and, it is charitably hoped, died happily; while I have had, for a period somewhat longer, all the benefits which his earnest "castigation" was fit to confer. It is not perceived, that what was written before these events, should now be altered or suppressed by reason of them. With his pretended "defence," I shall now concern myself no further than simply to deny one remarkable assertion contained in it; which is this--that I, Goold Brown, "at the funeral of Aaron Ely," in 1830, "praised, and highly praised, this self-same Grammar, and declared it to be 'A GOOD WORK!'"--KIRKHAM, in the Knickerbocker, Oct., 1837, p. 362. I treated him always courteously, and, on this solemn occasion, walked with him without disputing on grammar; but, if this statement of his has any reasonable foundation, I know not what it is.--G. B. in 1850.
[17] See Notes to Pope's Dunciad, Book II, verse 140.
[18] A modern namesake of the Doctor's, the Rev. David Blair, has the following conception of the utility of these speculations: "To enable children to comprehend the abstract idea that all the words in a language consist but of nine kinds, it will be found useful to explain how savage tribes WHO having no language, would first invent one, beginning with interjections and nouns, and proceeding from one part of speech to another, as their introduction might successively be called for by necessity or luxury."--Blair's Pract. Gram., Pref., p. vii.
[19] "Interjections, I shewed, or passionate exclamations, were the first elements of speech. Men laboured to communicate their feelings to one another, by those expressive cries and gestures which nature taught them."--Dr. Hugh Blair's Lectures, p. 57.
[20] "It is certain that the verb was invented before the noun, in all the languages of which a tolerable account has been procured, either in ancient or modern times."--Dr. Alex. Murray's History of European Languages, Vol. I, p. 326.
[21] The Greek of this passage, together with a translation not very different from the foregoing, is given as a marginal note, in Harris's Hermes, Book III, Chap. 3d.
[22] The Bible does not say positively that there was no diversity of languages before the flood; but, since the life-time of Adam extended fifty-six years into that of Lamech, the father of Noah, and two hundred and forty-three into that of Methuselah, the father of Lamech, with both of whom Noah was contemporary nearly six hundred years, it is scarcely possible that there should have occurred any such diversity, either in Noah's day or before, except from some extraordinary cause. Lord Bacon regarded the multiplication of languages at Babel as a general evil, which had had no parallel but in the curse pronounced after Adam's transgression. When "the language of all the earth" was "confounded," Noah was yet alive, and he is computed to have lived 162 years afterwards; but whether in his day, or at how early a period, "grammar" was thought of, as a remedy for this evil, does not appear. Bacon says, "Concerning speech and words, the consideration of them hath produced the science of grammar. For man still striveth to redintegrate himself in those benedictions, of which, by his fault, he hath been deprived; and as he hath striven against the first general curse by the invention of all other arts, so hath he striven to come forth from the second general curse, which was the confusion of tongues, by the art of grammar; whereof the use in a mother tongue is small, in a foreign tongue more, but most in such foreign tongues as have ceased to be vulgar tongues, and are turned only to learned tongues."--See English Journal of Education, Vol. viii, p. 444.
[23] It should be, "to all living creatures;" for each creature had, probably, but one name.--G. Brown.
[24] Some recent German authors of note suppose language to have sprung up among men of itself, like spontaneous combustion in oiled cotton; and seem to think, that people of strong feelings and acute minds must necessarily or naturally utter their conceptions by words--and even by words both spoken and written. Frederick Von Schlegel, admitting "the spontaneous origin of language generally," and referring speech to its "original source--a deep feeling, and a clear discriminating intelligence," adds: "The oldest system of writing developed itself at the same time, and in the same manner, as the spoken language; not wearing at first the symbolic form, which it subsequently assumed in compliance with the necessities of a less civilized people, but composed of certain signs, which, in accordance with the simplest elements of language, actually conveyed the sentiments of the race of men then existing."--Millington's Translation of Schlegel's Æsthetic Works, p. 455.
[25] "Modern Europe owes a principal share of its enlightened and moral state to the restoration of learning: the advantages which have accrued to history, religion, the philosophy of the mind, and the progress of society; the benefits which have resulted from the models of Greek and Roman taste--in short, all that a knowledge of the progress and attainments of man in past ages can bestow on the present, has reached it through the medium of philology."--Dr. Murray's History of European Languages, Vol. II, p. 335.
[26] "The idea of God is a development from within, and a matter of faith, not an induction from without, and a matter of proof. When Christianity has developed its correlative principles within us, then we find evidences of its truth everywhere; nature is full of them: but we cannot find them before, simply because we have no eye to find them with."--H. N. HUDSON: Democratic Review, May, 1845.
[27] So far as mind, soul, or spirit, is a subject of natural science, (under whatever name,) it may of course be known naturally. To say to what extent theology may be considered a natural science, or how much knowledge of any kind may have been opened to men otherwise than by words, is not now in point. Dr. Campbell says, "Under the general term [physiology] I also comprehend natural theology and psychology, which, in my opinion, have been most unnaturally disjoined by philosophers. Spirit, which here comprises only the Supreme Being and the human soul, is surely as much included under the notion of natural object as a body is, and is knowable to the philosopher purely in the same way, by observation and experience."--Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 66. It is quite unnecessary for the teacher of languages to lead his pupils into any speculations on this subject. It is equally foreign to the history of grammar and to the philosophy of rhetoric.
[28] "Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore, if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh, a barbarian; and he that speaketh, shall be a barbarian unto me."--1 Cor., xiv. 9, 10, 11. "It is impossible that our knowledge of words should outstrip our knowledge of things. It may, and often doth, come short of it. Words may be remembered as sounds, but [they] cannot be understood as signs, whilst we remain unacquainted with the things signified."--Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 160. "Words can excite only ideas already acquired, and if no previous ideas have been formed, they are mere unmeaning sounds."--Spurzheim on Education, p. 200.
[29] Sheridan the elecutionist makes this distinction: "All that passes in the mind of man, may be reduced to two classes, which I call ideas and emotions. By ideas, I mean all thoughts which rise, and pass in succession in the mind. By emotions, all exertions of the mind in arranging, combining, and separating its ideas; as well as the effects produced on all the mind itself by those ideas; from the more violent agitation of the passions, to the calmer feelings produced by the operation of the intellect and the fancy. In short, thought is the object of the one; internal feeling, of the other. That which serves to express the former, I call the language of ideas; and the latter, the language of emotions. Words are the signs of the one: tones, of the other. Without the use of these two sorts of language, it is impossible to communicate through the ear, all that passes in the mind of man."--Sheridan's Art of Reading; Blair's Lectures, p. 333.
[30] "Language is the great instrument, by which all the faculties of the mind are brought forward, moulded, polished, and exerted."--Sheridan's Elocution, p. xiv.
[31] It should be, "These are."--G. B.
[32] It should be, "They fitly represent."--G. B.
[33] This is badly expressed; for, according to his own deduction, each part has but one sign. It should be, "We express the several parts by as many several signs."--G. Brown.
[34] It would be better English to say, "the instruments and the signs."--G. Brown.
[35] "Good speakers do not pronounce above three syllables in a second of time; and generally only two and a half, taking in the necessary pauses."--Steele's Melody of Speech.
[36] The same idea is also conveyed in the following sentence from Dr. Campbell: "Whatever regards the analysis of the operations of the mind, which is quicker than lightning in all her energies, must in a great measure be abstruse and dark."--Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 289. Yet this philosopher has given it as his opinion, "that we really think by signs as well as speak by them."--Ib., p. 284. To reconcile these two positions with each other, we must suppose that thinking by signs, or words, is a process infinitely more rapid than speech.
[37] That generalization or abstraction which gives to similar things a common name, is certainly no laborious exercise of intellect; nor does any mind find difficulty in applying such a name to an individual by means of the article. The general sense and the particular are alike easy to the understanding, and I know not whether it is worth while to inquire which is first in order. Dr. Alexander Murray says, "It must be attentively remembered, that all terms run from a general to a particular sense. The work of abstraction, the ascent from individual feelings to classes of these, was finished before terms were invented. Man was silent till he had formed some ideas to communicate; and association of his perceptions soon led him to think and reason in ordinary matters."--Hist. of European Languages, Vol. I, p. 94. And, in a note upon this passage, he adds: "This is to be understood of primitive or radical terms. By the assertion that man was silent till he had formed ideas to communicate, is not meant, that any of our species were originally destitute of the natural expressions of feeling or thought. All that it implies, is, that man had been subjected, during an uncertain period of time, to the impressions made on his senses by the material world, before he began to express the natural varieties of these by articulated sounds. * * * * * * Though the abstraction which formed such classes, might be greatly aided or supported by the signs; yet it were absurd to suppose that the sign was invented, till the sense demanded it."--Ib., p. 399.
[38] Dr. Alexander Murray too, In accounting for the frequent abbreviation of words, seems to suggest the possibility of giving them the celerity of thought: "Contraction is a change which results from a propensity to make the signs as rapid as the thoughts which they express. Harsh combinations soon suffer contraction. Very long words preserve only the principal, that is, the accented part. If a nation accents its words on the last syllable, the preceding ones will often be short, and liable to contraction. If it follow a contrary practice, the terminations are apt to decay."--History of European Languages, Vol. I, p. 172.
[39] "We cannot form a distinct idea of any moral or intellectual quality, unless we find some trace of it in ourselves."--Beattie's Moral Science, Part Second, Natural Theology, Chap. II, No. 424.
[40] "Aristotle tells us that the world is a copy or transcript of those ideas which are in the mind of the first Being, and that those ideas which are in the mind of man, are a transcript of the world. To this we may add, that words are the transcripts of those ideas which are in the mind of man, and that writing or printing are [is] the transcript of words."--Addison, Spect., No. 166.
[41] Bolingbroke on Retirement and Study, Letters on History, p. 364.
[42] See this passage in "The Economy of Human Life," p. 105--a work feigned to be a compend of Chinese maxims, but now generally understood to have been written or compiled by Robert Dodsley, an eminent and ingenious bookseller in London.
[43] "Those philosophers whose ideas of being and knowledge are derived from body and sensation, have a short method to explain the nature of Truth.--It is a factitious thing, made by every man for himself; which comes and goes, just as it is remembered and forgot; which in the order of things makes its appearance the last of all, being not only subsequent to sensible objects, but even to our sensations of them! According to this hypothesis, there are many truths, which have been, and are no longer; others, that will be, and have not been yet; and multitudes, that possibly may never exist at all. But there are other reasoners, who must surely have had very different notions; those, I mean, who represent Truth not as the last, but as the first of beings; who call it immutable, eternal, omnipresent; attributes that all indicate something more than human."--Harris's Hermes, p. 403.
[44] Of the best method of teaching grammar, I shall discourse in an other chapter. That methods radically different must lend to different results, is no more than every intelligent person will suppose. The formation of just methods of instruction, or true systems of science, is work for those minds which are capable of the most accurate and comprehensive views of the things to be taught. He that is capable of "originating and producing" truth, or true "ideas," if any but the Divine Being is so, has surely no need to be trained into such truth by any factitious scheme of education. In all that he thus originates, he is himself a Novum Organon of knowledge, and capable of teaching others, especially those officious men who would help him with their second-hand authorship, and their paltry catechisms of common-places. I allude here to the fundamental principle of what in some books is called "The Productive System of Instruction," and to those schemes of grammar which are professedly founded on it. We are told that, "The leading principle of this system, is that which its name indicates--that the child should be regarded not as a mere recipient of the ideas of others, but as an agent capable of collecting, and originating, and producing most of the ideas which are necessary for its education, when presented with the objects or the facts from which they may be derived."--Smith's New Gram., Pref., p. 5: Amer. Journal of Education, New Series, Vol. I, No. 6, Art. 1. It ought to be enough for any teacher, or for any writer, if he finds his readers or his pupils ready recipients of the ideas which he aims to convey. What more they know, they can never owe to him, unless they learn it from him against his will; and what they happen to lack, of understanding or believing him, may very possibly be more his fault than theirs.
[45] Lindley Murray, anonymously copying somebody, I know not whom, says: "Words derive their meaning from the consent and practice of those who use them. There is no necessary connexion between words and ideas. The association between the sign and the thing signified, is purely arbitrary."--Octavo Gram., Vol. i, p. 139. The second assertion here made, is very far from being literally true. However arbitrary may be the use or application of words, their connexion with ideas is so necessary, that they cannot be words without it. Signification, as I shall hereafter prove, is a part of the very essence of a word, the most important element of its nature. And Murray himself says, "The understanding and language have a strict connexion."--Ib., Vol. i, p. 356. In this, he changes without amendment the words of Blair: "Logic and rhetoric have here, as in many other cases, a strict connexion."--Blair's Rhet., p. 120.
[46] "The language which is, at present, spoken throughout Great Britain, is neither the ancient primitive speech of the island, nor derived from it; but is altogether of foreign origin. The language of the first inhabitants of our island, beyond doubt, was the Celtic, or Gælic, common to them with Gaul; from which country, it appears, by many circumstances, that Great Britain was peopled. This Celtic tongue, which is said to be very expressive and copious, and is, probably, one of the most ancient languages in the world, obtained once in most of the western regions of Europe. It was the language of Gaul, of Great Britain, of Ireland, and very probably, of Spain also; till, in the course of those revolutions which by means of the conquests, first, of the Romans, and afterwards, of the northern nations, changed the government, speech, and, in a manner, the whole face of Europe, this tongue was gradually obliterated; and now subsists only in the mountains of Wales, in the Highlands of Scotland, and among the wild Irish. For the Irish, the Welsh, and the Erse, are no other than different dialects of the same tongue, the ancient Celtic."--Blair's Rhetoric, Lect. IX, p. 85.
[47] With some writers, the Celtic language is the Welsh; as may be seen by the following extract: "By this he requires an Impossibility, since much the greater Part of Mankind can by no means spare 10 or 11 Years of their Lives in learning those dead Languages, to arrive at a perfect Knowledge of their own. But by this Gentleman's way of Arguing, we ought not only to be Masters of Latin and Greek, but of Spanish, Italian, High- Dutch, Low-Dutch, French, the Old Saxon, Welsh, Runic, Gothic, and Islandic; since much the greater number of Words of common and general Use are derived from those Tongues. Nay, by the same way of Reasoning we may prove, that the Romans and Greeks did not understand their own Tongues, because they were not acquainted with the Welsh, or ancient Celtic, there being above 620 radical Greek Words derived from the Celtic, and of the Latin a much greater Number."--Preface to Brightland's Grammar, p. 5.
[48] The author of this specimen, through a solemn and sublime poem in ten books, generally simplified the preterit verb of the second person singular, by omitting the termination st or est, whenever his measure did not require the additional syllable. But his tuneless editors have, in many instances, taken the rude liberty both to spoil his versification, and to publish under his name what he did not write. They have given him bad prosody, or unutterable harshness of phraseology, for the sake of what they conceived to be grammar. So Kirkham, in copying the foregoing passage, alters it as he will; and alters it differently, when he happens to write some part of it twice: as,
"That morning, thou, that slumberedst not before, Nor slept, great Ocean! laidst thy waves at rest, And hushed thy mighty minstrelsy."--Kirkham's Elocution, p. 203.
Again:
"That morning, thou, that slumberedst not before, Nor sleptst, great Ocean, laidst thy waves at rest, And hush'dst thy mighty minstrelsy."--Kirkham's Elocution, p. 44.
[49] Camenes, the Muses, whom Horace called Camænæ. The former is an English plural from the latter, or from the Latin word camena, a muse or song. These lines are copied from Dr. Johnson's History of the English Language; their orthography is, in some respects, too modern for the age to which they are assigned.
[50] The Saxon characters being known nowadays to but very few readers, I have thought proper to substitute for them, in the latter specimens of this chapter, the Roman; and, as the old use of colons and periods for the smallest pauses, is liable to mislead a common observer, the punctuation too has here been modernized.
[51] Essay on Language, by William S. Cardell, New York, 1825, p. 2. This writer was a great admirer of Horne Tooke, from whom he borrowed many of his notions of grammar, but not this extravagance. Speaking of the words right and just, the latter says, "They are applicable only to man; to whom alone language belongs, and of whose sensations only words are the representatives."--Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 9.
[52] CARDELL: Both Grammars, p. 4.
[53] "Quoties dicimus, toties de nobis judicatur."--Cicero. "As often as we speak, so often are we judged."
[54] "Nor had he far to seek for the source of our impropriety in the use of words, when he should reflect that the study of our own language, has never been made a part of the education of our youth. Consequently, the use of words is got wholly by chance, according to the company that we keep, or the books that we read." SHERIDAN'S ELOCUTION, Introd., p. viii, dated "July 10, 1762," 2d Amer. Ed.
[55] "To Write and Speak correctly, gives a Grace, and gains a favourable Attention to what one has to say: And since 'tis English, that an English Gentleman will have constant use of, that is the Language he should chiefly Cultivate, and wherein most care should be taken to polish and perfect his Stile. To speak or write better Latin than English, may make a Man be talk'd of, but he would find it more to his purpose to Express himself well in his own Tongue, that he uses every moment, than to have the vain Commendation of others for a very insignificant quality. This I find universally neglected, and no care taken any where to improve Young Men in their own Language, that they may thoroughly understand and be Masters of it. If any one among us have a facility or purity more than ordinary in his Mother Tongue, it is owing to Chance, or his Genius, or any thing, rather than to his Education or any care of his Teacher. To Mind what English his Pupil speaks or writes is below the Dignity of one bred up amongst Greek and Latin, though he have but little of them himself. These are the learned Languages fit only for learned Men to meddle with and teach: English is the Language of the illiterate Vulgar."--Locke, on Education, p. 339; Fourth Ed., London, 1699.
[56] A late author, in apologizing for his choice in publishing a grammar without forms of praxis, (that is, without any provision for a stated application of its principles by the learner,) describes the whole business of Parsing as a "dry and uninteresting recapitulation of the disposal of a few parts of speech, and their often times told positions and influence;" urges "the unimportance of parsing, generally;" and represents it to be only "a finical and ostentatious parade of practical pedantry."--Wright's Philosophical Gram., pp. 224 and 226. It would be no great mistake to imagine, that this gentleman's system of grammar, applied in any way to practice, could not fail to come under this unflattering description; but, to entertain this notion of parsing in general, is as great an error, as that which some writers have adopted on the other hand, of making this exercise their sole process of inculcation, and supposing it may profitably supersede both the usual arrangement of the principles of grammar and the practice of explaining them by definitions. It is asserted in Parkhurst's "English Grammar for Beginners, on the Inductive Method of Instruction," that, "to teach the child a definition at the outset, is beginning at the wrong end;" that, "with respect to all that goes under the name of etymology in grammar, it is learned chiefly by practice in parsing, and scarcely at all by the aid of definitions."-- Preface, pp. 5 and 6.
[57] Hesitation in speech may arise from very different causes. If we do not consider this, our efforts to remove it may make it worse. In most instances, however, it may be overcome by proper treatment, "Stammering," says a late author, "is occasioned by an over-effort to articulate; for when the mind of the speaker is so occupied with his subject as not to allow him to reflect upon his defect, he will talk without difficulty. All stammerers can sing, owing to the continuous sound, and the slight manner in which the consonants are touched in singing; so a drunken man can run, though he cannot walk or stand still."--Gardiner's Music of Nature, p. 30.
"To think rightly, is of knowledge; to speak fluently, is of nature; To read with profit, is of care; but to write aptly, is of practice." Book of Thoughts, p. 140.
[58] "There is nothing more becoming [to] a Gentleman, or more useful in all the occurrences of life, than to be able, on any occasion, to speak well, and to the purpose."--Locke, on Education, §171. "But yet, I think I may ask my reader, whether he doth not know a great many, who live upon their estates, and so, with the name, should have the qualities of Gentlemen, who cannot so much as tell a story as they should; much less speak clearly and persuasively in any business. This I think not to be so much their fault, as the fault of their education.--They have been taught Rhetoric, but yet never taught how to express themselves handsomely with their tongues or pens in the language they are always to use; as if the names of the figures that embellish the discourses of those who understood the art of speaking, were the very art and skill of speaking well. This, as all other things of practice, is to be learned, not by a few, or a great many rules given; but by EXERCISE and APPLICATION according to GOOD RULES, or rather PATTERNS, till habits are got, and a facility of doing it well."--Ib., §189. The forms of parsing and correcting which the following work supplies, are "patterns," for the performance of these practical "exercises;" and such patterns as ought to be implicitly followed, by every one who means to be a ready and correct speaker on these subjects.
[59] The principal claimants of "the Inductive Method" of Grammar, are Richard W. Green, Roswell C. Smith, John L. Parkhurst, Dyor H. Sanborn, Bradford Frazee, and, Solomon Barrett, Jr.; a set of writers, differing indeed in their qualifications, but in general not a little deficient in what constitutes an accurate grammarian.
[60] William C. Woodbridge edited the Journal, and probably wrote the article, from which the author of "English Grammar on the Productive System" took his "Preface."
[61] Many other grammars, later than Murray's, have been published, some in England, some in America, and some in both countries; and among these there are, I think, a few in which a little improvement has been made, in the methods prescribed for the exercises of parsing and correcting. In most, however, nothing of the kind has been attempted. And, of the formularies which have been given, the best that I have seen, are still miserably defective, and worthy of all the censure that is expressed in the paragraph above; while others, that appear in works not entirely destitute of merit, are absolutely much worse than Murray's, and worthy to condemn to a speedy oblivion the books in which they are printed. In lieu of forms of expression, clear, orderly, accurate, and full; such as a young parser might profitably imitate; such as an experienced one would be sure to approve; what have we? A chaos of half-formed sentences, for the ignorant pupil to flounder in; an infinite abyss of blunders, which a world of criticism could not fully expose! See, for example, the seven pages of parsing, in the neat little book entitled, "A Practical Grammar of the English Language, by the Rev. David Blair: Seventh Edition: London, 1815:" pp. 49 to 57. I cannot consent to quote more than one short paragraph of the miserable jumble which these pages contain. Yet the author is evidently a man of learning, and capable of writing well on some subjects, if not on this. "Bless the Lord, O my soul!" Form: "Bless, a verb, (repeat 97); active (repeat 99); active voice (102); infinitive mood (107); third person, soul being the nominative (118); present tense (111); conjugate the verb after the pattern (129); its object is Lord (99)."--Blair's Gram., p. 50. Of the paragraphs referred to, I must take some notice: "107. The imperative mood commands or orders or intreats."--Ib., p. 19. "118. The second person is always the pronoun thou or you in the singular, and ye or you in the plural."--Ib., p. 21. "111. The imperative mood has no distinction of tense: and the infinitive has no distinction of persons."--Ib., p. 20. Now the author should have said: "Bless is a redundant active-transitive verb, from bless, blessed or blest, blessing, blessed or blest; found in the imperative mood, present tense, second person, and singular number:" and, if he meant to parse the word syntactically, he should have added: "and agrees with its nominative thou understood; according to the rule which says, 'Every finite verb must agree with its subject or nominative, in person and number.' Because the meaning is--Bless thou the Lord." This is the whole story. But, in the form above, several things are false; many, superfluous; some, deficient; several, misplaced; nothing, right. Not much better are the models furnished by Kirkham, Smith, Lennie, Bullions, and other late authors.
[62] Of Dr. Bullions's forms of parsing, as exhibited in his English Grammar, which is a modification of Lennie's Grammar, it is difficult to say, whether they are most remarkable for their deficiencies, their redundancies, or their contrariety to other teachings of the same author or authors. Both Lennie and Bullions adopt the rule, that, "An ellipsis is not allowable when it would obscure the sentence, weaken its force, or be attended with an impropriety."--L., p. 91; B., p. 130. And the latter strengthens this doctrine with several additional observations, the first of which reads thus: "In general, no word should be omitted that is necessary to the full and correct construction, or even harmony of a sentence."--Bullions, E. Gr., 130. Now the parsing above alluded to, has been thought particularly commendable for its brevity--a quality certainly desirable, so far as it consists with the end of parsing, or with the more needful properties of a good style, clearness, accuracy, ease, and elegance. But, if the foregoing rule and observation are true, the models furnished by these writers are not commendably brief, but miserably defective. Their brevity is, in fact, such as renders them all bad English; and not only so, it makes them obviously inadequate to their purpose, as bringing into use but a part of the principles which the learner had studied. It consists only in the omission of what ought to have been inserted. For example, this short line, "I lean upon the Lord," is parsed by both of these gentlemen thus: "I, the first personal pronoun, masculine, or feminine, singular, the nominative--lean, a verb, neuter, first person singular, present, indicative--upon, a preposition--the, an article, the definite--Lord, a noun, masculine, singular, the objective, (governed by upon.)"--Lennie's Principles of English Gram., p. 51; Bullions's, 74. This is a little sample of their etymological parsing, in which exercise they generally omit not only all the definitions or "reasons" of the various terms applied, but also all the following particulars: first, the verb is, and certain definitives and connectives, which are "necessary to the full and correct construction" of their sentences; secondly, the distinction of nouns as proper or common; thirdly, the person of nouns, first, second, or third; fourthly, the words, number, gender, and case, which are necessary to the sense and construction of certain words used; fifthly, the distinction of adjectives as belonging to different classes; sixthly, the division of verbs as being regular or irregular, redundant or defective; seventhly, sometimes, (Lennie excepted,) the division of verbs as active, passive, or neuter; eighthly, the words mood and tense, which Bullions, on page 131, pronounces "quite unnecessary," and inserts in his own formule on page 132; ninthly, the distinction of adverbs as expressing time, place, degree, or manner; tenthly, the distinction of conjunctions as copulative or disjunctive; lastly, the distinction of interjections as indicating different emotions. All these things does their completest specimen of etymological parsing lack, while it is grossly encumbered with parentheses of syntax, which "must be omitted till the pupil get the rules of syntax."--Lennie, p. 51. It is also vitiated with several absurdities, contradictions, and improper changes of expression: as, "His, the third personal pronoun;" (B., p. 23;)--"me, the first personal pronoun;" (Id., 74;)--"A, The indefinite article;" (Id., 73;)--"a, an article, the indefinite;" (Id., 74;)--"When the verb is passive, parse thus: 'A verb active, in the passive voice, regular, irregular,' &c."--Bullions, p. 131. In stead of teaching sufficiently, as elements of etymological parsing, the definitions which belong to this exercise, and then dismissing them for the principles of syntax, Dr. Bullions encumbers his method of syntactical parsing with such a series of etymological questions and answers as cannot but make it one of the slowest, longest, and most tiresome ever invented. He thinks that the pupil, after parsing any word syntactically, "should be requested to assign a reason for every thing contained in his statement!"--Principles of E. Grammar, p. 131. And the teacher is to ask questions as numerous as the reasons! Such is the parsing of a text-book which has been pronounced "superior to any other, for use in our common schools"--"a complete grammar of the language, and available for every purpose for which Mr. Brown's can possibly be used."--Ralph K. Finch's Report, p, 12.
[63] There are many other critics, besides Murray and Alger, who seem not to have observed the import of after and before in connexion with the tenses. Dr. Bullions, on page 139th of his English Grammar, copied the foregoing example from Lennie, who took it from Murray. Even Richard Hiley, and William Harvey Wells, grammarians of more than ordinary tact, have been obviously misled by the false criticism above cited. One of Hiley's Rules of Syntax, with its illustration, stands thus: "In the use of the different tenses, we must particularly observe to use that tense which clearly and properly conveys the sense intended; thus, instead of saying, 'After I visited Europe, I returned to America;' we should say, 'After I had visited Europe, I returned to America."--Hiley's Gram., p. 90. Upon this he thought it needful to comment thus: "'After I visited Europe, I returned to America;' this sentence is incorrect; visited ought to be had visited, because the action implied by the verb visited WAS COMPLETED before the other past action returned."--Ib., p. 91. See nearly the same thing in Wells's School Grammar, 1st Edition, p. 151; but his later editions are wisely altered. Since "visited and was completed" are of the same tense, the argument from the latter, if it proves any thing, proves the former to be right, and the proposed change needless, or perhaps worse than needless. "I visited Europe before I returned to America," or, "I visited Europe, and afterwards returned to America," is good English, and not to be improved by any change of tense; yet here too we see the visiting "was completed before" the return, or HAD BEEN COMPLETED at the time of the return. I say, "The Pluperfect Tense is that which expresses what had taken place at some past time mentioned: as, 'I had seen him, when I met you.'" Murray says, "The Pluperfect Tense represents a thing not only as past, but also as prior to some other point of time specified in the sentence: as, I had finished my letter before he arrived." Hiley says, "The Past-Perfect expresses an action or event which was past before some other past action or event mentioned in the sentence, and to which it refers; as, I had finished my lessons before he came." With this, Wells appears to concur, his example being similar. It seems to me, that these last two definitions, and their example too, are bad; because by the help of before or after, "the past before the past" may be clearly expressed by the simple past tense: as, "I finished my letter before he arrived."--"I finished my lessons before he came." "He arrived soon after I finished the letter."--"Soon after it was completed, he came in."
[64] Samuel Kirkham, whose grammar is briefly described in the third chapter of this introduction, boldly lays the blame of all his philological faults, upon our noble language itself; and even conceives, that a well-written and faultless grammar cannot be a good one, because it will not accord with that reasonless jumble which he takes every existing language to be! How diligently he laboured to perfect his work, and with what zeal for truth and accuracy, may be guessed from the following citation: "The truth is, after all which can be done to render the definitions and rules of grammar comprehensive and accurate, they will still be found, when critically examined by men of learning and science, more or less exceptionable. These exceptions and imperfections are the unavoidable consequence of the imperfections of the language. Language as well as every thing else of human invention, will always be imperfect. Consequently, a perfect system of grammatical principles, would not suit it. A perfect grammar will not be produced, until some perfect being writes it for a perfect language; and a perfect language will not be constructed, until some super-human agency is employed in its production. All grammatical principles and systems which are not perfect are exceptionable."--Kirkham's Grammar, p. 66. The unplausible sophistry of these strange remarks, and the palliation they afford to the multitudinous defects of the book which contains them, may be left, without further comment, to the judgement of the reader.
[65] The phrase complex ideas, or compound ideas, has been used for the notions which we have of things consisting of different parts, or having various properties, so as to embrace some sort of plurality: thus our ideas of all bodies and classes of things are said to be complex or compound. Simple ideas are those in which the mind discovers no parts or plurality: such are the ideas of heat, cold, blueness, redness, pleasure, pain, volition, &c. But some writers have contended, that the composition of ideas is a fiction; and that all the complexity, in any case, consists only in the use of a general term in lieu of many particular ones. Locke is on one side of this debate, Horne Tooke, on the other.
[66] Dilworth appears to have had a true idea of the thing, but he does not express it as a definition; "Q. Is an Unit of one, a Number? A. An Unit is a number, because it may properly answer the question how many!"--Schoolmaster's Assistant, p. 2. A number in arithmetic, and a number in grammar, are totally different things. The plural number, as men or horses, does not tell how many; nor does the word singular mean one, as the author of a recent grammar says it does. The plural number is one number, but it is not the singular. "The Productive System" teaches thus: "What does the word singular mean? It means one."--Smith's New Gram., p. 7.
[67] It is truly astonishing that so great a majority of our grammarians could have been so blindly misled, as they have been, in this matter; and the more so, because a very good definition of a Letter was both published and republished, about the time at which Lowth's first appeared: viz., "What is a letter? A Letter is the Sign, Mark, or Character of a simple or uncompounded Sound. Are Letters Sounds? No. Letters are only the Signs or Symbols of Sounds, not the Sounds themselves."--The British Grammar, p. 3. See the very same words on the second page of Buchanan's "English Syntax," a work which was published as early as 1767.
[68] In Murray's octavo Grammar, this word is the in the first chapter, and their in the second; in the duodecimo, it is their in both places.
[69] "The definitions and the rules throughout the Grammar, are expressed with neatness and perspicuity. They are as short and comprehensive as the nature of the subject would admit: and they are well adapted both to the understanding and the memory of young persons."--Life of L. Murray, p. 245. "It may truly be said that the language in every part of the work, is simple, correct, and perspicuous."--Ib., p. 246.
[70] For this definition, see Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 40; Duodecimo, 41; Smaller Gram., 18; Alger's, 18; Bacon's, 15; Frost's, 8, Ingersoll's, 17; A Teacher's, 8; Maltby's, 14; T. H. Miller's, 20; Pond's, 18; S. Putnam's, 15; Russell's, 11; Merchant's Murray, 25; and Worcester's Univ. and Crit. Dictionary. Many other grammarians have attempted to define number; with what success a few examples will show: (1.) "Number is the distinction of one from many."--W. Allen's Gram., p. 40; Merchant's School Gram., 28; Greenleaf's, 22; Nutting's, 17; Picket's, 19; D. Adams's, 31. (2.) "Number is the distinction of one from more."--Fisher's Gram., 51; Alden's, 7. (3.) "Number is the distinction of one from several or many."--Coar's Gram., p. 24. (4.) "Number is the distinction of one from more than one."--Sanborn's Gram., p. 24; J. Flint's, 27; Wells's, 52. (5.) "Number is the distinction of one from more than one, or many."--Grant's Latin Gram., p. 7. (6.) "What is number? Number is the Distinction of one, from two, or many."--British Gram., p. 89; Buchanan's, 16. (7.) "You inquire, 'What is number?' Merely this: the distinction of one from two, or many. Greek substantives have three numbers."--Bucke's Classical Gram., p. 38. All these authors say, that, in English, "there are two numbers, the singular and the plural." According to their explanations, then, we have two "distinctions of one from two, several, more, or many;" and the Greeks, by adding a dual number, have three! Which, then, of the two or three modifications or forms, do they mean, when they say, "Number is the distinction" &c.? Or, if none of them, what else is meant? All these definitions had their origin in an old Latin one, which, although it is somewhat better, makes doubtful logic in its application: "NUMERUS est, unius et multorum distinctio. Numeri igitur sunt duo; Singularis et Pluralis."-- Ruddiman's Gram., p. 21. This means: (8.) "Number is a distinction of one and many. The numbers therefore are two; the Singular and the Plural." But we have yet other examples: as, (9.) "Number is the distinction of objects, as one or more."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 39. "The distinction of objects as one," is very much like "the consideration of an object as more than one." (10.) "Number distinguishes objects as one or more."--Cooper's Murray, p. 21; Practical Gram., p. 18. That is, number makes the plural to be either plural or singular for distinction's sake! (11.) "Number is the distinction of nouns with regard to the objects signified, as one or more."--Fisk's Murray, p. 19. Here, too, number has "regard" to the same confusion: while, by a gross error, its "distinction" is confined to "nouns" only! (12.) "Number is that property of a noun by which it expresses one or more than one."--Bullions's E. Gram., p. 12; Analyt. Gram., 25. Here again number is improperly limited to "a noun;" and is said to be one sign of two, or either of two, incompatible ideas! (13.) "Number shows how many are meant, whether one or more."--Smith's new Gram., p. 45. This is not a definition, but a false assertion, in which Smith again confounds arithmetic with grammar! Wheat and oats are of different numbers; but neither of these numbers "means a sum that may be counted," or really "shows how many are meant." So of "Man in general, Horses in general, &c."--Brightland's Gram., p. 77. (14.) "Number is the difference in a noun or pronoun, to denote either a single thing or more than one."--Davenport's Gram., p. 14. This excludes the numbers of a verb, and makes the singular and the plural to be essentially one thing. (15.) "Number is a modification of nouns and verbs, &c. according as the thing spoken of is represented, as, one or more, with regard to number."--Burn's Gram., p. 32. This also has many faults, which I leave to the discernment of the reader. (16.) "What is number? Number shows the distinction of one from many."--Wilcox's Gram., p. 6. This is no answer to the question asked; besides, it is obviously worse than the first form, which has "is," for "shows." (17.) "What is Number? It is the representation of objects with respect to singleness, or plurality." --O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 34. If there are two numbers, they are neither of them properly described in this definition, or in any of the preceding ones. There is a gross misconception, in taking each or either of them to be an alternate representation of two incompatible ideas. And this sort of error is far from being confined to the present subject; it runs through a vast number of the various definitions contained in our grammars. (18.) "Number is the inflection of a noun, to indicate one object or more than one. Or, Number is the expression of unity or of more than unity."--Hiley's Gram., p. 14. How hard this author laboured to think what number is, and could not! (19.) "Number is the distinction of unity and plurality."--Hart's E. Gram., p. 40, Why say, "distinction;" the numbers, or distinctions, being two? (20.) "Number is the capacity of nouns to represent either one or more than one object."--Barrett's Revised Gram., p. 40. (21.) "Number is a property of the noun which denotes one or more than one."--Weld's Gram., 2d Ed., p. 55. (22.) "Number is a property of the noun or pronoun [,] by which it denotes one, or more than one."--Weld's Gram., Abridged Ed., p. 49. (23.) "Number is the property that distinguishes one from more than one."--Weld's Gram., Improved Ed., p. 60. This, of course, excludes the plural. (24.) "Number is a modification of nouns to denote whether one object is meant, or more than one."--Butler's Gram., p. 19. (25.) "Number is that modification of the Noun which distinguishes one from more than one."--Spencer's Gram., p. 26. Now, it is plain, that not one of these twenty-five definitions comports with the idea that the singular is one number and the plural an other! Not one of them exhibits any tolerable approach to accuracy, either of thought or of expression! Many of the grammarians have not attempted any definition of number, or of the numbers, though they speak of both the singular and the plural, and perhaps sometimes apply the term number to the distinction which is in each: for it is the property of the singular number, to distinguish unity from plurality: and of the plural, to distinguish plurality from unity. Among the authors who are thus silent, are Lily, Colet, Brightland, Harris, Lowth, Ash, Priestly, Bicknell, Adam, Gould, Harrison, Comly, Jaudon, Webster, Webber, Churchill, Staniford, Lennie, Dalton, Blair, Cobbett, Cobb, A. Flint, Felch, Guy, Hall, and S. W. Clark. Adam and Gould, however, in explaining the properties of verbs, say: "Number marks how many we suppose to be, to act, or to suffer."--A., 80; G., 78.
[71] These are the parts of speech in some late grammars; as, Barrett's, of 1854, Butler's, Covell's, Day's, Frazee's, Fowle's New, Spear's, Weld's, Wells's, and the Well-wishers'. In Frost's Practical Grammar, the words of the language are said to be "divided into eight classes," and the names are given thus: "Noun, Article, Pronoun, Verb, Adverb, Preposition, Conjunction, and Interjection."--P. 29. But the author afterwards treats of the Adjective, between the Article and the Pronoun, just as if he had forgotten to name it, and could not count nine with accuracy! In Perley's Grammar, the parts of speech are a different eight: namely, "Nouns, Adjectives, Verbs, Adverbs, Prepositions, Conjunctions, Interjections, and Particles!"--P. 8. S. W. Clark has Priestley's classes, but calls Interjections "Exclamations."
[72] Felton, who is confessedly a modifier of Murray, claims as a merit, "the rejection of several useless parts of speech" yet acknowledges "nine," and treats of ten; "viz., _Nouns, Pronouns, Verbs, Participles, Prepositions, Adjectives_, [Articles,] _Adverbs, Conjunctions, Exclamations_."--O. C. Felton's Gram. p. 5, and p. 9.
[73] Quintilian is at fault here; for, in some of his writings, if not generally, Aristotle recognized four parts of speech; namely, verbs, nouns, conjunctions, and articles. See Aristot. de Poetica, Cap. xx.
[74] "As there are ten different characters or figures in arithmetic to represent all possible quantities, there are also ten kinds of words or parts of speech to represent all possible sentences: viz.: article, noun, adjective, pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection."--Chauvier's Punctuation, p. 104.
[75] The Friend, 1829, Vol. ii, p. 117.
[76] The Friend, Vol. ii, p. 105.
[77] See the Preface to my Compendious English Grammar in the American editions of the Treasury of Knowledge, Vol. i, p. 8.
[78] Some say that Brightland himself was the writer of this grammar; but to suppose him the sole author, hardly comports with its dedication to the Queen, by her "most Obedient and Dutiful Subjects, the Authors;" or with the manner in which these are spoken of, in the following lines, by the laureate:
"Then say what Thanks, what Praises must attend The Gen'rous Wits, who thus could condescend! Skill, that to Art's sublimest Orb can reach, Employ'd its humble Elements to Teach! Yet worthily Esteem'd, because we know To raise Their Country's Fame they stoop'd so low."--TATE.
[79] Dr. Campbell, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, page 158th, makes a difficulty respecting the meaning of this passage: cites it as an instance of the misapplication of the term grammar; and supposes the writer's notion of the thing to have been, "of grammar in the abstract, an universal archetype by which the particular grammars of all different tongues ought to be regulated." And adds, "If this was his meaning, I cannot say whether he is in the right or in the wrong, in this accusation. I acknowledge myself to be entirely ignorant of this ideal grammar." It would be more fair to suppose that Dr. Swift meant by "grammar" the rules and principles according to which the English language ought to be spoken and written; and, (as I shall hereafter show,) it is no great hyperbole to affirm, that every part of the code--nay, well-nigh every one of these rules and principles--is, in many instances, violated, if not by what may be called the language itself, at least by those speakers and writers who are under the strongest obligations to know and observe its true use.
[80] The phrase "of any" is here erroneous. These words ought to have been omitted; or the author should have said--"the least valuable of all his productions."
[81] This word latter should have been last; for three works are here spoken of.
[82] With this opinion concurred the learned James White, author of a Grammatical Essay on the English Verb, an octavo volume of more than three hundred pages, published in London in 1761. This author says, "Our Essays towards forming an English Grammar, have not been very many: from the reign of Queen Elizabeth, to that of Queen Ann, there are but Two that the author of the Present knows of: one in English by the renown'd Ben Jonson, and one in Latin by the learn'd Dr. Wallis. In the reign of Queen Ann indeed, there seems to have arisen a noble Spirit of ingenious Emulation in this Literary way: and to this we owe the treatises compos'd at that period for the use of schools, by Brightland, Greenwood, and Maittaire. But, since that time, nothing hath appear'd, that hath come to this Essayist's knowledge, deserving to be taken any notice of as tending to illustrate our Language by ascertaining the Grammar of it; except Anselm Bayly's Introduction to Languages, Johnson's Grammar prefix'd to the Abridgement of his Dictionary, and the late Dr. Ward's Essays upon the English Language.--These are all the Treatises he hath met with, relative to this subject; all which he hath perus'd very attentively, and made the best use of them in his power. But notwithstanding all these aids, something still remains to be done, at least it so appears to him, preparatory to attempting with success the Grammar of our Language. All our efforts of this kind seem to have been render'd ineffectual hitherto, chiefly by the prevaliency of two false notions: one of which is, that our Verbs have no Moods; and the other, that our Language hath no Syntax."--White's English Verb, p. viii.
[83] A similar doctrine, however, is taught by no less an author than "the Rev. Alexander Crombie, LL. D.," who says, in the first paragraph of his introduction, "LANGUAGE consists of intelligible signs, and is the medium, by which the mind communicates its thoughts. It is either articulate, or inarticulate; artificial, or natural. The former is peculiar to man; the latter is common to all animals. By inarticulate language, we mean those instinctive cries, by which the several tribes of inferior creatures are enabled to express their sensations and desires. By articulate language is understood a system of expression, composed of simple sounds, differently modified by the organs of speech, and variously combined."--Treatise on the Etymology and Syntax of the English Language, p. 1. See the same doctrine also in Hiley's Gram., p. 141. The language which "is common to all animals," can be no other than that in which Æsop's wolves and weasels, goats and grasshoppers, talked--a language quite too unreal for grammar. On the other hand, that which is composed of sounds only, and not of letters, includes but a mere fraction of the science.
[84] The pronoun whom is not properly applicable to beasts, unless they are personified: the relative which would therefore, perhaps, have been preferable here, though whom has a better sound.--G. B.
[85] "The great difference between men and brutes, in the utterance of sound by the mouth, consists in the power of articulation in man, and the entire want of it in brutes."--Webster's Improved Gram., p. 8.
[86] Strictly speaking, an articulate sound is not a simple element of speech, but rather a complex one, whether syllable or word; for articulate literally means jointed. But our grammarians in general, have applied the term to the sound of a letter, a syllable, or a word, indiscriminately: for which reason, it seems not very suitable to be used alone in describing any of the three. Sheridan says, "The essence of a syllable consists in articulation only, for every articulate sound of course forms a syllable."--Lectures on Elocution, p. 62. If he is right in this, not many of our letters--or, perhaps more properly, none of them--can singly represent articulate sounds. The looseness of this term induces me to add or prefer an other. "The Rev. W. Allen," who comes as near as any of our grammarians, to the true definition of a letter, says: 1. "The sounds used in language are called articulate sounds." 2. "A letter is a character used in printing or writing, to represent an articulate sound."--Allen's Elements of E. Gram., p. 2. Dr. Adam says: 1. "A letter is the mark of a sound, or of an articulation of sound." 2. "A vowel is properly called a simple sound; and the sounds formed by the concourse of vowels and consonants, articulate sounds."--Latin and English Gram., pp. 1 and 2.
[87] Of this sort of blunder, the following false definition is an instance: "A Vowel is a letter, the name of which makes a full open sound."--Lennie's Gram., p. 5; Brace's, 7; Hazen's, 10. All this is just as true of a consonant as of a vowel. The comma too, used in this sentence, defeats even the sense which the writers intended. It is surely no description either of a vowel or of a consonant, to say, that it is a letter, and that the name of a letter makes a full open sound. Again, a late grammarian teaches, that the names of all the letters are nothing but Roman capitals, and then seems to inquire which of these names are vowels, thus: "Q. How many letters are in the alphabet? A. Twenty-six. Q. What are their names? A. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. Q. Which of these are called Vowels?"--Fowle's Common School Gram., Part First, p. 7. If my worthy friend Fowle had known or considered what are the names of the letters in English, he might have made a better beginning to his grammar than this.
[88] By the colloquial phrase, "to a Tee" we mean, "to a nicety, to a tittle, a jot, an iota. Had the British poet Cawthorn, himself a noted schoolmaster, known how to write the name of "T," he would probably have preferred it in the following couplet:
"And swore by Varro's shade that he Conceived the medal to a T."--British Poets, Vol. VII, p. 65.
Here the name would certainly be much fitter than the letter, because the text does not in reality speak of the letter. With the names of the Greek letters, the author was better acquainted; the same poem exhibits two of them, where the characters themselves are spoken of:
"My eye can trace divinely true, In this dark curve a little Mu; And here, you see, there seems to lie The ruins of a Doric Xi."--Ibidem.
The critical reader will see that "seems" should be seem, to agree with its nominative "ruins."
[89] Lily, reckoning without the H, J, or V, speaks of the Latin letters as "twenty-two;" but says nothing concerning their names. Ruddiman, Adam, Grant, Gould, and others, who include the H, J, and V, rightly state the number to be "twenty-five;" but, concerning their names, are likewise entirely silent. Andrews and Stoddard, not admitting the K, teach thus: "The letters of the Latin language are twenty-four. They have the same names as the corresponding characters in English."--Andrews and Stoddard's Latin Gram., p. 1. A later author speaks thus: "The Latin Alphabet consists of twenty-five letters, the same in name and form as the English, but without the w."--Bullions's Latin Gram., p. 1. It would probably be nearer to the truth, to say, "The Latin Alphabet, like the French, has no W; it consists of twenty-five letters, which are the same in name and form as the French." Will it be pretended that the French names and the English do not differ?
[90] The Scotch Iz and the Craven Izzet, if still in use anywhere, are names strictly local, not properly English, nor likely to spread. "IZZET, the letter Z. This is probably the corruption of izzard, the old and common name for the letter, though I know not, says Nares, on what authority."--Glossary of Craven, w. Izzet. "Z z, zed, more commonly called izzard or uzzard, that is, s hard."--Dr. Johnson's Gram., p. 1.
"And how she sooth'd me when with study sad I labour'd on to reach the final Zad."--Crabbe's Borough, p. 228.
[91] William Bolles, in his new Dictionary, says of the letter Z: "Its sound is uniformly that of a hard S." The name, however, he pronounces as I do; though he writes it not Zee but zé; giving not the orthography of the name, as he should have done, but a mere index of its pronunciation. Walker proves by citations from Professor Ward and Dr. Wallis, that these authors considered the sharp or hissing sound of s the "hard" sound; and the flat sound, like that of z, its "soft" sound. See his Dictionary, 8vo, p. 53.
[92] Dr. Webster died in 1843. Most of this work was written while he was yet in vigour.
[93] This old definition John L. Parkhurst disputes:--says it "is ambiguous;"--questions whether it means, "that the name of such a letter, or the simple sound," requires a vowel! "If the latter," says he, "the assertion is false. The simple sounds, represented by the consonants, can be uttered separately, distinctly, and perfectly. It can be done with the utmost ease, even by a little child."--Parkhurst's Inductive Gram. for Beginners, p. 164. He must be one of these modern philosophers who delight to make mouths of these voiceless elements, to show how much may be done without sound from the larynx.
[94] This test of what is, or is not, a vowel sound or a consonant sound, is often appealed to, and is generally admitted to be a just one. Errors in the application of an or a are not unfrequent, but they do not affect the argument. It cannot be denied, that it is proper to use a, and not proper to use an, before the initial sound of w or y with a vowel following. And this rule holds good, whether the sound be expressed by these particular letters, or by others; as in the phrases, "a wonder, a one, a yew, a use, a ewer, a humour, a yielding temper." But I have heard it contended, that these are vowel sounds, notwithstanding they require a; and that the w and y are always vowels, because even a vowel sound (it was said) requires a and not an, whenever an other vowel sound immediately follows it. Of this notion, the following examples are a sufficient refutation: an aëronaut, an aërial tour, an oeiliad, an eyewink, an eyas, an iambus, an oäsis, an o'ersight, an oil, an oyster, an owl, an ounce. The initial sound of yielding requires a, and not an; but those who call the y a vowel, say, it is equivalent to the unaccented long e. This does not seem to me to be exactly true; because the latter sound requires an, and not a; as, "Athens, as well as Thebes, had an Eëtion."
[95] Dr. Rush, in his Philosophy of the Human Voice, has exhibited some acuteness of observation, and has written with commendable originality. But his accuracy is certainly not greater than his confidence. On page 57th, he says, "The m, n, and ng, are purely nasal;" on page 401st, "Some of the tonic elements, and one of the subtonics, are made by the assistance of the lips; they are o-we, oo-ze, ou-r, and m." Of the intrinsic value of his work, I am not prepared or inclined to offer any opinion; I criticise him only so far as he strikes at grammatical principles long established, and worthy still to be maintained.
[96] Dr. Comstock, by ¸enumerating as elementary the sound of the diphthong ou, as in our, and the complex power of wh, as in what, (which sounds ought not to be so reckoned,) makes the whole number of vocal elements in English to be "thirty-eight." See Comstock's Elocution, p. 19.
[97] This word is commonly heard in two syllables, yune'yun; but if Walker is right in making it three, yu'ne-un, the sound of y consonant is heard in it but once. Worcester's notation is "y=un'yun." The long sound of u is yu; hence Walker calls the letter, when thus sounded, a "semi-consonant diphthong."
[98] Children ought to be accustomed to speak loud, and to pronounce all possible sounds and articulations, even those of such foreign languages as they will be obliged to learn; for almost every language has its particular sounds which we pronounce with difficulty, if we have not been early accustomed to them. Accordingly, nations who have the greatest number of sounds in their speech, learn the most easily to pronounce foreign languages, since they know their articulations by having met with similar sounds in their own language."--Spurzheim, on Education, p. 159.
[99] If it be admitted that the two semivowels l and n have vocality enough of their own to form a very feeble syllable, it will prove only that there are these exceptions to an important general rule. If the name of Haydn rhymes with maiden, it makes one exception to the rule of writing; but it is no part of the English language. The obscure sound of which I speak, is sometimes improperly confounded with that of short u; thus a recent writer, who professes great skill in respect to such matters, says, "One of the most common sounds in our language is that of the vowel u, as in the word urn, or as the diphthong ea in the word earth, for which we have no character. Writers have made various efforts to express it, as in earth, berth, mirth, worth, turf, in which all the vowels are indiscriminately used in turn. [Fist] This defect has led to the absurd method of placing the vowel after the consonants, instead of between them, when a word terminates with this sound; as in the following, Bible, pure, centre, circle, instead of Bibel, puer, center, cirkel."--Gardiner's Music of Nature, p. 498. "It would be a great step towards perfection to spell our words as they are pronounced!"--Ibid., p. 499. How often do the reformers of language multiply the irregularities of which they complain!
[100] "The number of simple sounds in our tongue is twenty-eight, 9 Vowels and 19 Consonants. H is no letter, but merely a mark of aspiration."--Jones's Prosodial Gram. before his Dict., p. 14.
"The number of simple vowel and consonant sounds in our tongue is twenty-eight, and one pure aspiration h, making in all twenty-nine."--Bolles's Octavo Dict., Introd., p. 9.
"The number of letters in the English language is twenty-six; but the number of elements is thirty-eight."--Comstock's Elocution, p. 18. "There are thirty-eight elements in the English alphabet, and to represent those elements by appropriate characters, we should have thirty-eight letters. There is, then, a deficiency in our alphabet of twelve letters--and he who shall supply this imperfection, will be one of the greatest benefactors of the human race."--Ib., p. 19. "Our alphabet is both redundant and defective. C, q, and z, are respectively represented by k or s, k, and ks, or gz; and the remaining twenty-three letters are employed to represent forty-one elementary sounds."--Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 36.
"The simple sounds were in no wise to be reckoned of any certain number: by the first men they were determined to no more than ten, as spine suppose; as others, fifteen or twenty; it is however certain that mankind in general never exceed twenty simple sounds; and of these only five are reckoned strictly such."--Bicknell's Grammar, Part ii, p. 4.
[101] "When these sounds are openly pronounced, they produce the familiar assent ay: which, by the old English dramatic writers, was often expressed by I."--Walker. We still hear it so among the vulgar; as, "I, I, sir, presently!" for "Ay, ay, sir, presently!" Shakspeare wrote,
"To sleepe, perchance to dreame; I, there's the rub." --Bucke's Classical Gram., p. 143.
[102] Walker pronounces yew and you precisely alike, "yoo;" but, certainly, ew is not commonly equivalent to oo, though some make it so: thus Gardiner, in his scheme of the vowels, says, "ew equals oo, as in new, noo."--Music of Nature, p. 483. Noo for new, is a vulgarism, to my ear.--G. BROWN.
[103] "As harmony is an inherent property of sound, the ear should he first called to the attention of simple sounds; though, in reality, all are composed of three, so nicely blended as to appear but as one."--Gardiner's Music of Nature, p. 8. "Every sound is a mixture of three tones; as much as a ray of light is composed of three prismatic colours."--Ib., p. 387.
[104] The titulary name of the sacred volume is "The Holy Bible." The word Scripture or Scriptures is a common name for the writings contained in this inestimable volume, and, in the book itself, is seldom distinguished by a capital; but, in other works, it seems proper in general to write it so, by way of eminence.
[105] "Benedictus es Domine Deus Israel patris nostri ab eterno in eternum."--Vulgate. "O Eternel! Dieu d'Israël, notre père, tu es béni de tout temps et à toujours."--Common French Bible. "[Greek: Eulogætos ei Kyrie ho theos Israel ho patær hæmon apo tou aionos kai heos tou aionos.]"--Septuagint.
[106] Where the word "See" accompanies the reference, the reader may generally understand that the citation, whether right or wrong in regard to grammar, is not in all respects exactly as it will be found in the place referred to. Cases of this kind, however, will occur but seldom; and it is hoped the reasons for admitting a few, will be sufficiently obvious. Brevity is indispensable; and some rules are so generally known and observed, that one might search long for half a dozen examples of their undesigned violation. Wherever an error is made intentionally in the Exercises, the true reading and reference are to be expected in the Key.
[107] "Et irritaverunt ascendentes in mare, Mare rubrum."--Latin Vulgate, folio, Psal. cv, 7. This, I think, should have been "Mare Rubrum," with two capitals.--G. BROWN.
[108] The printers, from the manner in which they place their types before them, call the small letters "lower-case letters," or "letters of the lower case."
[109] I imagine that "plagues" should here be plague, in the singular number, and not plural. "Ero more ius, o mors; morsus tuus ero, inferne."--Vulgate. "[Greek: Pou hæ dikæ sou, thanate; pou to kentron sou, aidæ;]"--Septuagint, ibid.
[110] It is hoped that not many persons will be so much puzzled as are Dr. Latham and Professor Fowler, about the application of this rule. In their recent works on The English Language, these gentlemen say, "In certain words of more than one syllable, it is difficult to say to which syllable the intervening Consonant belongs. For instance, does the v in river and the v in fever belong to the first or to the second syllable? Are the words to be divided thus, ri-ver, fe-ver? or thus, riv-er, fev-er?"--Fowler's E. Gram., 1850, §85; Latham's Hand-Book, p. 95. Now I suppose it plain, that, by the rule given above, fever is to be divided in the former way, and river in the latter; thus, fe-ver, riv-er. But this paragraph of Latham's or Fowler's is written, not to disembarrass the learner, but just as if it were a grammarian's business to confound his readers with fictitious dilemmas--and those expressed ungrammatically! Of the two Vees, so illogically associated in one question, and so solecistically spoken of by the singular verb "does," one belongs to the former syllable, and the other, to the latter; nor do I discover that "it is difficult to say" this, or to be well assured that it is right. What an admirable passage for one great linguist to steal from an other!
[111] "The usual rules for dividing [words into] syllables, are not only arbitrary but false and absurd. They contradict the very definition of a syllable given by the authors themselves. * * * * A syllable in pronunciation is an indivisible thing; and strange as it may appear, what is indivisible in utterance is divided in writing: when the very purpose of dividing words into syllables in writing, is to lead the learner to a just pronunciation."--Webster's Improved Gram., p. 156; Philosophical Gram., 221.
[112] This word, like distich and monostich, is from the Greek stichos, a verse; and is improperly spelled by Walker with a final k. It should be hemistich, with the accent on the first syllable. See Webster, Scott, Perry, Worcester, and others.
[113] According to Aristotle, the compounding of terms, or the writing of them as separate words, must needs be a matter of great importance to the sense. For he will have the parts of a compound noun, or of a compound verb, to be, like other syllables, destitute of any distinct signification in themselves, whatever may be their meaning when written separately. See his definitions of the parts of speech, in his Poetics, Chapter 20th of the Greek; or Goulston's Version in Latin, Chapter 12th.
[114] Whether worshipper should follow this principle, or not, is questionable. If Dr. Webster is right in making worship a compound of worth and ship, he furnishes a reason against his own practice of using a single p in worshiper, worshiped, and worshiping. The Saxon word appears to have been weorthscype. But words ending in ship are derivatives, rather than compounds; and therefore they seem to belong to the rule, rather than to the exception: as, "So we fellowshiped him."--Herald of Freedom: Liberator, Vol. ix, p. 68.
[115] When ee comes before e, or may be supposed to do so, or when ll comes before l, one of the letters is dropped that three of the same kind may not meet: as, free, freer, freest, freeth, freed; skill, skilless; full, fully; droll, drolly. And, as burgess-ship, hostess-ship, and mistress-ship are derivatives, and not compounds, I think they ought to follow the same principle, and be written burgesship, hostesship, mistresship. The proper form of gall-less is perhaps more doubtful. It ought not to be gallless, as Dr. Webster has it; and galless, the analogical form, is yet, so far as I know without authority. But is it not preferable to the hyphened form, with three Ells, which has authority? "GALL-LESS, a. Without gall or bitterness. Cleaveland."--Chalmers, Bolles, Worcester.
"Ah! mild and gall-less dove, Which dost the pure and candid dwellings love, Canst thou in Albion still delight?"--Cowley's Odes.
Worcester's Dictionary has also the questionable word bellless. Treen, for trees, or for an adjective meaning a tree's, or made of a tree, is exhibited in several of our dictionaries, and pronounced as a monosyllable: but Dr. Beattie, in his Poems, p. 84, has made it a dissyllable, with three like letters divided by a hyphen, thus:--
"Plucking from tree-en bough her simple food."
[116] Handiwork, handicraft, and handicraftsman, appear to have been corruptly written for handwork, handcraft, and handcraftsman. They were formerly in good use, and consequently obtained a place in our vocabulary, from which no lexicographer, so far as I know, has yet thought fit to discard them; but, being irregular, they are manifestly becoming obsolete, or at least showing a tendency to throw off these questionable forms. Handcraft and handcraftsman are now exhibited in some dictionaries, and handiwork seems likely to be resolved into handy and work, from which Johnson supposes it to have been formed. See Psalm xix, 1. The text is varied thus: "And the firmament sheweth his handiwork."--Johnson's Dict.. "And the firmament sheweth his handy-work."--Scott's Bible; Bruce's Bible; Harrison's Gram., p. 83. "And the firmament showeth his handy work."--Alger's Bible; Friends' Bible; Harrison's Gram., p. 103.
[117] Here a word, formed from its root by means of the termination ize, afterwards assumes a prefix, to make a secondary derivative: thus, organ, organize, disorganize. In such a case, the latter derivative must of course be like the former; and I assume that the essential or primary formation of both from the word organ is by the termination ize; but it is easy to see that disguise, demise, surmise, and the like, are essentially or primarily formed by means of the prefixes, dis, de, and sur. As to advertise, exercise, detonize, and recognize, which I have noted among the exceptions, it is not easy to discover by which method we ought to suppose them to have been formed; but with respect to nearly all others, the distinction is very plain; and though there may be no natural reason for founding upon it such a rule as the foregoing, the voice of general custom is as clear in this as in most other points or principles of orthography, and, surely, some rule in this case is greatly needed.
[118] Criticise, with s, is the orthography of Johnson, Walker, Webster, Jones, Scott, Bolles, Chalmers, Cobb, and others; and so did Worcester spell it in his Comprehensive Dictionary of 1831, but, in his Universal and Critical Dictionary of 1846, he wrote it with z, as did Bailey in his folio, about a hundred years ago. Here the z conforms to the foregoing rule, and the s does not.
[119] Like this, the compound brim-full ought to be written with a hyphen and accented on the last syllable; but all our lexicographers have corrupted it into brim'ful, and, contrary to the authorities they quote, accented it on the first. Their noun brim'fulness, with a like accent, is also a corruption; and the text of Shakspeare, which they quote for it, is nonsense, unless brim, be there made a separate adjective:--
"With ample and brimfulness of his force."--Johnson's Dict. et al.
"With ample and brim fullness of his force," would be better.
[120] According to Littleton, the coraliticus lapis was a kind of Phrygian marble, "called Coralius or by an other name Sangarius." But this substance seems to be different from all that are described by Webster, under the names of "coralline," "corallinite," and "corallite." See Webster's Octavo Dict.
[121] The Greek word for argil is [Greek: argilos], or [Greek: argillos], (from [Greek: argos], white,) meaning pure white earth; and is as often spelled with one Lamda as with two.
[122] Dr. Webster, with apparent propriety, writes caviling and cavilous with one l, like dialing and perilous; but he has in general no more uniformity than Johnson, in respect to the doubling of l final. He also, in some instances, accents similar words variously: as, cor'alliform, upon the first syllable, metal'liform, upon the second; cav'ilous and pap'illous, upon the first, argil'lous, upon the second; ax'illar, upon the first, medul'lar, upon the second. See Webster's Octavo Dict.
[123] Perry wrote crystaline, crystalize, crystalization, metaline, metalist, metalurgist, and metalurgy; and these forms, as well as crystalography, metalic, metalography, and metaliferous, are noticed and preferred by the authors of the Red Book, on pp. 288 and 302.
[124] "But if a diphthong precedes, or the accent is on the preceding syllable, the consonant remains single: as, to toil, toiling; to offer, an offering."--Murray's Octavo Gram., p. 24; Walker's Rhym. Dict., Introd., p. ix.
[125] Johnson, Walker, and Webster, all spell this word sep'ilible; which is obviously wrong; as is Johnson's derivation of it from sepio, to hedge in. Sepio would make, not this word, but sepibilis and sepible, hedgeable.
[126] If the variable word control, controul, or controll, is from con and troul or troll, it should be spelled with ll, by Rule 7th, and retain the ll by Rule 6th. Dr. Webster has it so, but he gives control also.
[127] Ache, and its plural, aches, appear to have been formerly pronounced like the name of the eighth letter, with its plural, Aitch, and Aitches; for the old poets made "aches" two syllables. But Johnson says of ache, a pain, it is "now generally written ake, and in the plural akes, of one syllable."--See his Quarto Dict. So Walker: "It is now almost universally written ake and akes."--See Walker's Principles, No. 355. So Webster: "Ake, less properly written ache."--See his Octavo Dict. But Worcester seems rather to prefer ache.--G. B.
[128] This book has, probably, more recommenders than any other of the sort. I have not patience to count them accurately, but it would seem that more than a thousand of the great and learned have certified to the world, that they never before had seen so good a spelling-book! With personal knowledge of more than fifty of the signers, G. B. refused to add his poor name, being ashamed of the mischievous facility with which very respectable men had loaned their signatures.
[129] Scrat, for scratch. The word is now obsolete, and may be altered by taking ch in the correction.
[130] "Hairbrained, adj. This should rather be written harebrained; unconstant, unsettled, wild as a hare."--Johnson's Dict. Webster writes it harebrained, as from hare and brain. Worcester, too, prefers this form.
[131] "The whole number of verbs in the English language, regular and irregular, simple and compounded, taken together, is about 4,300. See, in Dr. Ward's Essays on the English language, the catalogue of English verbs. The whole number of irregular verbs, the defective included, is about 176."--Lowth's Gram., Philad., 1799, p. 59. Lindley Murray copied the first and the last of these three sentences, but made the latter number "about 177."--Octavo Gram., p. 109; Duodecimo, p. 88. In the latter work, he has this note: "The whole number of words, in the English language, is about thirty-five thousand."--Ib. Churchill says, "The whole number of verbs in the English language, according to Dr. Ward, is about 4,300. The irregulars, including the auxilaries [sic--KTH], scarcely exceed 200."--New Gram., p. 113. An other late author has the following enumeration: "There are in the English language about twenty thousand five hundred nouns, forty pronouns, eight thousand verbs, nine thousand two hundred adnouns, two thousand six hundred adverbs, sixty-nine prepositions, nineteen conjunctions, and sixty-eight interjections; in all, above forty thousand words."--Rev. David Blair's Gram., p. 10. William Ward, M. A., in an old grammar undated, which speaks of Dr. Lowth's as one with which the public had "very lately been favoured," says: "There are four Thousand and about Five Hundred Verbs in the English [language]."--Ward's Practical Gram., p. 52.
[132] These definitions are numbered here, because each of them is the first of a series now begun. In class rehearsals, the pupils may be required to give the definitions in turn; and, to prevent any from losing the place, it is important that the numbers be mentioned. When all have become sufficiently familiar with the definitions, the exercise may be performed without them. They are to be read or repeated till faults disappear--or till the teacher is satisfied with the performance. He may then save time, by commanding his class to proceed more briefly; making such distinctions as are required in the praxis, but ceasing to explain the terms employed; that is, omitting all the definitions, for brevity's sake. This remark is applicable likewise to all the subsequent praxes of etymological parsing.]
[133] The modifications which belong to the different parts of speech consist chiefly of the inflections or changes to which certain words are subject. But I use the term sometimes in a rather broader sense, as including not only variations of words, but, in certain instances, their original forms, and also such of their relations as serve to indicate peculiar properties. This is no questionable license in the use of the term; for when the position of a word modifies its meaning, or changes its person or case, this effect is clearly a grammatical modification, though there be no absolute inflection. Lord Kames observes, "That quality, which distinguishes one genus, one species, or even one individual, from an other, is termed a modification: thus the same particular that is termed a property or quality, when considered as belonging to an individual, or a class of individuals, is termed a modification, when considered as distinguishing the individual or the class from an other."--Elements of Criticism, Vol. ii, p. 392.
[134] Wells, having put the articles into the class of adjectives, produces authority as follows: "'The words a or an, and the, are reckoned by some grammarians a separate part of speech; but, as they in all respects come under the definition of the adjective, it is unnecessary, as well as improper, to rank them as a class by themselves.'--Cannon." To this he adds, "The articles are also ranked with adjectives by Priestley, E. Oliver, Bell, Elphinston, M'Culloch, D'Orsey, Lindsay, Joel, Greenwood. Smetham, Dalton, King, Hort, Buchanan, Crane, J. Russell, Frazee, Cutler, Perley, Swett, Day. Goodenow, Willard, Robbins, Felton, Snyder, Butler, S. Barrett, Badgley, Howe, Whiting, Davenport, Fowle, Weld, and others."--Wells's School Gram., p. 69. In this way, he may have made it seem to many, that, after thorough investigation, he had decided the point discreetly, and with preponderance of authority. For it is claimed as a "peculiar merit" of this grammar, that, "Every point of practical importance is thoroughly investigated, and reference is carefully made to the researches of preceding writers, in all cases which admit of being determined by weight of authority."--WILLIAM RUSSELL, on the cover. But, in this instance, as in sundry others, wherein he opposes the more common doctrine, and cites concurrent authors, both he and all his authorities are demonstrably to the wrong. For how can they be right, while reason, usage, and the prevailing opinion, are still against them? If we have forty grammars which reject, the articles as a part of speech, we have more than twice as many which recognize them as such; among which are those of the following authors: viz., Adam, D. Adams, Ainsworth, Alden, Alger, W. Allen, Ash, Bacon, Barnard, Beattie, Beck, Bicknell, Bingham, Blair, J. H. Brown, Bucke, Bullions, Burn, Burr, Chandler, Churchill, Coar, Cobbett, Cobbin, Comly, Cooper, Davis, Dearborn, Ensell, Everett, Farnum, Fisk, A. Flint, Folker, Fowler, Frost, R. G. Greene, Greenleaf, Guy, Hall, Hallock, Hart, Harrison, Matt. Harrison, Hazen, Hendrick, Hiley, Hull, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Johnson, Kirkham, Latham, Lennie, A. Lewis, Lowth, Maltby, Maunder, Mennye, Merchant, T. H. Miller, Murray, Nixon, Nutting, Parker and Fox, John Peirce, Picket, Pond, S. Putnam, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, R. C. Smith, Rev. T. Smith, Spencer, Tower, Tucker, Walker, Webber, Wilcox, Wilson, Woodworth, J. E. Worcester, S. Worcester, Wright. The articles characterize our language more than some of the other parts of speech, and are worthy of distinction for many reasons, one of which is the very great frequency of their use.
[135] In Murray's Abridgement, and in his "Second Edition," 12mo, the connective in this place is "or;" and so is it given by most of his amenders; as in Alger's Murray, p. 68; Alden's, 89; Bacon's, 48; Cooper's, 111; A. Flint's, 65; Maltby's, 60; Miller's, 67; S. Putnam's, 74; Russell's, 52; T. Smith's, 61. All these, and many more, repeat both of these ill-devised rules.
[136] When this was written, Dr. Webster was living.
[137] In French, the preposition à, (to,) is always carefully distinguished from the verb a, (has,) by means of the grave accent, which is placed over the former for that purpose. And in general also the Latin word à, (from,) is marked in the same way. But, with us, no appropriate sign has hitherto been adopted to distinguish the preposition a from the article a; though the Saxon a, (to,) is given by Johnson with an acute, even where no other a is found. Hence, in their ignorance, thousands of vulgar readers, and among them the authors of sundry grammars, have constantly mistaken this preposition for an article. Examples: "Some adverbs are composed of the article a prefixed to nouns; as a-side, a-thirst, a-sleep, a-shore, a-ground, &c."--Comly's Gram., p67. "Repeat some [adverbs] that are composed of the article a and nouns."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 89. "To go a fishing;" "To go a hunting;" i.e. "to go on a fishing voyage or business;" "to go on a hunting party."--Murray's Gram., p. 221; Fisk's, 147; Ingersoll's, 157; Smith's, 184; Bullions's, 129; Merchant's, 101; Weld's, 192, and others. That this interpretation is false and absurd, may be seen at once by any body who can read Latin; for, a hunting, a fishing, &c., are expressed by the supine in um: as, "Venatum ire."--Virg. Æn. I.e., "To go a hunting." "Abeo piscatum."--Beza. I.e. "I go a fishing."--John, xxi, 3. Every school-boy ought to know better than to call this a an article. A fishing is equivalent to the infinitive to fish. For the Greek of the foregoing text is [Greek: Hupágo hálieúein,] which is rendered by Montanus, "Vado piscari;" i.e., "I go to fish." One author ignorantly says, "The article a seems to have no particular meaning, and is hardly proper in such expressions as these. 'He went a-hunting,' She lies a-bed all day.'"--Wilcox's Gram., p. 59. No marvel that he could not find the meaning of an article in this a! With doltish and double inconsistency, Weld first calls this "The article a employed in the sense of a preposition," (E. Gram., p. 177,) and afterwards adopts Murray's interpretation as above cited! Some, too, have an absurd practice of joining this preposition to the participle; generally with the hyphen, but sometimes without: thus, "A-GOING, In motion; as, to set a mill agoing."--Webster's Dict. The doctor does not tell us what part of speech agoing is; but, certainly, "to set the mill to going," expresses just the same meaning, and is about as often heard. In the burial-service of the Common Prayer Book, we read, "They are even as asleep;" but, in the ninetieth Psalm, from which this is taken, we find the text thus: "They are as a sleep;" that is, as a dream that is fled. Now these are very different readings, and cannot both he right.
[138] Here the lexicographer forgets his false etymology of a before the participle, and writes the words separately, as the generality of authors always have done. A was used as a preposition long before the article a appeared in the language; and I doubt whether there is any truth at all in the common notions of its origin. Webster says, "In the words abed, ashore, &c., and before the participles acoming, agoing, ashooting, [he should have said, 'and before participles; as, a coming, a going, a shooting,'] a has been supposed a contraction of on or at. It may be so in some cases; but with the participles, it is sometimes a contraction of the Saxon prefix ge, and sometimes perhaps of the Celtic ag."--Improved Gram., p. 175. See Philos. Gram., p. 244. What admirable learning is this! A, forsooth, is a contraction of ge! And this is the doctor's reason for joining it to the participle!
[139] The following construction may he considered an archaism, or a form of expression that is now obsolete: "You have bestowed a many of kindnesses upon me."--Walker's English Particles, p. 278.
[140] "If I or we is set before a name, it [the name] is of the first person: as, I, N-- N--, declare; we, N-- and M-- do promise."--Ward's Gram., p. 83. "Nouns which relate to the person or persons speaking, are said to be of the first person; as, I, William, speak to you."--Fowle's Common School Gram., Part ii, p. 22. The first person of nouns is admitted by Ainsworth, R. W. Bailey, Barnard, Brightland, J. H. Brown, Bullions, Butler, Cardell, Chandler, S. W. Clark, Cooper, Day, Emmons, Farnum, Felton, Fisk, John Flint, Fowle, Frazee, Gilbert, Goldsbury, R. G. Greene, S. S. Greene, Hall, Hallock, Hamlin, Hart, Hendrick, Hiley, Perley, Picket, Pinneo, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, Smart, R. C. Smith, Spear, Weld, Wells, Wilcox, and others. It is denied, either expressly or virtually, by Alger, Bacon, Comly, Davis, Dilworth, Greenleaf, Guy, Hazen, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Kirkham, Latham, L. Murray, Maltby, Merchant, Miller, Nutting, Parkhurst, S. Putnam, Rev. T. Smith, and others. Among the grammarians who do not appear to have noticed the persons of nouns at all, are Alden, W. Allen, D. C. Allen, Ash, Bicknell, Bingham, Blair, Buchanan, Bucke, Burn, Burr, Churchill, Coar, Cobb, Dalton, Dearborn, Abel Flint, R. W. Green, Harrison, Johnson, Lennie, Lowth, Mennye, Mulligan, Priestley, Staniford, Ware, Webber, and Webster.
[141] Prof. S. S. Greene most absurdly and erroneously teaches, that, "When the speaker wishes to represent himself, he cannot use his name, but must use some other word, as, I; [and] when he wishes to represent the hearer, he must use thou or you."--Greene's Elements of E. Gram., 1853, p. xxxiv. The examples given above sufficiently show the falsity of all this.
[142] In shoe and shoes, canoe and canoes, the o is sounded slenderly, like oo; but in doe or does, foe or foes, and the rest of the fourteen nouns above, whether singular or plural, it retains the full sound of its own name, O. Whether the plural of two should be "twoes" as Churchill writes it, or "twos," which is more common, is questionable. According to Dr. Ash and the Spectator, the plural of who, taken substantively, is "whos."--Ash's Gram., p. 131.
[143] There are some singular compounds of the plural word pence, which form their own plurals regularly; as, sixpence, sixpences. "If you do not all show like gilt twopences to me."--SHAKSPEARE. "The sweepstakes of which are to be composed of the disputed difference in the value of two doubtful sixpences."--GOODELL'S LECT.: Liberator. Vol. ix, p. 145.
[144] In the third canto of Lord Byron's Prophecy of Dante, this noun is used in the singular number:--
"And ocean written o'er would not afford Space for the annal, yet it shall go forth."
[145] "They never yet had separated for their daylight beds, without a climax to their orgy, something like the present scene."--The Crock of Gold, p. 13. "And straps never called upon to diminish that long whity-brown interval between shoe and trowser."--Ib., p. 24. "And he gave them victual in abundance."--2 Chron., xi, 23. "Store of victual."--Ib., verse 11.
[146] The noun physic properly signifies medicine, or the science of medicine: in which sense, it seems to have no plural. But Crombie and the others cite one or two instances in which physic and metaphysic are used, not very accurately, in the sense of the singular of physics and metaphysics. Several grammarians also quote some examples in which physics, metaphysics, politics, optics, and other similar names of sciences are used with verbs or pronouns of the singular number; but Dr. Crombie justly says the plural construction of such words, "is more common, and more agreeable to analogy."--On Etym. and Syntax, p. 27.
[147] "Benjamin Franklin, following the occupation of a compositor in a printing-office, at a limited weekly wage," &c.--Chambers' Edinburgh Journal, No. 232. "WAGE, Wages, hire. The singular number is still frequently used, though Dr. Johnson thought it obsolete."--Glossary of Craven. 1828.
[148] Our lexicographers generally treat the word firearms as a close compound that has no singular. But some write it with a hyphen, as fire-arms. In fact the singular is sometimes used, but the way of writing it is unsettled. Dr. Johnson, in his Dictionary, defines a carbine as, "a small sort of fire arm;" Webster has it, "a short gun, or fire arm;" Worcester, "a small fire-arm;" Cobb, "a sort of small firearms." Webster uses "fire-arm," in defining "stock."
[149] "But, soon afterwards, he made a glorious amend for his fault, at the battle of Platæa."--Hist. Reader, p. 48.
[150] "There not a dreg of guilt defiles."--Watts's Lyrics, p. 27.
[151] In Young's Night Thoughts, (N. vii, l. 475.) lee, the singular of lees, is found; Churchill says, (Gram., p. 211,) "Prior has used lee, as the singular of lees;" Webster and Bolles have also both forms in their dictionaries:--
"Refine, exalt, throw down their poisonous lee, And make them sparkle in the bowl of bliss."--Young.
[152] "The 'Procrustean bed' has been a myth heretofore; it promises soon to be a shamble and a slaughterhouse in reality."--St. Louis Democrat, 1855.
[153] J. W. Wright remarks, "Some nouns admit of no plural distinctions: as, wine, wood, beer, sugar, tea, timber, fruit, meat, goodness, happiness, and perhaps all nouns ending in ness."--Philos. Gram., p. 139. If this learned author had been brought up in the woods, and had never read of Murray's "richer wines," or heard of Solomon's "dainty meats,"--never chaffered in the market about sugars and teas, or read in Isaiah that "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags," or avowed, like Timothy, "a good profession before many witnesses,"--he might still have hewed the timbers of some rude cabin, and partaken of the wild fruits which nature affords. If these nine plurals are right, his assertion is nine times wrong, or misapplied by himself seven times in the ten.
[154] "I will not suppose it possible for my dear James to fall into either the company or the language of those persons who talk, and even write, about barleys, wheats, clovers, flours, grasses, and malts."-- Cobbett's E. Gram., p. 29.
[155] "It is a general rule, that all names of things measured or weighed, have no plural; for in them not number, but quantity, is regarded: as, wool, wine, oil. When we speak, however, of different kinds, we use the plural: as, the coarser wools, the richer wines, the finer oils."--Murray's Gram., p. 41.
[156] So pains is the regular plural of pain, and, by Johnson, Webster, and other lexicographers, is recognized only as plural; but Worcester inserts it among his stock words, with a comment, thus: "Pains, n. Labor; work; toil; care; trouble. [Fist] According to the best usage, the word pains, though of plural form, is used in these senses as singular, and is joined with a singular verb; as, 'The pains they had taken was very great.' Clarendon. 'No pains is taken.' Pope. 'Great pains is taken.' Priestley. 'Much pains.' Bolingbroke."--Univ. and Crit. Dict. The multiplication of anomalies of this kind is so undesirable, that nothing short of a very clear decision of Custom, against the use of the regular concord, can well justify the exception. Many such examples may be cited, but are they not examples of false syntax? I incline to think "the best usage" would still make all these verbs plural. Dr. Johnson cites the first example thus: "The pains they had taken were very great. Clarendon."--Quarto Dict., w. Pain. And the following recent example is unquestionably right: "Pains have been taken to collect the information required."--President Fillmore's Message, 1852.
[157] "And the fish that is in the river shall die."--Exod., vii, 18. "And the fish that was in the river died."--Ib., 21. Here the construction is altogether in the singular, and yet the meaning seems to be plural. This construction appears to be more objectionable, than the use of the word fish with a plural verb. The French Bible here corresponds with ours: but the Latin Vulgate, and the Greek Septuagint, have both the noun and the verb in the plural: as, "The fishes that are in the river,"--"The fishes that were," &c. In our Bible, fowl, as well fish, is sometimes plural; and yet both words, in some passages, have the plural form: as, "And fowl that may fly," &c.--Gen., i, 20. "I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea."--Zeph., i, 3.
[158] Some authors, when they give to mere words the construction of plural nouns, are in the habit of writing them in the form of possessives singular; as, "They have of late, 'tis true, reformed, in some measure, the gouty joints and darning work of whereunto's, whereby's, thereof's, therewith's, and the rest of this kind."--Shaftesbury. "Here," says Dr. Crombie, "the genitive singular is improperly used for the objective case plural. It should be, whereuntos, wherebys, thereofs, therewiths."-- Treatise on Etym. and Synt., p. 338. According to our rules, these words should rather be, whereuntoes, wherebies, thereofs, therewiths. "Any word, when used as the name of itself, becomes a noun."--Goodenow's Gram., p. 26. But some grammarians say, "The plural of words, considered as words merely, is formed by the apostrophe and s; as, 'Who, that has any taste, can endure the incessant, quick returns of the also's, and the likewise's, and the moreover's, and the however's, and the notwithstanding's?'--CAMPBELL."--Wells's School Gram., p. 54. Practice is not altogether in favour of this principle, and perhaps it would be better to decide with Crombie that such a use of the apostrophe is improper.
[159] "The Supreme Being (God, [Greek: Theos], Deus, Dieu, &c.) is, in all languages, masculine; in as much as the masculine sex is the superior and more excellent; and as He is the Creator of all, the Father of gods and men."--Harris's Hermes, p. 54. This remark applies to all the direct names of the Deity, but the abstract idea of Deity itself, [Greek: To Theion], Numen, Godhead, or Divinity, is not masculine, but neuter. On this point, some notions have been published for grammar, that are too heterodox to be cited or criticised here. See O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 208.
[160] That is, we give them sex, if we mean to represent them as persons. In the following example, a character commonly esteemed feminine is represented as neuter, because the author would seem to doubt both the sex and the personality: "I don't know what a witch is, or what it was then."--N. P. Rogers's Writings, p. 154.
[161] There is the same reason for doubling the t in cittess, as for doubling the d in goddess. See Rule 3d for Spelling. Yet Johnson, Todd, Webster, Bolles, Worcester, and others, spell it citess, with one t.
"Cits and citesses raise a joyful strain."--DRYDEN: Joh. Dict.
[162] "But in the English we have no Genders, as has been seen in the foregoing Notes. The same may be said of Cases."--Brightland's Gram., Seventh Edition, Lond., 1746, p. 85.
[163] The Rev. David Blair so palpably contradicts himself in respect to this matter, that I know not which he favours most, two cases or three. In his main text, he adopts no objective, but says: "According to the sense or relation in which nouns are used, they are in the NOMINATIVE or [the] POSSESSIVE CASE, thus, nom. man; poss. man's." To this he adds the following marginal note: "In the English language, the distinction of the objective case is observable only in the pronouns. Cases being nothing but inflections, where inflections do not exist, there can be no grammatical distinction of cases, for the terms inflection and case are perfectly synonymous and convertible. As the English noun has only one change of termination, so no other case is here adopted. The objective case is noticed in the pronouns; and in parsing nouns it is easy to distinguish subjects from objects. A noun which governs the verb may be described as in the nominative case, and one governed by the verb, or following a preposition, as in the objective case."--Blair's Practical Gram., Seventh Edition, London, 1815, p. 11. The terms inflection and case are not practically synonymous, and never were so in the grammars of the language from which they are derived. The man who rejects the objective case of English nouns, because it has not a form peculiar to itself alone, must reject the accusative and the vocative of all neuter nouns in Latin, for the same reason; and the ablative, too, must in general be discarded on the same principle. In some other parts of his book, Blair speaks of the objective case of nouns as familiarly as do other authors!
[164] This author says, "We choose to use the term subjective rather than nominative, because it is shorter, and because it conveys its meaning by its sound, whereas the latter word means, indeed, little or nothing in itself."--Text-Book, p. 88. This appears to me a foolish innovation, too much in the spirit of Oliver B. Peirce, who also adopts it. The person who knows not the meaning of the word nominative, will not be very likely to find out what is meant by subjective; especially as some learned grammarians, even such men as Dr. Crombie and Professor Bullions, often erroneously call the word which is governed by the verb its subject. Besides, if we say subjective and objective, in stead of nominative and objective, we shall inevitably change the accent of both, and give them a pronunciation hitherto unknown to the words.--G. BROWN.
[165] The authorities cited by Felch, for his doctrine of "possessive adnouns," amount to nothing. They are ostensibly two. The first is a remark of Dr. Adam's: "'John's book was formerly written Johnis book. Some have thought the 's a contraction of his, but improperly. Others have imagined, with more justness, that, by the addition of the 's, the substantive is changed into a possessive adjective.'--Adam's Latin and English Grammar, p. 7."--Felch's Comp. Gram., p. 26. Here Dr. Adam by no means concurs with what these "others have imagined;" for, in the very same place, he declares the possessive case of nouns to be their only case. The second is a dogmatical and inconsistent remark of some anonymous writer in some part of the "American Journal of Education," a work respectable indeed, but, on the subject of grammar, too often fantastical and heterodox. Felch thinks it not improper, to use the possessive case before participles; in which situation, it denotes, not the owner of something, but the agent, subject, or recipient, of the action, being, or change. And what a jumble does he make, where he attempts to resolve this ungrammatical construction!--telling us, in almost the same breath, that, "The agent of a nounal verb [i. e. participle] is never expressed," but that, "Sometimes it [the nounal or gerundial verb] is qualified, in its nounal capacity, by a possessive adnoun indicative of its agent as a verb; as, there is nothing like one's BEING useful he doubted their HAVING it:" and then concluding, "Hence it appears, that the present participle may be used as agent or object, and yet retain its character as a verb."--Felch's Comprehensive Gram., p. 81. Alas for the schools, if the wise men of the East receive for grammar such utter confusion, and palpable self-contradiction, as this!
[166] A critic's accuracy is sometimes liable to be brought into doubt, by subsequent alterations of the texts which, he quotes. Many an error cited in this volume of criticism, may possibly not be found in some future edition of the book referred to; as several of those which were pointed out by Lowth, have disappeared from the places named for them. Churchill also cites this line as above; (New Gram., p. 214;) but, in my edition of the Odyssey, by Pope, the reading is this: "By lov'd Telemachus's blooming years!"--Book xi, L 84.
[167] Corpse forms the plural regularly, corpses; as in 2 Kings, xix, 35: "In the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses."
[168] Murray says, "An adjective put without a substantive, with the definite article before it, becomes a substantive in sense and meaning, and is written as a substantive: as, 'Providence rewards the good, and punishes the bad.'" If I understand this, it is very erroneous, and plainly contrary to the fact. I suppose the author to speak of good persons and bad persons; and, if he does, is there not an ellipsis in his language? How can it be said, that good and bad are here substantives, since they have a plural meaning and refuse the plural form? A word "written as a substantive," unquestionably is a substantive; but neither of these is here entitled to that name. Yet Smith, and other satellites of Murray, endorse his doctrine; and say, that good and bad in this example, and all adjectives similarly circumstanced, "may be considered nouns in parsing."--Smith's New Gram., p. 52. "An adjective with the definite article before it, becomes a noun, (of the third person, plural number,) and must be parsed as such."--R. G. Greene's Grammatical Text-Book, p. 55.
[169] Here the word English appears to be used substantively, not by reason of the article, but rather because it has no article; for, when the definite article is used before such a word taken in the singular number, it seems to show that the noun language is understood. And it is remarkable, that before the names or epithets by which we distinguish the languages, this article may, in many instances, be either used or not used, repeated or not repeated, without any apparent impropriety: as, "This is the case with the Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish."--Murray's Gram., i, p. 38. Better, perhaps: "This is the case with the Hebrew, the French, the Italian, and the Spanish." But we may say: "This is the case with Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish." In the first of these forms, there appears to be an ellipsis of the plural noun languages, at the end of the sentence; in the second, an ellipsis of the singular noun language, after each of the national epithets; in the last, no ellipsis, but rather a substantive use of the words in question.
[170] The Doctor may, for aught I know, have taken his notion of this "noun," from the language "of Dugald Dalgetty, boasting of his '5000 Irishes' in the prison of Argyle." See Letter of Wendell Phillips, in the Liberator, Vol. xi, p. 211.
[171] Lindley Murray, or some ignorant printer of his octavo Grammar, has omitted this s; and thereby spoiled the prosody, if not the sense, of the line:
"Of Sericana, where Chinese drive," &c. --Fourth American Ed., p. 345.
If there was a design to correct the error of Milton's word, something should have been inserted. The common phrase, "the Chinese," would give the sense, and the right number of syllables, but not the right accent. It would be sufficiently analogous with our mode of forming the words, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Scotchmen, Dutchmen, and Irishmen, and perhaps not unpoetical, to say:
"Of Sericana, where Chinese-men drive, With sails and wind, their cany wagons light."
[172] The last six words are perhaps more frequently pronouns; and some writers will have well-nigh all the rest to be pronouns also. "In like manner, in the English, there have been rescued from the adjectives, and classed with the pronouns, any, aught, each, every, many, none, one, other, some, such, that, those, this, these; and by other writers, all, another, both, either, few, first, last, neither, and several."--Wilson's Essay on Gram., p. 106. Had the author said wrested, in stead of "rescued," he would have taught a much better doctrine. These words are what Dr. Lowth correctly called "Pronominal Adjectives."--Lowth's Gram., p. 24. This class of adjectives includes most of the words which Murray, Lennie, Bullions, Kirkham, and others, so absurdly denominate "Adjective Pronouns." Their "Distributive Adjective Pronouns, each, every, either, neither;" their "Demonstrative Adjective Pronouns, this, that, these, those;" and their "Indefinite Adjective Pronouns, some, other, any, one, all, such, &c.," are every one of them here; for they all are Adjectives, and not Pronouns. And it is obvious, that the corresponding words in Latin, Greek, or French, are adjectives likewise, and are, for the most part, so called; so that, from General Grammar, or "the usages of other languages," arises an argument for ranking them as adjectives, rather than as pronouns. But the learned Dr. Bullions, after improperly assuming that every adjective must "express the quality of a noun," and thence arguing that no such definitives can rightly be called adjectives, most absurdly suggests, that "other languages," or "the usages of other languages," generally assign to these English words the place of substitutes! But so remarkable for self-contradiction, as well as other errors, is this gentleman's short note upon the classification of these words, that I shall present the whole of it for the reader's consideration.
"NOTE. The distributives, demonstratives, and indefinites, cannot strictly be called pronouns; since they never stand instead of nouns, but always agree with a noun expressed or understood: Neither can they be properly called adjectives, since they never express the quality of a noun. They are here classed with pronouns, in accordance with the usages of other languages, which generally assign them this place. All these, together with the possessives, in parsing, may with sufficient propriety be termed adjectives, being uniformly regarded as such in syntax."--Bullions's Principles of English Gram., p. 27. (See also his Appendix III, E. Gram., p. 199.)
What a sample of grammatical instruction is here! The pronominal adjectives "cannot properly be called adjectives," but "they may with sufficient propriety be termed adjectives!" And so may "the possessives," or the personal pronouns in the possessive case! "Here," i.e., in Etymology, they are all "classed with pronouns;" but, "in Syntax," they are "uniformly regarded as adjectives!" Precious MODEL for the "Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek, all on THE SAME PLAN!"
[173] Some, for somewhat, or in some degree, appears to me a vulgarism; as, "This pause is generally some longer than that of a period."--Sanborn's Gram., p. 271. The word what seems to have been used adverbially in several different senses; in none of which is it much to be commended: as, "Though I forbear, what am I eased?"--Job, xvi, 6. "What advantageth it me?"--1 Cor., xv, 32. Here what, means in what degree? how much? or wherein? "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?"--1 Cor., vii, 16. Here how would have been better. "The enemy, having his country wasted, what by himself and what by the soldiers, findeth succour in no place."--Spenser. Here what means partly;--"wasted partly by himself and partly by the soldiers." This use of what was formerly very common, but is now, I think, obsolete. What before an adjective seems sometimes to denote with admiration the degree of the quality; and is called, by some, an adverb; as, "What partial judges are our love and hate!"--Dryden. But here I take what to be an adjective; as when we say, such partial judges, some partial judges, &c. "What need I be forward with Death, that calls not on me?"--Shakspeare. Here what seems to be improperly put in place of why.
[174] Dr. Blair, in his Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres, often uses the phrase "this much;" but it is, I think, more common to say "thus much," even when the term is used substantively.
[175] There seems to be no good reason for joining an and other: on the contrary, the phrase an other is always as properly two words, as the phrase the other, and more so. The latter, being long ago vulgarly contracted into t'other, probably gave rise to the apparent contraction another; which many people nowadays are ignorant enough to divide wrong, and mispronounce. See "a-no-ther" in Murray's Spelling-Book, p. 71; and "a-noth-er" in Emerson's, p. 76. An here excludes any other article; and both analogy and consistency require that the words be separated. Their union, like that of the words the and other, has led sometimes to an improper repetition of the article: as, "Another such a man," for, "An other such man."--"Bind my hair up. An 'twas yesterday? No, nor the t'other day."--BEN JONSON: in Joh. Dict. "He can not tell when he should take the tone, and when the tother."--SIR T. MOORE: Tooke's D. P., Vol. 15, p. 448. That is--"when he should take the one and when the other." Besides, the word other is declined, like a noun, and has the plural others; but the compounding of another constrains our grammarians to say, that this word "has no plural." All these difficulties will be removed by writing an other as two words. The printers chiefly rule this matter. To them, therefore, I refer it; with directions, not to unite these words for me, except where it has been done in the manuscript, for the sake of exactness in quotation.--G. BROWN.
[176] This is a misapplication of the word between, which cannot have reference to more than two things or parties: the term should have been among.--G. BROWN.
[177] I suppose that, in a comparison of two, any of the degrees may be accurately employed. The common usage is, to construe the positive with as, the comparative with than, and the superlative with of. But here custom allows us also to use the comparative with of, after the manner of the superlative; as, "This is the better of the two." It was but an odd whim of some old pedant, to find in this a reason for declaring it ungrammatical to say "This is the best of the two." In one grammar, I find the former construction condemned, and the latter approved, thus: "This is the better book of the two. Not correct, because the comparative state of the adjective, (better,) can not correspond with the preposition, of. The definite article, the, is likewise improperly applied to the comparative state; the sentence should stand thus, This is the best book of the two."--Chandler's Gram., Ed. of 1821, p. 130; Ed. of 1847, p. 151.
[178] This example appears to have been borrowed from Campbell; who, however, teaches a different doctrine from Murray, and clearly sustains my position; "Both degrees are in such cases used indiscriminately. We say rightly, either 'This is the weaker of the two,' or--'the weakest of the two.'"--Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 202. How positively do some other men contradict this! "In comparing two persons or things, by means of an adjective, care must be taken, that the superlative state be not employed: We properly say, 'John is the taller of the two;' but we should not say, 'John is the tallest of the two.' The reason is plain: we compare but two persons, and must therefore use the comparative state."--Wright's Philosophical Gram., p. 143. Rev. Matt. Harrison, too, insists on it, that the superlative must "have reference to more than two," and censures Dr. Johnson for not observing the rule. See Harrison's English Language, p. 255.
[179] L. Murray copied this passage literally, (though anonymously,) as far as the colon; and of course his book teaches us to account "the termination ish, in some sort, a degree of comparison."--Octavo Gram., p. 47. But what is more absurd, than to think of accounting this, or any other suffix, "a degree of comparison?" The inaccuracy of the language is a sufficient proof of the haste with which Johnson adopted this notion, and of the blindness with which he has been followed. The passage is now found in most of our English grammars. Sanborn expresses the doctrine thus: "Adjectives terminating with ish, denote a degree of comparison less than the positive; as, saltish, whitish, blackish."--Analytical Gram., p. 87. But who does not know, that most adjectives of this ending are derived from nouns, and are compared only by adverbs, as childish, foolish, and so forth? Wilcox says, "Words ending in ish, generally express a slight degree; as, reddish, bookish."--Practical Gram., p. 17. But who will suppose that foolish denotes but a slight degree of folly, or bookish but a slight fondness for books? And, with such an interpretation, what must be the meaning of more bookish or most foolish?
[180] "'A rodde shall come furth of the stocke of Jesse.' Primer, Hen. VIII."--Craven Glossary.
[181] Midst is a contraction of the regular superlative middest, used by Spenser, but now obsolete. Midst, also, seems to be obsolete as an adjective, though still frequently used as a noun; as, "In the midst."--Webster. It is often a poetic contraction for the preposition amidst. In some cases it appears to be an adverb. In the following example it is equivalent to middlemost, and therefore an adjective: "Still greatest he the midst, Now dragon grown."--Paradise Lost, B. x, l. 528.
[182] What I here say, accords with the teaching of all our lexicographers and grammarians, except one dauntless critic, who has taken particular pains to put me, and some three or four others, on the defensive. This gentleman not only supposes less and fewer, least and fewest, to be sometimes equivalent in meaning, but actually exhibits them as being also etymologically of the same stock. Less and least, however, he refers to three different positives, and more and most, to four. And since, in once instance, he traces less and more, least and most, to the same primitive word, it follows of course, if he is right, that more is there equivalent to less and most is equivalent to least! The following is a copy of this remarkable "DECLENSION ON INDEFINITE SPECIFYING ADNAMES," and just one half of the table is wrong: "Some, more, most; Some, less, least; Little, less, least; Few, fewer or less, fewest or least; Several, more, most; Much, more, most; Many, more most."--Oliver B Peirce's Gram., p. 144.
[183] Murray himself had the same false notion concerning six of these adjectives, and perhaps all the rest; for his indefinite andsoforths may embrace just what the reader pleases to imagine. Let the following paragraph be compared with the observations and proofs which I shall offer: "Adjectives that have in themselves a superlative signification, do not properly admit of the superlative or [the] comparative form superadded: such as, 'Chief, extreme, perfect, right, universal, supreme,' &c.; which are sometimes improperly written, 'Chiefest, extremest, perfectest, rightest, most universal, most supreme,' &c. The following expressions are therefore improper. 'He sometimes claims admission to the chiefest offices;' 'The quarrel became so universal and national;' 'A method of attaining the rightest and greatest happiness.' The phrases, so perfect, so right, so extreme, so universal, &c., are incorrect; because they imply that one thing is less perfect, less extreme, &c. than another, which is not possible."--Murray's Gram., 8vo, Vol. i, p. 167. For himself, a man may do as he pleases about comparing these adjectives; but whoever corrects others, on such principles as the foregoing, will have work enough on his hands. But the writer who seems to exceed all others, in error on this point, is Joseph W. Wright. In his "Philosophical Grammar," p. 51st, this author gives a list of seventy-two adjectives, which, he says, "admit of no variation of state;" i. e., are not compared. Among them are round, flat, wet, dry, clear, pure, odd, free, plain, fair, chaste, blind, and more than forty others, which are compared about as often as any words in the language. Dr. Blair is hypercritically censured by him, for saying "most excellent," "more false," "the chastest kind," "more perfect" "fuller, more full, fullest, most full, truest and most true;" Murray, for using "quite wrong;" and Cobbett, for the phrase, "perfect correctness." "Correctness," says the critic, "does not admit of degrees of perfection."--Ib., pp. 143 and 151. But what does such a thinker know about correctness? If this excellent quality cannot be perfect, surely nothing can. The words which Dr. Bullions thinks it "improper to compare," because he judges them to have "an absolute or superlative signification," are "true, perfect, universal, chief, extreme, supreme, &c."--no body knows how many. See Principles of E. Gram., p. 19 and p. 115.
[184] The regular comparison of this word, (like, liker, likest,) seems to be obsolete, or nearly so. It is seldom met with, except in old books: yet we say, more like, or most like, less like, or least like. "To say the flock with whom he is, is likest to Christ."--Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 180. "Of Godlike pow'r? for likest Gods they seem'd."--Milton, P. L. B. vi, l. 301.
[185] This example, and several others that follow it, are no ordinary solecisms; they are downright Irish bulls, making actions or relations reciprocal, where reciprocity is utterly unimaginable. Two words can no more be "derived from each other," than two living creatures can have received their existence from each other. So, two things can never "succeed each other," except they alternate or move in a circle; and a greater number in train can "follow one an other" only in some imperfect sense, not at all reciprocal. In some instances, therefore, the best form of correction will be, to reject the reciprocal terms altogether--G. BROWN.
[186] This doctrine of punctuation, if not absolutely false in itself, is here very badly taught. When only two words, of any sort, occur in the same construction, they seldom require the comma; and never can they need more than one, whereas these grammarians, by their plural word "commas," suggest a constant demand for two or more.--G. BROWN.
[187] Some grammarians exclude the word it from the list of personal pronouns, because it does not convey the idea of that personality which consists in individual intelligence. On the other hand, they will have who to be a personal pronoun, because it is literally applied to persons only, or intelligent beings. But I judge them to be wrong in respect to both; and, had they given definitions of their several classes of pronouns, they might perhaps have found out that the word it is always personal, in a grammatical sense, and who, either relative or interrogative.
[188] "Whoso and whatso are found in old authors, but are now out of use."--Churchill's Gram., p. 76. These antiquated words are equivalent in import to whosoever and whatsoever. The former, whoso, being used many times in the Bible, and occasionally also by the poets, as by Cowper, Whittier, and others, can hardly be said to be obsolete; though Wells, like Churchill, pronounced it so, in his first edition.
[189] "'The man is prudent which speaks little.' This sentence is incorrect, because which is a pronoun of the neuter gender."--Murray's Exercises, p. 18. "Which is also a relative, but it is of [the] neuter gender. It is also interrogative."--Webster's Improved Gram., p. 26. For oversights like these, I cannot account. The relative which is of all the genders, as every body ought to know, who has ever heard of the horse which Alexander rode, of the ass which spoke to Balaam, or of any of the animals and things which Noah had with him in the ark.
[190] The word which also, when taken in its discriminative sense (i.e. to distinguish some persons or things from others) may have a construction of this sort; and, by ellipsis of the noun after it, it may likewise bear a resemblance to the double relative what: as, "I shall now give you two passages; and request you to point out which words are mono-syllables, which dis-syllables, which tris-syllables, and which poly-syllables."--Bucke's Gram., p. 16. Here, indeed, the word what might be substituted for which; because that also has a discriminative sense. Either would be right; but the author might have presented the same words and thoughts rather more accurately, thus: "I shall now give you two passages; and request you to point out which words are monosyllables; which, dissyllables; which, trissyllables; and which, polysyllables."
[191] The relative what, being equivalent to that which, sometimes has the demonstrative word that set after it, by way of pleonasm; as, "What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light, and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops."--Matt., x, 27. In Covell's Digest, this text is presented as "false syntax," under the new and needless rule, "Double relatives always supply two cases."--Digest of E. Gram., p. 143. In my opinion, to strike out the word that, would greatly weaken the expression: and so thought our translators; for no equivalent term is used in the original.
[192] As for Butler's method of parsing these words by always recognizing a noun as being "UNDERSTOOD" before them,--a method by which, according to his publishers notice, "The ordinary unphilosophical explanation of this class of words is discarded, and a simple, intelligible, common-sense view of the matter now for the first time substituted,"--I know not what novelty there is in it, that is not also just so much error. "Compare," says he, "these two sentences: 'I saw whom I wanted to see;' 'I saw what I wanted to see. If what in the latter is equivalent to that which or the thing which, whom, in the former is equivalent to him whom, or the person whom."--Butler's Practical Gram., p. 51. The former example being simply elliptical of the antecedent, he judges the latter to be so too; and infers, "that what is nothing more than a relative pronoun, and includes nothing else."--Ib. This conclusion is not well drawn, because the two examples are not analogous; and whoever thus finds "that what is nothing more than a relative," ought also to find it is something less,--a mere adjective. "I saw the person whom I wanted to see," is a sentence that can scarcely spare the antecedent and retain the sense; "I saw what I wanted to see," is one which cannot receive an antecedent, without changing both the sense and the construction. One may say, "I saw what things I wanted to see;" but this, in stead of giving what an antecedent, makes it an adjective, while it retains the force of a relative. Or he may insert a noun before what, agreeably to the solution of Butler; as, "I saw the things, what I wanted to see:" or, if he please, both before and after; as, "I saw the things, what things I wanted to see." But still, in either case, what is no "simple relative;" for it here seems equivalent to the phrase, so many as. Or, again, he may omit the comma, and say, "I saw the thing what I wanted to see;" but this, if it be not a vulgarism, will only mean, "I saw the thing to be what I wanted to see." So that this method of parsing the pronoun what, is manifestly no improvement, but rather a perversion and misinterpretation.
But, for further proof of his position, Butler adduces instances of what he calls "the relative THAT with the antecedent omitted. A few examples of this," he says, "will help us to ascertain the nature of what. 'We speak that we do know,' Bible. [John, iii, 11.] 'I am that I am.' Bible. [Exod., iii, 14.] 'Eschewe that wicked is.' Gower. 'Is it possible he should know what he is, and be that he is?' Shakespeare. 'Gather the sequel by that went before.' Id. In these examples," continues he, "that is a relative; and is exactly synonymous with what. No one would contend that that stands for itself and its antecedent at the same time. The antecedent is omitted, because it is indefinite, OR EASILY SUPPLIED."--Butler's Practical Gram., p. 52; Bullions's Analytical and Practical Gram., p. 233. Converted at his wisest age, by these false arguments, so as to renounce and gainsay the doctrine taught almost universally, and hitherto spread industriously by himself, in the words of Lennie, that, "What is a compound relative, including both the relative and the antecedent," Dr. Bullions now most absurdly urges, that, "The truth is, what is a simple relative, having, wherever used, like all other relatives, BUT ONE CASE; but * * * that it always refers to a general antecedent, omitted, BUT EASILY SUPPLIED by the mind," though "not UNDERSTOOD, in the ordinary sense of that expression."--Analyt. and Pract. Gram. of 1849, p. 51. Accordingly, though he differs from Butler about this matter of "the ordinary sense," he cites the foregoing suggestions of this author, with the following compliment: "These remarks appear to me just, and conclusive on this point."--Ib., p. 233. But there must, I think, be many to whon they will appear far otherwise. These elliptical uses of that are all of them bad or questionable English; because, the ellipsis being such as may be supplied in two or three different ways, the true construction is doubtful, the true meaning not exactly determined by the words. It is quite as easy and natural to take "that" to be here a demonstrative term, having the relative which understood after it, as to suppose it "a relative," with an antecedent to be supplied before it. Since there would not be the same uncertainty, if what were in these cases substituted for that, it is evident that the terms are not "exactly synonymous;" but, even if they were so, exact synonymy would not evince a sameness of construction.
[193] See this erroneous doctrine in Kirkham's Grammar, p. 112; in Wells's, p. 74; in Sanborn's, p. 71, p. 96, and p. 177; in Cooper's, p. 38; in O. B. Peirce's, p. 70. These writers show a great fondness for this complex mode of parsing. But, in fact, no pronoun, not even the word what, has any double construction of cases from a real or absolute necessity; but merely because, the noun being suppressed, yet having a representative, we choose rather to understand and parse its representative doubly, than to supply the ellipsis. No pronoun includes "both the antecedent and the relative," by virtue of its own composition, or of its own derivation, as a word. No pronoun can properly be called "compound" merely because it has a double construction, and is equivalent to two other words. These positions, if true, as I am sure they are, will refute sundry assertions that are contained in the above-named grammars.
[194] Here the demonstrative word that, as well as the phrase that matter, which I form to explain its construction, unquestionably refers back to Judas's confession, that he had sinned; but still, as the word has not the connecting power of a relative pronoun, its true character is that of an adjective, and not that of a pronoun. This pronominal adjective is very often mixed with some such ellipsis, and that to repeat the import of various kinds of words and phrases: as, "God shall help her, and that right early."--Psal., xlvi, 5. "Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren."--l Cor., vi, 8. "I'll know your business, that I will."--Shakespeare.
[195] Dr. Bullions has undertaken to prove, "That the word AS should not be considered a relative in any circumstances." The force of his five great arguments to this end, the reader may well conceive of, when he has compared the following one with what is shown in the 22d and 23d observations above: "3. As can never be used as a substitute for another relative pronoun, nor another relative pronoun as a substitute for it. If, then, it is a relative pronoun, it is, to say the least, a very unaccommodating one."--Bullions's Analytical and Practical Gram. of 1849, p. 233.
[196] The latter part of this awkward and complex rule was copied from Lowth's Grammar, p. 101. Dr. Ash's rule is, "Pronouns must always agree with the nouns for which they stand, or to which they refer, in Number, person, and gender."--Grammatical Institutes, p. 54. I quote this exactly as it stands in the book: the Italics are his, not mine. Roswell C. Smith appears to be ignorant of the change which Murray made in his fifth rule: for he still publishes as Murray's a principle of concord which the latter rejected as early as 1806: "RULE V. Corresponding with Murray's Grammar, RULE V. Pronouns must agree with the nouns for which they stand, in gender, number, AND PERSON."--Smith's New Gram., p. 130. So Allen Fisk, in his "Murray's English Grammar Simplified," p. 111; Aaron M. Merchant, in his "Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar, Revised, Enlarged and Improved," p. 79; and the Rev. J. G. Cooper, in his "Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar," p. 113; where, from the titles, every reader would expect to find the latest doctrines of Murray, and not what he had so long ago renounced or changed.
[197] L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 51; 12mo, 51; 18mo, 22; D. Adams's, 37; Alger's, 21; Bacon's, 19; Fisk's, 20; Kirkham's, 17; Merchant's Murray, 35; Merchant's American Gram., 40; F. H. Miller's Gram., 26; Pond's, 28; S. Putnam's, 22; Russell's, 16; Rev. T. Smith's, 22.
[198] Dr. Crombie, and some others, represent I and thou, with their inflections, as being "masculine and feminine." Lennie, M'Culloch, and others, represent them as being "masculine or feminine." But, if either of them can have an antecedent that is neuter, neither of these views is strictly correct. (See Obs. 5th, above.) Mackintosh says, "We use our, your, their, in speaking of a thing or things belonging to plural nouns of any gender."--Essay on English Gram., p. 149. So William Barnes says, "I, thou, we, ye or you, and they, are of all genders,"-- Philosophical Gram., p. 196.
[199] "It is perfectly plain, then, that my and mine are but different forms of the same word, as are a and an. Mine, for the sake of euphony, or from custom, stands for the possessive case without a noun; but must be changed for my when the noun is expressed: and my, for a similar reason, stands before a noun, but must be changed for mine when the noun is dropped. * * * Mine and my, thine and thy, will, therefore, be considered in this book, as different forms of the possessive case from I and Thou. And the same rule will be extended to her and hers, our and ours, your and yours, their and theirs."--Barnard's Analytic Grammar, p. 142.
[200] It has long been fashionable, in the ordinary intercourse of the world, to substitute the plural form of this pronoun for the singular through all the cases. Thus, by the figure ENALLAGE, "you are," for instance, is commonly put for "thou art." See Observations 20th and 21st, below; also Figures of Syntax, in Part IV.
[201] The original nominative was ye, which is still the only nominative of the solemn style; and the original objective was you, which is still the only objective that our grammarians in general acknowledge. But, whether grammatical or not, ye is now very often used, in a familiar way, for the objective case. (See Observations 22d and 23d, upon the declensions of pronouns.) T. Dilworth gave both cases alike: "Nom. Ye or you;" "Acc. [or Obj.] Ye or you."--His New Guide, p. 98. Latham gives these forms: "Nom. ye or you; Obj. you or ye."--Elementary Gram., p. 90. Dr. Campbell says, "I am inclined to prefer that use which makes ye invariably the nominative plural of the personal pronoun thou, and you the accusative, when applied to an actual plurality."--Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 174. Professor Fowler touches the case, rather blindly, thus: "Instead of the true nominative YE, we use, with few exceptions, the objective case; as, 'YOU speak;' 'YOU two are speaking.' In this we substitute one case for another."--Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, §478. No other grammarian, however, discards you as a nominative of "actual plurality;" and the present casual practice of putting ye in the objective, has prevailed to some extent for at least two centuries: as,
"Your change approaches, when all these delights Will vanish and deliver ye to woe." --Milton, P. L., B. iv, l. 367.
[202] Dr. Young has, in one instance, and with very doubtful propriety, converted this pronoun into the second person, by addressing himself thus:--
"O thou, myself I abroad our counsels roam And, like ill husbands, take no care at home." --Love of Fame, Sat. II, l. 271.
[203] The fashion of using the plural number for the singular, or you for thou, has also substituted yourself for thyself, in common discourse. In poetry, in prayer, in Scripture, and in the familiar language of the Friends, the original compound is still retained; but the poets use either term, according to the gravity or the lightness of their style. But yourself, like the regal compound ourself, though apparently of the singular number, and always applied to one person only, is, in its very nature, an anomalous and ungrammatical word; for it can neither mean more than one, nor agree with a pronoun or a verb that is singular. Swift indeed wrote: "Conversation is but carving; carve for all, yourself is starving." But he wrote erroneously, and his meaning is doubtful: probably he meant, "To carve for all, is, to starve yourself." The compound personals, when they are nominatives before the verb, are commonly associated with the simple; as, "I myself also am a man."--Acts, x, 16. "That thou thyself art a guide."--Rom., ii, 19. "If it stand, as you yourself still do"--Shakspeare. "That you yourself are much condemned."--Id. And, if the simple pronoun be omitted, the compound still requires the same form of the verb; as, "Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell."--Milton. The following example is different: "I love mankind; and in a monarchy myself is all that I can love."--Life of Schiller, Follen's Pref., p. x. Dr. Follen objects to the British version, "Myself were all that I could love;" and, if his own is good English, the verb is agrees with all, and not with myself. Is is of the third person: hence, "myself is" or, "yourself is," cannot be good syntax; nor does any one say, "yourself art," or, "ourself am," but rather, "yourself are:" as, "Captain, yourself are the fittest."--Dryden. But to call this a "concord," is to turn a third part of the language upsidedown; because, by analogy, it confounds, to such extent at least, the plural number with the singular through all our verbs; that is, if ourself and yourself are singulars, and not rather plurals put for singulars by a figure of syntax. But the words are, in some few instances, written separately; and then both the meaning and the construction are different; as, "Your self is sacred, profane it not."--The Dial, Vol. i, p. 86. Perhaps the word myself above ought rather to have been two words; thus, "And, in a monarchy, my self is all that I can love." The two words here differ in person and case, perhaps also in gender; and, in the preceding instance, they differ in person, number, gender, and case. But the compound always follows the person, number, and gender of its first part, and only the case of its last. The notion of some grammarians, (to wit, of Wells, and the sixty-eight others whom he cites for it,) that you and your are actually made singular by usage, is demonstrably untrue. Do we, our, and us, become actually singular, as often as a king or a critic applies them to himself? No: for nothing can be worse syntax than, we am, we was, or you was, though some contend for this last construction.
[204] Whose is sometimes used as the possessive case of which; as, "A religion whose origin is divine."--Blair. See Observations 4th and 5th, on the Classes of Pronouns.
[205] After but, as in the following sentence, the double relative what is sometimes applied to persons; and it is here equivalent to the friend who:--
"Lorenzo, pride repress; nor hope to find A friend, but what has found a friend in thee."--Young.
[206] Of all these compounds. L. Murray very improperly says, "They are seldom used, in modern style."--Octavo Gram., p. 54; also Fisk's, p. 65. None of them are yet obsolete, though the shorter forms seem to be now generally preferred. The following suggestion of Cobbett's is erroneous; because it implies that the shorter forms are innovations and faults; and because the author carelessly speaks of them as one thing only: "We sometimes omit the so, and say, whoever, whomever, whatever, and even whosever. It is a mere abbreviation. The so is understood: and, it is best not to omit to write it."--Eng. Gram., ¶ 209. R. C. Smith dismisses the compound relatives with three lines; and these he closes with the following notion: "They are not often used!"--New Gram., p. 61.
[207] Sanborn, with strange ignorance of the history of those words, teaches thus: "Mine and thine appear to have been formed from my and thy by changing y into i and adding n, and then subjoining e to retain the long sound of the vowel."--Analytical Gram., p. 92. This false notion, as we learn from his guillemets and a remark in his preface, he borrowed from "Parkhurst's Systematic Introduction." Dr. Lowth says, "The Saxon Ic hath the possessive case Min; Thu, possessive Thin; He, possessive His: From which our possessive cases of the same pronouns are taken without alteration."--Lowth's Gram., p. 23.
[208] Latham, with a singularity quite remarkable, reverses this doctrine in respect to the two classes, and says, "My, thy, our, your, her, and their signify possession, because they are possessive cases. * * * Mine, thine, ours, yours, hers, theirs, signify possession for a different reason. They partake of the nature of adjectives, and in all the allied languages are declined as such."--Latham's Elementary E. Gram., p. 94. Weld, like Wells, with a few more whose doctrine will be criticised by-and-by, adopting here an other odd opinion, takes the former class only for forms of the possessive case; the latter he disposes of thus: "Ours, yours, theirs, hers, and generally mine and thine, are POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS, used in either the nominative or objective case,"--Weld's Gram., Improved Ed., p. 68. Not only denying the possessives with ellipsis to be instances of the possessive case, but stupidly mistaking at once two dissimilar things for a third which is totally unlike to either,--i. e., assuming together for substitution both an ellipsis of one word and an equivalence to two--(as some others more learned have very strangely done--) he supposes all this class of pronouns to have forsaken every property of their legitimate roots,--their person, their number, their gender, their case,--and to have assumed other properties, such as belong to "the thing possessed!" In the example, "Your house is on the plain, ours is on the hill," he supposes ours to be of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case; and not, as it plainly is, of the first person, plural number, masculine gender, and possessive case. Such parsing should condemn forever any book that teaches it.
[209] This word should have been numerals, for two or three reasons. The author speaks of the numeral adjectives; and to say "the numbers must agree in number with their substantives," is tautological--G. Brown.
[210] Cardell assails the common doctrine of the grammarians on this point, with similar assertions, and still more earnestness. See his Essay on Language, p. 80. The notion that "these pretended possessives [are] uniformly used as nominatives or objectives"--though demonstrably absurd, and confessedly repugnant to what is "usually considered" to be their true explanation--was adopted by Jaudon, in 1812; and has recently found several new advocates; among whom are Davis, Felch, Goodenow, Hazen, Smart, Weld, and Wells. There is, however, much diversity, as well as much inaccuracy, in their several expositions of the matter. Smart inserts in his declensions, as the only forms of the possessive case, the words of which he afterwards speaks thus: "The following possessive cases of the personal pronouns, (See page vii,) must be called PERSONAL PRONOUNS POSSESSIVE: mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, theirs. For these words are always used substantively, so as to include the meaning of some noun in the third person singular or plural, in the nominative or the objective ease. Thus, if we are speaking of books, and say [,] 'Mine are here,' mine means my books, [Fist] and it must be deemed a personal pronoun possessive in the third person plural, and nominative to the verb are."--Smart's Accidence, p. xxii. If to say, these "possessive cases must be called a class of pronouns, used substantively, and deemed nominatives or objectives," is not absurd, then nothing can be. Nor is any thing in grammar more certain, than that the pronoun "mine" can only be used by the speaker or writer, to denote himself or herself as the owner of something. It is therefore of the first person, singular number, masculine (or feminine) gender, and possessive case; being governed by the name of the thing or things possessed. This name is, of course, always known; and, if known and not expressed, it is "understood." For sometimes a word is repeated to the mind, and clearly understood, where "it cannot properly be" expressed; as, "And he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none."--Luke, xiii, 6. Wells opposes this doctrine, citing a passage from Webster, as above, and also imitating his argument. This author acknowledges three classes of pronouns--"personal, relative, and interrogative;" and then, excluding these words from their true place among personals of the possessive case, absurdly makes them a supernumerary class of possessive nominatives or objectives! "Mine, thine, his, ours, yours, and theirs, are POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS, used in construction either as nominatives or objectives; as, 'Your pleasures are past, mine are to come.' Here the word mine, which is used as a substitute for my pleasures, is the subject of the verb are."--Wells's School Gram., p. 71; 113 Ed., p. 78. Now the question to find the subject of the verb are, is, "My what are to come?" Ans. "pleasures." But the author proceeds to argue in a note thus: "Mine, thine, etc. are often parsed as pronouns in the possessive case, and governed by nouns understood. Thus, in the sentence, 'This book is mine,' the word mine is said to possess book. That the word book is not here understood, is obvious from the fact, that, when it is supplied, the phrase becomes not 'mine book,' but 'my book,' the pronoun being changed from mine to my; so that we are made, by this practice, to parse mine as possessing a word understood, before which it cannot properly be used. The word mine is here evidently employed as a substitute for the two words, my and book."--Wells, ibid. This note appears to me to be, in many respects, faulty. In the first place, its whole design was, to disprove what is true. For, bating the mere difference of person, the author's example above is equal to this: "Your pleasures are past, W. H. Wells's are to come." The ellipsis of "pleasures", is evident in both. But ellipsis is not substitution; no, nor is equivalence. Mine, when it suggests an ellipsis of the governing noun, is equivalent to my and that noun; but certainly, not "a substitute for the two words." It is a substitute, or pronoun, for the name of the speaker or writer; and so is my; both forms representing, and always agreeing with, that name or person only. No possessive agrees with what governs it; but every pronoun ought to agree with that for which it stands. Secondly, if the note above cited does not aver, in its first sentence, that the pronouns in question are "governed by nouns understood," it comes much nearer to saying this, than a writer should who meant to deny it. In the third place, the example, "This book is mine," is not a good one for its purpose. The word "mine" may be regularly parsed as a possessive, without supposing any ellipsis; for "book," the name of the thing possessed, is given, and in obvious connexion with it. And further, the matter affirmed is ownership, requiring different cases; and not the identity of something under different names, which must be put in the same case. In the fourth place, to mistake regimen for possession, and thence speak of one word "as possessing" an other, a mode of expression occurring twice in the foregoing note, is not only unscholarlike, but positively absurd. But, possibly, the author may have meant by it, to ridicule the choice phraseology of the following Rule: "A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the noun it possesses."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 181; Frazee's, 1844, p. 25.
[211] In respect to the numbers, the following text is an uncouth exception: "Pass ye away, thou inhabitant of Saphir."--Micah, i, 11. The singular and the plural are here strangely confounded. Perhaps the reading should be, "Pass thou away, O inhabitant of Saphir." Nor is the Bible free from abrupt transitions from one number to the other, or from one person to an other, which are neither agreeable nor strictly grammatical; as, "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which [who] are spiritual, restore such an [a] one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."--Gal., vi, 1. "Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near; that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches," &c--Amos, vi, 9.
[212] "The solemn style is used, chiefly, in the Bible and in prayer. The Society of Friends retain it in common parlance. It consists in using thou in the singular number, and ye in the plural, instead of using you in both numbers as in the familiar style. * * * The third person singular [of verbs] ends with th or eth, which affects only the present indicative, and hath of the perfect. The second person, singular, ends with st, est, or t only."--Sanborn's Gram., p. 58. "In [the] solemn and poetic styles, mine, thine, and thy, are used; and THIS is the style adopted by the Friends' society. In common discourse it appears very stiff and affected."--Bartlett's C. S. Man'l, Part II, p. 72.
[213] "And of the History of his being tost in a Blanket, he saith, 'Here, Scriblerus, thou lessest in what thou assertest concerning the blanket: it was not a blanket, but a rug.--Curlliad, p. 25."--Notes to Pope's Dunciad, B. ii, verse 3. A vulgar idea solemnly expressed, is ludicrous. Uttered in familiar terms, it is simply vulgar: as, "You lie, Scriblerus, in what you say about the blanket."
[214] "Notwithstanding these verbal mistakes, the Bible, for the size of it, is the most accurate grammatical composition that we have in the English language. The authority of several eminent grammarians might be adduced in support of this assertion, but it may be sufficient to mention only that of Dr. Lowth, who says, 'The present translation of the Bible, is the best standard of the English language.'"--Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 166. I revere the Bible vastly too much to be pleased with an imitation of its peculiar style, in any man's ordinary speech or writing.--G. BROWN.
[215] "Ye, except in the solemn style, is obsolete; but it is used in the language of tragedy, to express contempt: as, 'When ye shall know what Margaret knows, ye may not be so thankful.' Franklin."--W. Allen's Gram., p. 57. "The second person plural had formerly YE both in the nominative and the objective. This form is now obsolete in the objective, and nearly obsolete in the nominative."--Hart's Gram., p. 55.
[216] So has Milton:--
"To waste it all myself, and leave ye none! So disinherited how would you bless me!"--Par. Lost, B. x, l. 820.
[217] "The word what is a compound of two specifying adjectives, each, of course, referring to a noun, expressed or understood. It is equivalent to the which; that which; which that; or that that; used also in the plural. At different periods, and in different authors, it appears in the varying forms, tha qua, qua tha, qu'tha, quthat, quhat, hwat, and what. This word is found in other forms; but it is needless to multiply them."--Cardell's Essay on Language, p. 86.
[218] This author's distribution of the pronouns, of which I have taken some notice in Obs. 10th above, is remarkable for its inconsistencies and absurdities. First he avers, "Pronouns are generally divided into three kinds, the Personal, the Adjective, and the Relative pronouns. They are all known by the lists."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 96. These short sentences are far from being accurate, clear, or true. He should have made the several kinds known, by a good definition of each. But this was work to which he did not find himself adequate. And if we look to his lists for the particular words of each kind, we shall get little satisfaction. Of the Personal pronouns, he says, "There are five of them; I, thou, he, she, it."--Ib., p. 97. These are simple words, and in their declension they are properly multiplied to forty. (See Ib., p. 99.) Next he seems to double the number, thus: "When self is added to the personal pronouns, as himself, myself, itself, themselves, &c. they are called Compound Personal Pronouns."--Ib., p. 99. Then he asserts that mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, and theirs, are compounds of ne or s with mi, thi, hi, &c.: that their application invariably "gives them a compound character:" and that, "They may, therefore, be properly denominated Compound Personal Pronouns."--Ib., p. 101. Next he comes to his Adjective pronouns; and, after proving that he has grossly misplaced and misnamed every one of them, he gives his lists of the three kinds of these. His Relative pronouns are who, which, and that. "What is generally a compound relative."--Ib., p. 111. The compounds of who, which, and what, with ever or soever, he calls "compound pronouns, but not compound relatives."--Ib., pp. 110 and 112. Lastly he discovers, that, "Truth and simplicity" have been shamefully neglected in this his third section of pronouns; that, "Of the words called 'relatives,' who only is a pronoun, and this is strictly personal;" that, "It ought to be classed with the personal pronouns;" and that, "Which, that, and what, are always adjectives. They never stand for, but always belong to nouns, either expressed or implied."--Ib., p. 114. What admirable teachings are these!
[219] "It is now proper to give some examples of the manner in which the learners should be exercised, in order to improve their knowledge, and to render it familiar to them. This is called parsing. The nature of the subject, as well as the adaptation of it to learners, requires that it should be divided into two parts: viz. parsing, as it respects etymology alone; and parsing, as it respects both etymology and syntax."--Murray's Gram., Octavo, Vol. 1, p. 225. How very little real respect for the opinions of Murray, has been entertained by these self-seeking magnifiers and modifiers of his work!
What Murray calls "Syntactical Parsing" is sometimes called "Construing," especially by those who will have Parsing to be nothing more than an etymological exercise. A late author says, "The practice of Construing differs from that of parsing, in the extension of its objects. Parsing merely indicates the parts of speech and their accidents, but construing searches for and points out their syntactical relations."--D. Blair's Gram., p. 49.
Here the distinction which Murray judged to be necessary, is still more strongly marked and insisted on. And though I see no utility in restricting the word Parsing to a mere description of the parts of speech with their accidents, and no impropriety in calling the latter branch of the exercise "Syntactical Parsing;" I cannot but think there is such a necessity for the division, as forms a very grave argument against those tangled schemes of grammar which do not admit of it. Blair is grossly inconsistent with himself. For, after drawing his distinction between Parsing and Construing, as above, he takes no further notice of the latter; but, having filled up seven pages with his most wretched mode of "PARSING," adds, in an emphatic note: "The Teacher should direct the Pupil to CONSTRUE, IN THE SAME MANNER, any passage from MY CLASS-BOOK, or other Work, at the rate of three or four lines per day."--D. Blair's Gram., p. 56.
[220] This is a comment upon the following quotation from Milton, where Hers for His would be a gross barbarism:--
"Should intermitted vengeance arm again His red right hand to plague us."--Par. Lost, B. ii, l. 174.
[221] The Imperfect Participle, when simple, or when taken as one of the four principal terms constituting the verb or springing from it, ends always in ing. But, in a subsequent chapter, I include under this name the first participle of the passive verb; and this, in our language, is always a compound, and the latter term of it does not end in ing: as, "In all languages, indeed, examples are to be found of adjectives being compared whose signification admits neither intension nor remission."--CROMBIE, on Etym. and Syntax, p. 106. According to most of our writers on English grammar, the Present or Imperfect Participle Passive is always a compound of being and the form of the perfect participle: as, being loved, being seen. But some represent it to have two forms, one of which is always simple; as, "PERFECT PASSIVE, obeyed or being obeyed."--Sanborn's Analytical Gram., p. 55. "Loved or being loved."--Parkhurst's Grammar for Beginners, p. 11; Greene's Analysis, p. 225. "Loved, or, being loved."--Clark's Practical Gram., p. 83. I here concur with the majority, who in no instance take the participle in ed or en, alone, for the Present or Imperfect.
[222] In the following example, "he" and "she" are converted into verbs; as "thou" sometimes is, in the writings of Shakspeare, and others: "Is it not an impulse of selfishness or of a depraved nature to he and she inanimate objects?"--Cutler's English Gram., p. 16. Dr. Bullions, who has heretofore published several of the worst definitions of the verb anywhere extant, has now perhaps one of the best: "A VERB is a word used to express the act, being, or state of its subject. "--Analyt. & Pract. Gram., p. 59. Yet it is not very obvious, that "he" and "she" are here verbs under this definition. Dr. Mandeville, perceiving that "the usual definitions of the verb are extremely defective," not long ago helped the schools to the following: "A verb is a word which describes the state or condition of a noun or pronoun in relation to time,"--Course of Reading, p. 24. Now it is plain, that under this definition too, Cutler's infinitives, "to he and she" cannot be verbs; and, in my opinion, very small is the number of words that can be. No verb "describes the state or condition of a noun or pronoun," except in some form of parsing; nor, even in this sort of exercise, do I find any verb "which describes the state or condition" of such a word "in relation to time." Hence, I can make of this definition nothing but nonsense. Against my definition of a verb, this author urges, that it "excludes neuter verbs, expresses no relation to subject or time, and uses terms in a vague or contradictory sense."--Ib., p. 25. The first and the last of these three allegations do not appear to be well founded; and the second, if infinitives are verbs, indicates an excellence rather than a fault. The definition assumes that the mind as well as the body may "act" or "be acted upon." For this cause, Dr. Mandeville, who cannot conceive that "to be loved" is in any wise "to be acted upon," pronounces it "fatally defective!" His argument is a little web of sophistry, not worth unweaving here. One of the best scholars cited in the reverend Doctor's book says, "Of mental powers we have no conception, but as certain capacities of intellectual action." And again, he asks, "Who can be conscious of judgment, memory, and reflection, and doubt that man was made to act!"--EVERETT: Course of Reading, p. 320.
[223] Dr. Johnson says, "English verbs are active, as I love; or neuter, as I languish. The neuters are formed like the actives. The passive voice is formed by joining the participle preterit to the substantive verb, as I am loved." He also observes, "Most verbs signifying action may likewise signify condition or habit, and become neuters; as, I love, I am in love; I strike, I am now striking."--Gram. with his Quarto Dict., p. 7.
[224] The doctrine here referred to, appears in both works in the very same words: to wit, "English Verbs are either Active, Passive, or Neuter. There are two sorts of Active Verbs, viz. active-transitive and active-intransitive Verbs."--British Gram., p. 153; Buchanan's, 56. Buchanan was in this case the copyist.
[225] "The distinction between verbs absolutely neuter, as to sleep, and verbs active intransitive, as to walk, though founded in NATURE and TRUTH, is of little use in grammar. Indeed it would rather perplex than assist the learner; for the difference between verbs active and [verbs] neuter, as transitive and intransitive, is easy and obvious; but the difference between verbs absolutely neuter and [those which are] intransitively active is not always clear. But however these latter may differ in nature, the construction of them both is the same; and grammar is not so much concerned with their real, as with their grammatical properties."--Lowth's Gram; p. 30. But are not "TRUTH, NATURE, and REALITY," worthy to be preferred to any instructions that contradict them? If they are, the good doctor and his worthy copyist have here made an ill choice. It is not only for the sake of these properties, that I retain a distinction which these grammarians, and others above named, reject; but for the sake of avoiding the untruth, confusion, and absurdity, into which one must fall by calling all active-intransitive verbs neuter. The distinction of active verbs, as being either transitive or intransitive, is also necessarily retained. But the suggestion, that this distinction is more "easy and obvious" than the other, is altogether an error. The really neuter verbs, being very few, occasion little or no difficulty. But very many active verbs, perhaps a large majority, are sometimes used intransitively; and of those which our lexicographers record as being always transitive, not a few are occasionally found without any object, either expressed or clearly suggested: as, "He convinces, but he does not elevate nor animate,"--Blair's Rhet., p. 242. "The child imitates, and commits to memory; whilst the riper age digests, and thinks independently."--Dr. Lieber, Lit. Conv., p. 313. Of examples like these, three different views maybe taken; and it is very questionable which is the right one: First, that these verbs are here intransitive, though they are not commonly so; Second, that they are transitive, and have objects understood; Third, that they are used improperly, because no determinate objects are given them. If we assume the second opinion or the last, the full or the correct expressions may be these: "He convinces the judgement, but he does not elevate the imagination, or animate the feelings."--"The child imitates others, and commits words to memory; whilst the riper age digests facts or truths, and thinks independently." These verbs are here transitive, but are they so above? Those grammarians who, supposing no other distinction important, make of verbs but two classes, transitive and intransitive, are still as much at variance, and as much at fault, as others, (and often more so,) when they come to draw the line of this distinction. To "require" an objective, to "govern" an objective, to "admit" an objective, and to "have" an objective, are criterions considerably different. Then it is questionable, whether infinitives, participles, or sentences, must or can have the effect of objectives. One author says, "If a verb has any objective case expressed, it is transitive: if it has none, it is intransitive. Verbs which appear transitive in their nature, may frequently be used intransitively."-- Chandler's Old Gram., p. 32; his Common School Gram., p. 48. An other says, "A transitive verb asserts action which does or can, terminate on some object."--Frazee's Gram., p. 29. An other avers, "There are two classes of verbs perfectly distinct from each other, viz: Those which do, and those which do not, govern an objective case." And his definition is, "A Transitive Verb is one which requires an objective case after it."--Hart's E. Gram., p. 63. Both Frazee and Hart reckon the passive verb transitive! And the latter teaches, that, "Transitive verbs in English, are sometimes used without an objective case; as, The apple tastes sweet!"--Hart's Gram., p, 73.
[226] In the hands of some gentlemen, "the Principles of Latin Grammar," and "the Principles of English Grammar,"--are equally pliable, or changeable; and, what is very remarkable, a comparison of different editions will show, that the fundamental doctrines of a whole "Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek," may so change in a single lustrum, as to rest upon authorities altogether different. Dr. Bullions's grammars, a few years ago, like those of his great oracles, Adam, Murray, and Lennie, divided verbs into "three kinds, Active, Passive, and Neuter." Now they divide them into two only, "Transitive and Intransitive;" and absurdly aver, that "Verbs in the passive form are really transitive as in the active form."--Prin. of E. Gram., 1843, p. 200. Now, as if no verb could be plural, and no transitive act could be future, conditional, in progress, or left undone, they define thus: "A Transitive verb expresses an act done by one person or thing to another."--Ib., p. 29; Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 60; Latin Gram., 77. Now, the division which so lately as 1842 was pronounced by the Doctor to be "more useful than any other," and advantageously accordant with "most dictionaries of the English language," (see his Fourth Edition, p. 30,) is wholly rejected from this notable "Series." Now, the "vexed question" about "the classification of verbs," which, at some revision still later, drew from this author whole pages of weak arguments for his faulty changes, is complacently supposed to have been well settled in his favour! Of this matter, now, in 1849, he speaks thus: "The division of verbs into transitive and intransitive has been so generally adopted and approved by the best grammarians, that any discussion of the subject is now unnecessary."--Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 59.
[227] This late writer seems to have published his doctrine on this point as a novelty; and several teachers ignorantly received and admired it as such: I have briefly shown, in the Introduction to this work, how easily they were deceived. "By this, that Question may be resolv'd, whether every Verb not Passive governs always an Accusative, at least understood: 'Tis the Opinion of some very able GRAMMARIANS, but for our Parts we don't think it."--Grammar published by John Brightland, 7th Ed., London, 1746, p. 115.
[228] Upon this point, Richard Johnson cites and criticises Lily's system thus: "'A Verb Neuter endeth in o or m, and cannot take r to make him a Passive; as, Curro, I run; Sum, I am.'--Grammar, Eng. p. 13. This Definition, is founded upon the Notion abovementioned, viz. That none but Transitives are Verbs Active, which is contrary to the reason of Things, and the common sense of Mankind. And what can shock a Child more, of any Ingenuity, than to be told, That Ambuto and Curro are Verbs Neuter; that is, to speak according to the common Apprehensions of Mankind, that they signifie neither to do, nor suffer."--Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries, 8vo, London, 1706, p. 273.
[229] Murray says, "Mood or Mode is a particular form of the verb, showing the manner in which the being, action, or passion is represented."--Octavo Gram., p. 63. By many grammarians, the term Mode is preferred to Mood; but the latter is, for this use, the more distinctive, and by far the more common word. In some treatises on grammar, as well as in books of logic, certain parts of speech, as adjectives and adverbs, are called Modes, because they qualify or modify other terms. E.g., "Thus all the parts of speech are reducible to four; viz., Names, Verbs, Modes, Connectives."--Enclytica, or Universal Gram., p. 8. "Modes are naturally divided, by their attribution to names or verbs, into adnames and adverbs."--Ibid., p. 24. After making this application of the name modes, was it not improper for the learned author to call the moods also "modes?"
[230] "We have, in English, no genuine subjunctive mood, except the preterimperfect, if I were, if thou wert, &c. of the verb to be. [See Notes and Observations on the Third Example of Conjugation, in this chapter.] The phrase termed the subjunctive mood, is elliptical; shall, may, &c. being understood: as, 'Though hand (shall) join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished.' 'If it (may) be possible, live peaceably with all.' Scriptures."--Rev. W. Allen's Gram., p. 61. Such expressions as, "If thou do love, If he do love," appear to disprove this doctrine. [See Notes and Remarks on the Subjunctive of the First Example conjugated below.]
[231] "Mr. Murray has changed his opinion, as often as Laban changed Jacob's wages. In the edition we print from, we find shall and will used in each person of the first and second future tenses of the subjunctive, but he now states that in the second future tense, shalt, shall, should be used instead of wilt, will. Perhaps this is the only improvement he has made in his Grammar since 1796."--Rev. T. Smith's Edition of Lindley Murray's English Grammar, p. 67.
[232] Notwithstanding this expression, Murray did not teach, as do many modern grammarians, that inflected forms of the present tense, such as, "If he thinks so," "Unless he deceives me," "If thou lov'st me," are of the subjunctive mood; though, when he rejected his changeless forms of the other tenses of this mood, he improperly put as many indicatives in their places. With him, and his numerous followers, the ending determines the mood in one tense, while the conjunction controls it in the other five! In his syntax, he argues, "that in cases wherein contingency and futurity do not occur, it is not proper to turn the verb from its signification of present time, nor to vary [he means, or to forbear to change] its form or termination. [Fist] The verb would then be in the indicative mood, whatever conjunctions might attend it."--L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 208: 12mo, p. 167.
[233] Some grammarians--(among whom are Lowth, Dalton, Cobbett, and Cardell--) recognize only three tenses, or "times," of English verbs; namely, the present, the past, and the future. A few, like Latham and Child, denying all the compound tenses to be tenses, acknowledge only the first two, the present and the past; and these they will have to consist only of the simple or radical verb and the simple preterit. Some others, who acknowledge six tenses, such as are above described, have endeavoured of late to change the names of a majority of them; though with too little agreement among themselves, as may be seen by the following citations: (1.) "We have six tenses; three, the Present, Past, and Future, to represent time in a general way; and three, the Present Perfect, Past Perfect, and Future Perfect, to represent the precise time of finishing the action."--Perley's Gram., 1834, p. 25. (2.) "There are six tenses; the present, the past, the present-perfect, the past-perfect, the future, and the future-perfect."--Hiley's Gram., 1840, p. 28. (3.) "There are six tenses; the Present and Present Perfect, the Past and Past Perfect, and the Future and Future Perfect."--Farnum's Gram., 1842, p. 34. (4.) "The names of the tenses will then be, Present, Present Perfect; Past, Past Perfect; Future, Future Perfect. They are usually named as follows: Present, Perfect, Imperfect, Pluperfect, Future, Second Future."--N. Butler's Gram, 1845, p. 69. (5.) "We have six tenses;--the present, the past, the future, the present perfect, the past perfect, and the future perfect."--Wells's School Gram., 1846. p. 82. (6.) "The tenses in English are six--the Present, the Present-perfect, the Past, the Past-perfect, the Future, and the Future-perfect."--Bullions's Gram., 1849. p. 71. (7.) "Verbs have Six Tenses, called the Present, the Perfect-Present, the Past, the Perfect-Past, the Future, and the Perfect-Future."--Spencer's Gram., 1852, p. 53. (8.) "There are six tenses: the present, past, future, present perfect, past perfect, and future perfect."--Covell's Gram., 1853, p. 62. (9.) "The tenses are--the present, the present perfect; the past, the past perfect; the future, the future perfect."--S. S. Greene's Gram., 1853, p. 65. (10.) "There are six tenses; one present, and but one, three past, and two future." They are named thus: "The Present, the First Past, the Second Past, the Third Past, the First Future, the Second Future."--"For the sake of symmetry, to call two of them present, and two only past, while one only is present, and three are past tenses, is to sacrifice truth to beauty."--Pinneo's Gram., 1853, pp. 69 and 70. "The old names, imperfect, perfect, and pluperfect," which, in 1845, Butler justly admitted to be the usual names of the three past tenses. Dr. Pinneo, who dates his copy-right from 1850, most unwarrantably declares to be "now generally discarded!"--Analytical Gram., p. 76; Same Revised, p. 81. These terms, still predominant in use, he strangely supposes to have been suddenly superseded by others which are no better, if so good: imagining that the scheme which Perley or Hiley introduced, of "two present, two past, and two future tenses,"--a scheme which, he says, "has no foundation in truth, and is therefore to be rejected,"--had prepared the way for the above-cited innovation of his own, which merely presents the old ideas under new terms, or terms partly new, and wholly unlikely to prevail. William Ward, one of the ablest of our old grammarians, rejecting in 1765 the two terms imperfect and perfect, adopted others which resemble Pinneo's; but few, if any, have since named the tenses as he did, thus: "The Present, the First Preterite, the Second Preterite, the Pluperfect, the First Future, the Second Future."--Ward's Gram., p. 47.
[234] "The infinitive mood, as 'to shine,' may be called the name of the verb; it carries neither time nor affirmation; but simply expresses that attribute, action, or state of things, which is to be the subject of the other moods and tenses."--Blair's Lectures, p. 81. By the word "subject" the Doctor does not here mean the nominative to the other moods and tenses, but the material of them, or that which is formed into them.
[235] Some grammarians absurdly deny that persons and numbers are properties of verbs at all: not indeed because our verbs have so few inflections, or because these authors wish to discard the little distinction that remains; but because they have some fanciful conception, that these properties cannot pertain to a verb. Yet, when they come to their syntax, they all forget, that if a verb has no person and number, it cannot agree with a nominative in these respects. Thus KIRKHAM: "Person, strictly speaking, is a quality that belongs not to verbs, but to nouns and pronouns. We say, however, that the verb must agree with its nominative in person, as well as in number."--Gram. in Familiar Lect., p. 46. So J. W. WRIGHT: "In truth, number and person are not properties of verbs. Mr. Murray grants that, 'in philosophical strictness, both number and person might (say, may) be excluded from every verb, as they are, in fact, the properties of substantives, not a part of the essence of the verb.'"--Philosophical Gram., p. 68. This author's rule of syntax for verbs, makes them agree with their nominatives, not in person and number, but in termination, or else in nobody knows what: "A verb must vary its terminations, so as to agree with the nominative to which it is connected."--Ib., p. 168. But Murray's rule is, "A verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person:" and this doctrine is directly repugnant to that interpretation of his words above, by which these gentlemen have so egregiously misled themselves and others. Undoubtedly, both the numbers and the persons of all English verbs might be abolished, and the language would still be intelligible. But while any such distinctions remain, and the verb is actually modified to form them, they belong as properly to this part of speech as they can to any other. De Sacy says, "The distinction of number occurs in the verb;" and then adds, "yet this distinction does not properly belong to the verb, as it signifies nothing which can be numbered."--Fosdick's Version, p. 64. This deceptive reason is only a new form of the blunder which I have once exposed, of confounding the numbers in grammar with numbers in arithmetic. J. M. Putnam, after repeating what is above cited from Murray, adds: "The terms number and person, as applied to the verb are figurative. The properties which belong to one thing, for convenience' sake are ascribed to another."--Gram., p. 49. Kirkham imagines, if ten men build a house, or navigate a ship round the world, they perform just "ten actions," and no more. "Common sense teaches you," says he, "that there must be as many actions as there are actors; and that the verb when it has no form or ending to show it, is as strictly plural, as when it has. So, in the phrase, 'We walk,' the verb walk is [of the] first person, because it expresses the actions performed by the speakers. The verb, then, when correctly written, always agrees, in sense, with its nominative in number and person."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 47. It seems to me, that these authors do not very well know what persons or numbers, in grammar, are.
[236] John Despauter, whose ample Grammar of the Latin language appeared in its third edition in 1517, represents this practice as a corruption originating in false pride, and maintained by the wickedness of hungry flatterers. On the twentieth leaf of his Syntax, he says, "Videntur hodie Christiani superbiores, quam olim ethnici imperatores, qui dii haberi voluerunt; nam hi nunquam inviti audierunt pronomina tu, tibi, tuus. Quæ si hodie alicui monachorum antistiti, aut decano, aut pontifici dicantur aut scribantur, videbitur ita loquens aut scribens blasphemasse, et anathemate dignus: nec tamen Abbas, aut pontifex, tam ægrè feret, quam Malchi, aut famelici gnathones, his assistentes, et vociferantes, Sic loqueris, aut scribis, pontifici? Quintilianus et Donatus dicunt barbarismum, aut soloecismum esse, siquis uni dicat. Salvete." The learned Erasmus also ridiculed this practice, calling those who adopted it, "voscitatores," or youyouers.
[237] "By a perversion of language the pronoun you is almost invariably used for the second person singular, as well as plural; always, however, retaining the plural verb; as, 'My friend, you write a good hand.' Thou is confined to a solemn style, or [to] poetical compositions."--Chandler's Grammar, Edition of 1821, p. 41; Ed. of 1847, p. 66.
[238] In regard to the inflection of our verbs, William B. Fowle, who is something of an antiquarian in grammar, and who professes now to be "conservative" of the popular system, makes a threefold distinction of style, thus: "English verbs have three Styles[,] or Modes,[;] called [the] Familiar, [the] Solemn[,] and [the] Ancient. The familiar style, or mode, is that used in common conversation; as, you see, he fears. The solemn style, or mode, is that used in the Bible, and in prayer; as, Thou seest, he feareth. The ancient style, or mode, now little used, allows no change in the second and third person, [persons,] singular, of the verb, and generally follows the word if, though, lest, or whether; as, if thou see; though he fear; lest he be angry; whether he go or stay."--Fowle's Common School Grammar, Part Second, p. 44. Among his subsequent examples of the Solemn style, he gives the following: "Thou lovest, Thou lovedst, Thou art, Thou wast, Thou hast, Thou hadst, Thou doest or dost, Thou didst." And, as corresponding examples of the Ancient style, he has these forms: "Thou love, Thou loved, Thou or you be, Thou wert, Thou have, Thou had, Thou do, Thou did."--Ib., pp. 44-50. This distinction and this arrangement do not appear to me to be altogether warranted by facts. The necessary distinction of moods, this author rejects; confounding the Subjunctive with the Indicative, in order to furnish out this useless and fanciful contrast of his Solemn and Ancient styles.
[239] In that monstrous jumble and perversion of Murray's doctrines, entitled, "English Grammar on the Productive System, by Roswell C. Smith," you is everywhere preferred to thou, and the verbs are conjugated without the latter pronoun. At the close of his paradigms, however, the author inserts a few lines respecting "these obsolete conjugations," with the pronoun thou; for a further account of which, he refers the learner, with a sneer, to the common grammars in the schools. See the work, p. 79. He must needs be a remarkable grammarian, with whom Scripture, poetry, and prayer, are all "obsolete!" Again: "Thou in the singular is obsolete, except among the Society of Friends; and ye is an obsolete plural!"--Guy's School Gram., p. 25. In an other late grammar, professedly "constructed upon the basis of Murray's, by the Rev. Charles Adams, A. M., Principal of Newbury Seminary," the second person singular is everywhere superseded by the plural; the former being silently dropped from all his twenty pages of conjugations, without so much as a hint, or a saving clause, respecting it; and the latter, which is put in its stead, is falsely called singular. By his pupils, all forms of the verb that agree only with thou, will of course be conceived to be either obsolete or barbarous, and consequently ungrammatical. Whether or not the reverend gentleman makes any account of the Bible or of prayer, does not appear; he cites some poetry, in which there are examples that cannot be reconciled with his "System of English Grammar." Parkhurst, in his late "Grammar for Beginners," tells us that, "Such words as are used in the Bible, and not used in common books, are called obsolete!"--P. 146. Among these, he reckons all the distinctive forms of the second person singular, and all the "peculiarities" which "constitute what is commonly called the Solemn Style."--Ib., p. 148. Yet, with no great consistency, he adds: "This style is always used in prayer, and is frequently used in poetry."--Ibid. Joab Brace, Jnr., may be supposed to have the same notion of what is obsolete: for he too has perverted all Lennie's examples of the verb, as Smith and Adams did Murray's.
[240] Coar gives durst in the "Indicative mood," thus: "I durst, thou durst, he durst;" &c.--Coar's E. Gram., p. 115. But when he comes to wist, he does not know what the second person singular should be, and so he leaves it out: "I wist, ------, he wist; we wist, ye wist, they wist."--Coar's E. Gram., p. 116.
[241] Dr. Latham, who, oftener perhaps than any other modern writer, corrupts the grammar of our language by efforts to revive in it things really and deservedly obsolete, most strangely avers that "The words thou and thee are, except in the mouths of Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms, ye and you, have replaced them."--Hand-Book, p. 284. Ignoring also any current or "vital" process of forming English verbs in the second person singular, he gravely tells us that the old form, as "callest" (which is still the true form for the solemn style,) "is becoming obsolete."--Ib., p. 210. "In phrases like you are speaking, &c.," says he rightlier, "even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, the courtesy consists in treating one person as more than one, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered, you=thou is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural."--Ib., p. 163. If these things be so, the English Language owes much to the scrupulous conservatism of the Quakers; for, had their courtesy consented to the grammar of the fashionables, the singular number would now have had but two persons!
[242] For the substitution of you for thou, our grammarians assign various causes. That which is most commonly given in modern books, is certainly not the original one, because it concerns no other language than ours: "In order to avoid the unpleasant formality which accompanies the use of thou with a correspondent verb, its plural you, is usually adopted to familiar conversation; as, Charles, will you walk? instead of--wilt thou walk? You read too fast, instead of--thou readest too fast."--Jaudon's Gram., p. 33.
[243] This position, as may be seen above, I do not suppose it competent for any critic to maintain. The use of you for thou is no more "contrary to grammar," than the use of we for I; which, it seems, is grammatical enough for all editors, compilers, and crowned heads, if not for others. But both are figures of syntax; and, as such, they stand upon the same footing. Their only contrariety to grammar consists in this, that the words are not the literal representatives of the number for which they are put. But in what a posture does the grammarian place himself, who condemns, as bad English, that phraseology which he constantly and purposely uses? The author of the following remark, as well as all who have praised his work, ought immediately to adopt the style of the Friends, or Quakers: "The word thou, in grammatical construction, is preferable to you, in the second person singular: however, custom has familiarized the latter, and consequently made it more general, though BAD GRAMMAR. To say, 'You are a man.' is NOT GRAMMATICAL LANGUAGE; the word you having reference to a plural noun only. It should be, 'Thou art a man.'"--Wright's Philosoph. Gram., p. 55. This author, like Lindley Murray and many others, continually calls himself WE; and it is probable, that neither he, nor any one of his sixty reverend commenders, dares address any man otherwise than by the above-mentioned "BAD GRAMMAR!"
[244] "We are always given to cut our words short; and, with very few exceptions, you find people writing lov'd, mov'd, walk'd; instead of loved, moved, walked. They wish to make the pen correspond with the tongue. From lov'd, mov'd, walk'd, it is very easy to slide into lovt, movt, walkt. And this has been the case with regard to curst, dealt, dwelt, leapt, helpt, and many others in the last inserted list. It is just as proper to say jumpt, as it is to say leapt; and just as proper to say walkt as either; and thus we might go on till the orthography of the whole language were changed. When the love of contraction came to operate on such verbs as to burst and to light, it found such a clump of consonants already at the end of the words, that, it could add none. It could not enable the organs even of English speech to pronounce burstedst, lightedst. It, therefore, made really short work of it, and dropping the last syllable altogether, wrote, burst, light, [rather, lit] in the past time and passive participle."--Cobbett's English Gram., ¶ 169. How could the man who saw all this, insist on adding st for the second person, where not even the d of the past tense could he articulated? Am I to be called an innovator, because I do not like in conversation such new and unauthorized words as littest, leaptest, curstest; or a corrupter of the language, because I do not admire in poetry such unutterable monstrosities as, light'dst, leap'dst, curs'dst? The novelism, with the corruption too, is wholly theirs who stickle for these awkward forms.
[245] "You were, not you was, for you was seems to be as ungrammatical, as you hast would be. For the pronoun you being confessedly plural, its correspondent verb ought to be plural."--John Burn's Gram., 10th Ed., P. 72.
[246] Among grammarians, as well as among other writers, there is some diversity of usage concerning the personal inflections of verbs; while nearly all, nowadays, remove the chief occasion for any such diversity, by denying with a fashionable bigotry the possibility of any grammatical use of the pronoun thou in a familiar style. To illustrate this, I will cite Cooper and Wells--two modern authors who earnestly agree to account you and its verb literally singular, and thou altogether erroneous, in common discourse: except that Wells allows the phrase, "If thou art," for "Common style."--School Gram., p. 100.
1. Cooper, improperly referring all inflection of the verb to the grave or solemn style, says: "In the colloquial or familiar style, we observe no change. The same is the case in the plural number." He then proceeds thus: "In the second person of the present of the indicative, in the solemn style, the verb takes st or est; and in the third person th or eth, as: thou hast, thou lovest, thou teachest; he hath, he loveth, he goeth. In the colloquial or familiar style, the verb does not vary in the second person; and in the third person, it ends in s or es, as: he loves, he teaches, he does. The indefinite, [i. e. the preterit,] in the second person singular of the indicative, in the grave style, ends in est, as: thou taughtest, thou wentest. [Fist] But, in those verbs, where the sound of st will unite with the last syllable of the verb, the vowel is omitted, as: thou lovedst, thou heardst, thou didst."--Cooper's Murray, p. 60; Plain and Practical Gram., p. 59. This, the reader will see, is somewhat contradictory; for the colloquial style varies the verb by "s or es," and taught'st may be uttered without the e. As for "lovedst," I deny that any vowel "is omitted" from it; but possibly one may be, as lov'dst.
2. Wells's account of the same thing is this: "In the simple form of the present and past indicative, the second person singular of the solemn style ends regularly in st or est, as, thou seest, thou hearest, thou sawest, thou heardest; and the third person singular of the present, in s or es, as, he hears, he wishes, and also in th or eth, as, he saith, he loveth. In the simple form of the present indicative, the third person singular of the common or familiar style, ends in s or es; as, he sleeps; he rises. The first person singular of the solemn style, and the first and second persons singular of the common style, have the same form as the three persons plural."--Wells's School Grammar, 1st Ed. p. 83; 3d Ed. p. 86. This, too, is both defective and inconsistent. It does not tell when to add est, and when, st only. It does not show what the regular preterit, as freed or loved, should make with thou: whether freedest and lovedest, by assuming the syllable est; fre-edst and lov-edst, by increasing syllabically from assuming st only; or freedst and lov'dst, or lovedst, still to be uttered as monosyllables. It absurdly makes "s or es" a sign of two opposite styles. (See OBS. 9th, above.) And it does not except "I am, I was, If I am, If I was, If thou art, I am loved," and so forth, from requiring "the same form, [are or were,] as the three persons plural." This author prefers "heardest;" the other, "heardst," which I think better warranted:
"And heardst thou why he drew his blade? Heardst thou that shameful word and blow Brought Roderick's vengeance on his foe?"--Scott, L. L., C. v, st. 6.
[247] Better, as Wickliffe has it, "the day in which;" though, after nouns of time, the relative that is often used, like the Latin ablative quo or quâ, as being equivalent to in which or on which.
[248] It is not a little strange, that some men, who never have seen or heard such words as their own rules would produce for the second person singular of many hundreds of our most common verbs, will nevertheless pertinaciously insist, that it is wrong to countenance in this matter any departure from the style of King James's Bible. One of the very rashest and wildest of modern innovators,--a critic who, but for the sake of those who still speak in this person and number, would gladly consign the pronoun thou, and all its attendant verbal forms, to utter oblivion,--thus treats this subject and me: "The Quakers, or Friends, however, use thou, and its attendant form of the asserter, in conversation. FOR THEIR BENEFIT, thou is given, in this work, in all the varieties of inflection; (in some of which it could not properly be used in an address to the Deity;) for THEY ERR MOST EGREGIOUSLY in the use of thou, with the form of the asserter which follows he or they, and are countenanced in their errors by G. Brown, who, instead of 'disburdening the language of 144,000 useless distinctions, increases their number just 144,000."--Oliver B. Peirce's Gram., p. 85 Among people of sense, converts are made by teaching, and reasoning, and proving; but this man's disciples must yield to the balderdash of a false speller, false quoter, and false assertor! This author says, that "dropt" is the past tense of "drop;" (p. 118;) let him prove, for example, that droptest is not a clumsy innovation, and that droppedst is not a formal archaism, and then tell of the egregious error of adopting neither of these forms in common conversation. The following, with its many common contractions, is the language of POPE; and I ask this, or any other opponent of my doctrine, TO SHOW HOW SUCH VERBS ARE RIGHTLY FORMED, either for poetry or for conversation, in the second person singular.
"It fled, I follow'd; now in hope, now pain; It stopt, I stopt; it mov'd, I mov'd again. At last it fix't,'twas on what plant it pleas'd, And where it fix'd, the beauteous bird I seiz'd." --Dunciad, B. IV, l. 427.
[249] The Rev. W. Allen, in his English Grammar, p. 132, says: "Yth and eth (from the Saxon lað [sic--KTH]) were formerly, plural terminations; as, 'Manners makyth man.' William of Wykeham's motto. 'After long advisement, they taketh upon them to try the matter.' Stapleton's Translation of Bede. 'Doctrine and discourse maketh nature less importune.' Bacon." The use of eth as a plural termination of verbs, was evidently earlier than the use of en for the same purpose. Even the latter is utterly obsolete, and the former can scarcely have been English. The Anglo-Saxon verb lufian, or lufigean, to love, appears to have been inflected with the several pronouns thus: Ic lufige, Thu lufast, He lufath, We lufiath, Ge lufiath, Hi lufiath. The form in Old English was this: I love, Thou lovest, He loveth, We loven, Ye loven, They loven. Dr. Priestley remarks, (though in my opinion unadvisedly,) that, "Nouns of a plural form, but of a singular signification, require a singular construction; as, mathematicks is a useful study. This observation will likewise," says he, "in some measure, vindicate the grammatical propriety of the famous saying of William of Wykeham, Manners maketh man."--Priestley's Gram., p. 189. I know not what half-way vindication there can be, for any such construction. Manners and mathematics are not nouns of the singular number, and therefore both is and maketh are wrong. I judge it better English to say, "Mathematics are a useful study."--"Manners make the man." But perhaps both ideas may be still better expressed by a change of the nominative, thus: "The study of mathematics is useful."--"Behaviour makes the man."
[250] What the state of our literature would have been, had no author attempted any thing on English grammar, must of course be a matter of mere conjecture, and not of any positive "conviction." It is my opinion, that, with all their faults, most of the books and essays in which this subject has been handled, have been in some degree beneficial, and a few of them highly so; and that, without their influence, our language must have been much more chaotic and indeterminable than it now is. But a late writer says, and, with respect to some of our verbal terminations, says wisely: "It is my sincere conviction that fewer irregularities would have crept into the language had no grammars existed, than have been authorized by grammarians; for it should be understood that the first of our grammarians, finding that good writers differed upon many points, instead of endeavouring to reconcile these discrepancies, absolutely perpetuated them by citing opposite usages, and giving high authorities for both. To this we owe all the irregularity which exists in the personal terminations of verbs, some of the best early writers using them promiscuously, some using them uniformly, and others making no use of them; and really they are of no use but to puzzle children and foreigners, perplex poets, and furnish an awkward dialect to that exemplary sect of Christians, who in every thing else study simplicity."--Fowle's True E. Gram., Part II, p. 26. Wells, a still later writer, gives this unsafe rule: "When the past tense is a monosyllable not ending in a single vowel, the second person singular of the solemn style is generally formed by the addition of est; as heardest, fleddest, tookest. Hadst, wast, saidst, and didst, are exceptions."--Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 106; 3d Ed., p. 110; 113th Ed., p. 115. Now the termination d or ed commonly adds no syllable; so that the regular past tense of any monosyllabic verb is, with a few exceptions, a monosyllable still; as, freed, feed, loved, feared, planned, turned: and how would these sound with est added, which Lowth, Hiley, Churchill, and some others erroneously claim as having pertained to such preterits anciently? Again, if heard is a contraction of heared, and fled, of fleed, as seems probable; then are heardst and fledtst, which are sometimes used, more regular than heardest, fleddest: so of many other preterits.
[251] Chaucer appears not to have inflected this word in the second person: "Also ryght as thou were ensample of moche folde errour, righte so thou must be ensample of manifold correction."--Testament of Love. "Rennin and crie as thou were wode."--House of Fame. So others: "I wolde thou were cold or hoot."--WICKLIFFE'S VERSION OF THE APOCALYPSE. "I wolde thou were cold or hote."--VERSION OF EDWARD VI: Tooke, Vol. ii, p. 270. See Rev., iii, 15: "I would thou wert cold or hot."--COMMON VERSION.
[252] See evidence of the antiquity of this practice, in the examples under the twenty-third observation above. According to Churchill, it has had some local continuance even to the present time. For, in a remark upon Lowth's contractions, lov'th, turn'th, this author says, "These are still in use in some country places, the third person singular of verbs in general being formed by the addition of the sound th simply, not making an additional syllable."--Churchill's Gram., p. 255 So the eth in the following example adds no syllable:--
"Death goeth about the field, rejoicing mickle To see a sword that so surpass'd his sickle." Harrington's Ariosto, B. xiii: see Singer's Shak., Vol. ii, p. 296.
[253] The second person singular of the simple verb do, is now usually written dost, and read dust; being permanently contracted in orthography, as well as in pronunciation. And perhaps the compounds may follow; as, Thou undost, outdost, misdost, overdost, &c. But exceptions to exceptions are puzzling, even when they conform to the general rule. The Bible has dost and doth for auxilliaries, and doest and doeth for principal verbs.
[254] N. Butler avers, "The only regular terminations added to verbs are est, s, ed, edst, and ing."--Butler's Practical Gram., p. 81. But he adds, in a marginal note, this information: "The third person singular of the present formerly ended in eth. This termination is still sometimes used in the solemn style. Contractions sometimes take place; as, sayst for sayest."--Ibid. This statement not only imposes a vast deal of needless irregularity upon the few inflections admitted by the English verb, but is, so far as it disagrees with mine, a causeless innovation. The terminations rejected, or here regarded as irregular, are d, st, es, th, and eth; while edst, which is plainly a combination of ed and st,--the past ending of the verb with the personal inflection,--is assumed to be one single and regular termination which I had overlooked! It has long been an almost universal doctrine of our grammarians, that regular verbs form their preterits and perfect participles by adding d to final e, and ed to any other radical ending. Such is the teaching of Blair, Brightland, Bullions, Churchill, Coar, Comly, Cooper, Fowle, Frazee, Ingersoll, Kirkham, Lennie, Murray, Weld, Wells, Sanborn, and others, a great multitude. But this author alleges, that, "Loved is not formed by adding d to love, but by adding ed, and dropping e from love."--Butler's Answer to Brown. Any one is at liberty to think this, if he will. But I see not the use of playing thus with mute Ees, adding one to drop an other, and often pretending to drop two under one apostrophe, as in lov'd, lov'st! To suppose that the second person of the regular preterit, as lovedst, is not formed by adding st to the first person, is contrary to the analogy of other verbs, and is something worse than an idle whim. And why should the formation of the third person be called irregular when it requires es, as in flies, denies, goes, vetoes, wishes, preaches, and so forth? In forming flies from fly, Butler changes "y into ie," on page 20th, adding s only; and, on page 11th, "into i" only, adding es. Uniformity would be better.
[255] Cooper says, "The termination eth is commonly contracted into th, to prevent the addition of a syllable to the verb, as: doeth, doth."--Plain and Practical Gram., p. 59. This, with reference to modern usage, is plainly erroneous. For, when s or es was substituted for th or eth, and the familiar use of the latter ceased, this mode of inflecting the verb without increasing its syllables, ceased also, or at least became unusual. It appears that the inflecting of verbs with th without a vowel, as well as with st without a vowel, was more common in very ancient times than subsequently. Our grammarians of the last century seem to have been more willing to encumber the language with syllabic endings, than to simplify it by avoiding them. See Observations, 21st, 22d, and 23d, above.
[256] These are what William Ward, in his Practical Grammar, written about 1765, denominated "the CAPITAL FORMS, or ROOTS, of the English Verb." Their number too is the same. "And these Roots," says he, "are considered as Four in each verb; although in many verbs two of them are alike, and in some few three are alike."--P. 50. Few modern grammarians have been careful to display these Chief Terms, or Principal Parts, properly. Many say nothing about them. Some speak of three, and name them faultily. Thus Wells: "The three principal parts of a verb are the present tense, the past tense, and the perfect participle."--School Gram., 113th Ed., p. 92. Now a whole "tense" is something more than one verbal form, and Wells's "perfect participle" includes the auxiliary "having." Hence, in stead of write, wrote, writing, written, (the true principal parts of a certain verb,) one might take, under Wells's description, either of these threes, both entirely false: am writing, did write, and having written; or, do write, wrotest, and having written. But writing, being the root of the "Progressive Form of the Verb," is far more worthy to be here counted a chief term, than wrote, the preterit, which occurs only in one tense, and never receives an auxiliary. So of other verbs. This sort of treatment of the Principal Parts, is a very grave defect in sundry schemes of grammar.
[257] A grammarian should know better, than to exhibit, as a paradigm for school-boys, such English as the following: "I do have, Thou dost have, He does have: We do have, You do have, They do have."--Everest's Gram., p. 106. "I did have, Thou didst have, He did have: We did have, You did have, They did have."--Ib., p. 107. I know not whether any one has yet thought of conjugating the verb be after this fashion; but the attempt to introduce, "am being, is being," &c., is an innovation much worse.
[258] Hiley borrows from Webster the remark, that, "Need, when intransitive, is formed like an auxiliary, and is followed by a verb, without the prefix to; as, 'He need go no farther.'"--Hiley's Gram., p. 90; Webster's Imp. Gram., p. 127; Philos. Gram., p. 178. But he forbears to class it with the auxiliaries, and even contradicts himself, by a subsequent remark taken from Dr. Campbell, that, for the sake of "ANALOGY, 'he needs,' he dares,' are preferable to 'he need,' 'he dare,'"--Hiley's Gram., p. 145; Campbell's Rhet., p. 175
[259] This grammarian here uses need for the third person singular, designedly, and makes a remark for the justification of the practice; but he neither calls the word an auxiliary, nor cites any other than anonymous examples, which are, perhaps, of his own invention.
[260] "The substantive form, or, as it is commonly termed, infinitive mood, contains at the same time the essence of verbal meaning, and the literal ROOT on which all inflections of the verb are to be grafted. This character being common to the infinitive in all languages, it [this mood] ought to precede the [other] moods of verbs, instead of being made to follow them, as is absurdly practised in almost all grammatical systems."--Enclytica, p. 14.
[261] By this, I mean, that the verb in all the persons, both singular and plural, is the same in form. But Lindley Murray, when he speaks of not varying or not changing the termination of the verb, most absurdly means by it, that the verb is inflected, just as it is in the indicative or the potential mood; and when he speaks of changes or variations of termination, he means, that the verb remains the same as in the first person singular! For example: "The second person singular of the imperfect tense in the subjunctive mood, is also very frequently varied in its termination: as, 'If thou loved him truly, thou wouldst obey him.'"--Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 209. "The auxiliaries of the potential mood, when applied to the subjunctive, do not change the termination of the second person singular; as, 'If thou mayst or canst go.'"--Ib., p. 210. "Some authors think, that the termination of these auxiliaries should be varied: as, I advise thee, that thou may beware."--Ib., p. 210. "When the circumstances of contingency and futurity concur, it is proper to vary the terminations of the second and third persons singular."--Ib., 210. "It may be considered as a rule, that the changes of termination are necessary, when these two circumstances concur."--Ib., p. 207. "It may be considered as a rule, that no changes of termination are necessary, when these two circumstances concur."--Ingersoll's Gram., p. 264. Now Murray and Ingersoll here mean precisely the same thing! Whose fault is that? If Murray's, he has committed many such. But, in this matter, he is contradicted not only by Ingersoll, but, on one occasion, by himself. For he declares it to be an opinion in which he concurs. "That the definition and nature of the subjunctive mood, have no reference to change of termination."--Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 211. And yet, amidst his strange blunders, he seems to have ascribed the meaning which a verb has in this mood, to the inflections which it receives in the indicative: saying. "That part of the verb which grammarians call the present tense of the subjunctive mood, has a future signification. This is effected by varying the terminations of the second and third persons singular of the indicative!"--Ib., p. 207. But the absurdity which he really means to teach, is, that the subjunctive mood is derived from the indicative,--the primitive or radical verb, from it's derivatives or branches!
[262] Wert is sometimes used in lieu of wast; and, in such instances, both by authority and by analogy, it appears to belong here, if anywhere. See OBS. 2d and 3d, below.
[263] Some grammarians, regardless of the general usage of authors, prefer was to were in the singular number of this tense of the subjunctive mood. In the following remark, the tense is named "present" and this preference is urged with some critical extravagance: "Was, though the past tense of the indicative mood, expresses the present of the hypothetical; as, 'I wish that I was well.' The use of this hypothetical form of the subjunctive mood, has given rise to a form of expression wholly unwarranted by the rules of grammar. When the verb was is to be used in the present tense singular, in this form of the subjunctive mood, the ear is often pained with a plural were, as, 'Were I your master'--'Were he compelled to do it,' &c. This has become so common that some of the best grammars of the language furnish authority for the barbarism, and even in the second person supply wert, as a convenient accompaniment. If such a conjugation is admitted, we may expect to see Shakspeare's 'thou beest' in full use."--Chandler's Gram., Ed. of 1821, p. 55. In "Chandler's Common School Grammar," of 1847, the language of this paragraph is somewhat softened, but the substance is still retained. See the latter work, p. 80.
[264] "If I were, If thou were. If he were."--Harrison's Gram., p. 31. "If, or though, I were loved. If, or though, thou were, or wert loved. If, or though, he were loved."--Bicknell's Gram., Part i, p. 69. "If, though, &c. I were burned, thou were burned or you were burned, he were burned."--Buchanan's Gram., p. 53. "Though thou were. Some say, 'though thou wert.'"--Mackintosh's Gram., p. 178. "If or though I were. If or though thou were. If or though he were."--St. Quentin's General Gram., p. 86. "If I was, Thou wast, or You was or were, He was. Or thus: If I were, Thou wert, or you was or were, He were."--Webster's Philosophical Gram., p. 95; Improved Gram., p. 64. "PRESENT TENSE. Before, &c. I be; thou beest, or you be; he, she, or it, be: We, you or ye, they, be. PAST TENSE. Before, &c. I were; thou wert, or you were; he, she, or it, were; We, you or ye, they, were."--WHITE, on the English Verb, p. 52.
[265] The text in Acts, xxii, 20th, "I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death," ought rather to be, "I also stood by, and consented to his death;" but the present reading is, thus far, a literal version from the Greek, though the verb "kept," that follows, is not. Montanus renders it literally: "Et ipse eram astans, et consentiens interemptioni ejus, et custodiens vestimenta interficientium illum." Beza makes it better Latin thus: "Ego quoque adstabam, et una assentiebar cædi ipsius, et custodiebam pallia eorum qui interimebant eum." Other examples of a questionable or improper use of the progressive form may occasionally be found in good authors; as, "A promising boy of six years of age, was missing by his parents."--Whittier, Stranger in Lowell, p. 100. Missing, wanting, and willing, after the verb to be, are commonly reckoned participial adjectives; but here "was missing" is made a passive verb, equivalent to was missed, which, perhaps, would better express the meaning. To miss, to perceive the absence of, is such an act of the mind, as seems unsuited to the compound form, to be missing; and, if we cannot say, "The mother was missing her son," I think we ought not to use the same form passively, as above.
[266] Some grammarians, contrary to the common opinion, suppose the verbs here spoken of, to have, not a passive, but a neuter signification. Thus, Joseph Guy, Jun., of London: "Active verbs often take a neuter sense; as, A house is building; here, is building is used in a neuter signification, because it has no object after it. By this rule are explained such sentences as, Application is wanting; The grammar is printing; The lottery is drawing; It is flying, &c."--Guy's English Gram., p. 21. "Neuter," here, as in many other places, is meant to include the active-intransitives. "Is flying" is of this class; and "is wanting," corresponding to the Latin caret, appears to be neuter; hut the rest seem rather to be passives. Tried, however, by the usual criterion,--the naming of the "agent" which, it is said, "a verb passive necessarily implies,"--what may at first seem progressive passives, may not always be found such. "Most verbs signifying action" says Dr. Johnson, "may likewise signify condition, or habit, and become neuters, [i. e. active-intransitives;] as I love, I am in love; I strike, I am now striking."--Gram. before Quarto Dict., p. 7. So sell, form, make, and many others, usually transitive, have sometimes an active-intransitive sense which nearly approaches the passive, and of which are selling, is forming, are making, and the like, may be only equivalent expressions. For example: "It is cold, and ice forms rapidly--is forming rapidly--or is formed rapidly."--Here, with little difference of meaning, is the appearance of both voices, the Active and the Passive; while "is forming," which some will have for an example of "the Middle voice," may be referred to either. If the following passive construction is right, is wanting or are wanting may be a verb of three or four different sorts: "Reflections that may drive away despair, cannot be wanting by him, who considers," &c.--Johnson's Rambler, No. 129: Wright's Gram., p. 196.
[267] Dr. Bullions, in his grammar of 1849, says, "Nobody would think of saying, 'He is being loved'--'This result is being desired.'"--Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 237. But, according to J. W. Wright, whose superiority in grammar has sixty-two titled vouchers, this unheard-of barbarism is, for the present passive, precisely and solely what one ought to say! Nor is it, in fact, any more barbarous, or more foreign from usage, than the spurious example which the Doctor himself takes for a model in the active voice: "I am loving. Thou art loving, &c; I have been loving, Thou hast been loving, &c."--A. and P. Gr., p. 92. So: "James is loving me."--Ib., p 235.
[268] "The predicate in the form, 'The house is being built,' would be, according to our view, 'BEING BEING built,' which is manifestly an absurd tautology."--Mulligan's Gram., 1852, p. 151.
[269] "Suppose a criminal to be enduring the operation of binding:--Shall we say, with Mr. Murray,--'The criminal is binding?' If so, HE MUST BE BINDING SOMETHING,--a circumstance, in effect, quite opposed to the fact presented. Shall we then say, as he does, in the present tense conjugation of his passive verb,--'The criminal is bound?' If so, the action of binding, which the criminal is suffering, will be represented as completed, --a position which the action its self will palpably deny." See Wright's Phil. Gram., p. 102. It is folly for a man to puzzle himself or others thus, with fictitious examples, imagined on purpose to make good usage seem wrong. There is bad grammar enough, for all useful purposes, in the actual writings of valued authors; but who can show, by any proofs, that the English language, as heretofore written, is so miserably inadequate to our wants, that we need use the strange neologism, "The criminal is being bound," or any thing similar?
[270] It is a very strange event in the history of English grammar, that such a controversy as this should have arisen; but a stranger one still, that, after all that has been said, more argument is needed. Some men, who hope to be valued as scholars, yet stickle for an odd phrase, which critics have denounced as follows: "But the history of the language scarcely affords a parallel to the innovation, at once unphilosophical and hypercritical, pedantic and illiterate, which has lately appeared in the excruciating refinement 'is being' and its unmerciful variations. We hope, and indeed believe, that it has not received the sanction of any grammar adopted in our popular education, as it certainly never will of any writer of just pretensions to scholarship."--The True Sun. N. Y., April 16, 1846.
[271] Education is a work of continuance, yet completed, like many others, as fast as it goes on. It is not, like the act of loving or hating, so complete at the first moment as not to admit the progressive form of the verb; for one may say of a lad, "I am educating him for the law;" and possibly, "He is educating for the law;" though not so well as, "He is to be educated for the law." But, to suppose that "is educated" or "are educated" implies unnecessarily a cessation of the educating is a mistake. That conception is right, only when educated is taken adjectively. The phrase, "those who are educated in our seminaries," hardly includes such as have been educated there in times past: much less does it apply to these exclusively, as some seem to think. "Being," as inserted by Southey, is therefore quite needless: so it is often, in this new phraseology, the best correction being its mere omission.