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.

[272] Worcester has also this citation: "The Eclectic Review remarks, 'That a need of this phrase, or an equivalent one, is felt, is sufficiently proved by the extent to which it is used by educated persons and respectable writers.'"--_Gram. before Dict._, p. xlvi. Sundry phrases, equivalent in sense to this new voice, have long been in use, and are, of course, still needed; something from among them being always, by every accurate writer, still preferred. But this awkward innovation, use it who will, can no more be justified by a plea of "_need_," than can every other hackneyed solecism extant. Even the Archbishop, if quoted right by Worcester, has descended to "uncouth English," without either necessity or propriety, having thereby only misexpounded a very common Greek word--a "perfect or pluperfect" participle, which means "_beaten, struck_, or _having been beaten_"--G. Brown.

[273] Wells has also the following citations, which most probably accord with his own opinions, though the first is rather extravagant: "The propriety of these _imperfect passive tenses_ has been _doubted by almost all_ our grammarians; though I believe but few of them have written many pages without condescending to make use of them. Dr. Beattie says, 'One of the greatest defects of the English tongue, with regard to the verb, seems to be the want of an _imperfect passive participle_.' And yet he uses the _imperfect participle_ in a _passive sense_ as often as most writers."--_Pickbourn's Dissertation on the English Verb_.

"Several other expressions of this sort now and then occur, such as the new-fangled and most uncouth solecism, 'is being done,' for the good old English idiomatic expression, 'is doing,'--an absurd periphrasis, driving out a pointed and pithy turn of the English language."--_N. A. Review_. See _Wells's Grammar_, 1850, p. 161.

The term, "_imperfect passive tenses_," seems not a very accurate one; because the present, the perfect, &c., are included. Pickbourn applies it to any passive tenses formed from the simple "imperfect participle;" but the phrase, "_passive verbs in the progressive form_," would better express the meaning. The term, "_compound passive participle_," which Wells applies above to "_being built_," "_being printed_," and the like, is also both unusual and inaccurate. Most readers would sooner understand by it the form, _having been built, having been printed_, &c. This author's mode of naming participles is always either very awkward or not distinctive. His scheme makes it necessary to add here, for each of these forms, a third epithet, referring to his main distinction of "_imperfect_ and _perfect_;" as, "the compound _imperfect_ participle passive," and "the compound _perfect_ participle passive." What is "_being builded_" or "_being printed_," but "an _imperfect passive participle_?" Was this, or something else, the desideratum of Beattie?

[274] _Borne_ usually signifies _carried_; _born_ signifies _brought forth_. J. K. Worcester, the lexicographer, speaks of these two participles thus: "[Fist] The participle _born_ is used in the passive form, and _borne_ in the active form, [with reference to birth]; as, 'He was _born_ blind,' _John_ ix.; 'The barren hath _borne_ seven,' I _Sam_. ii. This distinction between _born_ and _borne_, though not recognized by grammars, is in accordance with common usage, at least in this country. In many editions of the Bible it is recognized; and in many it is not. It seems to have been more commonly recognized in American, than in English, editions."--_Worcester's Universal and Critical Dict., w. Bear_. In five, out of seven good American editions of the Bible among my books, the latter text is, "The barren hath _born_ seven;" in two, it is as above, "hath _borne_." In Johnson's Quarto Dictionary, the perfect participle of _bear_ is given erroneously, "_bore_, or _born_;" and that of _forbear_, which should be _forborne_, is found, both in his columns and in his preface, "_forborn_."

[275] According to Murray, Lennie, Bullions, and some others, to use _begun_ for _began_ or _run_ for _ran_, is improper; but Webster gives _run_ as well as _ran_ for the preterit, and _begun_ may be used in like manner, on the authority of Dryden, Pope, and Parnell.

[276] "And they shall pass through it, hardly _bestead_, and hungry."--_Isaiah_, viii, 21.

[277] "_Brake_ [for the preterit of _Break_] seems now obsolescent."--_Dr. Crombie, Etymol. and Syntax_, p. 193. Some recent grammarians, however, retain it; among whom are Bullions and M'Culloch. Wells retains it, but marks it as, "_Obsolete_;" as he does also the preterits _bare, clave, drove, gat, slang, spake, span, spat, sware, tare, writ_; and the

## participles _hoven, loaden, rid_ from _ride, spitten, stricken, and writ_.

In this he is not altogether consistent. Forms really obsolete belong not to any modern list of irregular verbs; and even such as are archaic and obsolescent, it is sometimes better to omit. If "_loaden_," for example, is now out of use, why should "_load, unload_, and _overload_," be placed, as they are by this author, among "irregular verbs;" while _freight_ and _distract_, in spite of _fraught_ and _distraught_, are reckoned regular? "_Rid_," for _rode_ or _ridden_, though admitted by Worcester, appears to me a low vulgarism.

[278] _Cleave_, to split, is most commonly, if not always, irregular, as above; _cleave_, to stick, or adhere, is usually considered regular, but _clave_ was formerly used in the preterit, and _clove_ still may be: as, "The men of Judah _clave_ unto their king."--_Samuel_. "The tongue of the public prosecutor _clove_ to the roof of his mouth."--_Boston Atlas_, 1855.

[279] Respecting the preterit and the perfect participle of this verb, _drink_, our grammarians are greatly at variance. Dr. Johnson says, "preter. _drank_ or _drunk_; part. pass, _drunk_ or _drunken_." Dr. Webster: "pret. and pp. _drank_. Old pret. and pp. _drunk_; pp. _drunken_." Lowth: "pret. _drank_; part, _drunk_ or _drunken_." So Stamford. Webber, and others. Murray has it: "Imperf. _drank_, Perf. Part, _drunk_." So Comly, Lennie, Bullions, Blair, Butler. Frost, Felton, Goldsbury, and many others. Churchill cites the text, "Serve me till I have eaten and _drunken_;" and observes, "_Drunken_ is now used only as an adjective. The impropriety of using the preterimperfect [_drank_] for the participle of this verb is very common."--_New Gram._, p. 261. Sanborn gives both forms for the participle, preferring _drank_ to _drunk_. Kirkham prefers _drunk_ to _drank_; but contradicts himself in a note, by unconsciously making _drunk_ an adjective: "The men were _drunk_; i. e. inebriated. The toasts were _drank_."--_Gram._, p. 140. Cardell, in his Grammar, gives, "_drink, drank, drunk_;" but in his story of Jack Halyard, on page 59, he wrote, "had _drinked_:" and this, according to Fowle's True English Grammar, is not incorrect. The preponderance of authority is yet in favour of saying, "had _drunk_;" but _drank_ seems to be a word of greater delicacy, and perhaps it is sufficiently authorized. A hundred late writers may be quoted for it, and some that were popular in the days of Johnson. "In the choice of what is fit to be eaten and _drank_."--_Beattie's Moral Science_, Vol. 1, p. 51. "Which I had no sooner _drank_."--_Addison, Tattler_, No. 131.

"Thy brother's blood the thirsty earth hath drank, Broach'd with the steely point of Clifford's lance."--_Shakspeare_.

[280] "_Holden_ is not in general use; and is chiefly employed by attorneys."--_Crombie, on Etymology and Synt._, p. 190. Wells marks this word as, "Obsolescent."--_School Gram._, p. 103. L. Murray rejected it; but Lowth gave it alone, as a participle, and _held_ only as a preterit.

[281] "I have been found guilty of killing cats I never _hurted_."--_Roderick Random_, Vol. i, p. 8.

[282] "They _keeped_ aloof as they passed her bye."--_J. Hogg, Pilgrims of the Sun_, p. 19.

[283] _Lie_, to be at rest, is irregular, as above; but _lie_, to utter falsehood, is regular, as follows: _lie, lied, lying, lied_.

"Thus said, at least, my mountain guide, Though deep, perchance, the villain _lied_." --_Scott's Lady of the Lake_.

[284] Perhaps there is authority sufficient to place the verb _rend_ among those which are redundant.

"Where'er its cloudy veil was _rended_." --_Whittier's Moll Pitcher_.

"Mortal, my message is for thee; thy chain to earth is _rended_; I bear thee to eternity; prepare! thy course is ended." --_The Amulet_.

"Come as the winds come, when forests are _rended_." --_Sir W. Scott_.

"The hunger pangs her sons which rended." --NEW QUARTERLY REVIEW: _Examiner_, No. 119.

[285] We find now and then an instance in which _gainsay_ is made regular: as, "It can neither be _rivalled_ nor _gainsayed_."--_Chapman's Sermons to Presbyterians_, p. 36. Perhaps it would be as well to follow Webster here, in writing _rivaled_ with one _l_: and the analogy of the simple verb _say_, in forming this compound irregularly, _gainsaid_. Usage warrants the latter, however, better than the former.

[286] "Shoe, _shoed_ or shod, shoeing, _shoed_ or shod."--_Old Gram., by W. Ward_, p. 64; and _Fowle's True English Gram._, p. 46.

[287] "A. Murray has rejected _sung_ as the _Preterite_, and L. Murray has rejected _sang_. Each _Preterite_, however, rests on good authority. The same observation may be made, respecting _sank_ and _sunk_. Respecting the _preterites_ which have _a_ or _u_, as _slang_, or _slung, sank_, or _sunk_, it would be better were the former only to be used, as the _Preterite_ and Participle would thus be discriminated."--_Dr. Crombie, on Etymology and Syntax_, p. 199. The _preterits_ which this critic thus prefers, are _rang, sang, stung, sprang, swang, sank, shrank, slank, stank, swam_, and _span_ for _spun_. In respect to them all, I think he makes an ill choice. According to his own showing, _fling, string_, and _sting_, always make the preterit and the participle alike; and this is the obvious tendency of the language, in all these words. I reject _slang_ and _span_, as derivatives from _sling_ and _spin_; because, in such a sense, they are obsolete, and the words have other uses. Lindley Murray, _in his early editions_, rejected _sang, sank, slang, swang, shrank, slank, stank_, and _span_; and, at the same time, preferred _rang, sprang_, and _swam_, to _rung, sprung_, and _swum_. In his later copies, he gave the preference to the _u_, in all these words; but restored _sang_ and _sank_, which Crombie names above, still omitting the other six, which did not happen to be mentioned to him.

[288] _Sate_ for the preterit of _sit_, and _sitten_ for the perfect

## participle, are, in my opinion, obsolete, or no longer in good use. Yet

several recent grammarians prefer _sitten_ to _sat_; among whom are Crombie, Lennie, Bullions, and M'Culloch. Dr. Crombie says, "_Sitten_, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable attempts, however, have been made to restore it."--_On Etymol. and Syntax_, p. 199. Lennie says, "Many authors, both here and in America, use _sate_ as the Past time of _sit_; but this is improper, for it is apt to be confounded with _sate_ to glut. _Sitten_ and _spitten_ are preferable [to _sat_ and _spit_,] though obsolescent."--_Principles of E. Gram._, p. 45. Bullions says, "_Sitten_ and _spitten_ are nearly obsolete, though preferable to _sat_ and _spit_."--_Principles of E. Gram._, p. 64. M'Culloch gives these verbs in the following form: "Sit, sat, sitten _or_ sat. Spit, spit _or_ spat, spit _or_ spitten."--_Manual of E. Gram._, p. 65.

[289] "He will find the political hobby which he has _bestrided_ no child's nag."--_The Vanguard, a Newspaper_.

"Through the pressed nostril, spectacle-_bestrid_."--_Cowper_.

"A lank haired hunter _strided_."--_Whittier's Sabbath Scene_.

[290] In the age of Pope, _writ_ was frequently used both for the

## participle and for the preterit of this verb. It is now either obsolete or

peculiar to the poets. In prose it seems vulgar: as, "He _writ_ it, at least, published it, in 1670."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 77.

"He, who, supreme in judgement, as in wit, Might boldly censure, as he boldly _writ_."--_Pope, Ess. on Crit._

Dr. Crombie remarked, more than thirty years ago, that, "_Wrote_ as the

## Participle [of _Write_,] is generally disused, and likewise

_writ_."--_Treatise on Etym. and Synt._, p. 202.

[291] A word is not necessarily _ungrammatical_ by reason of having a rival form that is more common. The regular words, _beseeched, blowed, bursted, digged, freezed, bereaved, hanged, meaned, sawed, showed, stringed, weeped_, I admit for good English, though we find them all condemned by some critics.

[292] "And the man in whom the evil spirit was, _leapt_ on them."--FRIENDS' BIBLE: _Acts_, xix, 16. In Scott's Bible, and several others, the word is "_leaped_." Walker says, "The past time of this verb is _generally_ heard with the diphthong short; and if so, it ought to be spelled _leapt_, rhyming with _kept_."--_Walker's Pron. Dict., w. Leap_. Worcester, who improperly pronounces _leaped_ in two ways, "l~ept or l=ept," _misquotes_ Walker, as saying, "it ought to be spelled _lept_."--_Universal and Critical Dict., w. Leap_. In the solemn style, _leaped_ is, of course, two syllables. As for _leapedst_ or _leaptest_, I know not that either can be found.

[293] _Acquit_ is almost always formed regularly, thus: _acquit, acquitted, acquitting, acquitted._ But, like _quit_, it is sometimes found in an irregular form also; which, if it be allowable, will make it redundant: as, "To be _acquit_ from my continual smart."--SPENCER: _Johnson's Dict._ "The writer holds himself _acquit_ of all charges in this regard."--_Judd, on the Revolutionary War_, p. 5. "I am glad I am so _acquit_ of this tinder-box."--SHAK.

[294]

"Not know my voice! O, time's extremity! Hast thou so crack'd and _splitted_ my poor tongue?" --SHAK.: _Com. of Er._

[295] _Whet_ is made redundant in Webster's American Dictionary, as well as in Wells's Grammar; but I can hardly affirm that the irregular form of it is well authorized.

[296] In S. W. Clark's Practical Grammar, first published in 1847--a work of high pretensions, and prepared expressly "for the education of Teachers"--_sixty-three_ out of the foregoing ninety-five Redundant Verbs, are treated as having no regular or no irregular forms. (1.) The following twenty-nine are _omitted_ by this author, as if they were _always regular_; belay, bet, betide, blend, bless, curse, dive, dress, geld, lean, leap, learn, mulet, pass, pen, plead, prove, rap, reave, roast, seethe, smell, spoil, stave, stay, wake, wed, whet, wont. (2.) The following thirty-four are _given_ by him as being _always irregular_; abide, bend, beseech, blow, burst, catch, chide, creep, deal, freeze, grind, hang, knit, lade, lay, mean, pay, shake, sleep, slide, speed, spell, spill, split, string, strive, sweat, sweep, thrive, throw, weave, weep, wet, wind. Thirty-two of the ninety-five are made redundant by him, though not so called in his book.

In Wells's School Grammar, "the 113th Thousand," dated 1850, the deficiencies of the foregoing kinds, if I am right, are about fifty. This author's "List of Irregular Verbs" has forty-four Redundants, to which he assigns a regular form as well as an irregular. He is here about as much nearer right than Clark, as this number surpasses thirty-two, and comes towards ninety-five. The words about which they differ, are--_pen, seethe_, and _whet_, of the former number; and _catch, deal, hang, knit, spell, spill, sweat_, and _thrive_, of the latter.

[297] In the following example, there is a different phraseology, which seems not so well suited to the sense: "But we _must be aware_ of imagining, that we render style strong and expressive, by a constant and multiplied use of epithets"--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 287. Here, in stead of "_be aware_," the author should have said, "_beware_," or "_be ware_;" that is, be _wary_, or _cautious_; for _aware_ means _apprised_, or _informed_, a sense very different from the other.

[298] Dr. Crombie contends that _must_ and _ought_ are used only in the present tense. (See his _Treatise_, p. 204.) In this he is wrong, especially with regard to the latter word. Lennie, and his copyist Bullions, adopt the same notion; but Murray, and many others, suppose them to "have both a present and [a] past signification."

[299] Dr. Crombie says, "This Verb, as an auxiliary, is _inflexible_; thus we say, 'he _will_ go;' and 'he _wills to_ go.'"--_Treatise on Etym. and Syntax_, p. 203. He should have confined his remarks to the _familiar style_, in which all the auxiliaries, except _do, be_, and _have_, are inflexible. For, in the solemn style, we do not say, "Thou _will_ go," but, "Thou _wilt_ go."

[300] "HAD-I-WIST. A proverbial expression, _Oh_ that I had known. _Gower_."--_Chalmers's Dict._, also _Webster's_. In this phrase, which is here needlessly compounded, and not very properly explained, we see _wist_ used as a perfect participle. But the word is obsolete. "_Had I wist_," is therefore an obsolete phrase, meaning. If I had known, or, "_O_ that I had known."

[301] That is, passive verbs, as well as others, have three participles for each; so that, from one active-transitive root, there come _six_

## participles--three active, and three passive. Those numerous grammarians

who, like Lindley Murray, make passive verbs a distinct class, for the most part, very properly state the participles of a _verb_ to be "_three_;" but, to represent the two voices as modifications of one species of verbs, and then say, "The Participles are _three_," as many recent writers do, is manifestly absurd: because _two threes should be six_. Thus, for example, Dr. Bullions: "In English [,] the _transitive_ verb has always _two voices_, the Active and [the] Passive."--_Prin. of E. Gram._, p. 33. "The

## Participles are _three_, [:] the Present, the _Perfect_, and the _Compound

Perfect_."--_Ib._, p. 57. Again: "_Transitive_ verbs have two voices, called the _Active_ and the _Passive_."--_Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, p. 66. "Verbs have _three_ participles--the _present_, the _past_, and the _perfect_; as, _loving, loved, having loved_, in the active voice: AND _being loved, loved, having been loved_, in the passive."--_Ib._, p. 76. Now either not all these are the participles of _one_ verb, or that verb has _more than three_. Take your choice. Redundant verbs usually have _duplicate forms_ of all the participles except the Imperfect Active; as, _lighting, lighted_ or _lit, having lighted_ or _having lit_; so again, _being lighted_ or _being lit, lighted_ or _lit, having been lighted_ or _having been lit_.

[302] The diversity in the _application_ of these names, and in the number or nature of the participles recognized in different grammars, is quite as remarkable as that of the names themselves. To prepare a general synopsis of this discordant teaching, no man will probably think it worth his while. The following are a few examples of it:

1. "How many Participles, are there; There are two, the Active Participle which ends in (ing), as burning, and the Passive Participle which ends in (ed) as, burned."--_The British Grammar_, p. 140. In this book, the

## participles of _Be_ are named thus: "ACTIVE. Being. PASSIVE. Been, having

been."--_Ib._, p. 138.

2. "How many _Sorts_ of Participles are there? _A_. Two; the Active

## Participle, that ends always in _ing_; as, _loving_, and the Passive

## Participle, that ends always in _ed, t_, or _n_; as, _loved, taught,

slain_."--_Fisher's Practical New Gram._, p. 75.

3. "ACTIVE VOICE. _Participles_. Present, calling. Past, having called. Future, being about to call. PASSIVE VOICE. Present, being called. Past, having been called. Future, being about to be called."--_Ward's Practical Gram._, pp. 55 and 59.

4. ACT. "Present, loving; Perfect, loved; Past, having loved."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 39. The participles _passive_ are not given by Lowth; but, by inference from his rule for forming "the passive verb," they must be these: "Present, being loved; Perfect, loved, or been loved; Past, having been loved." See _Lowth's Gram._, p. 44.

5. "ACT. V. _Present_, Loving. _Past_, Loved. _Perfect_, Having loved. PAS. V. _Pres_. Being loved. _Past_, Loved. _Perf_. Having been loved."--_Lennie's Gram._, pp. 25 and 33; _Greene's Analysis_, p. 225; _Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, pp. 87 and 95. This is Bullions's _revised_ scheme, and much worse than his former one copied from Murray.

6. ACT. "_Present._ Loving. _Perfect._ Loved. _Compound Perfect_, Having loved." PAS. "_Present._ Being loved. _Perfect or Passive._ Loved. _Compound Perfect._ Having been loved."--_L. Murray's late editions_, pp. 98 and 99; _Hart's Gram._, pp. 85 and 88; _Bullions's Principles of E. Gram._, pp. 47 and 55. No form or name of the first participle passive was adopted by Murray in his early editions.

7. ACT. "Present. Pursuing. Perfect. Pursued. Compound perfect. Having pursued." PAS. "_Present and Perfect_. Pursued, or being pursued. _Compound Perfect_. Having been pursued."--_Rev. W. Allen's Gram._, pp. 88 and 93. Here the first two passive forms, and their names too, are thrown together; the former as equivalents, the latter as coalescents.

8. "TRANSITIVE. _Pres._ Loving, _Perf._ Having loved. PASSIVE. _Pres._ Loved or Being loved, _Perf._ Having been loved."--_Parkhurst's Gram. for Beginners_, p. 110. Here the second active form is wanting; and the second passive is confounded with the first.

9. ACT. "_Imperfect_, Loving [;] _Perfect_, Having loved [.]" PAS. "_Imperfect_, Being loved [;] _Perfect_, Loved, Having been loved."--_Wells's School Gram._, pp. 99 and 101. Here, too, the second

## active is not given; the third is called by the name of the second; and the

second passive is confounded with the _third_, as if they were but forms of the same thing.

10. ACT. "_Imperfect_, (_Present_,) Loving. _Perfect_. Having loved. _Auxiliary Perfect_, Loved." PAS. "_Imperfect_, (_Present_,) Being loved. _Perfect_, Having been loved. _Passive_, Loved."--_N. Butler's Pract. Gram._, pp. 84 and 91. Here the common order of most of the participles is very improperly disturbed, and as many are misnamed.

11. ACT. "Present, Loving [;] Perfect, Loved [;] Comp. Perf. Having loved [.]" PAS. "Present, Being loved [;] Perfect, Loved, or been loved [;] Compound Perfect, Having been loved."--_Frazee's Improved Gram._, 63 and 73. Here the second participle passive has two forms, one of which, "_been loved_," is not commonly recognized, except as part of some passive verb or preperfect participle.

12. ACT. V. "_Imperfect_, Seeing. _Perfect_, Seen. _Compound_, Having seen." PAS. V. "_Preterimperfect_, Being seen. _Preterperfect_, Having been seen."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 102. Here the chief and radical passive

## participle is lacking, and neither of the compounds is well named.

13. ACT. "_Present_, Loving, [;] _Past_, Loved, [;] _Com. Past_, Having loved." PAS. "_Present_, Being loved. [;] _Past_, Loved. [;] _Com. Past._ [,] Having been loved."--_Felton's Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, of 1843, pp. 37 and 50.

14. ACT. "Present. [,] Loving. [;] Perfect. [,] Loved. [;] Compound Perfect. [,] Having loved." PAS. "Perfect or Passive. Loved. Compound Perfect. Having been loved."--_Bicknell's Gram. Lond._, 1790, Part I, pp. 66 and 70; _L. Murray's_ 2d _Edition, York_, 1796, pp. 72 and 77. Here "_Being loved_," is not noticed.

15. "_Participles. Active Voice. Present._ Loving. _Past_. Loved, or having loved. _Participles. Passive Voice. Present._ Being loved. _Past_. Having been loved."--_John Burn's Practical Gram._, p. 70. Here the chief Passive term, "Loved," is omitted, and two of the active forms are confounded.

16. "_Present_, loving, _Past_, loved, _Compound_, having loved."--_S. W. Clark's Practical Gram._, of 1848, p. 71. "ACT. VOICE.--_Present_ ... Loving [;] _Compound_ [,] Having loved...... _Having been loving_."--_Ib._, p. 81. "PAS. VOICE.--_Present_..... Loved, or, being loved [;] _Compound_..... Having been loved."--_Ib._, p. 83. "The Compound Participle consists of _the_ Participle of a principal verb, added to the word _having_, or _being_, or to the two words _having been_. Examples--Having loved--_being loved_--having been loved."--_Ib._, p. 71. Here the second extract is _deficient_, as may be seen by comparing it with the first; and the fourth is _grossly erroneous_, as is shown by the third. The

## participles, too, are misnamed throughout.

The reader may observe that the _punctuation_ of the foregoing examples is very discrepant. I have, in brackets, suggested some corrections, but have not attempted a general adjustment of it.

[303] "The _most unexceptionable_ distinction which grammarians make between the participles, is, that the one points to the continuation of the

## action, passion, or state denoted by the verb; and the other, to the

completion of it. Thus, the present participle signifies _imperfect_

## action, or action begun and not ended: as, 'I am _writing_ a letter.' The

past participle signifies action _perfected_, or finished: as, 'I have _written_ a letter.'--'The letter is written.'"--_Murray's Grammar_, 8vo, p. 65. "The first [participle] expresses a _continuation_; the other, a _completion_."--_W. Allen's Grammar_, 12mo, London, 1813. "The idea which this participle [e.g. '_tearing_'] really expresses, is simply that of the _continuance_ of an action in an _incomplete_ or _unfinished_ state. The

## action may belong to time _present_, to time _past_, or to time _future_.

The participle which denotes the _completion_ of an action, as _torn_, is called the _perfect_ participle; because it represents the action as _perfect_ or _finished_."--_Barnard's Analytic Gram._, p. 51. Emmons stealthily copies from my Institutes as many as ten lines in defence of the term '_Imperfect_' and yet, in his conjugations, he calls the participle in _ing_, "_Present_." This seems inconsistent. See his "_Grammatical Instructer_," p. 61.

[304] "The ancient termination (from the Anglo-Saxon) was _and_; as, 'His _schynand_ sword.' Douglas. And sometimes _ende_; as, 'She, between the deth and life, _Swounende_ lay full ofte.' Gower."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 88. "The present Participle, in Saxon, was formed by _ande, ende_, or _onde_; and, by cutting off the final _e_, it acquired a Substantive signification, and extended the idea to the agent: as, _alysende_, freeing, and _alysend_, a redeemer; _freonde_, loving or friendly, and _freond_, a lover or a friend."--_Booth's Introd. to Dict._, p. 75.

[305] William B. Fowle, a modern disciple of Tooke, treats the subject of grammatical time rather more strangely than his master. Thus: "How many times or tenses have verbs? _Two_, [the] present and [the] _past_," To this he immediately adds in a note: "We _do not believe_ in a _past_ any more than a future tense of verbs."--_The True English Gram._, p. 30. So, between these two authors, our verbs will retain no tenses at all. Indeed, by his two tenses, Fowle only meant to recognize the two simple forms of an English verb. For he says, in an other place, "We repeat our conviction that no verb in itself expresses time of any sort."--_Ib._, p. 69,

[306] "STONE'-BLIND," "STONE'-COLD," and "STONE'-DEAD," are given in Worcester's Dictionary, as compound _adjectives_; and this is perhaps their best classification; but, if I mistake not, they are usually accented quite as strongly on the latter syllable, as on the former, being spoken rather as two emphatic words. A similar example from Sigourney, "I saw an infant _marble cold_," is given by Frazee under this Note: "Adjectives sometimes belong to other adjectives; as, '_red hot_ iron.'"--_Improved Gram._, p. 141. But Webster himself, from whom this doctrine and the example are borrowed, (see his Rule XIX,) makes "RED'-HOT" but one word in his Dictionary; and Worcester gives it as one word, in a less proper form, even without a hyphen, "RED'HOT."

[307] "OF ENALLAGE.--The construction which may be reduced to this figure in English, chiefly appears when one part of speech, is used with the power and effect of another."--_Ward's English Gram._, p. 150.

[308] _Forsooth_ is _literally_ a word of affirmation or assent, meaning _for truth_, but it is now almost always used _ironically_: as, "In these gentlemen whom the world _forsooth_ calls wise and solid, there is generally either a moroseness that persecutes, or a dullness that tires you."--_Home's Art of Thinking_, p. 24.

[309] In most instances, however, the words _hereof, thereof_, and _whereof_, are placed after _nouns_, and have nothing to do with any _verb_. They are therefore not properly _adverbs_, though all our grammarians and lexicographers call them so. Nor are they _adjectives_; because they are not used adjectively, but rather in the sense of a pronoun governed by _of_; or, what is nearly the same thing, in the sense of the possessive or genitive case. Example: "And the fame _hereof_ went abroad."--_Matt._, ix, 26. That is, "the fame _of this miracle_;" which last is a better expression, the other being obsolete, or worthy to be so, on account of its irregularity.

[310] _Seldom_ is sometimes compared in this manner, though not frequently; as, "This kind of verse occurs the _seldomest_, but has a happy effect in diversifying the melody."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 385. In former days, this word, as well as its correlative _often_, was sometimes used _adjectively_; as, "Thine _often_ infirmities."--_1 Tim._, v, 23. "I hope God's Book hath not been my _seldomest_ lectures."--_Queen Elizabeth_, 1585. John Walker has regularly compared the adverb _forward_: in describing the latter L, he speaks of the tip of the tongue as being "brought a little _forwarder_ to the teeth."--_Pron. Dict., Principles_, No. 55.

[311] A few instances of the _regular inflection_ of adverbs ending in _ly_, may be met with in _modern_ compositions, as in the following comparisons: "As melodies will sometimes ring _sweetlier_ in the echo."--_The Dial_, Vol. i, p. 6. "I remember no poet whose writings would _safelier_ stand the test."--_Coleridge's Biog. Lit._, Vol. ii, p. 53.

[312] De Sacy, in his Principles of General Grammar, calls the relative pronouns "_Conjunctive Adjectives_." See _Fosdick's Translation_, p. 57. He also says, "The words _who, which_, etc. are not the only words which connect the function of a Conjunction with another design. There are Conjunctive _Nouns_ and _Adverbs_, as well as Adjectives; and a characteristic of these words is, that we can substitute for them another form of expression in which shall be found the words _who, which_, etc. Thus, _when, where, what, how, as_, and many others, are Conjunctive words: [as,] 'I shall finish _when_ I please;' that is, 'I shall finish _at the time at which_ I please.'--'I know not _where_ I am;' i.e. 'I know not _the place in which_ I am.'"--_Ib._, p. 58. In respect to the conjunctive _adverbs_, this is well enough, so far as it goes; but the word _who_ appears to me to be a pronoun, and not an adjective; and of his "_Conjunctive Nouns_," he ought to have given us some examples, if he knew of any.

[313] "Now the Definition of a CONJUNCTION is as follows--_a Part of Speech, void of Signification itself, but so formed as to help Signification by making_ TWO _or more significant Sentences to be_ ONE _significant Sentence_."--_Harris's Hermes_, 6th Edition, London, p. 238.

[314] Whether these, or any other conjunctions that come together, ought to ho parsed together, is doubtful. I am not in favour of taking any words together, that can well be parsed separately. Goodenow, who defines a phrase to be "the union of two or more words having the _nature and construcion [sic--KTH] of a single word_," finds an immense number of these unions, which he cannot, or does not, analyze. As examples of "a _conjunctional phrase_," he gives "_as if_ and "_as though_."--_Gram._, p. 25. But when he comes to speak of _ellipsis_, he says: "After the conjunctions _than, as, but_, &c., some words are generally understood; as, 'We have more than [_that is which_] will suffice;' 'He acted _as_ [_he would act_] _if_ he were mad.'"--_Ib._, p. 41. This doctrine is plainly repugnant to the other.

[315] Of the construction noticed in this observation, the Rev. Matt. Harrison cites a good example; pronounces it elliptical; and scarcely forbears to condemn it as bad English: "_In_ the following sentence, the relative pronoun is three times omitted:--'Is there a God to swear _by_, and is there none to believe _in_, none to trust _to_?'--_Letters and Essays, Anonymous_. _By, in_, and _to_, as prepositions, stand alone, _denuded of the relatives_ to which they apply. The sentence presents no attractions worthy of imitation. It exhibits a license carried to the extreme point of endurance."--_Harrison's English Language_, p. 196.

[316] "An ellipsis of _from_ after the adverb _off_ has caused the latter word sometimes to be inserted _incorrectly_ among the prepositions. Ex. 'off (from) his horse.'"--_Hart's Gram._, p. 96. _Off_ and _on_ are opposites; and, in a sentence like the following, I see no more need of inserting "_from_" after the former, than _to_ after the latter: "Thou shalt not come down _off_ that bed _on_ which thou art gone up."--2 _Kings_, i, 16.

[317] "_Who consequently_ reduced the _greatest_ part of the island TO their own power."--_Swift, on the English Tongue_. "We can say, that _one nation reduces another_ TO _subjection_. But when _dominion_ or _power_ is used, we always, _as_ [so] far as I know, say, _reduce_ UNDER _their power_" [or _dominion_]--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 229.

[318] "_O foy_, don't misapprehend me; I don't say so."--DOUBLE DEALER: _Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 305.

[319] According to Walker and Webster, _la_ is pronounced _law_; and, if they are right in this, the latter is only a false mode of spelling. But I set down both, because both are found in books, and because I incline to think the former is from the French _la_, which is pronounced _lah_. Johnson and Webster make _la_ and _lo_ synonymous; deriving _lo_ from the Saxon _la_, and _la_ either from _lo_ or from the French _la_. "_Law_, how you joke, cousin."--_Columbian Orator_, p. 178. "_Law_ me! the very ghosts are come now!"--_Ibid._ "_Law_, sister Betty! I am glad to see you!"--_Ibid._

"_La_ you! If you speak ill of the devil, How he takes it at heart!"--SHAKESPEARE: _Joh. Dict., w. La._

[320] The interjection of interrogating, being placed independently, either after a question, or after something which it converts into a question, is usually marked with its own separate eroteme; as, "But this is even so: eh?"--_Newspaper_. "Is't not drown'd i' the last rain? Ha?"--_Shakespeare_. "Does Bridget paint still, Pompey? Ha?"--_Id._ "Suits my complexion--_hey_, gal? so I think."--_Yankee Schoolmaster_. Sometimes we see it divided only by a comma, from the preceding question; as, "What dost thou think of this doctrine, Friend Gurth, ha?"--SCOTT'S IVANHOE: _Fowler's E. Gram._, §29.

[321] Though _oh_ and _ah_ are most commonly used as signs of these depressing passions, it must be confessed that they are sometimes employed by reputable writers, as marks of cheerfulness or exultation; as, "_Ah_, pleasant proof," &c.--_Cowper's Task_, p. 179. "Merrily _oh!_ merrily _oh!_"--_Moore's Tyrolese Song_. "Cheerily _oh!_ cheerily _oh!_"--_Ib._ But even if this usage be supposed to be right, there is still some difference between these words and the interjection _O_: if there were not, we might dispense with the latter, and substitute one of the former; but this would certainly change the import of many an invocation.

[322] This position is denied by some grammarians. One recent author says, "The _object_ cannot properly be called one of the principal parts of a sentence; as it belongs only to some sentences, and then is dependent on the verb, which it modifies or explains."--_Goodenow's Gram._, p. 87. This is consistent enough with the notion, that, "An infinitive, with or without a substantive, may be _the object of a transitive verb_; as, 'I wish _to ride_;' 'I wish _you to ride_.'"--_Ib._, p. 37. Or, with the _contrary_ notion, that, "An infinitive may be _the object of a_ _preposition_, expressed or understood; as, 'I wish _for you to ride_.'"--_Ibid._ But if the object governed by the verb, is always a mere qualifying adjunct, a mere "explanation of the attribute," (_Ib._, p. 28,) how differs it from an adverb? "Adverbs are words _added to verbs_, and sometimes to other words, to _qualify_ their meaning."--_Ib._, p. 23. And if infinitives and other mere _adjuncts_ may be the objects which make verbs transitive, how shall a transitive verb be known? The fact is, that the _true_ object of the transitive verb _is one of the principal_ _parts_ of the sentence, and that the infinitive mood cannot properly be reckoned such an object.

[323] Some writers distinguish sentences as being of _three_ kinds, _simple_, and _complex_, and _compound_; but, in this work, care has not in general been taken to discriminate between complex sentences and compound. A late author states the difference thus: "A sentence containing but one proposition is _simple_; a sentence containing two propositions, one of which modifies the other, is _complex_; a sentence containing two propositions which in no way modify each other, is _compound_."--_Greene's Analysis_, p. 3. The term _compound_, as applied to sentences, is not _usually_ so restricted. An other, using the same terms for a very different division, explains them thus: "A _Simple Sentence_ contains but one subject and one attribute; as, 'The _sun shines_.' A _Complex Sentence_ contains two or more subjects of the same attribute, or two or more attributes of the same subject; as, 'The _sun_ and the _stars_ shine.' 'The sun _rises_ and _sets_.' 'The _sun_ and the _stars rise_ and _set_.' A _Compound Sentence_ is composed of two or more simple or complex sentences united; as, 'The _sun shines_, and the _stars twinkle_.' 'The _sun rises_ and _sets_, as the _earth revolves_.'"--_Pinneo's English Teacher_, p. 10; _Analytical Gram._, pp. 128, 142, and 146. This notion of a _complex sentence_ is not more common than Greene's; nor is it yet apparent, that the usual division of sentences into two kinds ought to give place to any tripartite distribution.

[324] The terms _clause_ and _member_, in grammar, appear to have been generally used as words synonymous; but some authors have thought it convenient to discriminate them, as having different senses. Hiley says, "Those parts of a sentence which are separated by commas, are called _clauses_; and those separated by semicolons, are called _members_."--_Hiley' s Gram._, p. 66. W. Allen too confines the former term to simple members: "A compound sentence is formed by uniting two or more simple sentences; as, Man is mortal, and life is uncertain. Each of these simple sentences is called a _clause_. When the _members_ of a compound sentence are complex, they are _subdivided_ into _clauses_; as, Virtue leads to honor, and insures true happiness; but vice degrades the understanding, and is succeeded by infamy."--_Allen's Gram._, p. 128. By some authors, the terms _clause_ and _phrase_ are often carelessly confounded, each being applied with no sort of regard to its proper import. Thus, where L. Murray and his copyists expound their text about "the pupil's composing frequently," even the minor phrase, "_composing frequently_," is absurdly called a _clause_; "an entire _clause_ of a sentence."--See _Murray's Gram._, p. 179; _Alger's_, 61; _Fisk's_, 108; _Ingersoll's_, 180; _Merchant's_, 84; _R. C. Smith's_, 152; _Weld's_, 2d Ed., 150. The term _sentence_ also is sometimes grossly misapplied. Thus, by R. C. Smith, the phrases "_James and William_," "_Thomas and John_," and others similar, are called "sentences."--_Smith's New Gram._, pp. 9 and 10. So Weld absurdly writes as follows; "A _whole sentence_ is frequently the object of a preposition; as, 'The crime of being a young man.' _Being a young man_, is the object of the preposition _of_."--_Weld's E. Gram._, 2d Edition, p. 42. The phrase, "_being a young man_," here depends upon "_of_;" but this preposition governs nothing but the participle "_being_." The construction of the word "_man_" is explained below, in Obs. 7th on Rule 6th, of Same Cases.

[325] In the very nature of things, all _agreement_ consists in concurrence, correspondence, conformity, similarity, sameness, equality; but _government_ is direction, control, regulation, restrain, influence, authoritative requisition, with the implication of inequality. That these properties ought to be so far distinguished in grammar, as never to be supposed to co-exist in the same terms and under the same circumstances, must be manifest to every reasoner. Some grammarians who seem to have been not always unaware of this, have nevertheless egregiously forgotten it at times. Thus Nutting, in the following remark, expresses a true doctrine, though he has written it with no great accuracy: "A word _in parsing_ never governs the same word _which_ it qualifies, or with which it agrees."--_Practical Gram._, p. 108. Yet, in his syntax, in which he pretends to separate agreement from government, he frames his first rule under the better head thus: "The nominative case _governs_ a verb."--_Ib._ p. 96. Lindsey Murray recognizes no such government as this; but seems to suppose his rule for the agreement of a verb with its nominative to be sufficient for both verb and nominative. He appears, however, not to have known that a word does not agree syntactically with another that governs it; for, in his Exercises, he has given us, apparently from his own pen, the following _untrue_, but otherwise not very objectionable sentence: "On these occasions, the pronoun is governed by, _an consequently agrees with_, the preceding word."--_Exercises_, 8vo, ii, 74. This he corrects thus: On these occasions, the pronoun is governed by the preceding word, _and consequently agrees with it_."--_Key_, 8vo, ii, 204. The amendments most needed he overlooks; for the thought is not just, and the two verbs which are here connected with one and the same nominative, are different in form. See the same example, with the same variation of it, in _Smith's New Gram._, p. 167; and, without the change, in _Ingersoll's_, p. 233; _and Fisk's_, 141.

[326] It has been the notion of some grammarians, that _the verb governs the nominative before it_. This is an old rule, which seems to have been very much forgotten by modern authors; though doubtless it is as true, and as worthy to be perpetuated, as that which supposes the nominative to govern the verb: "Omne verbum personale finiti modi regit ante se expresse vel subaudite ejusdem numeri et personæ nominativum vel aliquid pro nominativo: ut, _ego scribo, tu legis, ille auscultat_."--DESPAUTERII SYNT. fol. xvi. This Despauter was a laborious author, who, within fifty years after the introduction of printing, complains that he found his task heavy, on account of the immense number of books and opinions which he had to consult: "Necdum tamen huic operi ultimam manum aliter imposui, quam Apelles olim picturis: siquidem aptius exire, quum in multis tum in hac arte est difficillimum, _propter librorum legendorum immensitatem_, et opinionum innumeram diversitatem."--_Ibid., Epist. Apologetica_, A. D. 1513. But if, for this reason, the task was heavy _then_, what is it _now_!

[327] Nutting's rule certainly implies that _articles_ may relate to _pronouns_, though he gives no example, nor can he give any that is now good English; but he may, if he pleases, quote some other modern grammatists, who teach the same false doctrine: as, "RULE II. _The article refers to its noun_ (OR PRONOUN) _to limit its signification_."--R. G. Greene's Grammatical Text-Book, p. 18. Greene's two grammars are used extensively in the state of Maine, but they appear to be little known anywhere else. This author professes to inculcate "the principles established by Lindley Murray." If veracity, on this point, is worth any thing, it is a pity that in both books there are so many points which, like the foregoing parenthesis, belie this profession. He followed here Ingersoll's RULE IV, which is this: "_The article refers to a noun_ OR PRONOUN, _expressed or understood, to limit its signification_."-- _Conversations on E. Gram._, p. 185.

[328] It is truly a matter of surprise to find under what _titles_ or _heads_, many of the rules of syntax have been set, by some of the best scholars that have ever written on grammar. In this respect, the Latin and Greek grammarians are particularly censurable; but it better suits my purpose to give an example or two from one of the ablest of the English. Thus that elegant scholar the Rev. W. Allen: "SYNTAX OF NOUNS. 325. A verb agrees with its nominative case in number and person."--_Elements of E. Gram._, p. 131. This is in no wise the syntax of _Nouns_, but rather that of _the Verb_. Again: "SYNTAX OF VERBS. 405. Active Verbs govern the accusative case; as, I love _him_. We saw _them_. God rules the _world_."--_Ib._, p. 161. This is not properly the syntax of _Verbs_, but rather that of _Nouns_ or _Pronouns_ in the accusative or objective case. Any one who has but the least sense of order, must see the propriety of referring the rule to that sort of words to which it is applied in parsing, and not some other. Verbs are never parsed or construed by the latter of these rules nor nouns by the former.

[329] What "the Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek, ON THE SAME PLAN," will ultimately be,--how many treatises for each or any of the languages it will probably contain,--what uniformity will be found in the distribution of their several sorts and sizes,--or what _sameness_ they will have, except that which is bestowed by the binders,--cannot yet be stated with any certainty. It appears now, in 1850, that the scheme has thus far resulted in the production of _three remarkably different grammars_, for the English part of the series, and two more, a Latin grammar and a Greek, which resemble each other, or any of these, as little. In these works, abound changes and discrepances, sometimes indicating a great _unsettlement_ of "principles" or "plan," and often exciting our wonder at the extraordinary _variety_ of teaching, which has been claimed to be, "as nearly in the same words as the as the _genius of the languages_ would permit!" In what _should_ have been uniform, and easily _might_ have been so, these grammars are rather remarkably diverse! Uniformity in the order, number, or phraseology of the Rules of Syntax, even for our own language, seems scarcely yet to have entered this "SAME PLAN" at all! The "onward progress of English grammar," or, rather, of the author's studies therein, has already, within "fifteen years," greatly varied, from the _first model_ of the "_Series_," his own idea of a good grammar; and, though such changes bar consistency, a future progress, real or imaginary, may likewise, with as good reason, vary it yet as much more. In the preface to the work of 1840, it is said: "This, though _not essentially different_ from the former, is yet in some respects a new work. It has been almost _entirely rewritten_." And again: "The Syntax is _much fuller_ than in the former work; and though _the rules are not different_, they are arranged in a _different order_." So it is proved, that the model needed remodelling; and that the Syntax, especially, was defective, in matter as well as in order. The suggestions, that "_the rules are not different_," and the works, _"not essentially" so_, will sound best to those who shall never compare them. The old code has thirty-four chief, and twenty-two "special rules;" the new has twenty chief, thirty-six "special," and one "general rule." Among all these, we shall scarcely find _exact sameness_ preserved in so many as half a dozen instances. Of the old thirty-four, _fourteen only_ were judged worthy to remain as principal rules; and two of these have no claim at all to such rank, one of them being quite useless. Of the _twenty_ now made chief, five are new to "the Series of Grammars," and three of these exceedingly resemble as many of mine; five are slightly altered, and five greatly, from their predecessors among the old: one is the first half of an old rule; one is an old subordinate rule, altered and elevated; and _three are as they were before_, their numbers and relative positions excepted!

[330] "The grammatical predicate is a verb."--_Butler's Pract. Gram._, 1845, p. 135, "_The grammatical predicate_ is a finite verb."--_Wells's School Gram._, 1850, p. 185. "The grammatical predicate is either a verb alone, or the copula _sum_ [some part of the verb _be_] with a noun or adjective."--_Andrews and Stoddard's Lat. Gram._, p. 163. "The _predicate_ consists of two parts,--the verb, or _copula_, and that which is asserted by it, called the _attribute_; as 'Snow _is white_.'"--_Greene's Analysis_. p. 15. "The _grammatical_ predicate consists of the _attribute_ and _copula_ not modified by other word."--_Bullions, Analyt, and Pract. Gram._, P. 129. "The _logical_ predicate is the grammatical, with all the words or phrases that modify it." _Ib._ p. 130. "The _Grammatical predicate_ is the word or words containing the simple affirmation, made respecting the subject."--_Bullions, Latin Gram._, p. 269. "Every proposition necessarily consists of these three parts: [the _subject_, the _predicate_, and the _copula_;] but then it is not alike needful, that they be all severally expressed in words; because the copula _is often included_ in the term of the predicate; as when we say, _he sits_, which imports the same as, _he is sitting_."--_Duncan's Logic_, p 105. In respect to this Third Method of Analysis. It is questionable, whether a noun or an adjective which follows the verb and forms part of the assertion, is to be included in "the grammatical predicate" or not. Wells says, No: "It would destroy at once all distinction between the grammatical and the logical predicate."--_School Gram._, p. 185. An other question is, whether the _copula_ (_is, was_ or the like,) which the _logicians_ discriminate, should be included as part of the _logical_ predicate, when it occurs as a distinct word. The prevalent practice of the _grammatical_ analyzers is, so to include it,--a practice which in itself is not very "logical." The distinction of subjects and predicates as "_grammatical_ and _logical_," is but a recent one. In some grammars, the partition used in logic is copied without change, except perhaps of _words_: as "There are, in sentences, a _subject_, a _predicate_ and a _copula_." JOS. R. CHANDLER, _Gram. of_ 1821, p. 105; _Gram. of_ 1847, p. 116. The logicians, however, and those who copy them, may have been hitherto at fault in recognizing and specifying their "_copula_." Mulligan forcibly argues that the verb of _being_ is no more entitled to this name than is every other verb. (See his _Exposition_," §46.) If he is right in this, the "_copula_" of the logicians (an in my opinion, his own also) is a mere figment of the brain, there being nothing that answers to the definition of the thing or to the true use of the word.

[331] I cite this example from Wells, for the purpose of explaining it without the several errors which that gentleman's _"Model"_ incidentally inculcates. He suggests that _and_ connects, not the two relative _clauses_, as such, but the two verbs _can give_ and _can take_; and that the connexion between _away_ and _is_ must be traced through the former, and its object _which._ These positions, I think, are wrong. He also uses here, as elsewhere, the expressions, _"which relates it"_ and, _"which is related by,"_ each in a very unusual, and perhaps an unauthorized, sense. His formule reads thus: "_Away_ modifies _can take_; _can take_ is CONNECTED with _can give_ by _and_; WHICH is governed by CAN GIVE, and relates to _security_; _security_ is the object of _finding_, _which_ is RELATED BY _of_ to _conviction_; _conviction_ is the object of with, _which_ RELATES IT to _can look_; _to_ expresses the relation between _whom_ and _can look_, and _whom_ relates to _Being_, which is the subject of _is."_ --_Wells's School Gram._, 113th Ed., p. 192. Neither this nor the subsequent method has been often called _"analysis;"_ for, in grammar, each user of this term has commonly applied it to some one method only,--the method preferred by himself.

[332] The possessive phrase here should be, "_Andrews and Stoddard's_," as Wells and others write it. The adding of the apostrophe to the former name is wrong, even by the better half of Butler's own absurd and self-contradictory Rule: to wit, "When two or more nouns in the possessive case are connected by _and_, the possessive termination _should be added to each of them_; as, 'These are _John's and Eliza's_ books.' But, if objects are possessed in common by two or more, and the nouns are closely connected without any intervening words, the possessive termination is _added to the last noun only_; as, 'These are _John and Eliza's_ books.'"--_Butler's_ _Practical Gram._, p. 163. The sign twice used implies two governing nouns: "John's and Eliza's books." = "John's books and Eliza's;" "Andrews' and Stoddard's Latin Grammar," = "Andrews' (or Andrews's) Latin Grammar and Stoddard's"

[333] In Mulligan's recent "Exposition of the Grammatical Structure of the English Language,"--the work of an able hand,--this kind of "Analysis," being most improperly pronounced "_the chief business of the grammarian_," is swelled by copious explanation under minute heads, to a volume containing more than three times as much matter as Greene's; but, since school-boys have little relish for long arguments, and prolixity had here already reached to satiety and disgust, it is very doubtful whether the practical utility of this "Improved Method of Teaching Grammar," will be greater in proportion to this increase of bulk.--G. B., 1853.

[334] "I will not take upon me to say, whether we have any Grammar that sufficiently instructs us by rule and example; but I am sure we have none, that in the manner here attempted, teaches us what is right, by showing what is wrong; though this perhaps may prove _the more useful and effectual method_ of Instruction."--_Lowth's Gram., Pref._, p. viii.

[335] With the possessive case and its governing noun, we use but _one article_; and sometimes it seems questionable, to which of the two that article properly relates: as, "This is one of _the_ Hebrews' children."--_Exodus_, ii, 6. The sentence is plainly equivalent to the following, which has two articles: "This is one of _the_ children of _the_ Hebrews." Not because the one article is equivalent to the two, or because it relates to both of the nouns; but because the possessive relation itself makes one of the nouns sufficiently definite. Now, if we change the latter construction back into the former, it is the noun _children_ that drops its article; it is therefore the other to which the remaining article relates. But we sometimes find examples in which the same analogy does not hold. Thus, "_a summer's day_" means, "_a day of summer_;" and we should hardly pronounce it equivalent to "_the day of a summer_." So the questionable phrase, "_a three days' journey_," means, "_a journey of three days_;" and, whether the construction be right or wrong, the article _a_ cannot be said to relate to the plural noun. Possibly such a phrase as, "_the three years' war_," might mean, "_the war of three years_;" so that the article must relate to the latter noun. But in general it is the latter noun that is rendered definite by the possessive relation: thus the phrase, "_man's works_" is equivalent to "_the works_ of man," not to "_works of the man_;" so, "_the man's works_," is equivalent, not to "the works of man," but to "the works of _the_ man."

[336] Horne Tooke says, "The _use_ of A after the word MANY is a corruption for _of_; and has _no connection_ whatever with the _article_ A, i. e. _one_."--_Diversions of Purley_, Vol. ii, p. 324. With this conjecture of the learned etymologist, I do not concur: it is hardly worth while to state here, what may he urged pro and con.

[337] "Nothing can be more certain than that [in Greek syntax] all words used for the purpose of definition, either stand between the article and the noun, or have their own article prefixed. Yet it may sometimes happen that an apposition [with an article] is parenthetically inserted instead of being affixed."--J. W. DONALDSON: _Journal of Philology_, No. 2, p. 223.

[338] _Churchill_ rashly condemns this construction, and still more rashly proposes to make the noun singular without repeating the article. See his _New Gram._, p. 311. But he sometimes happily forgets his own doctrine; as, "In fact, _the second and fourth lines_ here stamp the character of the measure."--_Ib._, p. 391. O. B. Peirce says, "'Joram's _second_ and _third daughters_,' must mean, if it means any thing, his _second daughters_ and _third daughters_; and, 'the _first_ and _second verses_.' if it means any thing, must represent the _first verses_ and the _second verses_."-- _Peirce's English Gram._, p. 263. According to my notion, this interpretation is as false and hypercritical, as is the rule by which the author professes to show what is right. He might have been better employed in explaining some of his own phraseology, such as, "the _indefinite-past and present_ of the _declarative mode_."--_Ib._, p. 100. The critic who writes such stuff as this, may well be a misinterpreter of good common English. It is plain, that the two examples which he thus distorts, are neither obscure nor inelegant. But, in an alternative of single things, the article _must be repeated_, and a plural noun is improper; as, "But they do not receive _the_ Nicene _or the_ Athanasian _creeds_."--_Adam's Religious World_, Vol. ii, p. 105. Say, "_creed_." So in an enumeration; as, "There are three participles: _the_ present, _the_ perfect, and _the_ compound perfect _participles_"--_Ingersoll's Gram._, p. 42. Expunge this last word, "_participles_." Sometimes a sentence is wrong, not as being in itself a solecism, but as being unadapted to the author's thought. Example: "Other tendencies will be noticed in the Etymological and Syntactical part."--_Fowler's E. Gram._, N. Y., 1850, p. 75. This implies, what appears not to be true, that the author meant to treat Etymology and Syntax _together_ in a single part of his work. Had he put an _s_ to the noun "part," he might have been understood in either of two other ways, but not in this. To make sure of his meaning, therefore, he should have said--"in the Etymological _Part_ and _the_ Syntactical."

[339] Oliver B. Peirce, in his new theory of grammar, not only adopts Ingersoll's error, but adds others to it. He supposes no ellipsis, and declares it grossly improper ever to insert the pronoun. According to him, the following text is wrong: "My son, _despise not thou_ the chastening of the Lord."--_Heb._, xii, 5. See _Peirce's Gram._, p. 255. Of this gentleman's book I shall say the less, because its faults are so many and so obvious. Yet this is "_The Grammar of the English Language_," and claims to be the only work which is worthy to be called an English Grammar. "The first and only Grammar of the English Language!"--_Ib._, p. 10. In punctuation, it is a very _chaos_, as one might guess from the following Rule: "A _word_ of the _second person_, and in the _subjective_ case, _must have_ a _semicolon_ after it; as, John; hear me."--_Id._, p. 282. Behold his practice! "John, beware."--P. 84. "Children, study."--P. 80. "Henry; study."--P. 249. "Pupil: parse."--P. 211; and many other places. "Be thou, or do thou be writing? Be ye or you, or do ye or you be writing?"--P. 110. According to his Rule, this tense requires six semicolons; but the author points it with two commas and two notes of interrogation!

[340] In Butler's Practical Grammar, first published in 1845, this doctrine is taught as a _novelty_. His publishers, in their circular letter, speak of it as one of "the _peculiar advantages_ of this grammar over preceding works," and as an important matter, "_heretofore altogether omitted by grammarians_!" Wells cites Butler in support of his false principle: "A verb in the infinitive is _often_ preceded by a noun or pronoun in the objective, which has _no direct dependence_ on any other word. Examples:--'Columbus ordered a strong _fortress_ of wood and plaster _to be erected_.'--_Irving_. 'Its favors here should make _us tremble_.'-- _Young_." See _Wells's School Gram._, p. 147.

[341] "Sometimes indeed _the verb hath two regimens_, and then _the preposition is necessary_ to one of them; as, 'I address myself _to_ my judges.'"--_Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 178. Here the verb _address_ governs the pronoun _myself_, and is also the antecedent to the preposition _to_; and the construction would be similar, if the preposition governed the infinitive or a participle: as, "I prepared myself _to_ swim;" or, "I prepared myself _for_ swimming." But, in any of these cases, it is not very accurate to say, "_the verb has two regimens_;" for the latter term is properly the regimen of the _preposition_. Cardell, by robbing the prepositions, and supposing ellipses, found _two regimens for every verb_. W. Allen, on the contrary, (from whom Nixon gathered his doctrine above,) by giving the "accusative" to the infinitive, makes a multitude of our

## active-transitive verbs "_neuter_." See _Allen's Gram._, p. 166. But Nixon

absurdly calls the verb "active-transitive," _because it governs the infinitive_; i. e. as he supposes--and, except when _to_ is not used, _erroneously_ supposes.

[342] A certain _new theorist_, who very innocently fogs himself and his credulous readers with a deal of impertinent pedantry, after denouncing my doctrine that _to_ before the infinitive is a _preposition_, appeals to me thus: "Let me ask you, G. B.--is not the infinitive in Latin _the same_ as in _the English?_ Thus, I desire _to teach Latin_--Ego Cupio _docere_. I saw Abel _come_--Ego videbam Abelem _venire_. The same principle is recognized by the Greek grammars and those of most of the modern languages."--_O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p. 358. Of this gentleman I know nothing but from what appears in his book--a work of immeasurable and ill-founded vanity--a whimsical, dogmatical, blundering performance. This short sample of his Latin, (_with six puerile errors in seven words_,) is proof positive that he knows nothing of that language, whatever may be his attainments in Greek, or the other tongues of which he tells. To his question I answer emphatically, NO. In Latin, "One verb governs an other in the infinitive; as, _Cupio discere_, I desire _to_ learn."--_Adam's Gram._, p. 181. This government never admits the intervention of a preposition. "I saw Abel come," has no preposition; but the Latin of it is, "_Vidi Abelem venientem_," and not what is given above; or, according to St. Jerome and others, who wrote, "_Abel_," without declension, we ought rather to say, "_Vidi Abel venientem_." If they are right, "_Ego videbam Abelem venire_," is every word of it wrong!

[343] Priestley cites these examples as _authorities_, not as _false syntax_. The errors which I thus quote at secondhand from other grammarians, and mark with double references, are in general such as the first quoters have allowed, and made themselves responsible for; but this is not the case in every instance. Such credit has sometimes, though rarely, been given, where the expression was disapproved.--G. BROWN.

[344] Lindley Murray thought it not impracticable to put two or more nouns in apposition and add the possessive sign to each; nor did he imagine there would often be any positive impropriety in so doing. His words, on this point, are these: "On the other hand, the application of the _genitive_ sign to both or all of the nouns in apposition, would be _generally_ harsh and displeasing, and _perhaps in some cases incorrect_: as, 'The Emperor's Leopold's; King George's; Charles's the Second's; The parcel was left at Smith's, the bookseller's and stationer's."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 177. Whether he imagined _any of these_ to be "_incorrect_" or not, does not appear! Under the next rule, I shall give a short note which will show them _all_ to be so. The author, however, after presenting these uncouth fictions, which show nothing but his own deficiency in grammar, has done the world the favour not to pronounce them very _convenient_ phrases; for he continues the paragraph as follows: "The rules which _we_ have endeavoured to elucidate, will prevent the _inconveniences_ of both these modes of expression; and they appear to be _simple, perspicuous_, and _consistent_ with the idiom of the language.'--_Ib._ This undeserved praise of his own rules, he might as well have left to some other hand. They have had the fortune, however, to please sundry critics, and to become the prey of many thieves; but are certainly very deficient in the three qualities here named; and, taken together with their illustrations, they form little else than a tissue of errors, partly his own, and partly copied from Lowth and Priestley.

Dr. Latham, too, and Prof. Child, whose erroneous teaching on this point is still more marvellous, not only inculcate the idea that possessives in form may be in apposition, but seem to suppose that two possessive endings are essential to the relation. Forgetting all such English as we have in the phrases, "_John the Baptist's head_,"--"_For Jacob my servant's sake_,"--"_Julius Cæsar's Commentaries_,"--they invent sham expressions, too awkward ever to have come to their knowledge from any actual use,--such as, "_John's the farmer's wife_,"--"_Oliver's the spy's evidence_,"--and then end their section with the general truth, "For words to be in apposition with each other, they must be in the same case."--_Elementary Grammar, Revised Edition_, p. 152. What sort of scholarship is that in which _fictitious examples_ mislead even their inventors?

[345] In Professor Fowler's recent and copious work, "The English Language in its Elements and Forms," our present _Reciprocals_ are called, not _Pronominal Adjectives_, but "_Pronouns_," and are spoken of, in the first instance, thus: "§248. A RECIPROCAL PRONOUN is _one_ that implies the mutual action of different agents. EACH OTHER, and ONE ANOTHER, are our reciprocal forms, _which are treated exactly as if they were compound pronouns_, taking for their genitives, _each other's, one another's_. _Each other_ is properly used of _two_, and _one another_ of _more_." The definition here given takes for granted what is at least disputable, that "_each other_," or "_one another_," is not a phrase, but is merely "_one pronoun_." But, to none of his three important positions here taken, does the author himself at all adhere. In §451, at Note 3, he teaches thus: "'They love each other.' Here _each_ is in the nominative case in apposition with _they_, and _other_ is in the objective case. 'They helped one another.' Here _one_ is in apposition with _they_, and _another_ is in the objective case." Now, by this mode of parsing, the reciprocal terms "are treated," not as "compound pronouns," but as phrases consisting of distinct or separable words: and, as being separate or separable words, whether they be Adjectives or Pronouns, they conform not to his definition above. Out of the sundry instances in which, according to his own showing, he has misapplied one or the other of these phrases, I cite the following: (1.) "The _two_ ideas of Science and Art differ from _one another_ as the understanding differs from the will."--_Fowler's Gram._, 1850, §180. Say,--"from _each_ other;" or,--"_one_ from _the_ other." (2.) "THOU, THY, THEE, are etymologically related to _each_ other."--_Ib._, §216. Say,--"to _one an_ other;" because there are "_more_" than "_two_." (3.) "Till within some centuries, the Germans, like the French and the English, addressed _each_ other in familiar conversation by the Second Person Singular."--_Ib._, §221. Say,--"addressed _one an_ other." (4.) "Two sentences are, on the other hand, connected in the way of co-ordination [,] when they are not thus dependent one upon _an_other."--_Ib._, §332. Say,--"upon _each_ other;" or,--"one upon _the_ other;" because there are but two. (5.) "These two rivers are at a great distance from one _an_other."--_Ib._, §617. Say,--"from _each_ other;" or,--"_one from the_ other." (6.) "The trees [in the _Forest of Bombast_] are close, spreading, and twined into _each other_."--_Ib._, §617. Say,--"into _one an_ other."

[346] For this quotation, Dr. Campbell gives, in his margin, the following reference: "Introduction, &c., Sentences, Note on the 6th Phrase." But in my edition of Dr. Lowth's Introduction to English Grammar, (a Philadelphia edition of 1799,) I _do not_ find the passage. Perhaps it has been omitted in consequence of Campbell's criticism, of which I here cite but a part.--G. BROWN.

[347] By some grammarians it is presumed to be consistent with the nature of _participles_ to govern the possessive case; and Hiley, if he is to be understood _literally_, assumes it as an "_established principle_," that they _all_ do so! "_Participles govern_ nouns and pronouns in the possessive case, and at the same time, if derived from transitive verbs, _require_ the noun or pronoun following to be in the objective case, _without the intervention of the preposition of_; as 'Much depends on _William's observing the rule_, and error will be the consequence of _his neglecting it_;' or, 'Much _will_ depend on the _rule's being observed by William_, and error will be the consequence of _its being neglected_.'"--_Hiley's Gram._, p. 94. These sentences, without doubt, are _nearly_ equivalent to each other in meaning. To make them exactly so, "_depends_" or "_will depend_" must be changed in tense, and "_its being neglected_" must be "_its being neglected by him_." But who that has looked at the facts in the case, or informed himself on the points here in dispute, will maintain that either the awkward phraseology of the latter example, or the mixed and questionable construction of the former, or the extensive rule under which they are here presented, is among "the established principles and best usages of the English language?"--_Ib._, p. 1.

[348] What, in Weld's "Abridged Edition," is improperly called a "participial _noun_," was, in his "original work," still more erroneously termed "a participial _clause_." This gentleman, who has lately amended his general rule for possessives by wrongfully copying or imitating mine, has also as widely varied his conception of the _participial_--"_object possessed_;" but, in my judgement, a change still greater might not be amiss. "The possessive is often governed by a participial clause; as, much will depend on the _pupil's_ composing frequently. _Pupil's_ is governed by the _clause_, '_composing frequently_.' NOTE.--The sign ('s) should be annexed to the word governed by the _participial clause_ following it."--_Weld's Gram._, 2d _Edition_, p. 150. Again: "The possessive is often governed by a participial _noun_; as, Much will depend on the _pupil's_ composing frequently. _Pupil's_ is governed by the participial _noun composing_. NOTE.--The sign ('s) should be annexed to the word governed by the participial _noun_ following it."--_Weld's Gram., Abridged_, p. 117. Choosing the possessive case, where, both by analogy and by authority, the objective would be quite as grammatical, if not more so; destroying, as far as possible, all syntactical distinction between the participle and the

## participial noun, by confounding them purposely, even in name; this author,

like Wells, whom he too often imitates, takes no notice of the question here discussed, and seems quite unconscious that participles partly made nouns can _produce_ false syntax. To the foregoing instructions, he subjoins the following comment, as a marginal note: "_The participle used as a noun_, still _retains its verbal properties_, and may govern the objective case, or be modified by an adverb or adjunct, like the verb from which it is derived."--_Ibid._ When one part of speech is said to be _used as an other_, the learner may be greatly puzzled to understand _to which class_ the given word belongs. If "_the participle used as a noun_, still retains its verbal properties," it is, manifestly, not a noun, but a

## participle still; not a participial noun, but a _nounal participle_,

whether the thing be allowable or not. Hence the teachings just cited are inconsistent. Wells says, "_Participles_ are often used _in the sense of nouns_; as, 'There was again the _smacking_ of whips, the _clattering_ of hoofs, and the _glittering_ of harness.'--IRVING."--_School Gram._, p. 154. This is not well stated; because these are participial _nouns_, and not "_participles_." What Wells calls "participial nouns," differ from these, and are _all_ spurious, _all_ mongrels, _all_ participles rather than nouns. In regard to possessives before participles, no instructions appear to be more defective than those of this gentleman. His sole rule supposes the pupil always to know when and why the possessive is _proper_, and only instructs him _not to form it without the sign!_ It is this: "When a noun or a pronoun, preceding a _participle used as a noun_, is _properly_ in the possessive case, the sign of possession should not be omitted."--_School Gram._, p. 121. All the examples put under this rule, are inappropriate: each will mislead the learner. Those which are called "_Correct_," are, I think erroneous; and those which are called "_False Syntax_," the adding of the possessive sign will not amend.

[349] It is remarkable, that Lindley Murray, with all his care in revising his work, did not see the _inconsistency_ of his instructions in relation to phrases of this kind. First he copies Lowth's doctrine, literally and anonymously, from the Doctor's 17th page, thus: "When the thing to which _another is said to belong_, is expressed by a circumlocution, or by _many terms_, the sign of the possessive case _is commonly added to the last_ term: as, 'The _king of Great Britain's_ dominions.'"--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 45. Afterwards he condemns this: "The word in the genitive case is frequently PLACED IMPROPERLY: as, 'This fact appears from _Dr. Pearson of Birmingham's_ experiments.' _It_ should be, 'from the experiments of _Dr. Pearson_ of Birmingham.' "--_Ib._, p. 175. And again he makes it necessary: "A phrase in which the words are so connected and dependent, as to admit of no pause before the conclusion, _necessarily requires_ the genitive sign _at or near_ the end _of the phrase_: as, 'Whose prerogative is it? It is the _king of Great Britain's_;' 'That is the _duke of Bridgewater's_ canal;' " &c.--_Ib._, p. 276. Is there not contradiction in these instructions?

[350] A late grammarian tells us: "_In_ nouns ending in _es_ and _ss_, the other _s_ is not added; as, _Charles'_ hat, _Goodness'_ sake."--_Wilcox's Gram._, p. 11. He should rather have said, "_To_ nouns ending in _es_ or _ss_, the other _s_ is not added." But his doctrine is worse than his syntax; and, what is remarkable, he himself forgets it in the course of a few minutes, thus: "Decline _Charles_. Nom. _Charles_, Poss. _Charles's_, Obj. _Charles_."--_Ib._, p. 12. See the like doctrine in Mulligan's recent work on the "_Structure of Language_," p. 182.

[351] VAUGELAS was a noted French critic, who died in 1650. In Murray's Grammar, the name is more than once mistaken. On page 359th, of the edition above cited, it is printed "_Vangelas_"--G. BROWN.

[352] Nixon parses _boy_, as being "in the possessive case, governed by distress understood;" and _girl's_, as being "coupled by _nor_ to _boy_," according to the Rule, "Conjunctions connect the same cases." Thus one word is written wrong; the other, parsed wrong: and so of _all_ his examples above.--G. BROWN.

[353] Wells, whose Grammar, in its first edition, divides verbs into "_transitive, intransitive_, and _passive_;" but whose late edition absurdly make all passives transitive; says, in his third edition, "A _transitive verb_ is a verb that _has some noun or pronoun_ for its object;" (p. 78;) adopts, in his syntax, the old dogma, "Transitive verbs govern the objective case;" (3d Ed., p. 154;) and to this rule subjoins a series of remarks, so singularly fit to puzzle or mislead the learner, and withal so successful in winning the approbation of committees and teachers, that it may be worth while to notice most of them here.

"REM. 1.--A sentence or phrase _often supplies the place_ of a noun or pronoun in the objective case; as, 'You see _how few of these men have returned.'"--Wells' s School Gram._, "Third Thousand," p. 154; late Ed. §215. According to this, must we not suppose verbs to be often transitive, when _not made so_ by the author's _definition_? And if _"see"_ is here transitive, would not other forms, such as _are told, have been told_, or _are aware_, be just as much so, if put in its place?

"REM. 2.--An _intransitive_ verb may be used to _govern an objective_, when the verb and the noun depending upon it are of kindred signification; as, '_To live_ a blameless _life;'--'To run_ a _race.'"--Ib._ Here verbs are absurdly called "_intransitive_," when, both in fact and by the foregoing definition, they are clearly transitive; or, at least, are, by many teachers, supposed to be so.

"REM. 3.--Idiomatic expressions sometimes occur in which _intransitive_ verbs are followed by _objectives depending upon them_; as, 'To _look_ the _subject_ fully in the face.'--_Channing_. 'They _laughed him_ to scorn.'--_Matt_. 9:24. 'And _talked_ the _night_ away.'--_Goldsmith_."-- _Ib._ Here again, verbs evidently _made transitive by the construction_, are, with strange inconsistency, called "_intransitive_." By these three remarks together, the distinction between transitives and intransitives must needs be extensively _obscured_ in the mind of the learner.

"REM. 4.--Transitive verbs of _asking, giving, teaching_, and _some others_, are often employed to govern two objectives; as, '_Ask him_ his _opinion_;'--'This experience _taught me_ a valuable _lesson_.'--'_Spare me_ yet this bitter _cup.'--Hemans_. 'I thrice _presented him_ a kingly _crown_.'--_Shakspeare_."--_Ib._ This rule not only jumbles together several different constructions, such as would require different cases in Latin or Greek, but is evidently repugnant to _the sense_ of many of the passages to which it is meant to be applied. Wells thinks, the practice of supplying a preposition, "is, in many cases, arbitrary, and does violence to an important and well established _idiom_ of the language."--_Ib._ But how can any idiom be violated by a mode of parsing, which merely expounds its _true meaning_? If the dative case has the meaning of _to_, and the ablative has the meaning of _from_, how can they be expounded, in English, but by suggesting the _particle_, where it is omitted? For example: "Spare me yet [_from_] this bitter cup."--"Spare [_to_] me yet this joyous cup." This author says, "_The rule_ for the government of two objectives by a verb, without the aid of a preposition, is adopted by Webster, Murray, Alexander, Frazee, Nutting, Perley, Goldsbury, J. M. Putnam, Hamlin, Flower, Crane, Brace, and many others."--_Ib._ Yet, if I mistake not, the weight of authority is vastly against it. _Such a rule as this_, is not extensively approved; and even some of the names here given, are improperly cited. Lindley Murray's remark, "Some of our verbs appear to govern two words in the objective case," is applied only to _words in apposition_, and wrong even there; Perley's rule is only of "_Some_ verbs of _asking_ and _teaching_;" and Nutting's note, "It _sometimes happens_ that one transitive verb governs two objective cases," is so very loose, that one can neither deny it, nor tell how much it means.

"REM. 5.--Verbs of _asking, giving, teaching_, and _some others_, are often employed in the passive voice _to govern_ a noun or pronoun; as, 'He _was asked_ his _opinion.'--Johnson_. 'He _had been refused shelter_.'-- _Irving_."--_Ib._, p. 155, §215. Passive _governing_ is not far from absurdity. Here, by way of illustration, we have examples of _two sorts_; the one elliptical, the other solecistical. The former text appears to mean, "He was asked _for_, his opinion;"--or, "He was asked _to give_ his opinion: the latter should have been, "_Shelter had been refused_ him;"--i.e., "_to_ him." Of the seven instances cited by the author, five at least are of the latter kind, and therefore to be condemned; and it is to be observed, that when they are _corrected_, and the right word is made nominative, the passive government, by Wells's own showing, becomes nothing but the ellipsis of a preposition. Having just given a _rule_, by which all his various examples are assumed to be regular and right, he very inconsistently adds this not: "_This form_ of expression is _anomalous_, and _might_, in many cases, be improved. Thus, _instead_ of saying, 'He was offered a seat on the council,' it would be preferable to say 'A seat in the council was offered [to] him.'"--_Ib._, p. 155, Sec. 215. By admitting here the ellipsis of the preposition _to_, he evidently refutes the doctrine of his own text, so far as it relates to _passive government_, and, by implication, the doctrine of his fourth remark also. For the ellipsis of _to_, before "_him_," is just as evident in the active expression, "I thrice _presented him_ a kingly crown," as in the passive, "A kingly crown _was thrice presented him_." It is absurd to deny it in either. Having offset _himself_, Wells as ingeniously balances his _authorities, pro and con_; but, the _elliptical_ examples being _allowable_, he should not have said that I and others "_condemn this usage altogether_."

"REM. 6.--The passive voice of a verb is sometimes used in connection with a _preposition_, forming a _compound passive verb_; as 'He _was listened to_.'--'Nor is this _to be scoffed at_.'--'This is a tendency _to be guarded against_.'--'A bitter persecution _was carried on_.'--_Hallam_."-- _Ib._, p. 155, Sec. 215. The words here called "_prepositions_," are _adverbs_. Prepositions they cannot be; because they have no subsequent term. Nor is it either necessary or proper, to call them parts of the verb: "_was carried on_," is no more a "compound verb," than "_was carried off_," or "_was carried forward_," and the like.

"REM. 7.--Idiomatic expressions sometimes occur in which a noun in the objective is preceded by a passive verb, and followed by _a preposition used adverbially_. EXAMPLES: 'Vocal and instrumental music _were made use of_.'--_Addison_. 'The third, fourth, and fifth, _were taken possession of_ at half past eight."--_Southey_. 'The Pinta _was soon lost sight of_ in the darkness of the night.'--_Irving_."--_Ib._, p. 155, Sec. 215. As it is by the manner of their use, that we distinguish prepositions and adverbs, it seems no more proper to speak of "_a preposition used adverbially_," than of "_an adverb used prepositionally_." But even if the former phrase is right and the thing conceivable, here is no instance of it; for "_of_" here modifies no verb, adjective, or adverb. The construction is an unparsable synchysis, a vile snarl, which no grammarian should hesitate to condemn. These examples may each be corrected in several ways: 1. Say--"_were used;"--"were taken into possession_;"--"_was soon lost from sight_." 2. Say--"_They_ made use of music, _both_ vocal and instrumental."--"Of the third, _the_ fourth, and _the_ fifth, _they took_ possession at half past eight."--"Of the Pinta _they_ soon list sight," &c. 3. Say--"Use _was also_ made of _both_ vocal and instrumental music."--"Possession of the third, _the_ fourth, and _the_ fifth, _was_ taken at half past eight."--"The Pinta soon _disappeared_ in the darkness of the night." Here again, Wells puzzles his pupil, with a note which half justifies and half condemns the awkward usage in question. See _School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 147; 3d Ed., 156; late Ed., Sec. 215.

"REM. 8.--There are _some_ verbs which may be used either transitively or intransitively; as, 'He _will return_ in a week,' 'He _will return_ the book.'"--_Ib._, p. 147; 156; &c. According to Dr. Johnson, this is true of "_most_ verbs," and Lindley Murray asserts it of "_many_." There are, I think, but _few_ which may _not_, in some phraseology or other, be used both ways. Hence the rule, "Transitive verbs govern the objective case," or, as Wells now has it, "Transitive verbs, in the active voice, govern the objective case," (Sec. 215,) rests only upon a distinction which _itself creates_, between transitives and intransitives; and therefore it amounts to little.

[354] To these examples, Webster adds _two others_, of a _different sort_, with a comment, thus: "'Ask _him_ his _opinion_?' 'You have asked _me_ the _news_.' Will it be said that the latter phrases are elliptical, for 'ask _of_ him his opinion?' I apprehend this to be a mistake. According to the true idea of the government of a transitive verb, _him_ must be the _object_ in the phrase under consideration, as much as in this, 'Ask _him_ for a guinea;' or in this, 'ask him to go.'"--_Ibid, ut supra_; _Frazee's Gram._, p. 152; _Fowler's_, p. 480. If, for the reason here stated, it is a "mistake" to supply _of_ in the foregoing instances, it does not follow that they are not elliptical. On the contrary, if they are analogous to, "Ask him _for_ a guinea;" or, "Ask him _to go_;" it is manifest that the construction must be this: "Ask him [_for_] his opinion;" or, "Ask him [_to tell_] his opinion." So that the question resolves itself into this: What is the best way of _supplying the ellipsis_, when two objectives thus occur after ask?--G. BROWN.

[355] These examples Murray borrowed from Webster, who published them, with _references_, under his 34th Rule. With too little faith in the corrective power of grammar, the Doctor remarks upon the constructions as follows: "This idiom is outrageously anomalous, but perhaps incorrigible."-- _Webster's Philos. Gram._, p. 180; _Imp. G._, 128.

[356] This seems to be a reasonable principle of syntax, and yet I find it contradicted, or a principle opposite to it set up, by some modern teachers of note, who venture to justify all those abnormal phrases which I here condemn as errors. Thus Fowler: "Note 5. When a Verb with its Accusative case, _is equivalent to a single verb_, it may take this accusative after it in the passive voice; as, 'This _has been put an end to_.'"--_Fowler's English Language_, 8vo, §552. Now what is this, but an effort to teach bad English by rule?--and by such a rule, too, as is vastly more general than even the great class of terms which it was designed to include? And yet this rule, broad as it is, does not apply at all to the example given! For "_put an end_," without the important word "_to_," is not equivalent to _stop_ or _terminate_. Nor is the example right. One ought rather to say, "This has been _ended_;" or, "This has been _stopped_." See the marginal Note to Obs. 5th, above.

[357] Some, however, have conceived the putting of the same case after the verb as before it, to be _government_; as, "Neuter verbs occasionally _govern_ either the nominative or [the] objective case, after them."--_Alexander's Gram._, p. 54. "The verb _to be, always governs_ a Nominative, unless it be of the Infinitive Mood."--_Buchanan's Gram._, p. 94. This latter assertion is, in fact, monstrously untrue, and also solecistical.

[358] Not unfrequently the conjunction _as_ intervenes between these "same cases," as it may also between words in apposition; as, "He then is _as_ the head, and we _as_ the members; he the vine, and we the branches."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. ii, p. 189.

[359] "'Whose house is that?' This sentence, before it is parsed, _should be transposed_; thus, 'Whose is that house?' The same observation applies to every sentence of a similar construction."--_Chandler's old Gram._, p. 93. This instruction is worse than nonsense; for it teaches the pupil to parse every word in the sentence _wrong_! The author proceeds to explain _Whose_, as "qualifying _house_, understood;" _is_, as agreeing "with its nominative, _house_;" _that_, as "qualifying _house_;" and _house_, as "nominative case to the verb, _is_." Nothing of this is _true_ of the original question. For, in that, _Whose_ is governed by _house; house_ is nominative after _is; is_ agrees with _house_ understood; and _that_ relates to _house_ understood. The meaning is, "Whose house is that house?" or, in the order of a declarative sentence, "That house is whose house?"

[360] 1: In Latin, the accusative case is used after such a verb, because an other word in the same case is understood before it; as, "Facere quæ libet, ID est [_hominem_] esse _regem_."--SALLUST. "To do what he pleases, THAT is [for a _man_] to be a _king_." If Professor Bullions had understood Latin, or Greek, or English, as well as his commenders imagine, he might have discovered what construction of cases we have in the following instances: "It is an honour [for a _man_] to be the _author_ of such a work."--_Bullions's Eng. Gram._, p. 82. "To be _surety_ for a stranger [,] is dangerous."--_Ib._ "Not to know what happened before you were born, is to be always a _child_."--_Ib._ "Nescire quid acciderit antequam natus es, est semper esse _puerum_."--_Ib._ "[Greek: Esti tion aischron ...topon, hon hæmen pote kurioi phainesthai proiemenous]." "It is a shame to be seen giving up countries of which we were once masters."--DEMOSTHENES: _ib._ What support these examples give to this grammarian's new notion of "_the objective indefinite_" or to his still later seizure of Greene's doctrine of "_the predicate-nominative_" the learned reader may judge. All the Latin and Greek grammarians suppose an _ellipsis_, in such instances; but some moderns are careless enough of that, and of the analogy of General Grammar in this case, to have seconded the Doctor in his absurdity. See _Farnum's Practical Gram._, p. 23; and _S. W. Clark's_, p. 149.

2. Professor Hart has an indecisive remark on this construction, as follows: "Sometimes a verb in the infinitive mood has a noun after it without any other noun before it; as, 'To be a good _man_, is not so easy a thing as many people imagine.' Here '_man_' may be parsed as used _indefinitely_ after the verb _to be_. It is not easy to say in what _case_ the noun is in such sentences. The analogy of the Latin would seem to indicate the _objective_.--Thus, 'Not to know what happened in past years, is to be always a _child_,' Latin, 'semper esse puerum.' _In like manner_, in English, we may say, '_Its_ being _me, need_ make no change in your determination.'"--_Hart's English Gram._, p. 127.

3. These learned authors thus differ about what certainly admits of no other solution than that which is given in the Observation above. To parse the nouns in question, "_as used indefinitely_," without case, and to call them "_objectives indefinite_," without agreement or government, are two methods equally repugnant to reason. The last suggestion of Hart's is also a false argument for a true position. The phrases, "_Its being me_," and "_To be a good man_," are far from being constructed "_in like manner_." The former is manifestly bad English; because _its_ and _me_ are not in the _same case_. But S. S. Greene would say, "_Its being I_, is right." For in a similar instance, he has this conclusion: "Hence, in _abridging_ the following proposition, 'I was not aware _that it was he_,' we should say '_of its being he_,' not '_his_' nor '_him_.'"--_Greene's Analysis_, 1st Ed., p. 171. When _being_ becomes a noun, no case after it appears to be very proper; but this author, thus "_abridging_" _four syllables into five_, produces an anomalous construction which it would be much better to avoid.

[361] Parkhurst and Sanborn, by what they call "A NEW RULE," attempt to determine the doubtful or unknown case which this note censures, and to justify the construction as being well-authorized and hardly avoidable. Their rule is this: "A noun following a neuter or [a] passive participial noun, is in the _nominative independent_. A noun or pronoun in the _possessive_ case, always precedes the participial noun, either _expressed_ or _understood_, signifying the same thing as the noun does that follows it." To this new and exceptionable' dogma, Sanborn adds: "This form of expression is one of the most common idioms of the language, and _in general composition_ cannot be well avoided. In confirmation of the statement made, various authorities are subjoined. Two grammarians only, to our knowledge, have remarked OH this phraseology: 'Participles are sometimes preceded by a possessive case and followed by a nominative; as, There is no doubt of _his_ being a great _statesman_.' B. GREENLEAF. 'We sometimes find a participle that takes the same case after as before it, converted into a verbal noun, and the latter word retained unchanged in connexion with it; as, I have some recollection of his _father's_ being a _judge_.' GOOLD BROWN."--_Sanborn's Analytical Gram._, p. 189. On what principle the words _statesman_ and _judge_ can be affirmed to be in the nominative case, I see not; and certainly they are not nominatives "_independent_" because the word _being_, after which they stand, is not itself independent. It is true, the phraseology is common enough to be good English: but I dislike it; and if this citation from me, was meant for a confirmation of the reasonless dogmatism preceding, it is not made with fairness, because my _opinion_ of the construction is omitted by the quoter. See _Institutes of English Gram._, p. 162. In an other late grammar,--a shameful work, because it is in great measure a tissue of petty larcenies from my Institutes, with alterations for the worse,--I find the following absurd "Note," or Rule: "An infinitive or participle is often followed by a substantive _explanatory_ of an _indefinite_ person or thing. The substantive is then in the _objective_ case, and may be called the _objective after the infinitive_, or _participle_; [as,] It is an honor to be the _author_ of such a work. His being a great _man_, did not make him a happy man. By being an obedient _child_, you will secure the approbation of your parents."--_Farnum's Practical Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 25. The first of these examples is elliptical; (see Obs. 12th above, and the Marginal Note;) the second is bad English,--or, at' any rate, directly repugnant to the rule for same cases; and the third parsed wrong by the rule: "_child_" is in the nominative case. See Obs. 7th above.

[362] When the preceding case is not "_the verb's nominative_" this phrase must of course be omitted; and when the word which is to be corrected, does not literally follow the verb, it may be proper to say, "_constructively follows_," in lieu of the phrase, "_comes after_."

[363] The author of this example supposes _friend_ to be in the nominative case, though _John's_ is in the possessive, and both words denote the same person. But this is not only contrary to the general rule for the same cases, but contrary to his own application of one of his rules. Example: "_Maria's_ duty, as a _teacher_, is, to instruct her pupils." Here, he says, "_Teacher_ is in the _possessive_ case, from its relation to the name _Maria_, denoting the same object."--_Peirce's Gram._, p. 211. This explanation, indeed, is scarcely intelligible, on account of its grammatical inaccuracy. He means, however, that, "_Teacher_ is in the possessive case, from its relation to the name _Maria's_, the two words denoting the same object." No word can be possessive "from its relation to the name _Maria_," except by standing immediately before it, in the usual manner of possessives; as, "_Sterne's Maria_."

[364] Dr. Webster, who was ever ready to justify almost any usage for which he could find half a dozen respectable authorities, absurdly supposes, that _who_ may sometimes be rightly preferred to _whom_, as the object of a preposition. His remark is this: "In the use of _who_ as an interrogative, there is an _apparent deviation_ from regular construction--it being used _without distinction of case_; as, '_Who_ do you speak _to?_' '_Who_ is she married _to?_' '_Who_ is this reserved _for?_' '_Who_ was it made _by?_' This _idiom_ is not merely colloquial: it is found in the writings of our best authors."--_Webster's Philosophical Gram._, p. 194; his _Improved Gram._, p. 136. "In this phrase, '_Who_ do you speak _to?_' there is a _deviation_ from regular construction; but the practice of thus using _who_, in certain familiar phrases, seems to be _established_ by the best authors."--_Webster's Rudiments of E. Gram._, p. 72. Almost any other solecism may be quite as well justified as this. The present work shows, in fact, a great mass of authorities for many of the incongruities which it ventures to rebuke.

[365] Grammarians differ much as to the proper mode of parsing such nouns. Wells says, "This is _the case independent by ellipsis_."--_School Gram._, p. 123. But the idea of _such_ a case is a flat absurdity. Ellipsis occurs only where something, not uttered, is implied; and where a _preposition_ is thus wanting, the noun is, of course, its _object_; and therefore _not independent_. Webster, with too much contempt for the opinion of "Lowth, followed by the _whole tribe of writers_ on this subject," declares it "a palpable error," to suppose "prepositions to be understood before these expressions;" and, by two new rules, his 22d and 28th, teaches, that, "Names of measure or dimension, followed by an adjective," and "Names of certain portions of time and space, and especially words denoting continuance of time or progression, are used _without a governing word_."--_Philos. Gram._, pp. 165 and 172; _Imp. Gram._, 116 and 122; _Rudiments_, 65 and 67. But this is no account at all of the _construction_, or of the _case_ of the noun. As the nominative, or the case which we may use independently, is never a subject of government, the phrase, "_without a governing word_," implies that the case is _objective_; and how can this case be known, except by the discovery of some "governing word," of which it is the _object?_ We find, however, many such rules as the following: "Nouns of time, distance, and degree, are put in the objective case without a preposition."--_Nutting's Gram._, p. 100. "Nouns which denote time, quantity, measure, distance, value, or direction are often put in the objective case without a preposition."--_Weld's Gram._, p. 153; "Abridged Ed.," 118. "Numes signifying duration, extension, quantity, quality, and valuation, are in the objective case without a governing word."--_Frazee's Gram._, p. 154. _Bullions_, too, has a similar rule. To estimate these rules aright, one should observe how often the nouns in question are found _with_ a governing word. Weld, of late, contradicts himself by _admitting the ellipsis_; and then, inconsistently with his admission, most absurdly _denies the frequent use_ of the preposition with nouns of _time, quantity_, &c. "Before words of this description, the _ellipsis of a preposition is obvious_. But it is _seldom proper to use_ the preposition before such words."--_Weld's "Abridged Edition,"_ p. 118.

[366] Professor Fowler absurdly says, "_Nigh, near, next, like_, when followed by the objective case, _may be regarded either_ as Prepositions or as Adjectives, _to_ being understood."--_Fowler's E. Gram._, 8vo, 1850, §458, Note 7. Now, "_to_ being understood," it is plain that no one of these words can be accounted a preposition, but by supposing the preposition to be complex, and to be partly suppressed. This can be nothing better than an idle whim; and, since the classification of words as parts of speech, is always positive and exclusive, to refer any particular word indecisively to "_either_" of two classes, is certainly no better _teaching_, than to say, "I do not know of which sort it is; call it what you please!" With decision prompt enough, but with too little regard to analogy or consistency, Latham and Child say, "The adjective _like governs a case_, and it is the only adjective that does so."--_Elementary Gram._, p. 155. In teaching thus, they seem to ignore these facts: that _near_, _nigh_, or _opposite_, might just as well be said to be an adjective governing a case; and that the use of _to_ or _unto_ after _like_ has been common enough to prove the ellipsis. The Bible has many examples; as, "Who is _like to_ thee in Israel?"--_1 Samuel_, xxvi, 15. "Hew thee two tables of stone _like unto_ the first."--_Exodus_, xxxiv, 1; and _Deut._, x, 1. But their great inconsistency here is, that they call the case after like "_a dative_"--a case unknown to their etymology! See _Gram. of E. Gram._, p. 259. In grammar, a _solitary_ exception or instance can scarcely be a _true one_.

[367] The following examples may illustrate these points: "These verbs, and all others _like to_ them, were _like_ TIMAO."--_Dr. Murray's Hist. of Europ. Lang._, Vol. ii, p. 128. "The old German, and even the modern German, are much _liker to_ the Visigothic than they are to the dialect of the Edda."--_Ib._, i, 330. "Proximus finem, _nighest_ the end."--_Ib._, ii, 150. "Let us now come _nearer to_ our own language."--_Dr. Blair's Rhet._, p. 85. "This looks _very like_ a paradox."--BEATTIE: _Murray's Gram._, Vol. i, p. 113. "He was _near_ [to] falling."--_Ib._, p. 116. Murray, who puts _near_ into his list of prepositions, gives this example to show how "_prepositions become adverbs!_" "There was none ever before _like unto_ it."--_Stone, on Masonry_, p. 5.

"And earthly power doth then show _likest_ God's, When mercy seasons justice."--_Beauties of Shakspeare_, p. 45.

[368] Wright's notion of this construction is positively absurd and self-contradictory. In the sentence, "My cane is worth a shilling," he takes the word _worth_ to be a noun "in _apposition_ to the word _shilling_." And to prove it so, he puts the sentence successively into these four forms: "My cane is _worth_ or _value_ for a shilling;"--"The _worth_ or _value_ of my cane is a shilling;"--"My cane is a _shilling's worth_;"--"My cane is _the worth of_ a shilling."--_Philosophical Gram._, p. 150. In all these transmutations, _worth_ is unquestionably a noun; but, in none of them, is it in apposition with the word _shilling_; and he is quite mistaken in supposing that they "indispensably prove the word in question to be a _noun_." There are other authors, who, with equal confidence, and equal absurdity, call _worth_ a _verb_. For example: "A noun, which signifies the price, is put in the objective case, without a preposition; as, 'my book is _worth_ twenty shillings.' _Is worth_ is a _neuter verb_, and answers to the _latin_ [sic--KTH] verb _valet_."--_Barrett's Gram._, p. 138. I do not deny that the phrase "_is worth_" is a just version of the verb _valet_; but this equivalence in import, is no proof at all that _worth_ is a verb. _Prodest_ is a Latin verb, which signifies "_is profitable to_;" but who will thence infer, that _profitable to_ is a verb?

[369] In J. R. Chandler's English Grammar, as published in 1821, the word _worth_ appears in the list of prepositions: but the revised list, in his edition of 1847, does not contain it. In both books, however, it is expressly parsed as a preposition; and, in expounding the sentence, "The

## book is worth a dollar," the author makes this remark: "_Worth_ has been

called an adjective by some, and a noun by others: _worth_, however, in this sentence expresses a relation by value, and is so far a preposition; and no ellipsis, which may be formed, would change the nature of the word, without giving the sentence a different meaning."--_Chandler's Gram._, Old Ed., p. 155; New Ed., p. 181.

[370] Cowper here purposely makes Mrs. Gilpin use bad English; but this is no reason why a school-boy may not be taught to correct it. Dr. Priestley supposed that the word _we_, in the example, "_To poor we_, thine enmity," &c., was also used by Shakespeare, "in a droll humorous way."--_Gram._, p. 103. He surely did not know the connexion of the text. It is in "Volumnia's _pathetic_ speech" to her victorious son. See _Coriolanus_, Act V, Sc. 3.

[371] Dr. Enfield misunderstood this passage; and, in copying it into his Speaker, (a very popular school-book,) he has perverted the text, by changing _we_ to _us_: as if the meaning were, "Making us fools of nature." But it is plain, that all "fool's of nature!" must be fools of nature's own making, and not persons temporarily frighted out of their wits by a ghost; nor does the meaning of the last two lines comport with any objective construction of this pronoun. See _Enfield's Speaker_, p. 864.

[372] In Clark's Practical Grammar, of 1848, is found this NOTE: "The Noun should correspond in number with the Adjectives. EXAMPLES--A two feet ruler. A ten feet pole."--P. 165. These examples are wrong: the doctrine is misapplied in both. With this author, _a_, as well as _two_ or _ten_, is an _adjective_ of number; and, since these differ in number, what sort of concord or construction do the four words in each of these phrases make? When a numeral and a noun are united to form a _compound adjective_, we commonly, if not always, use the latter in its primitive or singular form: as, "A _twopenny_ toy,"--"a _twofold_ error,"--"_three-coat_ plastering," say, "a _twofoot_ rule,"--"a _tenfoot_ pole;" which phrases are right; while Clark's are not only unusual, but unanalogical, ungrammatical.

[373] Certain adjectives that differ in number, are sometimes connected disjunctively by _or_ or _than_, while the noun literally agrees with that which immediately precedes it, and with the other merely by implication or supplement, under the figure which is called _zeugma_: as, "Two or more nouns joined together by _one_ or _more_ copulative conjunctions."-- _Lowth's Gram._, p. 75; _L. Murray's_, 2d Ed., p. 106. "He speaks not to _one_ or a _few_ judges, but to a large assembly."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 280. "_More_ than _one_ object at a time."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 301. See Obs. 10th on Rule 17th.

[374] Double comparatives and double superlatives, such as, "The _more serener_ spirit,"--"The _most straitest_ sect,"--are noticed by Latham and Child, in their syntax, as expressions which "we occasionally find, even in good writers," and are truly stated to be "_pleonastic_;" but, forbearing to censure them as errors, these critics seem rather to justify them as pleonasms allowable. Their indecisive remarks are at fault, not only because they are indecisive, but because they are both liable and likely to mislead the learner.--See their _Elementary Grammar_, p. 155.

[375] The learned William B. Fowle strangely imagines all pronouns to be _adjectives_, belonging to nouns expressed or understood after them; as, "We kings require _them_ (subjects) to obey _us_ (kings)."--_The True English Gram._, p. 21. "_They_ grammarians, [i. e.] _those_ grammarians. _They_ is an other spelling of _the_, and of course means _this, that, these, those_, as the case may be."--_Ibid._ According to him, then, "_them grammarians_," for "_those grammarians_," is perfectly good English; and so is "_they grammarians_," though the vulgar do not take care to _vary this adjective_, "as _the case_ may be." His notion of subjoining a noun to every pronoun, is a fit counterpart to that of some other grammarians, who imagine an ellipsis of a pronoun after almost every noun. Thus: "The personal _Relatives_, for the most part, _are suppressed_ when the Noun is expressed: as, Man (he) is the Lord of this lower world. Woman (she) is the fairest Part of the Creation. The Palace (it) stands on a Hill. Men and Women (they) are rational Creatures."--_British Gram._, p. 234; _Buchanan's_, 131. It would have been worth a great deal to some men, to have known _what an Ellipsis is_; and the man who shall yet make such knowledge common, ought to be forever honoured in the schools.

[376] "An illegitimate and ungrammatical use of these words, _either_ and _neither_, has lately been creeping into the language, in the application of these terms to a plurality of objects: as, '_Twenty_ ruffians broke into the house, but _neither_ of them could be recognized.' 'Here are _fifty_ pens, you will find that _either_ of them will do.'"--MATT. HARRISON, _on the English Language_, p. 199. "_Either_ and _neither_, applied to any number more than _one_ of _two_ objects, is a mere solecism, and one of late introduction."--_Ib._, p. 200. Say, "_Either_ OR _neither_," &c.--G. B.

[377] Dr. Priestley censures this construction, on the ground, that the word _whole_ is an "_attribute of unity_," and therefore improperly added to a plural noun. But, in fact, this adjective is not _necessarily_ singular, nor is _all_ necessarily plural. Yet there is a difference between the words: _whole_ is equivalent to _all_ only when the noun is singular; for then only do _entireness_ and _totality_ coincide. A man may say, "_the whole thing_," when he means, "_all the thing_;" but he must not call _all things, whole things_. In the following example, _all_ is put for _whole_, and taken substantively; but the expression is a quaint one, because the article and preposition seem needless: "Which doth encompass and embrace the _all_ of things."--_The Dial_, Vol. i, p. 59.

[378] This is not a mere repetition of the last example cited under Note 14th above; but it is Murray's interpretation of the text there quoted. Both forms are faulty, but not in the same way.--G. BROWN.

[379] Some authors erroneously say, "A _personal_ pronoun does not always agree in person with its antecedent; as, 'John said, _I_ will do it.'"--_Goodenow's Gram._ "When I say, 'Go, and say to those children, you must come in,' you perceive that the noun children is of the _third_ person, but the pronoun you is of the _second_; yet _you_ stands for _children_,"--_Ingersoll's Gram._, p. 54. Here are different speakers, with separate speeches; and these critics are manifestly deceived by the circumstance. It is not to be supposed, that the nouns represented by one speaker's pronouns, are to be found or sought in what an other speaker utters. The pronoun _I_ does not here stand for the noun _John_ which is of the third person; it is John's own word, representing himself as the speaker. The meaning is, _"I myself, John, of the first person, will do it."_ Nor does _you_ stand for _children_ as spoken _of_ by Ingersoll; but for _children_ of the _second person_, uttered or implied in the address of his messenger: as, "_Children_, you must come in."

[380] The propriety of this construction is questionable. See Obs. 2d on Rule 14th.

[381] Among the authors who have committed this great fault, are, Alden, W. Allen, D. C. Allen, C. Adams, the author of the British Grammar, Buchanan, Cooper, Cutler, Davis, Dilworth, Felton, Fisher, Fowler, Frazee, Goldsbury, Hallock, Hull, M'Culloch, Morley, Pinneo, J. Putnam, Russell, Sanborn, R. C. Smith, Spencer, Weld, Wells, Webster, and White. "_You is plural_, whether it refer to only one individual, or to more."--_Dr. Crombie, on Etym. and Synt._, p. 240. "The word _you_, even when applied to one person, is plural, and should never he connected with a singular verb."--_Alexander's Gram._, p. 53; _Emmons's_, 26. "_You_ is of the Plural Number, even though used as the Name of a single Person."--_W. Ward's Gram._, p. 88. "Altho' the Second Person Singular in both Times be marked with _thou_, to distinguish it from the Plural, yet we, out of Complaisance, though we speak but to one particular Person, use _the Plural you_, and never thou, but when we address ourselves to Almighty God, or when we speak in an emphatical Manner, or make a distinct and particular Application to a Person."--_British Gram._, p. 126; _Buchanan's_, 37. "But _you_, tho' applied to a single Person, requires a _Plural Verb_, the same as ye; as, _you love_, not _you lovest_ or _loves_; you _were_, not _you was_ or _wast_."--_Buchanan's Gram._, p. 37.

[382] "Mr. Murray's 6th Rule is unnecessary."--_Lennie's English Gram._, p. 81; _Bullions's_, p. 90. The two rules of which I speak, constitute Murray's Rule VI; Alger's and Bacon's Rule VI; Merchant's Rule IX; Ingersoll's Rule XII; Kirkham's Rules XV and XVI; Jaudon's XXI and XXII; Crombie's X and XI; Nixon's Obs. 86th and 87th: and are found in Lowth's Gram., p. 100; Churchill's, 136; Adam's, 203; W. Allen's, 156; Blair's, 75; and many other books.

[383] This rule, in all its parts, is to be applied chiefly, if not solely, to such relative clauses as are taken in the _restrictive_ sense; for, in the _resumptive_ sense of the relative, _who_ or _which_ may be more proper than _that_: as, "Abraham solemnly adjures his _most faithful_ servant, _whom_ he despatches to Charran on this matrimonial mission for his son, to discharge his mission with all fidelity."--_Milman's Jews_, i, 21. See Etymology, Chap. 5th, Obs. 23d, 24th, &c., on the Classes of Pronouns.

[384] Murray imagined this sentence to be bad English. He very strangely mistook the pronoun _he_ for the object of the preposition _with_; and accordingly condemned the text, under the rule, "Prepositions govern the objective case." So of the following: "It is not I he is engaged with."--_Murray's Exercises_, R. 17. Better: "It is not I _that_ he is engaged with." Here is no violation of the foregoing rule, or of any other; and both sentences, with even Murray's form of the latter, are quite as good as his proposed substitutes: "It was not _with him_, that they were so angry."--_Murray's Key_, p. 51. "It is not _with me_ he is engaged."--_Ib._ In these fancied corrections, the phrases _with him_ and _with me_ have a very awkward and questionable position: it seems doubtful, whether they depend on _was_ and _is_, or on _angry_ and _engaged_.

[385] In their speculations on the _personal pronouns_, grammarians sometimes contrive, by a sort of abstraction, to reduce all the persons to the _third_; that is, the author or speaker puts _I_, not for himself in

## particular, but for any one who utters the word, and _thou_, not for his

## particular hearer or reader, but for any one who is addressed; and,

conceiving of these as persons merely spoken of by himself, he puts the verb in the third person, and not in the first or second: as, "_I is_ the speaker, _thou_ [_is_] the hearer, and _he, she_, or _it_, is the person or thing spoken of. All denote _qualities of existence_, but such qualities as make different impressions on the mind. _I is_ the being of _consciousness, thou_ [_is_ the being] of _perception_, and _he_ of _memory_."--_Booth's Introd._, p. 44. This is such syntax as I should not choose to imitate; nor is it very proper to say, that the three persons in grammar "denote _qualities_ of existence." But, supposing the phraseology to be correct, it is no _real_ exception to the foregoing rule of concord; for _I_ and _thou_ are here made to be pronouns of the _third_ person. So in the following example, which I take to be bad English: "I, or the person who speaks, _is_ the first person; you, _is_ the second; he, she, or it, is the third person singular."--_Bartlett's Manual_, Part ii, p. 70. Again, in the following; which is perhaps a little better: "The person '_I_' _is spoken of_ as acted upon."--_Bullions, Prin. of E. Gram._, 2d Edition, p. 29. But there is a manifest absurdity in saying, with this learned "Professor of Languages," that the pronouns of the different persons _are_ those persons: as, "_I is the first person_, and denotes the speaker. _Thou is the second_, and denotes the person spoken to."--_Ib._, p. 22.

[386] (1.) Concerning the verb _need_, Dr. Webster has the following note: "In the use of this verb there is another irregularity, which is peculiar, the verb being _without a nominative_, expressed or implied. 'Whereof here _needs_ no account.'--_Milt., P. L._, 4. 235. There is no evidence of the fact, and there _needs_ none. This is an established use of _need_."--_Philos. Gram._, p. 178; _Improved Gram._, 127; _Greenleaf's Gram. Simp._, p. 38; _Fowler's E. Gram._, p. 537. "Established use?" To be sure, it is "an established use;" but the learned Doctor's comment is a most unconscionable blunder,--a pedantic violation of a sure principle of Universal Grammar,--a perversion worthy only of the veriest ignoramus. Yet Greenleaf profitably publishes it, with other plagiarisms, for "Grammar Simplified!" Now the verb "_needs_," like the Latin _eget_, signifying _is necessary_, is here not active, but neuter; and has the nominative set _after it_, as any verb must, when the adverb _there_ or _here_ is before it. The verbs _lack_ and _want_ may have the same construction, and can have no other, when the word _there_, and not a nominative, precedes them; as, "Peradventure _there shall lack five_ of the fifty righteous."--_Gen._, xviii, 28. There is therefore neither "_irregularity_," nor any thing "_peculiar_," in thus placing the verb and its nominative.

(2.) Yet have we other grammarians, who, with astonishing facility, have allowed themselves to be misled, and whose books are now misleading the schools, in regard to this very simple matter. Thus Wells: "The _transitive_ verbs _need_ and _want_, are sometimes employed in a general sense, _without a nominative_, expressed or implied. Examples:--'There _needed_ a new dispensation.'--_Caleb Cushing_. 'There _needs_ no better picture.'--_Irving_. 'There _wanted_ not patrons to stand up.'--_Sparks_. 'Nor did there _want_ Cornice, or frieze.'--_Milton_."--_Wells's School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 141: 113th Ed., p. 154. In my edition of Milton, the text is, "Nor did _they want_ Cornice or frieze."--_P. L._, B. i, l. 715, 716. This reading makes _want_ a "transitive" verb, but the other makes it neuter, with the nominative following it. Again, thus Weld: "_A verb in the imperative mode_, and the _transitive_ verbs _need, want_, and _require_, sometimes appear to be used indefinitely, _without a nominative_; as, _let_ there be light; There _required_ haste in the business; There _needs_ no argument for proving, &c. There _wanted_ not men who would, &c. The last expressions have an _active form with a passive sense_, and should perhaps rather be considered _elliptical_ than _wanting a nominative_; as, _haste is required, no argument is needed_, &c."--_Weld's English Grammar Illustrated_, p. 143. Is there anywhere, in print, viler pedantry than this? The only elliptical example, "_Let_ there be light,"--a kind of sentence from which the nominative is _usually suppressed_,--is here absurdly represented as being full, yet without a subject for its verb; while other examples, which are full, and in which the nominative _must follow_ the verb, because the adverb "_there_" precedes, are first denied to have nominatives, and then most bunglingly tortured with false ellipses, to prove that they have them!

(3.) The idea of a command _wherein no person or thing is commanded_, seems to have originated with Webster, by whom it has been taught, since 1807, as follows: "In some cases, the imperative verb is used without a definite nominative."--_Philos. Gram._, p. 141; _Imp. Gram._, 86; _Rudiments_, 69. See the same words in _Frazee's Gram._, p. 133. Wells has something similar: "A verb in the imperative is sometimes used _absolutely_, having no direct reference to any particular subject expressed or implied; as, 'And God said, _Let_ there be light.'"--_School Gram._, p. 141. But, when this command was uttered to the dark waves of primeval chaos, it must have meant, "_Do ye let light be there._" What else could it mean? There may frequently be difficulty in determining what or who is addressed by the imperative _let_, but there seems to be more in affirming that it has no subject. Nutting, puzzled with this word, makes the following dubious and unsatisfactory suggestion: "Perhaps it may be, in many cases, equivalent to _may_; or it may be termed itself an _imperative mode impersonal_; that is, containing a command or an entreaty addressed to no particular person."--_Nutting's Practical Gram._, p. 47.

(4.) These several errors, about the "Imperative used Absolutely," with "no subject addressed," as in "_Let there be light_," and the Indicative "verbs NEED and WANT, employed without a nominative, either expressed or implied," are again carefully reiterated by the learned Professor Fowler, in his great text-book of philology "in its Elements and Forms,"--called, rather extravagantly, an "English Grammar." See, in his edition of 1850, §597, Note 3 and Note 7; also §520, Note 2. Wells's authorities for "Imperatives Absolute," are, "Frazee, Allen and Cornwell, Nutting, Lynde, and Chapin;" and, with reference to "NEED and WANT," he says, "See Webster, Perley, and Ingersoll."--_School Gram._, 1850, §209.

(5.) But, in obvious absurdity most strangely overlooked by the writer, all these blunderers are outdone by a later one, who says: "_Need_ and _dare_ are sometimes used in _a general sense without a nominative_: as, 'There _needed_ no prophet to tell us that;' 'There _wanted_ no advocates to secure the voice of the people.' It is better, however, to supply _it_, as a nominative, than admit an _anomala_. Sometimes, when intransitive, they have the _plural form_ with a singular _noun_: as, 'He need not fear;' 'He dare not hurt you.'"--_Rev. H. W. Bailey's E. Gram._, 1854, p. 128. The last example--"_He dare_"--is bad English: _dare_ should be _dares_. "He _need_ not _fear_," if admitted to be right, is of the potential mood; in which no verb is inflected in the third person. "_He_," too, is not a "_noun_;" nor can it ever rightly have a "_plural_" verb. "To supply _it_, as a nominative," where the verb is declared to be "_without a nominative_," and to make "_wanted_" an example of "_dare_" are blunders precisely worthy of an author who knows not how to spell _anomaly!_

[387] This interpretation, and others like it, are given not only by _Murray_, but by many other grammarians, one of whom at least was earlier than he. See _Bicknell's Gram._, Part i, p. 123; _Ingersoll's_, 153; _Guy's_, 91; _Alger's_, 73; _Merchant's_, 100; _Picket's_, 211; _Fisk's_, 146; _D. Adams's_, 81; _R. C. Smith's_, 182.

[388] The same may be said of Dr. Webster's "_nominative sentences_;" three fourths of which are nothing but _phrases_ that include a nominative with which the following verb agrees. And who does not know, that to call the adjuncts of any thing "an _essential part_ of it," is a flat absurdity? An _adjunct_ is "something added to another, but _not essentially a part_ of it."--_Webster's Dict._ But, says the Doctor, "Attributes and other words often make an _essential part_ of the nominative; [as,] '_Our_ IDEAS _of eternity_ CAN BE nothing but an infinite succession of moments of duration.'--LOCKE. 'A _wise_ SON MAKETH a glad father; but a _foolish_ SON IS the heaviness of his mother.' Abstract the name from its attribute, and the proposition cannot always be true. 'HE _that gathereth in summer_ is a wise son.' Take away the description, '_that gathereth in summer_,' and the affirmation ceases to be true, or becomes inapplicable. These sentences or clauses thus _constituting_ the subject of an affirmation, may be termed _nominative sentences_."--_Improved Gram._, p. 95. This teaching reminds me of the Doctor's own exclamation: "What strange work has been made with Grammar!"--_Ib._, p. 94; _Philos. Gram._, 138. In Nesbit's English Parsing, a book designed mainly for "a Key to Murray's Exercises in Parsing," the following example is thus expounded: "The smooth stream, the serene atmosphere, [and] the mild zephyr, are the proper emblems of a gentle temper, and a peaceful life."--_Murray's Exercises_, p. 8. "_The smooth stream, the serene atmosphere, the mild zephyr_, is part of a sentence, _which_ is the _nominative case_ to the verb '_are_.' _Are_ is an irregular verb neuter, in the indicative mood, the present tense, the third person plural, and _agrees with the aforementioned part of a sentence_, as its nominative case."--_Introduction to English Parsing_, p. 137. On this principle of _analysis_, all the rules that speak of the nominatives or antecedents connected by conjunctions, may be dispensed with, as useless; and the doctrine, that a verb which has a phrase or sentence for its subject, must be _singular_, is palpably contradicted, and supposed erroneous!

[389] "No Relative can become a Nominative to a Verb."--_Joseph W. Wright's Philosophical Grammar_, p. 162. "A _personal_ pronoun becomes a nominative, though a _relative_ does not."--_Ib._, p. 152. This teacher is criticised by the other as follows: "Wright says that 'Personal pronouns may be in the nominative case,' and that 'relative pronouns _can not be_. Yet he declines his relatives thus: 'Nominative case, _who_; possessive, _whose_; objective, _whom!"--Oliver B. Peirce's Grammar_, p. 331. This latter author here sees the palpable inconsistency of the former, and accordingly treats _who, which, what, whatever_, &c., as relative pronouns of the nominative case--or, as he calls them, "connective substitutes in the subjective form;" but when _what_ or _whatever_ precedes its noun, or when _as_ is preferred to _who_ or _which_, he refers both verbs to the noun itself, and adopts the very principle by which Cobbet and Wright erroneously parse the verbs which belong to the relatives, _who, which_, and _that_: as, "Whatever man will adhere to strict principles of honesty, will find his reward in himself."--_Peirce's Gram._, p. 55. Here Peirce considers _whatever_ to be a mere adjective, and _man_ the subject of _will adhere_ and _will find_. "Such persons as write grammar, should themselves be grammarians."--_Ib._, p. 330. Here he declares _as_ to be no pronoun, but "a modifying connective," i.e., conjunction; and supposes _persons_ to be the direct subject of _write_ as well as of _should be_: as if a conjunction could connect a verb and its nominative!

[390] Dr. Latham, conceiving that, of words in apposition, the first must always be the leading one and control the verb, gives to his example an other form thus: "_Your master, I, commands you_ (not _command_)."--_Ib._ But this I take to be bad English. It is the opinion of many grammarians, perhaps of most, that nouns, which are ordinarily of the third person, _may be changed in person_, by being set in apposition with a pronoun of the first or second. But even if terms so used do not _assimilate_ in person, the first cannot be subjected to the third, as above. It must have the preference, and ought to have the first place. The following study-bred example of the Doctor's, is also awkward and ungrammatical: "_I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am in a hurry_."--_Hand-Book_, p. 334.

[391] Professor Fowler says, "_One_ when contrasted with _other_, sometimes represents _plural nouns_; as, 'The reason why the _one_ are ordinarily taken for real qualities, and the _other_ for bare powers, seems to be.'--LOCKE.", _Fowler's E. Gram._, 8vo, 1850, p. 242. This doctrine is, I think, erroneous; and the example, too, is defective. For, if _one_ may be _plural_, we have no distinctive definition or notion of either number. "_One_" and "_other_" are not here to be regarded as the leading words in their clauses; they are mere adjectives, each referring to the collective noun _class_ or _species_, understood, which should have been expressed after the former. See Etym., Obs. 19, p. 276.

[392] Dr. Priestley says, "It is a rule, I believe, in all grammars, that when a verb comes between two nouns, either of which may be understood as the subject of the affirmation, that it may agree with either of them; but some regard must be had to that which is more naturally the subject of it, as also to that which stands next to the verb; for if no regard be paid to these circumstances, the construction will be harsh: [as,] _Minced pies was_ regarded as a profane and superstitious viand by the sectaries. _Hume's Hist._ A great _cause_ of the low state of industry _were_ the restraints put upon it. _Ib._ By this term was understood, such _persons_ as invented, or drew up rules for themselves and the world."--_English Gram. with Notes_, p. 189. The Doctor evidently supposed all these examples to be _bad English_, or at least _harsh in their construction_. And the first two unquestionably are so; while the last, whether right or wrong, has nothing at all to do with his rule: it has but one nominative, and that appears to be part of a definition, and not the true subject of the verb. Nor, indeed, is the first any more relevant; because Hume's "_viand_" cannot possibly be taken "as _the subject_ of the affirmation." Lindley Murray, who literally copies Priestley's note, (all but the first line and the last,) rejects these two examples, substituting for the former, "His meat _was_ locusts and wild honey," and for the latter, "The wages of sin _is_ death." He very evidently supposes all three of his examples to be _good English_. In this, according to Churchill, he is at fault in two instances out of the three; and still more so, in regard to the note, or rule, itself. In stead of being "a rule in all grammars," it is (so far as I know) found only in these authors, and such as have implicitly copied it from Murray. Among these last, are Alger, Ingersoll, R. C. Smith, Fisk, and Merchant. Churchill, who cites it only as Murray's, and yet expends two pages of criticism upon it, very justly says: "To make that the nominative case, [or subject of the affirmation,] which happens to stand nearest to the verb, appears to me to be on a par with the blunder pointed out in note 204th;" [that is, of making the verb agree with an objective case which happens to stand nearer to it, than its subject, or nominative.]-- _Churchill's New Gram._, p. 313.

[393] "If the excellence of Dryden's works was _lessened_ by his indigence, their number was increased."--_Dr. Johnson_. This is an example of the proper and necessary use of the indicative mood after an _if_, the matter of the condition being regarded as a fact. But Dr. Webster, who prefers the indicative _too often_, has the following note upon it: "If Johnson had followed the common grammars, or even his own, which is prefixed to his Dictionary, he would have written _were_--'If the excellence of Dryden's works _were_ lessened'--Fortunately this great man, led by usage rather than by books, wrote _correct English, instead of grammar_."-- _Philosophical Gram._, p. 238. Now this is as absurd, as it is characteristic of the grammar from which it is taken. Each form is right sometimes, and neither can be used for the other, without error.

[394] Taking this allegation in one sense, the reader may see that Kirkham was not altogether wrong here; and that, had he condemned the _solecisms_ adopted by himself and others, about "_unity of idea_" and "_plurality of idea_," in stead of condemning the _things intended to be spoken of_, he might have made a discovery which would have set him wholly right. See a footnote on page 738, under the head of _Absurdities_.

[395] In his _English Reader_, (Part II, Chap. 5th, Sec. 7th,) Murray has this line in its proper form, as it here stands in the words of Thomson; but, in his _Grammar_, he corrupted it, first in his _Exercises_, and then still more in his _Key_. Among his examples of "_False Syntax_" it stands thus:

"What black despair, what horror, _fills_ his _mind_!" --_Exercises_, Rule 2.

So the error is propagated in the name of _Learning_, and this verse goes from grammar to grammar, as one that must have a "_plural_" verb. See _Ingersoll's Gram._, p. 242; _Smith's New Gram._, p. 127; _Fisk's Gram._, p. 120; _Weld's E. Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 189; Imp. Ed., p. 196.

[396] S. W. Clark, by reckoning "_as_" a "_preposition_," perverts the construction of sentences like this, and inserts a wrong case after the conjunction. See _Clark's Practical Grammar_, pp. 92 and 178; also _this Syntax_, Obs. 6 and Obs. 18, on Conjunctions.

[397] Murray gives us the following text for false grammar, under the head of _Strength_: "And Elias with Moses appeared to them."--_Exercises_, 8vo, p. 135. This he corrects thus: "And _there appeared to them_ Elias with Moses."--_Key_, 8vo, p. 266. He omits the comma after _Elias_, which some copies of the Bible contain, and others do not. Whether he supposed the verb _appeared_ to be singular or plural, I cannot tell; and he did not extend his quotation to the pronoun _they_, which immediately follows, and in which alone the incongruity lies.

[398] This order of the persons, is _not universally_ maintained in those languages. The words of Mary to her son, "Thy _father and I_ have sought thee sorrowing," seem very properly to give the precedence to her husband; and this is their arrangement in St. Luke's Greek, and in the Latin versions, as well as in others.

[399] The hackneyed example, "_I and Cicero are well,"--"Ego et Cicero valemus_"--which makes such a figure in the grammars, both Latin and English, and yet is ascribed to Cicero himself, deserves a word of explanation. Cicero the orator, having with him his young son Marcus Cicero at Athens, while his beloved daughter Tullia was with her mother in Italy, thus wrote to his wife, Terentia: "_Si tu, et Tullia, lux nostra, valetix; ego, et suavissimus Cicero, valemus_."--EPIST. AD FAM. Lib. xiv, Ep. v. That is, "If thou, and Tullia, our joy, are well; I, and the sweet lad Cicero, are likewise well." This literal translation is good English, and not to be amended by inversion; for a father is not expected to give precedence to his child. But, when I was a boy, the text and version of Dr. Adam puzzled me not a little; because I could not conceive how _Cicero_ could ever have said, "_I and Cicero are well_." The garbled citation is now much oftener read than the original. See it in _Crombie's Treatise_, p. 243; _McCulloch's Gram._, p. 158; and others.

[400] Two singulars connected by _and_, when they form a part of such a disjunction, are still equivalent to a plural; and are to be treated as such, in the syntax of the verb. Hence the following construction appears to be inaccurate: "A single consonant or _a mute and a liquid_ before an accented vowel, _is_ joined to that vowel"--_Dr. Bullions, Lat. Gram._ p. xi.

[401] Murray the schoolmaster has it, "_used_ to govern."--_English Gram._, p. 64. He puts the verb in a _wrong tense_. Dr. Bullions has it, "_usually governs_."--_Lat. Gram._, p. 202. This is right.--G. B.

[402] The two verbs _to sit_ and _to set_ are in general quite different in their meaning; but the passive verb _to be set_ sometimes comes pretty near to the sense of the former, which is for the most part neuter. Hence, we not only find the Latin word _sedeo, to sit_, used in the sense of _being set_, as, "Ingens coena _sedet_," "A huge supper _is set_," _Juv._, 2, 119; but, in the seven texts above, our translators have used _is set, was set, &c._, with reference to the personal posture of _sitting_. This, in the opinion of Dr. Lowth and some others, is erroneous. "_Set_," says the Doctor, "can be no part of the verb _to sit_. If it belong to the verb _to set_, the translation in these passages is wrong. For _to set_, signifies _to place_, but without any designation of the _posture_ of the person placed; which is a circumstance of importance, expressed by the original."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 53; _Churchill's_, 265. These gentlemen cite three of these seven examples, and refer to the other four; but they do not tell us how they would amend any of them--except that they prefer _sitten_ to _sat_, vainly endeavouring to restore an old participle which is certainly obsolete. If any critic dislike my version of the last two texts, because I use the present tense for what in the Greek is the first aorist; let him notice that this has been done in both by our translators, and in one by those of the Vulgate. In the preceding example, too, the same aorist is rendered, "_am set_," and by Beza, "_sedeo_;" though Montanus and the Vulgate render it literally by "_sedi_," as I do by _sat_. See _Key to False Syntax_, Rule XVII, Note xii.

[403] Nutting, I suppose, did not imagine the Greek article, [Greek: to], _the_, and the English or Saxon verb _do_, to be equivalent or kindred words. But there is no knowing what terms conjectural etymology may not contrive to identify, or at least to approximate and ally. The ingenious David Booth, if he does not actually identify _do_, with [Greek: to], _the_, has discovered synonymes [sic--KTH] and cognates that are altogether as unapparent to common observers: as, "_It_ and _the_," says he, "when Gender is not attended to, are _synonymous_. Each is expressive of Being in general, and when used Verbally, signifies to _bring forth_, or to _add_ to what we already see. _The, it, and, add, at, to_, and _do_, are _kindred words_. They mark that an _addition_ is made to some collected mass of existence. _To_, which literally signifies _add_, (like _at_ and the Latin _ad_,) is merely a different pronunciation of _do_. It expresses the _junction_ of an other thing, or circumstance, as appears more evidently from its varied orthography of _too_."--_Introd. to Analyt. Dict._, p. 45. Horne Tooke, it seems, could not persuade this author into his notion of the derivation and meaning of _the, it, to_, or _do_. But Lindley Murray, and his followers, have been more tractable. They were ready to be led without looking. "To," say they, "comes from _Saxon and Gothic_ words, which signify action, effect, termination, to act, &c."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 183; _Fisk's_, 92. What an admirable explanation is this! and how prettily the great Compiler says on the next leaf: "Etymology, when it is guided by _judgment_, and [when] _proper limits_ are set to it, certainly merits great attention!"--_Ib._, p. 135. According to his own express rules for interpreting "a substantive _without any article to limit it_" and the "relative pronoun _with a comma before it_," he must have meant, that "_to_ comes from Saxon and Gothic words" _of every sort_, and that _the words of these two languages_ "signify action, effect, termination, to act, &c." The latter assertion is true enough: but, concerning the former, a man of sense may demur. Nor do I see how it is possible not to despise _such_ etymology, be the interpretation of the words what it may. For, if _to_ means _action_ or _to act_, then our little infinitive phrase, _to be_, must mean, _action be_, or _to act be_; and what is this, but nonsense?

[404] So, from the following language of three modern authors, one cannot but infer, that they would parse the verb _as governed by the preposition_; but I do not perceive that they anywhere expressly say so:

(1.) "The Infinitive is the form of the supplemental verb that always has, or admits, the _preposition_ TO before it; as, to _move_. Its general character is to represent the action in _prospect_, or _to do_; or in _retrospect_, as _to have done_. As a verb, it signifies _to do_ the

## action; and as _object of the preposition_ TO, it stands in the place of a

noun for _the doing_ of it. The infinitive verb and its prefix _to_ are used much like a preposition and its noun object."--_Felch's Comprehensive Gram._, p. 62.

(2.) "The action or other signification of a verb may be expressed in its widest and most general sense, without any limitation by a person or agent, but _merely as the end or purpose_ of some other action, state of being, quality, or thing; it is, from this want of limitation, said to be in the _Infinitive mode_; and is expressed by the verb with the _preposition_ TO before it, to denote _this relation of end or purpose_; as, 'He came _to see_ me;' 'The man is not fit _die_;' 'It was not right for him _to do_ thus.'"--_Dr. S. Webber's English Gram._, p. 35.

(3.) "RULE 3. A verb in the Infinitive Mode, is _the object_ of the preposition TO, expressed or understood."--_S. W. Clark's Practical Gram._, p. 127.

[405] Rufus Nutting, A. M., a grammarian of some skill, supposes that in all such sentences there was "_anciently_" an ellipsis, not of the phrase "_in order to_," but of the preposition _for_. He says, "Considering this mode as merely a _verbal noun_, it might be observed, that the infinitive, when it expresses the _object_, is governed by a _transitive_ verb; and, when it expresses the _final cause_, is governed by an _intransitive_ verb, OR ANCIENTLY, BY A PREPOSITION UNDERSTOOD. Of the former kind--'he learns _to read_.' Of the latter--'he reads _to learn_,' i. e. '_for_ to learn.'"--_Practical Gram._, p. 101. If _for_ was anciently understood in examples of this sort, it is understood now, and to a still greater extent; because we do not now insert the word _for_, as our ancestors sometimes did; and an ellipsis can no otherwise grow obsolete, than by a continual use of what was once occasionally omitted.

[406] (1.) "La préposition, est un mot indéclinable, placé devant les noms, les pronoms, et les _verbes_, qu'elle _régit_."--"The preposition is an indeclinable word placed before the nouns, pronouns, and _verbs_ which it _governs_."--_Perrin's Grammar_, p. 152.

(2.) "Every verb placed immediately after _an other verb_, or after _a preposition_, ought to be put in the _infinitive_; because it is then _the regimen_ of the verb or preposition which precedes."--See _La Grammaire des Grammaires, par Girault Du Vivier_, p. 774.

(3.) The American translator of the Elements of General Grammar, by the Baron De Sacy, is naturally led, in giving a version of his author's method of analysis, to parse the English infinitive mood essentially as I do; calling the word _to_ a preposition, and the exponent, or sign, of a _relation_ between the verb which follows it, and some other word which is antecedent to it. Thus, in the phrase, "_commanding_ them _to use_ his power," he says, that "'_to_' [is the] Exponent of a relation whose Antecedent is '_commanding_,' and [whose] Consequent [is] '_use_.'"--_Fosdick's De Sacy_, p. 131. In short, he expounds the word _to_ in this relation, just as he does when it stands before the objective case. For example, in the phrase, "_belonging to him alone: 'to_,' Exponent of a relation of which the Antecedent is '_belonging_,' and the Consequent, '_him alone.'"--Ib._, p. 126. My solution, in either case, differs from this in scarcely any thing else than the _choice of words_ to express it.

(4.) It appears that, in sundry dialects of the north of Europe, the preposition _at_ has been preferred for the governing of the infinitive: "The use of _at_ for _to_, as the sign of the infinitive mode, is Norse, not Saxon. It is the regular prefix in Icelandic, Danish, Swedish, and Feroic. It is also found in the northern dialects of the Old English, and in the particular dialect of Westmoreland at the present day."--_Fowler, on the English Language_, 8vo, 1850, p. 46.

[407] Here is a literal version, in which two infinitives are governed by the preposition _between_; and though such a construction is uncommon, I know not why it should be thought less accurate in the one language than in the other. In some exceptive phrases, also, it seems not improper to put the infinitive after some other preposition than _to_; as, "What can she do _besides sing_?"--"What has she done, _except rock_ herself?" But such expressions, if allowable, are too unfrequent to be noticed in any general Rule of syntax. In the following example, the word _of_ pretty evidently governs the infinitive: "Intemperance characterizes our discussions, that is calculated to embitter in stead _of conciliate_."--CINCINNATI HERALD: _Liberator_, No. 986.

[408] This doctrine has been lately revived in English by William B. Fowle, who quotes Dr. Rees, Beauzée, Harris, Tracy, and Crombie, as his authorities for it. He is right in supposing the English infinitive to be generally governed by the preposition _to_, but wrong in calling it a _noun_, or "the _name_ of the verb," except this phrase be used in the sense in which every verb may be the name of itself. It is an error too, to suppose with Beauzée, "that the infinitive never in any language _refers to a subject_ or nominative;" or, as Harris has it, that infinitives "_have no reference at all to persons or substances_." See _Fowle's True English Gram._, Part ii, pp. 74 and 75. For though the infinitive verb never _agrees_ with a subject or nominative, like a finite verb, it most commonly has a very obvious _reference_ to something which is _the subject_ of the being, action, or passion, which it expresses; and this reference is one of the chief points of difference between the infinitive and a noun. S. S. Greene, in a recent grammar, absurdly parses infinitives "_as nouns_," and by the common rules for nouns, though he begins with calling them _verbs_. Thus: "_Our honor is to be maintained. To be maintained_, is a _regular passive_ VERB, infinitive mode, present tense, and is _used as a_ NOUN _in the relation of predicate_; according to Rule II. A _noun or pronoun_ used with the copula to form the _predicate_, must be in the _nominative_ case."--_Greene's Gram._, 1848. p. 93. (See the Rule, ib. p. 29.) This author admits, "The '_to_' seems, like the preposition, to perform the office of a _connective_:" but then he ingeniously imagines, "The infinitive _differs from the preposition and its object_, in that the '_to_' is _the only preposition_ used with the verb." And so he concludes, "The _two_ [or more] _parts_ of the infinitive are taken together, and, _thus_ combined, may _become a_ NOUN _in any relation_."--_Ib._, 1st Edition, p. 87. S. S. Greene will also have the infinitive to make the verb before it _transitive_; for he says, "The only form [of phrase] used as the _direct object of a transitive verb_ is the _infinitive_; as, 'We intend (What?) _to leave_ [town] to-day:' 'They tried (What?) _to conceal_ their fears.'"--_Ib._, p. 99. One might as well find transitive verbs in these equivalents: "_It is our purpose to leave_ town to-day."--"They _endeavoured to conceal_ their fears." Or in this:--"They _blustered_ to conceal their fears."

[409] It is remarkable that the ingenious J. E. Worcester could discern nothing of the import of this particle before a verb. He expounds it, with very little consistency, thus: "Tò, _or_ To, _ad_. A particle employed as the usual sign or prefix of the infinitive mood of the verb; and it might, in such use, be deemed _a syllable of the verb_. It is used _merely as a sign of the infinitive_, without having any distinct or separate meaning: as, 'He loves _to_ read.'"--_Univ. and Crit. Dict._ Now is it not plain, that the action expressed by "_read_" is "that _towards_ which" the affection signified by "_loves_" is directed? It is only because we can use no other word in lieu of this _to_, that its meaning is not readily seen. For calling it "a syllable of the verb," there is, I think, no reason or analogy whatever. There is absurdity in calling it even "a _part_ of the verb."

[410] As there is no point of grammar on which our philologists are more at _variance_, so there seems to be none on which they are more at _fault_, than in their treatment of the infinitive mood, with its usual sign, or governing particle, _to_. For the information of the reader, I would gladly cite every explanation not consonant with my own, and show wherein it is objectionable; but so numerous are the forms of error under this head, that such as cannot be classed together, or are not likely to be repeated, must in general be left to run their course, exempt from any criticism of mine. Of these various forms of error, however, I may here add an example or two.

(1.) "What is the meaning of the word _to?_ Ans. _To_ means _act_. NOTE.--As our verbs and nouns _are spelled in the same manner_, it was formerly _thought best_ to prefix the _word_ TO, to words _when used as verbs_. For there is no difference between the NOUN, _love_; and the VERB, _to love_; but what is shown by the _prefix_ TO, which signifies _act_; i. e. to _act_ love."--_R. W. Greene's Inductive Exercises in English Grammar_, N. Y., 1829, p. 52. Now all this, positive as the words are, is not only fanciful, but false, utterly false. _To_ no more "means _act_," than _from_ "means _act_." And if it did, it could not be a sign of the infinitive, or of a verb at all; for, "_act love_," is imperative, and makes the word "_love_" a _noun_; and so, "_to act love_," (where "_love_" is also a noun,) must mean "_act act love_," which is tautological nonsense. Our nouns and verbs are not, _in general_, spelled alike; nor are the latter, _in general_, preceded by _to_; nor could a particle which may govern _either_, have been _specifically intended_, at first, to mark their difference. By some, as we have seen, it is argued from the very sign, that the infinitive is always essentially a noun.

(2.) "The _infinitive mode_ is the _root_ or _simple form_ of the verb, used to express an action or state _indefinitely_; as, _to hear, to speak_. It is generally distinguished by the sign _to_. When the particle _to_ is employed in _forming_ the infinitive, it is to be regarded as _a part of the verb_. In _every other case_ it is a _preposition_."--_Wells's School Grammar_, 1st Ed., p. 80. "A _Preposition_ is a word which is used to express the relation of a _noun_ or _pronoun_ depending upon it, to some other word in the sentence."--_Ib._, pp. 46 and 108. "The passive form of a verb is sometimes used in connection with a _preposition_, forming a _compound passive verb_. Examples:--'He _was listened to_ without a murmur.'--A. H. EVERETT. 'Nor is this enterprise _to be scoffed at_.'--CHANNING."--_Ib._, p. 146. "A verb in the infinitive _usually relates_ to some noun or pronoun. Thus, in the sentence, 'He desires to improve,' the verb _to improve_ relates to the pronoun _he_ while it is governed by _desires_."--_Ib._, p. 150. "'The _agent_ to a verb in the infinitive mode must be in the _objective_ case.'--NUTTING."--_Ib._, p. 148. These citations from Wells, the last of which he quotes approvingly, by way of authority, are in many respects self-contradictory, and in nearly all respects untrue. How can the infinitive be only "the _root_ or _simple form_ of the verb," and yet consist "generally" of two distinct words, and often of three, four, or five; as, "_to hear_,"--"_to have heard_,"--"_to be listened to_,"--"_to have been listened to_?" How can _to_ be a "_preposition_" in the phrase, "_He was listened to_," and not so at all in "_to be listened to_?" How does the infinitive "express an action or state _indefinitely_," if it "_usually relates to some noun or pronoun_?" Why _must_ its _agent_ "be in the _objective_ case," if "_to improve_ relates to the pronoun _he_?" Is _to "in every other case a preposition_," and not such before a verb or a participle? Must every preposition govern some "_noun or pronoun_?" And yet are there some prepositions which govern nothing, precede nothing? "The door banged _to_ behind him."--BLACKWELL: _Prose Edda_, §2. What is _to_ here?

(3.) "The _preposition_ TO _before_ a verb is the sign of the Infinitive."--_Weld's E. Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 74. "The preposition is _a part of speech_ used to connect words, and show their relation."--_Ib._, p. 42. "The perfect infinitive is formed of the perfect participle and the auxiliary HAVE _preceded_ by the _preposition_ TO."--_Ib._, p. 96. "The infinitive mode _follows_ a _verb, noun_, or _adjective_."--_Ib._, pp. 75 and 166. "A verb in the Infinitive _may follow_: 1. _Verbs_ or _participles_; 2. _Nouns_ or _pronouns_; 3. _Adjectives_; 4. _As_ or _than_; 5. _Adverbs_; 6. _Prepositions_; 7. The _Infinitive_ is often used _independently_; 8. The Infinitive mode is often used in the office of a _verbal noun_, as the _nominative case_ to the verb, and as the _objective case_ after _verbs_ and _prepositions_."--_Ib._, p. 167. These last two counts are absurdly included among what "the Infinitive _may follow_;" and is it not rather queer, that this mood should be found to "_follow_" every thing else, and _not_ "the preposition TO," which comes "_before_" it, and by which it is "_preceded_?" This author adopts also the following absurd and needless rule: "The Infinitive mode has an objective case before it _when_ [the word] THAT _is omitted_: as, I believe _the sun_ to be the centre of the solar system; I know _him_ to be a man of veracity."--_Ib._, p. 167; _Abridged Ed._, 124. (See Obs. 10th on Rule 2d, above.) "_Sun_" is here governed by "_believe_;" and "_him_," by "_know_;" and "_be_," in both instances, by "the preposition TO:" for this particle is not only "the _sign_ of the Infinitive," but its _governing word_, answering well to the definition of a preposition above cited from Weld.

[411] "The infinitive is sometimes governed by a preposition; as, 'The shipmen were _about to flee_.'"--_Wells's School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 149; 3d Ed., p. 158. Wells has altered this, and for "_preposition_" put "_adverb_."--Ed. of 1850, p. 163.

[412] Some grammatists, being predetermined that no preposition shall control the infinitive, avoid the conclusion by absurdly calling FOR, a _conjunction_; ABOUT, an _adverb_; and TO--no matter what--but generally, _nothing_. Thus: "The _conjunction_ FOR, is inelegantly used before verbs in the infinitive mood; as, 'He came _for_ to study Latin.'"--_Greenleaf's Gram._, p. 38. "The infinitive mood is sometimes _governed_ by _conjunctions_ or _adverbs_; as, 'An object so high _as to be_ invisible;' 'The army is _about to march_.'"--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 188. This is a note to that extra rule which Kirkham proposes for our use, "_if we reject the idea of government_, as applied to the verb in this mood!"--_Ib._

[413] After the word "_fare_," Murray put a semicolon, which shows that he misunderstood the mood of the verb "_hear_." It is not always necessary to repeat the particle _to_, when two or more infinitives are connected; and this fact is an other good argument against calling the preposition _to_ "a part of the verb." But in this example, and some others here exhibited, the repetition is requisite.--G. B.

[414] "The Infinitive Mood is not confined to a trunk or nominative, and is always preceded by _to_, expressed or implied."--_S. Barrett's Gram._, 1854, p. 43.

[415] Lindley Murray, and several of his pretended improvers, say, "The infinitive sometimes _follows_ the word AS: thus, 'An object so high _as to be_ invisible.' The infinitive occasionally _follows_ THAN _after_ a comparison; as, 'He desired _nothing more than to know_ his own imperfections.'"--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 184; _Fisk's_, 125; _Alger's_, 63; _Merchant's_, 92. See this second example in _Weld's Gram._, p. 167; _Abridg._, 124. Merchant, not relishing the latter example, changes it thus: "I wish _nothing more, than to know_ his fate." He puts a comma after _more_, and probably means, "I wish nothing _else_ than to know his fate." So does Fisk, in the other version: and probably means, "He desired nothing _else_ than to know his own imperfections." But Murray, Alger, and Weld, accord in punctuation, and their meaning seems rather to be, "He desired nothing _more heartily_ than [_he desired_] to know his own imperfections." And so is this or a similar text interpreted by both Ingersoll and Weld, who suppose this infinitive to be "_governed by another verb, understood_: as, 'He desired nothing _more than to see_ his friends;' that is, 'than he _desired_ to see,' &c."--_Ingersoll's Gram._, p. 244; _Weld's Abridged_, 124. But obvious as is the _ambiguity_ of this fictitious example, in all its forms, not one of these five critics perceived the fault at all. Again, in their remark above cited, Ingersoll, Fisk, and Merchant, put a comma before the preposition "_after_," and thus make the phrase, "_after a comparison_," describe the place _of the infinitive_. But Murray and Alger probably meant that this phrase should denote the place of the conjunction "_than_." The great "Compiler" seems to me to have misused the phrase "_a comparison_," for, "_an adjective or adverb of the comparative degree_;" and the rest, I suppose, have blindly copied him, without thinking or knowing what he ought to have said, or meant to say. Either this, or a worse error, is here apparent. Five learned grammarians severally represent either "_than_" or "_the infinitive_," as being AFTER "a _comparison_;" of which one is the copula, and the other but the beginning of the latter term! Palpable as is the _absurdity_, no one of the five perceives it! And, besides, no one of them says any thing about the _government_ of this infinitive, except Ingersoll, and he supplies a _verb_. "_Than_ and _as_," says Greenleaf, "sometimes _appear to govern_ the infinitive mood; as, 'Nothing makes a man suspect _much more, than_ to know little;' 'An object so high _as_ to be invisible."--_Gram. Simp._, p. 38. Here is an other fictitious and ambiguous example, in which the phrase, "_to know little_," is the subject of _makes_ understood. Nixon supposes the infinitive phrase after _as_ to be always the subject of a finite verb _understood_ after it; as, "An object so high as to be invisible _is_ or, _implies_." See _English Parser_, p. 100.

[416] Dr. Crombie, after copying the substance of Campbell's second Canon, that, "In doubtful cases _analogy_ should be regarded," remarks: "For the same reason, '_it needs_' and '_he dares_,' are better than '_he need_' and '_he dare._'"--_On Etym. and Synt._, p. 326. Dr. Campbell's language is somewhat stronger: "In the verbs _to dare_ and _to need_, many say, in the third person present singular, _dare_ and _need_, as 'he _need_ not go: he _dare_ not do it.' Others say, _dares_ and _needs_. As the first usage is _exceedingly irregular_, hardly any thing less than uniform practice could authorize it."--_Philosophy of Rhet._, p. 175. _Dare_ for _dares_ I suppose to be wrong; but if _need_ is an auxiliary of the potential mood, to use it without inflection, is neither "irregular," nor at all inconsistent with the foregoing canon. But the former critic notices these verbs a second time, thus: "'He _dare_ not,' 'he _need_ not,' may be justly pronounced _solecisms_, for 'he _dares_,' 'he _needs_.'"--_Crombie, on Etym. and Synt._, p. 378. He also says, "The verbs _bid, dare, need, make, see, hear, feel, let_, are _not_ followed by the sign of the infinitive."--_Ib._, p. 277. And yet he writes thus: "These are truths, of which, I am persuaded, the author, to whom I allude, _needs_ not _to_ be reminded."--_Ib._, p. 123. So Dr. Bullions declares against _need_ in the singular, by putting down the following example as bad English: "He _need_ not be in so much haste."--_Bullions's E. Gram._, p. 134. Yet he himself writes thus: "A name more appropriate than the term _neuter, need_ not be desired."--_Ib._, p. 196. A school-boy may see the inconsistency of this.

[417] Some modern grammarians will have it, that a participle governed by a preposition is a "_participial noun_;" and yet, when they come to parse an adverb or an objective following, their "_noun_" becomes a "_participle_" again, and _not_ a "_noun_." To allow words thus to _dodge_ from one class to an other, is not only unphilosophical, but ridiculously absurd. Among those who thus treat this construction of the participle, the chief, I think, are Butler, Hurt, Weld, Wells, and S. S. Greene.

[418] Dr. Blair, to whom Murray ought to have acknowledged himself indebted for this sentence, introduced _a noun_, to which, in his work, this infinitive and these participles refer: thus, "It is disagreeable _for the mind_ to be _left pausing_ on a word which does not, by itself, produce any idea."--_Blair's Rhetoric_, p. 118. See Obs. 10th and 11th on Rule 14th.

[419] The perfect contrast between _from_ and _to_, when the former governs the participle and the latter the infinitive, is an other proof that this _to_ is the common preposition _to_. For example, "These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth _from standing_ before the Lord of all the earth."--_Zech._, vi, 5. Now if this were rendered "which go forth _to stand_," &c., it is plain that these prepositions would express quite opposite relations. Yet, probably from some obscurity in the original, the Greek version has been made to mean, "going forth _to stand_;" and the Latin, "which go forth, _that they may stand_;" while the French text conveys nearly the same sense as ours,--"which go forth _from the place where they stood._"

[420] _Cannot_, with a verb of _avoiding_, or with the negative _but_, is equivalent to _must_. Such examples may therefore be varied thus: "I _cannot but mention_:" i.e., "I _must_ mention."--"I _cannot help exhorting_ him to assume courage."--_Knox_. That is, "I _cannot but exhort_ him."

[421] See the same thing in _Kirkham's Gram._ p. 189; in _Ingersoll's_, p. 200; in _Smith's New Grammar_, p. 162; and in other modifications and mutilations of Murray's work. Kirkham, in an other place, adopts the doctrine, that, "_Participles_ frequently govern nouns _and_ pronouns in the possessive case; as, 'In case of his _majesty's dying_ without issue, &c.; Upon _God's having ended_ all his works, &c.; I remember _its being reckoned_ a great exploit; At my _coming_ in he said, &c."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 181. None of these examples are written according to my notion of elegance, or of accuracy. Better: "In case his _Majesty die_ without issue."--"_God_ having ended all his works."--"I remember _it was_ reckoned a great exploit."--"At my _entrance_, he said," &c.

[422] We have seen that Priestley's doctrine, as well as Lowth's, is, that when a participle is taken _substantively_, "it ought not to govern another word;" and, for the same reason, it ought not to have an _adverb_ relating to it. But many of our modern grammarians disregard these principles, and do not restrict their "_participial nouns_" to the construction of nouns, in either of these respects. For example: Because one may say, "_To read superficially_, is useless," Barnard supposes it right to say, "_Reading superficially_ is useless." "But the _participle_," says he, "will also take the adjective; as, '_Superficial reading_ is useless.'"--_Analytic Gram._, p. 212. In my opinion, this last construction ought to be preferred; and the second, which is both irregular and unnecessary, rejected. Again, this author says: "We have laid it down as a rule, that the possessive case belongs, like an adjective, to a _noun_. What shall be said of the following? 'Since the days of Samson, there has been no instance of _a man's_ accomplishing a task so stupendous.' The _entire clause_ following _man's_, is taken as a noun. 'Of a man's _success_ in a task so stupendous.' would present no difficulty. A part of a sentence, or even a single participle, _thus often_ stands _for a noun_. 'My going will depend on my father's giving his consent,' or 'on my father's consenting.' A participle _thus used_ as a noun, may be called a PARTICIPIAL NOUN."--_Ib._, p. 131. I dislike this doctrine also. In the first example, _man_ may well be made the leading word in sense; and, as such, it must be in the objective case; thus: "There has been no instance of a _man accomplishing_ a task so stupendous." It is also proper to say. "_My going_ will depend on my _father's consenting_," or, "on my _father's consent_." But an action possessed by the agent, ought not to be transitive. If, therefore, you make this the leading idea, insert _of_: thus, "There has been no instance of a _man's accomplishing of_ a task so stupendous." "My going will depend on my _father's giving of_ his consent."--"My _brother's acquiring [of_] the French language will be a useful preparation for his travels."--_Barnard's Gram._, p. 227. If participial nouns retain the power of participles, why is it wrong to say, "A superficial reading books is useless?" Again, Barnard approves of the question, "What do you think of my _horse's running to-day_?" and adds, "Between this form of expression and the following, 'What do you think of my _horse running_ to-day?' it is sometimes said, that we should make a distinction; because the former implies that the horse had actually run, and the latter, that it is in contemplation to have him do so. _The difference of meaning certainly exists_; but it would seem more judicious to treat _the latter_ as an improper mode of speaking. What can be more uncouth than to say, 'What do you think of _me_ going to Niagara?' We should say _my_ going, notwithstanding the ambiguity. We ought, _therefore_, to introduce something explanatory; as, 'What do you think _of the propriety_ of my going to Niagara?"--_Analytic Gram._, p. 227. The propriety of a past

## action is as proper a subject of remark as that of a future one; the

explanatory phrase here introduced has therefore nothing to do with Priestley's distinction, or with the alleged ambiguity. Nor does the uncouthness of an objective pronoun with the leading word in sense improperly taken as an adjunct, prove that a participle may properly take to itself a possessive adjunct, and still retain the active nature of a

## participle.

[423] The following is an example, but it is not very intelligible, nor would it be at all amended, if the pronoun were put in the possessive case: "I sympathize with my sable brethren, when I hear of _them being spared_ even one lash of the cart-whip."--REV. DR. THOMPSON: _Garrison, on Colonization_, p. 80. And this is an other, in which the possessive pronoun would not be better: "But, if the slaves wish, to return to slavery, let them do so; not an abolitionist will turn out to stop _them going_ back."--_Antislavery Reporter_, Vol. IV, p. 223. Yet it might be more accurate to say--"to stop them _from_ going back." In the following example from the pen of Priestley, the objective is correctly used with _as_, where some would be apt to adopt the possessive: "It gives us an idea of _him_, as being the only person to whom it can be applied."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 151. Is not this better English than to say, "of _his_ being the only person?" The following is from the pen of a good scholar: "This made me remember the discourse we had together, at my house, about _me drawing_ constitutions, not as proposals, but as if fixed to the hand."--WILLIAM PENN: _Letter to Algernon Sidney_, Oct. 13th, 1681. Here, if _me_ is objectionable, _my_ without _of_ would be no less so. It might be better grammar to say, "about _my drawing of_ constitutions."

[424] Sometimes the passive form is adopted, when there is no real need of it, and when perhaps the active would be better, because it is simpler; as, "Those portions of the grammar are worth the trouble of _being committed_ to memory."--_Dr. Barrow's Essays_, p. 109. Better, perhaps:--"worth the trouble of _committing_ to memory:" or,--"worth the trouble _committing them_ to memory." Again: "What is worth being uttered at all, is worth _being spoken_ in a proper manner."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 68. Better, perhaps: "What is worth _uttering_ at all, is worth _uttering_ in a proper manner."--G. Brown.

[425] "RULE.--When the participle expresses something of which the noun following is the DOER, it should have the article and preposition; as, 'It was said in _the hearing of_ the witness.' When it expresses something of which the noun following is _not the doer_, but the OBJECT, both should be omitted; as, 'The court spent some time in _hearing_ the witness.'"--BULLIONS, _Prin. of E. Gram._, p. 108; _Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, 181.

[426] This doctrine is far from being true. See Obs. 12th, in this series, above.--G. B.

[427] "Dr. Webster considers the use of _then_ and _above_ as ADNOUNS, [i. e., adjectives,] to be 'well authorized and very convenient;' as, the _then_ ministry; the _above_ remarks."--_Felch's Comp. Gram._, p. 108. Dr. Webster's remark is in the following words: "_Then_ and _above_ are often used as ATTRIBUTES: [i. e., adjectives; as,] the _then_ ministry; the _above_ remarks; nor would I prescribe this use. It is well authorized and very convenient."--_Philos. Gram._, p. 245; _Improved Gram._, p. 176. Of this use of _then_, Dr. Crombie has expressed a very different opinion: "Here _then_," says he, "the adverb equivalent to _at that time_, is solecistically employed as an adjective, agreeing with _ministry_. This error seems to gain ground; it should therefore be vigilantly opposed, and carefully avoided."--_On Etym. and Synt._, p. 405.

[428] W. Allen supposes, "An adverb sometimes qualifies a whole sentence: as, _Unfortunately_ for the lovers of antiquity, _no remains of Grecian paintings have been preserved_."--_Elements of Eng. Gram._, p. 173. But this example may be resolved thus: "_It happens_ unfortunately for the lovers of antiquity, _that_ no remains of Grecian paintings have been preserved."

[429] This assertion of Churchill's is very far from the truth. I am confident that the latter construction occurs, even among reputable authors, ten times as often as the former can be found in any English books.--G. BROWN.

[430] Should not the Doctor have said, "_are_ there _more_," since "_more than one_" must needs be plural? See Obs. 10th on Rule 17th.

[431] This degree of truth is impossible, and therefore not justly supposable. We have also a late American grammarian who gives a similar interpretation: "'_Though never so justly deserving of it_.' Comber. _Never_ is here an emphatic adverb; as if it were said, so justly _as was never_. Though well authorized, it is disapproved by most grammarians of the present day; and the word _ever_ is used instead of _never_."--_Felch's Comp. Gram._, p. 107. The text here cited is not necessarily bad English as it stands; but, if the commenter has not mistaken its meaning, as well as its construction, it ought certainly to be, "Though _everso justly_ deserving of it."--"_So justly as was never_," is a positive degree that is not imaginable; and what is this but an absurdity?

[432] Since this remark was written, I have read an other grammar, (that of the "_Rev. Charles Adams_,") in which the author sets down among "the more frequent _improprieties_ committed, in conversation, '_Ary one_' for _either_, and '_nary one_' for _neither_."--_Adams's System of Gram._, p. 116. Eli Gilbert too betrays the same ignorance. Among his "_Improper Pronunciations_" he puts down "_Nary_" and "_Ary_" and for "_Corrections_" of them, gives "_neither_" and "_either_."--_Gilbert's Catechetical Gram._, p. 128. But these latter terms, _either_ and _neither_, are applicable only to _one of two_ things, and cannot be used where _many_ are spoken of; as,

"Stealing her soul with _many_ vows of faith, And _ne'er_ a true one."--_Shakspeare_.

What sense would there be in expounding this to mean, "And _neither_ a true one?" So some men both write and interpret their mother tongue erroneously through ignorance. But these authors _condemn_ the errors which they here falsely suppose to be common. What is yet more strange, no less a critic than Prof. William C. Fowler, has lately exhibited, _without disapprobation_, one of these literary blunders, with sundry localisms, (often descending to slang,) which, he says, are mentioned by "Mr. Bartlett, in his valuable dictionary [_Dictionary] of Americanisms_." The brief example, which may doubtless be understood to speak for both phrases and both authors, is this: "ARY = either."--_Fowler's E. Gram._, 8vo, N. Y., 1850, p. 92.

[433] The conjunction _that_, at the head of a sentence or clause, enables us to assume the whole preposition as one _thing_; as, "All arguments whatever are directed to prove one or other of these _three things: that_ something is true; _that_ it is morally right or fit; or _that_ it is profitable and good."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 318. Here each _that_ may be parsed as connecting its own clause to the first clause in the sentence; or, to the word _things_ with which the three clauses are in a sort of apposition. If we conceive it to have no such connecting power, we must make this too an exception.

[434] "Note. Then _and_ than are _distinct Particles_, but use hath made the using of _then_ for _than_ after a Comparative Degree at least _passable_. See _Butler's_ Eng. Gram. Index."--_Walker's Eng. Particles_, Tenth Ed., 1691, p. 333.

[435] "When the relative _who_ follows the preposition _than_, it must be used as in the _accusative_ case."--_Bucke's Gram._, p. 93. Dr. Priestley seems to have imagined the word _than_ to be _always a preposition_; for he contends against the common doctrine and practice respecting the case after it: "It is, likewise, said, that the nominative case ought to follow the _preposition than_; because the verb _to be_ is understood after it; As, _You are taller than he_, and not _taller than him_; because at full length, it would be, _You are taller than he is_; but since it is allowed, that the oblique case should follow _prepositions_; and since the comparative degree of an adjective, and the particle _than_ have, certainly, between them, the force _of a preposition_, expressing the relation of one word to another, _they ought to require the oblique case_ of the pronoun following."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 105. If _than_ were a preposition, this reasoning would certainly be right; but the Doctor begs the question, by assuming that it _is_ a preposition. William Ward, an other noted grammarian of the same age, supposes that, "ME _sapientior es_, may be translated, _Thou art wiser_ THAN ME." He also, in the same place, avers, that, "The best English Writers have considered _than_ as a Sign of an oblique Case; as, 'She suffers more THAN ME.' Swift, i.e. more than I suffer.

'Thou art a Girl as much brighter THAN HER, As he was a Poet sublimer THAN ME.' Prior.

i.e. Thou art a Girl as much brighter _than she was_, as he was a Poet sublimer _than I am_."--_Ward's Practical Gram._, p. 112. These examples of the objective case after _than_, were justly regarded by Lowth as _bad English_. The construction, however, has a modern advocate in S. W. Clark, who will have the conjunctions _as, but, save, saving_, and _than_, as well as the adjectives _like, unlike, near, next, nigh_, and _opposite_, to be _prepositions_. "After a _Comparative_ the _Preposition than_ is commonly used. Example--Grammar is more interesting _than_ all my other studies."--_Clark's Practical Gram._, p. 178. "_As, like, than_, &c., indicate a relation of _comparison_. Example 'Thou hast been _wiser_ all the while _than me_.' _Southey's Letters._"--_Ib._, p. 96. Here correct usage undoubtedly requires _I_, and not _me_. Such at least is my opinion.

[436] In respect to the _case_, the phrase _than who_ is similar to _than he, than they_, &c., as has been observed by many grammarians; but, since _than_ is a conjunction, and _who_ or _whom_ is a relative, it is doubtful whether it can be strictly proper to set two such connectives together, be the case of the latter which it may. See Note 5th, in the present chapter, below.

[437] After _else_ or _other_, the preposition _besides_ is sometimes used; and, when it recalls an idea previously suggested, it appears to be as good as _than_, or better: as, "_Other_ words, _besides_ the preceding, may begin with capitals."--_Murray's Gram._, Vol. i. p. 285. Or perhaps this preposition may be proper, whenever _else_ or _other_ denotes what is _additional_ to the object of contrast, and not exclusive of it; as, "When we speak of any _other_ quantity _besides_ bare numbers."--_Tooke's Diversions_, Vol. i, p. 215. "Because he had no _other_ father _besides_ God."--_Milton, on Christianity_, p. 109. Though we sometimes express an addition by _more than_, the following example appears to me to be _bad English_, and its interpretation still worse: "'The secret was communicated to _more men than him_.' That is, (when the ellipsis is duly supplied,) 'The secret was communicated to more _persons_ than _to_ him.'"--Murray's Key, 12mo, p. 61; his _Octavo Gram._, p. 215; _Ingersoll's Gram._, 252. Say rather,--"to _other_ men _besides_ him." Nor, again, does the following construction appear to be right: "Now _shew_ me _another_ Popish rhymester _but he_."--DENNIS: _Notes to the Dunciad_, B. ii, l. 268. Say rather, "Now _show_ me _an other_ popish rhymester _besides him_." Or thus: "Now show me _any_ popish rhymester _except_ him." This too is questionable: "Now pain must here be intended to signify something _else besides_ warning."--_Wayland's Moral Science_, p. 121. If "warning" was here intended to be included with "something else," the expression is right; if not, _besides_ should be _than_. Again: "There is seldom any _other_ cardinal in Poland _but him_."--_Life of Charles XII_. Here "_but him_" should be either "_besides him_," or "_than he_;" for _but_ never rightly governs the objective case, nor is it proper after _other_. "Many _more_ examples, _besides_ the foregoing, might have been adduced."--_Nesbit's English Parsing_, p. xv. Here, in fact, no comparison is expressed; and therefore it is questionable, whether the word "_more_" is allowably used. Like _else_ and _other_, when construed with _besides_, it signifies _additional_; and, as this idea is implied in _besides_, any one of these adjectives going before is really pleonastic. In the sense above noticed, the word _beside_ is sometimes written in stead of besides, though not very often; as, "There are _other_ things which pass in the mind of man, _beside_ ideas."--_Sheridan's Elocution_, p. 136.

[438] A few of the examples under this head might be corrected equally well by some preceding note of a more specific character; for a general note against the improper omission of prepositions, of course includes those principles of grammar by which any particular prepositions are to be inserted. So the examples of error which were given in the tenth chapter of Etymology, might nearly all of them have been placed under the first note in this tenth chapter of Syntax. But it was thought best to illustrate every part of this volume, by some examples of false grammar, out of the infinite number and variety with which our literature abounds.

[439] "The Rev. _Joab Goldsmith Cooper_, A. M.," was the author of two English grammars, as well as of what he called "A New and Improved Latin Grammar," with "An Edition of the Works of Virgil, &c.," all published in Philadelphia. His first grammar, dated 1828, is entitled, "_An Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar, and Exercises_." But it is no more an abridgement of Murray's work, than of mine; he having chosen to steal from the text of my Institutes, or supply matter of his own, about as often as to copy Murray. His second is the Latin Grammar. His third, which is entitled, "_A Plain and Practical English Grammar_," and dated 1831, is a

## book very different from the first, but equally inaccurate and worthless.

In this book, the syntax of interjections stands thus: "RULE 21. The interjections _O, oh_ and _ah_ are followed by _the objective case_ of a noun or pronoun, as: 'O me! ah me! oh me!' In the second person, they are _a mark_ or _sign_ of an address, made to a person or thing, as: O thou persecutor! Oh, ye hypocrites! O virtue, how amiable thou art!"--Page 157. The inaccuracy of all this can scarcely be exceeded.

[440] "_Oh_ is used to express the emotion of _pain, sorrow_, or _surprise_. _O_ is used to express _wishing, exclamation_, or a direct _address_ to a person."--_Lennie's Gram._, 12th Ed., p. 110. Of this distinction our grammarians in general seem to have no conception; and, in fact, it is so often disregarded by other authors, that the propriety of it may be disputed. Since _O_ and _oh_ are pronounced alike, or very nearly so, if there is no difference in their application, they are only different modes of writing the same word, and one or the other of them is useless. If there is a real difference, as I suppose there is, it ought to be better observed; and _O me!_ and _oh ye!_ which I believe are found only in grammars, should be regarded as bad English. Both _O_ and _oh_, as well as _ah_, were used in Latin by Terence, who was reckoned an elegant writer; and his manner of applying them favours this distinction: and so do our own dictionaries, though Johnson and Walker do not draw it clearly, for _oh_ is as much an "_exclamation_" as _O_. In the works of Virgil, Ovid, and Horace, we find _O_ or _o_ used frequently, but nowhere _oh_. Yet this is no evidence of their sameness, or of the uselessness of the latter; but rather of their difference, and of the impropriety of confounding them. _O, oh, ho_, and _ah_, are French words as well as English. Boyer, in his Quarto Dictionary, confounds them all; translating "O!" only by "_Oh!_" "OH! _ou_ HO!" by "_Ho! Oh!_" and "AH!" by "_Oh! alas! well-a-day! ough! A! ah! hah! ho!_" He would have done better to have made each one explain itself; and especially, not to have set down "_ough!_" and "_A!_" as English words which correspond to the French _ah!_

[441] This silence is sufficiently accounted for by _Murray's_; of whose work, most of the authors who have any such rule, are either piddling modifiers or servile copyists. And Murray's silence on these matters, is in part attributable to the fact, that when he wrote his remark, his system of grammar denied that nouns have any first person, or any objective case. Of course he supposed that all nouns that were uttered after interjections, whether they were of the second person or of the third, were in the nominative case; for he gave to nouns _two_ cases only, the nominative and the possessive. And when he afterwards admitted the objective case of nouns, he did not alter his remark, but left all his pupils ignorant of the case of any noun that is used in exclamation or invocation. In his doctrine of two cases, he followed Dr. Ash: from whom also he copied the rule which I am criticising: "The _Interjections, O, Oh_, and _Ah_, require the _accusative_ case of a pronoun in the _first_ Person: as, O _me_, Oh _me_, Ah _me_: But the _Nominative_ in the _second_: as, O _thou_, O _ye_."--_Ash's Gram._, p. 60. Or perhaps he had Bicknell's book, which was later: "The _interjections O, oh_, and _ah_, require the accusative case of a pronoun in the _first_ person after them; as, _O, me! Oh, me! Ah, me!_ But the nominative case in the _second_ person; as, _O, thou that rulest! O, ye rulers of this land!_"--_The Grammatical Wreath_, Part I, p. 105.

[442] See _2 Sam._, xix, 4; also xviii, 33. Peirce has many times _misquoted_ this text, or some part of it; and, what is remarkable, he nowhere agrees either with himself or with the Bible! "O! Absalom! my son!"--_Gram._, p. 283. "O Absalom! my son, my son! would _to_ God I had died for thee."--_Ib._, p. 304. Pinneo also misquotes and perverts a part of it, thus: "Oh, Absalom! my son"--_Primary Gram._, Revised Ed., p. 57.

[443] Of this example, Professor Bullions says, "This will be allowed to be _a correct English sentence_, complete in itself, and requiring nothing to be supplied. The phrase, '_being an expert dancer_,' is the subject of the verb '_does entitle_;' but the word '_dancer_' in that phrase is neither the subject of any verb, nor is governed by any word in the sentence."--_Eng. Gram._, p. 52. It is because this word cannot have any regular construction after the participle when the possessive case precedes, that I deny his first proposition, and declare the sentence _not_ "to be correct English." But the Professor at length reasons himself into the notion, that this indeterminate "_predicate_," as he erroneously calls it, "is properly in the _objective case_, and in parsing, may correctly be called the _objective indefinite_;" of which case, he says, "The following are also examples: '_He_ had the honour of being a _director_ for life.' 'By being a _diligent student, he_ soon acquired eminence in his profession.'"--_Ib._, p. 83. But "_director_" and "_student_" are here manifestly in the _nominative_ case: each agreeing with the pronoun _he_, which denotes the same person. In the latter sentence, there is a very obvious transposition of the first five words.

[444] Faulty as this example is, Dr. Blair says of it: "Nothing can be more elegant, or more finely turned, than this sentence. It is neat, _clear_, and musical. We could hardly _alter one word_, or disarrange one member, without _spoiling_ it. Few sentences are to be found, more finished, or more happy."--_Lecture_ XX, p. 201. See the _six_ corrections suggested in my Key, and judge whether or not they _spoil_ the sentence.--G. B.

[445] This Note, as well as all the others, will by-and-by be amply illustrated by citations from authors of sufficient repute to give it some value as a grammatical principle: but one cannot hope such language as is, in reality, incorrigibly bad, will always appear so to the generality of readers. Tastes, habits, principles, judgements, differ; and, where confidence is gained, many utterances are well received, that are neither well considered nor well understood. When a professed critic utters what is incorrect beyond amendment, the fault is the more noteworthy, as his professions are louder, or his standing is more eminent. In a recent preface, deliberately composed for a very comprehensive work on "English Grammar," and designed to allure both young and old to "a thorough and extensive acquaintance with their mother tongue,"--in the studied preface of a learned writer, who has aimed "to furnish not only a text-book for the higher institutions, but also a reference-book for _teachers_, which may give breadth and exactness to their views,"--I find a paragraph of which the following is a part: "Unless men, at least occasionally, bestow their attention upon the science and the laws of the language, they are in some danger, amid the excitements of professional life, of losing the delicacy of their taste and giving sanction to vulgarisms, or to what is worse. On this point, listen to the recent declarations of two leading men in the Senate of the United States, both of whom understand the use of the English language in its power: 'In truth, I must say that, in my opinion, the vernacular tongue of the country has become greatly vitiated, depraved, and corrupted by the style of our Congressional debates.' And the other, in courteous response remarked, 'There _is_ such a _thing_ as _an_ English and _a_ parliamentary _vocabulary_, and I have never heard _a worse_, when circumstances called it out, on this side [_of_] Billingsgate!'"--_Fowler's E. Gram._, 8vo. 1850, Pref., p. iv.

Now of these "two leading men," the former was Daniel Webster, who, in a senatorial speech, in the spring of 1850, made such a remark concerning the style of oratory used in Congress. But who replied, or what idea the "courteous response," as here given, can be said to convey, I do not know. The language seems to me both unintelligible and solecistical; and, therefore, but a fair sample of the _Incorrigible_. Some intelligent persons, whom I have asked to interpret it, think, as Webster had accused our Congress of corrupting the English language, the respondent meant to accuse the British Parliament of doing the same thing in a greater degree,--of descending yet lower into the vileness of slang. But this is hardly a probable conjecture. Webster might be right in acknowledging a very depraving abuse of the tongue in the two Houses of Congress; but could it be "courteous," or proper, for the answerer to jump the Atlantic, and pounce upon the English Lords and Commons, as a set of worse corrupters?

The gentleman begins with saying, "There _is_ such _a thing_"--as if he meant to describe some _one_ thing; and proceeds with saying, "as _an_ English _and a_ parliamentary vocabulary," in which phrase, by repeating the article, he speaks of _two "things"--two vocabularies_; then goes on, "and I have never heard _a worse_!" A worse _what_? Does he mean "_a worse vocabulary_?" If so, what sense has "_vocabulary_?" And, again, "a worse" _than_ what? Where and what is this "_thing_" which is so bad that the leading Senator has "never heard a worse?" Is it some "_vocabulary_" both "English and parliamentary?" If so, whose? If not, what else is it? Lest the wisdom of this oraculous "declaration" be lost to the public through the defects of its syntax,--and lest more than one rhetorical critic seem hereby "in some danger" of "giving sanction to" _nonsense_,--it may be well for Professor Fowler, in his next edition, to present some elucidation of this short but remarkable passage, which he values so highly!

An other example, in several respects still more remarkable,--a shorter one, into which an equally successful professor of grammar has condensed a much greater number and variety of faults,--is seen in the following citation: "The verb is so called, because it means _word_; and as there can be no sentence without it, it is called, emphatically, _the word_."--_Pinneo's Analytical Gram._, p. 14. This sentence, in which, perhaps, most readers will discover no error, has in fact faults of so many different kinds, that a critic must pause to determine under which of more than half a dozen different heads of false syntax it might most fitly be presented for correction or criticism. (1.) It might be set down under my Note 5th to Rule 10th; for, in one or two instances out of the three, if not in all, the pronoun "_it_" gives not the same idea as its antecedent. The faults coming under this head might be obviated by three changes, made thus: "The verb is so called, because _verb_ means _word_; and, as there can be no sentence without _a verb, this part of speech_ is called, emphatically, _the word_." Cobbett wisely says, "Never put an _it_ upon paper without thinking well of what you are about."--_E. Gram._, ¶ 196. But (2.) the erroneous text, and this partial correction of it too, might be put under my Critical Note 5th, among _Falsities_; for, in either form, each member affirms what is manifestly untrue. The term "_word_" has many meanings; but no usage ever makes it, "_emphatically_" or otherwise, a name for one of the classes called "parts of speech;" nor is there nowadays any current usage in which "_verb_ means _word_." (3.) This text might be put under Critical Note 6th, among _Absurdities_; for whoever will read it, as in fairness he should, taking the pronoun "_it_" in the exact sense of its antecedent "_the verb_," will see that the import of each part is absurd--the whole, a two-fold absurdity. (4.) It might be put under Critical Note 7th, among _Self-Contradictions_; for, to teach at once that "_the verb_ is _so_ called," and "is called, emphatically," _otherwise_,--namely, "_the word_,"--is, to contradict one's self. (5.) It might be set down under Critical Note 9th, among examples of _Words Needless_; for the author's question is, "Why is the verb so called?" and this may be much better answered in fewer words, thus: "THE VERB is so called, because in French it is called _le verbe_ and in Latin, _verbum_, which means _word_." (6.) It might be put under Critical Note 10th, as an example of _Improper Omissions_; for it may be greatly bettered by the addition of some words, thus: "The verb is so called, because [in French] it [is called _le verbe_, and in Latin, _verbum_, which] means _word_: as there can be no sentence without _a verb, this_ [most important part of speech] is called, emphatically, [_the verb_,--q.d.,] _the word_." (7.) It might be put under Critical Note 11th, among _Literary Blunders_; for there is at least one blunder in each of its members. (8.) It might be set down under Critical Note 13th, as an example of _Awkwardness_; for it is but clumsy work, to teach _grammar_ after this sort. (9.) It might be given under Critical Note 16th, as a sample of the _Incorrigible_; for it is scarcely possible to eliminate all its defects and retain its essentials.

These instances may suffice to show, that even gross errors of grammar may lurk where they are least to be expected, in the didactic phraseology of professed masters of style or oratory, and may abound where common readers or the generality of hearers will discover nothing amiss.

[446] As a mere assertion, this example is here sufficiently corrected; but, as a _definition_, (for which the author probably intended it,) it is deficient; and consequently, in that sense, is still inaccurate. I would also observe that most of the subsequent examples under the present head, contain other errors than that for which they are here introduced; and, of some of them, the faults are, in my opinion, very many: for example, the several definitions of an _adverb_, cited below. Lindley Murray's definition of this part of speech is not inserted among these, because I had elsewhere criticised that. So too of his faulty definition of a _conjunction_. See the _Introduction_, Chap. X. paragraphs 26 and 28. See also _Corrections in the Key_, under Note 10th to Rule 1st.

[447] In his explanation of _Ellipsis_, Lindley Murray continually calls it "_the_ ellipsis," and speaks of it as something that is "_used_,"--"_made use of_,"--"_applied_,"--"_contained in_" the examples; which expressions, referring, as they there do, to the mere _absence_ of something, appear to me solecistical. The notion too, which this author and others have entertained of the figure itself, is in many respects erroneous; and nearly all their examples for its illustration are either questionable as to such an application, or obviously inappropriate. The absence of what is _needless_ or _unsuggested_, is _no ellipsis_, though some grave men have not discerned this obvious fact. The nine solecisms here quoted concerning "_the ellipsis_," are all found in many other grammars. See _Fisk's E. Gram._, p. 144; _Guy's_, 91; _Ingersoll's_, 153; _J. M. Putnam's_, 137; _R. C. Smith's_, 180; _Weld's_, 190.

[448] Some of these examples do, _in fact_, contain _more_ than two errors; for mistakes in _punctuation_, or in the use of _capitals_, are not here reckoned. This remark may also he applicable to some of the other lessons. The reader may likewise perceive, that where two, three, or more improprieties occur in one sentence, some one or more of them may happen to be such, as he can, if he choose, correct by some rule or note belonging to a previous chapter. Great labour has been bestowed on the selection and arrangement of these syntactical exercises; but to give to so great a variety of literary faults, a distribution perfectly distinct, and perfectly adapted to all the heads assumed in this digest, is a work not only of great labour, but of great difficulty. I have come as near to these two points of perfection in the arrangement, as I well could.--G. BROWN.

[449] In Murray's sixth chapter of Punctuation, from which this example, and eleven others that follow it, are taken, there is scarcely a single sentence that does not contain _many errors_; and yet the whole is literally copied in _Ingersoll's Grammar_, p. 293; in _Fisk's_, p. 159; in _Abel Flint's_, 116; and probably in some others. I have not always been careful to subjoin the great number of references which might be given for blunders selected from this hackneyed literature of the schools. For corrections, or improvements, see the Key.

[450] This example, or L. Murray's miserable modification of it, traced through the grammars of Alden, Alger, Bullions, Comly, Cooper, Flint, Hiley, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Merchant, Russell, Smith, and others, will be found to have a dozen different forms--all of them no less faulty than the original--all of them obscure, untrue, inconsistent, and almost incorrigible. It is plain, that "_a_ comma," or _one_ comma, cannot divide more than _two_ "simple members;" and these, surely, cannot be connected by more than _one relative_, or by more than _one_ "comparative;" if it be allowable to call _than, as_, or _so_, by this questionable name. Of the multitude of errors into which these pretended critics have so blindly fallen, I shall have space and time to point out only a _very small part_: this text, too justly, may be taken as a pretty fair sample of their scholarship!

[451] The "_idea_" which is here spoken of, Dr. Blair discovers in a passage of Addison's Spectator. It is, in fact, as here "_brought out_" by the critic, a bald and downright absurdity. Dr. Campbell has criticised, under the name of _marvellous nonsense_, a different display of the same "_idea_," cited from De Piles's Principles of Painting. The passage ends thus: "In this sense it may be asserted, that in Rubens' pieces, Art is above Nature, and Nature only a copy of that great master's works." Of this the critic says: "When the expression is _stript_ of the _absurd meaning_, there remains nothing but balderdash."--_Philosophy of Rhet._, p, 278.

[452] All his rules for the comma, Fisk appears to have taken unjustly from Greenleaf. It is a _double shame_, for a grammarian to _steal_ what is so _badly written_!--G. BROWN.

[453] Bad definitions may have other faults than to include or exclude what they should not, but this is their great and peculiar vice. For example: "_Person_ is _that property_ of _nouns_ and _pronouns_ which distinguishes the speaker, the person or thing addressed, and the person or thing spoken of."--_Wells's School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 51; 113th Ed., p. 57. See nearly the same words, in _Weld's English Gram._, p. 67; and in his _Abridgement_, p. 49. The three persons of _verbs_ are all improperly excluded from this definition; which absurdly takes "_person_" to be _one property that has all the effect of all the persons_; so that each person, in its turn, since each cannot have all this effect, is seen to be excluded also: that is, it is not such a property as is described! Again: "An _intransitive verb_ is a verb which _does not have_ a noun or pronoun for its object."--_Wells_, 1st Ed., p. 76. According to Dr. Johnson, "_does not have_," is not a scholarly phrase; but the adoption of a puerile expression is a trifling fault, compared with that of including here all passive verbs, and some transitives, which the author meant to exclude; to say nothing of the inconsistency of excluding here the two classes of verbs which he absurdly calls "intransitive," though he finds them "followed by objectives depending upon them!"--_Id._, p. 145. Weld imitates these errors too, on pp. 70 and 153.

[454] S. R. Hall thinks it necessary to recognize "_four distinctions_" of "_the distinction_ occasioned by sex." In general, the other authors here quoted, suppose that we have only "_three distinctions_" of "_the distinction_ of sex." And, as no philosopher has yet discovered more than two sexes, some have thence stoutly argued, that it is absurd to speak of more than two genders. Lily makes it out, that in Latin there are _seven_: yet, with no great consistency, he will have _a gender_ to be _a_ or _the_ distinction of _sex_. "GENUS est sexus discretio. Et sunt genera numero septem."--_Lilii Gram._, p. 10. That is, "GENDER is the distinction of _sex_. And _the genders_ are _seven_ in number." Ruddiman says, "GENUS est, discrimen _nominis_ secundum sexum, vel _ejus_ in structurâ grammaticâ imitatio. Genera nominum sunt _tria_."--_Ruddimanni Gram._, p. 4. That is, "GENDER is the diversity of the _noun_ according to sex, or [it is] the imitation _of it_ in grammatical structure. The genders of nouns are _three_." These old definitions are no better than the newer ones cited above. All of them are miserable failures, full of faults and absurdities. Both the nature and the cause of their defects are in some degree explained near the close of the tenth chapter of my Introduction. Their most prominent errors are these: 1. They all assume, that _gender_, taken as one thing, is in fact two, three, or more, _genders_, 2. Nearly all of them seem to say or imply, that _words_ differ from one an other _in sex_, like animals. 3. Many of them expressly confine _gender_, or _the genders_, to _nouns_ only. 4. Many of them confessedly _exclude the neuter gender_, though their authors afterwards admit this gender. 5. That of Dr. Webster supposes, that words differing in gender never have the same "_termination_." The absurdity of this may be shown by a multitude of examples: as, _man_ and _woman, male_ and _female, father_ and _mother, brother_ and _sister_. This is better, but still not free from some other faults which I have mentioned. For the correction of all this great batch of errors, I shall simply substitute in the Key one short definition, which appears to me to be exempt from each of these inaccuracies.

[455] Walker states this differently, and even repeats his remark, thus: "But _y_ preceded by a vowel is _never_ changed: as coy, coyly, gay, gayly."--_Walker's Rhyming Dict._, p.x. "Y preceded by a vowel is _never_ changed, as boy, boys, I cloy, he cloys, etc."--_Ib._, p viii. Walker's twelve "Orthographical Aphorisms," which Murray and others republish as their "Rules for Spelling," and which in stead of amending they merely corrupt, happened through some carelessness to contain _two_ which should have been condensed into _one_. For "words ending with y preceded by a consonant," he has not only the absurd rule or assertion above recited, but an other which is better, with an exception or remark under each, respecting "_y_ preceded by a vowel." The grammarians follow him in his errors, and add to their number: hence the repetition, or similarity, in the absurdities here quoted. By the term "_verbal nouns_," Walker meant nouns denoting agents, as _carrier_ from carry; but Kirkham understood him to mean "_participial nouns_," as _the carrying_. Or rather, he so mistook "that able philologist" Murray; for he probably knew nothing of Walker in the matter; and accordingly changed the word "_verbal_" to "_participial_;" thus teaching, through all his hundred editions, except a few of the first, that participial nouns from verbs ending in _y_ preceded by a consonant, are formed by merely "changing the _y_ into _i_." But he seems to have known, that this is not the way to form the participle; though he did not know, that "_coyless_" is not a proper English word.

[456] The _idea of plurality_ is not "_plurality of idea_," any more than the _idea of wickedness_, or the _idea of absurdity_, is absurdity or wickedness of idea; yet, behold, how our grammarians copy the blunder, which Lowth (perhaps) first fell into, of putting the one phrase for the other! Even Professor Fowler, (as well as Murray, Kirkham, and others,) talks of having regard "_to unity or plurality of idea_!"--_Fowler's E. Gram._, 8vo. 1850, §513,--G. BROWN.

[457] In the Doctor's "New Edition, Revised and Corrected," the text stands thus: "The _Present participle_ of THE ACTIVE VOICE has an active signification; as, James is _building_ the house. _In many of these_, however, _it_ has," &c. Here the first sentence is but an idle truism; and the phrase, "_In many of these_," for lack of an antecedent to _these_, is utter nonsense. What is in "the active voice," ought of course to be _active_ in "signification;" but, in this author's present scheme of the verb, we find "the active voice," in direct violation of his own definition of it, ascribed not only to verbs and participles either neuter or intransitive, but also, as it would seem by this passage, to "many" that are _passive!_--G. BROWN.

[458] One objection to these passage is, that they are _examples_ of the very construction which they describe as a _fault_. The first and second sentences ought to have been separated only by a semicolon. This would have made them _"members"_ of one and the same sentence. Can it be supported that one _"thought"_ is sufficient for two periods, or for what one chooses to point as such, but not for two members of the same period?--G. BROWN.

[459] (1.) "_Accent_ is the _tone_ with which one speaks. For, in speaking, the voice of every man is sometimes _more grave_ in the sound, and at other times _more acute_ or shrill."--_Beattie's Moral Science_, p. 25. "_Accent_ is _the tone_ of the voice with which a syllable is pronounced."--_Dr. Adam's Latin and English Gram._, p. 266.

(2.) "_Accent_ in a peculiar _stress_ of the voice on some syllable in a word to distinguish it from the others."--_Gould's Adam's Lat. Gram._, p. 243.

(3.) "The _tone_ by which one syllable is distinguished from another is the _accent_; which is a greater _stress and elevation_ of voice on that

## particular syllable."--_Bicknell's Eng. Gram._, Part II, p. 111.

(4.) "_Quantity_ is the Length or Shortness of Syllables; and the Proportion, generally speaking, betwixt a long and [a] short Syllable, is two to one; as in _Music_, two _Quavers_ to one _Crotchet_.--_Accent_ is the _rising_ and _falling_ of the Voice, above or under its usual Tone, but an Art of which we have little Use, and know less, in the _English_ Tongue; nor are we like to improve our Knowledge in this Particular, unless the Art of _Delivery_ or _Utterance_ were a little more study'd."--_Brightland's Gram._, p. 156.

(5.) "ACCENT, s. m. (_inflexion_ de la voix.) Accent, _tone_, pronunciation."--_Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel_, 4to, Tome Premier, sous le mot _Accent_.

"ACCENT, _subst._ (_tone_ or _inflection_ of the voice.) Accent, _ton_ ou _inflexion_ de voix."--_Same Work, Garner's New Universal Dictionary_, 4to, under the word _Accent_.

(6.) "The word _accent_ is derived from the Latin language and signifies _the tone of the voice_."--_Parker and Fox's English Gram._, Part III, p. 32.

(7.) "The unity of the word consists in the _tone or accent_, which binds together the two parts of the composition."--_Fowler's E. Gram._, §360.

(8.) "The accent of the ancients is the opprobrium of modern criticism. Nothing can show more evidently the fallibility of the human faculties, than the _total ignorance_ we are in at present of the nature of the Latin and Greek accent."--_Walker's Principles_, No. 486; Dict., p. 53.

(9.) "It is not surprising, that the accent and quantity of the ancients should be so obscure and mysterious, when two such learned men of our own nation as Mr. Foster and Dr. Gaily, differ about the very existence of quantity in our own language."--_Walker's Observations on Accent_, &c.; Key, p. 311.

(10.) "What these accents are has puzzled the learned so much that they seem neither to understand each other nor themselves."--_Walker's Octavo Dict., w. Barytone_.

(11.) "The ancients designated the _pitch_ of vocal sounds by the term _accent_; making three kinds of accents, the acute (é), the grave (è), and the circumflex (ê), which signified severally the rise, the fall, and the turn of the voice, or union of acute and grave on the same syllable."--_Sargent's Standard Speaker_, p. 18.

[460] "Interrogatio, Græcè _Erotema_, Accentum quoque transfert; ut, Ter. _Siccine ais Parmenó?_ Voss. Susenbr."--_Prat's Latin Grammar_, 8vo, Part II, p. 190.

[461] In regard to the admission of a comma before the verb, by the foregoing exception, neither the practice of authors nor the doctrine of punctuators is entirely uniform; but, where a considerable pause is, and must be, made in the reading, I judge it not only allowable, but necessary, to mark it in writing. In W. Day's "Punctuation Reduced to a System," a work of no inconsiderable merit, this principle is disallowed; and even when the adjunct of the nominative is a _relative clause_, which, by Rule 2d below and its first exception, requires a comma after it but none before it, this author excludes both, putting no comma before the principal verb. The following is an example: "But it frequently happens, that punctuation is not made a prominent exercise in schools; and the brief _manner_ in which the subject is there dismissed _has proved_ insufficient to impress upon the minds of youth a due sense of its importance."--_Day's Punctuation_, p. 32. A pupil of mine would here have put a comma after the word _dismissed_. So, in the following examples, after _sake_, and after _dispenses_: "The _vanity_ that would accept power for its own sake _is_ the pettiest of human passions."--_Ib._, p. 75. "The generous _delight_ of beholding the happiness he dispenses _is_ the highest enjoyment of man."--_Ib._, p, 100.

[462] When several nominatives are connected, some authors and printers put the comma only where the conjunction is omitted. W. Day separates them all, one from an other; but after the last, when this is singular before a plural verb, he inserts no point. Example: "Imagination is one of the principal ingredients which enter into the complex idea of genius; but _judgment, memory, understanding, enthusiasm_, and _sensibility_ are also included."--_Day's Punctuation_, p. 52. If the points are to be put where the pauses naturally occur, here should be a comma after _sensibility_; and, if I mistake not, it would be more consonant with current usage to set one there. John Wilson, however, in a later work, which is for the most part a very good one, prefers the doctrine of Day, as in the following instance: "_Reputation, virtue_, and _happiness_ depend greatly on the choice of companions."--_Wilson's Treatise on Punctuation_, p. 30.

[463] Some printers, and likewise some authors, suppose a series of words to require the comma, only where the conjunction is suppressed. This is certainly a great error. It gives us such punctuation as comports neither with the _sense_ of three or more words in the same construction, nor with the _pauses_ which they require in reading. "John, James and Thomas are here," is a sentence which plainly tells John that James and Thomas are here; and which, if read according to this pointing, cannot possibly have any other meaning. Yet this is the way in which the rules of _Cooper, Felton, Frost, Webster_, and perhaps others, teach us to point it, when we mean to tell somebody else that all three are here! In his pretended "Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar," (a work abounding in small thefts from Brown's Institutes,) Cooper has the following example: "John, James or Joseph intends to accompany me."--Page 120. Here, John being addressed, the punctuation is right; but, to make this noun a nominative to the verb, a comma must be put after _each of the others_. In Cooper's "Plain and Practical Grammar," the passage is found in this form: "John, James, or Joseph intends to accompany us."--Page 132. This pointing is doubly wrong; because it is adapted to neither sense. If the three nouns have the same construction, the principal pause will be immediately before the verb; and surely a comma is as much required by that pause, as by the second. See the Note on Rule 3d, above.

[464] In punctuation, the grammar here cited is unaccountably defective. This is the more strange, because many of its errors are mere perversions of what was accurately pointed by an other hand. On the page above referred to, Dr. Bullions, in copying from Lennie's syntactical exercises _a dozen consecutive lines_, has omitted _nine needful commas_, which Lennie had been careful to insert!

[465] Needless abbreviations, like most that occur in this example, are in _bad taste_, and _ought to be avoided_. The great faultiness of this text as a model for learners, compels me to vary the words considerably in suggesting the correction. See the _Key_.--G. B.

[466] "To be, or not to be?--that's the question."--_Hallock's Gram._, p. 220. "To be, or not to be, that is the question."--_Singer's Shak._, ii. 488. "To be, or not to be; that is the Question."--_Ward's Gram._, p 160. "To be, or not to be, that is the Question."--_Brightland's Gram._, p 209. "To be, or not to be?"--_Mandeville's Course of Reading_, p. 141. "To be or not to be! That is the question."--_Pinneo's Gram._, p. 176. "To _be_--or _not_ to be--_that_ is the question--"--_Burgh's Speaker_, p. 179.

[467] In the works of some of our older poets, the apostrophe is sometimes irregularly inserted, and perhaps needlessly, to mark a prosodial synsæresis, or synalepha, where no letter is cut off or left out; as,

"Retire, or taste thy _folly'_, and learn by proof, Hell-born, not to contend with _spir'its_ of Heaven." --_Milton, P. L._, ii, 686.

In the following example, it seems to denote nothing more than the open or long sound of the preceding vowel _e_:

"That sleep and feeding may prorogue his honour, Even till a _lethe'd_ dulness." --_Singer's Shakspeare_, Vol. ii, p. 280.

[468] The breve is properly a mark of _short quantity_, only when it is set over an unaccented syllable or an unemphatic monosyllable, as it often is in the scanning of verses. In the examples above, it marks the close or short power of the _vowels_; but, _under the accent_, even this power may become part of a _long syllable_; as it does in the word _rav´en_, where the syllable _rav_, having twice the length of that which follows, must be reckoned _long_. In poetry, _r=av-en_ and _r=a-ven_ are both _trochees_, the former syllable in each being long, and the latter short.

[469] 1. The signs of long and short sounds, and especially of the former, have been singularly slow in acquiring _appropriate names_--or any appellatives suited to their nature, or such as could obtain the sanction of general use. The name _breve_, from the French _brève_, (which latter word came, doubtless, originally from the neuter of the Latin adjective _brevis_, short,) is now pretty generally applied to the one; and the Greek term _macron_, long, (also originally a neuter adjective,) is perhaps as common as any name for the other. But these are not quite so well adapted to each other, and to the things named, as are the substitutes added above.

2. These signs are explained in our grammars under various names, and often very unfit ones, to say the least; and, in many instances, their use is, in some way, awkwardly stated, without any attempt to name them, or more than one, if either. The Rev. T. Smith names them "Long (=), and Short (~)."--_Smith's Murray_, p. 72. Churchill calls them "The _long_ = and the _short_ ~."--_New Gram._, p. 170. Gould calls them "a horizontal line" and "a curved line."--_Gould's Adam's Gram._, p. 3. Coar says, "Quantity is distinguished by the characters of - long, and ~ short."--_Eng. Gram._, p. 197. But, in speaking of the _signs_, he calls them, "_A long syllable_ =," and "_A short syllable_ ~."--_Gram._, pp. 222 and 228. S. S. Greene calls them "the _long sound_," and "the _breve_ or _short sound_."--_Gram._, p. 257. W. Allen says, "The _long-syllable mark_, (=) and the _breve_, or _short-syllable mark_, (~) denote the quantity of _words_ poetically employed."--_Gram._, p. 215. Some call them "the _Long Accent_," and "the _Short Accent_;" as does _Guy's Gram._, p. 95. This naming seems to confound accent with quantity. By some, the _Macron_ is improperly called "a _Dash_;" as by _Lennie_, p. 137; by _Bullions_, p. 157; by _Hiley_, p. 123; by _Butler_, p. 215. Some call it "a _small dash_;" as does _Well's_, p. 183; so _Hiley_, p. 117. By some it is absurdly named "_Hyphen_;" as by _Buchanan_, p. 162; by _Alden_, p. 165; by _Chandler_, 183; by _Parker and Fox_, iii, 36; by _Jaudon_, 193. Sanborn calls it "the _hyphen_, or _macron_."--_Analyt. Gr._, p. 279. Many, who name it not, introduce it to their readers by a "_this_ =," or "_thus_ ~;" as do _Alger, Blair, Dr. Adam, Comly, Cooper, Ingersoll, L. Murray, Sanders, Wright_, and others!

[470] "As soon as language proceeds, from mere _articulation_, to coherency, and connection, _accent_ becomes the guide of the voice. It is founded upon an obscure perception of symmetry, and proportion, between the different sounds that are uttered."--_Noehden's Grammar of the German Language_, p. 66.

[471] According to Johnson, Walker, Webster, Worcester, and perhaps all other lexicographers, _Quantity_, in grammar, is--"The measure of _time_ in pronouncing a _syllable_." And, to this main idea, are conformed, so far as I know, all the different definitions ever given of it by grammarians and critics, except that which appeared in Asa Humphrey's English Prosody, published in 1847. In this work--the most elaborate and the most comprehensive, though not the most accurate or consistent treatise we have on the subject--_Time_ and _Quantity_ are explained separately, as being "_two distinct things_;" and the latter is supposed not to have regard to _duration_, but solely to the _amount_ of sound given to each syllable.

This is not only a fanciful distinction, but a radical innovation--and one which, in any view, has little to recommend it. The author's explanations of both _time_ and _quantity_--of their characteristics, differences, and subdivisions--of their relations to each other, to poetic numbers, to emphasis and cadence, or to accent and non-accent--as well as his derivation and history of "these technical terms, _time_ and _quantity_"--are hardly just or clear enough to be satisfactory. According to his theory, "Poetic numbers are composed of _long_ and _short_ syllables alternately;" (page 5;) but the difference or proportion between the times of these classes of syllables he holds to be _indeterminable_, "because their lengths are various." He began with destroying the proper distinction of quantity, or time, as being _either long or short_, by the useless recognition of an indefinite number of "_intermediate lengths_;" saying of our syllables at large, "some are LONG, some SHORT, and some are of INTERMEDIATE LENGTHS; as, _mat, not, con_, &c. are short sounds; _mate, note, cone_, and _grave_ are long. Some of our diphthongal sounds are LONGER STILL; as, _voice, noise, sound, bound_, &c. OTHERS are seen to be of INTERMEDIATE _lengths_."--_Humphrey's Prosody_, p. 4.

On a scheme like this, it must evidently be impossible to determine, with any certainty, either what syllables are _long_ and what _short_, or what is the difference or ratio between _any two_ of the innumerable "lengths" of that time, or quantity, which is _long, short, variously intermediate_, or _longer still_, and again _variously intermediate_! No marvel then that the ingenious author scans some lines in a manner peculiar to himself.

[472] It was the doctrine of Sheridan, and perhaps of our old lexicographers in general, that no English word can have more than one _full accent_; but, in some modern dictionaries, as Bolles's, and Worcester's, many words are marked as if they had two; and a few are given by Bolles's as having three. Sheridan erroneously affirmed, that "_every word_ has an accent," even "all monosyllables, the particles alone excepted."--_Lecture on Elocution_, pp. 61 and 71. And again, yet more erroneously: "The _essence_ of English words consisting in accent, as that of syllables in articulation; we know that there are _as many syllables as we hear articulate sounds_, and _as many words as we hear accents_."-- _Ib._, p. 70. Yet he had said before, in the same lecture: "The longer polysyllables, have frequently _two accents_, but one is so much stronger than the other, as to shew that it is but one word; and the inferior accent is always less forcible, than any accent that is the single one in a word."--_Ib._, p. 31. Wells defines accent as if it might lie on _many_ syllables of a word; but, in his examples, he places it on no more than one: "_Accent_ is _the stress_ which is laid on _one or more syllables_ of a word, in pronunciation; as, re_ver_berate, under_take_."--_Wells's School Gram._, p. 185. According to this loose definition, he might as well have accented at least one other syllable in each of these examples; for there seems, certainly, to be some little stress on _ate_ and _un_. For sundry other definitions of accent, see Chap. IV, Section 2d, of _Versification_; and the marginal note referring to Obs. 1st on _Prosody_.

[473] According to Dr. Rush, Emphasis is--"a stress of voice on one or more words of a sentence, distinguishing them by intensity or peculiarity of meaning."--_Philosophy of the Voice_, p. 282. Again, he defines thus: "Accent is the fixed but inexpressive distinction of syllables _by quantity and stress_: alike both in place and nature, whether the words are pronounced singly from the columns of a vocabulary, or connectedly in the series of discourse. _Emphasis_ may be defined to be the _expressive_ but occasional distinction of a syllable, and consequently of the whole word, by one or more of the specific modes of _time, quality, force_, or _pitch_."--_Ibid._

[474] 1. This doctrine, though true in its main intent, and especially applicable to the poetic quantity of _monosyllables_, (the class of words most frequently used in English poetry,) is, perhaps, rather too strongly stated by Murray; because it agrees not with other statements of his, concerning the power of _accent_ over quantity; and because the effect of accent, as a "regulator of quantity," _may_, on the whole, be as great as that of emphasis. Sheridan contradicts himself yet more pointedly on this subject; and his discrepancies may have been the efficients of Murray's. "The _quantity_ of our syllables is perpetually varying with the sense, and is _for the most part regulated by_ EMPHASIS."--_Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram._, p. 65. Again: "It is by the ACCENT _chiefly_ that the _quantity_ of our syllables is regulated."--_Sheridan's Lectures on Elocution_, p. 57. See Chap. IV, Sec. 2d, Obs. 1; and marginal note on Obs. 8.

2. Some writers erroneously confound _emphasis_ with _accent_; especially those who make accent, and not quantity, the foundation of verse. Contrary to common usage, and to his own definition of accent, Wells takes it upon him to say, "The term _accent_ is also applied, in poetry, to the stress laid on monosyllabic words; as,

'Content is _wealth, the riches of the mind.'--Dryden_." --_Wells's School Grammar_, p. 185.

It does not appear that stress laid on monosyllables is any more fitly termed accent, when it occurs in the reading of poetry, than when in the utterance of prose. Churchill, who makes no such distinction, thinks accent essential alike to emphasis and to the quantity of a long vowel, and yet, as regards monosyllables, dependent on them both! His words are these: "Monosyllables are sometimes accented, sometimes not. This depends chiefly on _their_ being _more or less emphatic_; and on the vowel _sound_ being _long or short_. We cannot give _emphasis_ to any word, or it's [_its_] proper duration to a _long vowel_, without _accenting_ it."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 182.

[475] Not only are these inflections denoted occasionally by the accentual marks, but they are sometimes expressly _identified with accents_, being called by that name. This practice, however, is plainly objectionable. It confounds things known to be different,--mere stress with elevation or depression,--and may lead to the supposition, that to accent a syllable, is to inflect the voice upon it. Such indeed has been the guess of many concerning the nature of Greek and Latin accents, but of the English accent, the common idea is, that it is only a greater force distinguishing some one syllable of a word from the rest. Walker, however, in the strange account he gives in his Key, of "what we mean by _the accent and quantity_ of our own language," charges this current opinion with error, dissenting from Sheridan and Nares, who held it; and, having asserted, that, "in speaking, the voice is continually _sliding_ upwards or downwards," proceeds to contradict himself thus: "As high and low, loud and soft, forcible and feeble, are comparative terms, words of one syllable pronounced alone, and without relation to other words or syllables, _cannot be said to have any_ ACCENT. The only distinction to which such words are liable, is an _elevation or depression_ of voice, when we compare the beginning with the end of the word or syllable. Thus a monosyllable, considered singly, rises from a lower to a higher tone in the question _Nó? which_ may therefore be called _the acute_ ACCENT: and falls from a higher to a lower tone upon the same word in the answer _Nò, which_ may therefore be called _the grave_ [ACCENT]."--_Walker's Key_, p. 316. Thus he tells of different accents on "_a monosyllable_," which, by his own showing, "cannot be said to have any accent"! and others read and copy the text with as little suspicion of its inconsistency! See _Worcester's Universal and Critical Dictionary_, p. 934.

[476] In Humphrey's English Prosody, _cadence_ is taken for the reverse of _accent_, and is obviously identified or confounded with _short quantity_, or what the author inclines to call "_small_ quantity." He defines it as follows: "Cadence is the reverse or counterpart _to_ accent; a falling or depression of voice on syllables unaccented: _and by which_ the sound is shortened and depressed."--P. 3. This is not exactly what is generally understood by the word _cadence_. Lord Kames also contrasts _cadence_ with _accent_; but, by the latter term, he seems to have meant something different from our ordinary accent. "Sometimes to humour the sense," says he, "and sometimes the melody, a particular syllable is sounded _in a higher tone_; and this is termed _accenting a syllable_, or gracing it with an accent. Opposed to the accent, is the _cadence_, which I have not mentioned as one of the requisites of verse, because it is entirely regulated by the sense, and hath no peculiar relation to verse."--_Elements of Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 78.

[477] The Latin term, (made plural to agree with _verba, words_,) is _subaudita, underheard_--the perfect participle of _subaudio_, to _underhear_. Hence the noun, _subauditio, subaudition_, the recognition of ellipses.

[478] "Thus, in the Proverbs of all Languages, many Words are usually left to be supplied from the trite obvious Nature of what they express; as, _out of Sight out of Mind; the more the merrier_, &c."--_W. Ward's Pract. Gram._, p. 147.

[479] Lindley Murray and some others say, "As _the ellipsis occurs in almost every sentence in the English language_, numerous examples of it might be given."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 220; _Weld's_, 292; _Fisk's_, 147. They could, without doubt, have exhibited many true specimens of Ellipsis; but most of those which they have given, are only fanciful and false ones; and their notion of the frequency of the figure, is monstrously hyperbolical.

[480] Who besides Webster has called syllepsis "_substitution_," I do not know. _Substitution_ and _conception_ are terms of quite different import, and many authors have explained syllepsis by the latter word. Dr. Webster gives to "SUBSTITUTION" two meanings, thus: "1. The act of putting one person or thing in the _place_ of another to _supply_ [his or] _its_ place.--2. In _grammar_, syllepsis, or the use of one word for another."--_American Dict._, 8vo. This explanation seems to me inaccurate; because it confounds both substitution and syllepsis with _enallage_. It has signs of carelessness throughout; the former sentence being both tautological and ungrammatical.--G. B.

[481] Between Tropes and Figures, some writers attempt a full distinction; but this, if practicable, is of little use. According to Holmes, "TROPES affect only single _Words_; but FIGURES, whole _Sentences_."--_Rhetoric_, B. i, p. 28. "The CHIEF TROPES in Language," says this author, "are seven; a _Metaphor_, an _Allegory_, a _Metonymy_, a _Synecdoche_, an _Irony_, an _Hyperbole_, and a _Catachresis_."--_Ib._, p. 30. The term _Figure_ or _Figures_ is more comprehensive than _Trope_ or _Tropes_; I have therefore not thought it expedient to make much use of the latter, in either the singular or the plural form. Holmes's seven tropes are all of them defined in the main text of this section, except _Catachresis_, which is commonly explained to be "an _abuse_ of a trope." According to this sense, it seems in general to differ but little from impropriety. At best, a Catachresis is a forced expression, though sometimes, perhaps, to be indulged where there is great excitement. It is a sort of figure by which a word is used in a sense different from, yet connected with, or analogous to, its own; as,

"And pity, like a naked new-born babe, Striding the blast, as heaven's cherubim _Hors'd_ upon the sightless _couriers_ of the air, Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye, That tears shall drown the wind."--_Shak., Macbeth_, Act i, Sc. 7.

[482] Holmes, in his Art of Rhetoric, writes this word "_Paraleipsis_" retaining the Greek orthography. So does Fowler in his recent "English Grammar," §646. Webster, Adam, and some others, write it "_Paralepsis_." I write it as above on the authority of Littleton, Ainsworth, and some others; and this is according to the analogy of the kindred word _ellipsis_, which we never write either _ellepsis_, or, as the Greek, _elleipsis_.

[483] To this principle there seems to be now and then an exception, as when a weak dissyllable begins a foot in an anapestic line, as in the following examples:--

"I think--let me see--yes, it is, I declare, As long _ago now_ as that Buckingham there."--_Leigh Hunt_.

"And Thomson, though best in his indolent fits, Either slept himself weary, or blasted his wits."--_Id._

Here, if we reckon the feet in question to be anapests, we have dissyllables with both parts short. But some, accenting "_ago_" on the latter syllable, and "_Either_" on the former, will call "_ago now_" a bacchy, and "_Either slept_" an amphimac: because _they make them such_ by their manner of reading.--G. B.

[484] "Edgar A. Poe, the author, died at Baltimore on Sunday" [the 7th].--_Daily Evening Traveller_, Boston Oct. 9, 1849. This was eight or ten months after the writing of these observations.--G. B.

[485] "Versification is the art of arranging words into lines of correspondent length, so as to produce harmony by the regular alternation of syllables differing in quantity"--_Brown's Institutes of E. Gram._, p. 235.

[486] This appears to be an error; for, according to Dilworth, and other arithmeticians, "_a unit is a number_;" and so is it expounded by Johnson, Walker, Webster, and Worcester. See, in the _Introduction_, a note at the foot of p. 117. Mulligan, however, contends still, that _one is no number_; and that, "to talk of the _singular number_ is absurd--a contradiction in terms;"--because, "in common discourse," a "_number_" is "always a _plurality_, except"--when it is "_number one_!"--See _Grammatical Structure of the E. Language_, §33. Some prosodists have taught the absurdity, that two feet are necessary to constitute _a metre_, and have accordingly applied the terms, _monometer, dimeter, trimeter, tetrameter, pentameter_, and _hexameter_,--or so many of them as they _could so misapply_,--in a sense very different from the usual acceptation. The proper principle is, that, "One foot constitutes a metre."--_Dr. P. Wilson's Greek Prosody_, p. 53. And verses are to be denominated _Monometer, Dimeter, Trimeter_, &c., according to "THE NUMBER OF FEET."--See _ib._ p. 6. But Worcester's Universal and Critical Dictionary has the following not very consistent explanations: "MONOMETER, _n._ One metre. _Beck_. DIMETER, _n._ A poetic measure of _four feet_; a _series of two_ meters. _Beck_. TRIMETER, _a_. Consisting of three poetical _measures_, forming an _iambic_ of _six feet_. _Tyrwhitt_. TETRAMETER, _n._ A Latin or Greek verse consisting of _four feet_; a series of four metres. TETRAMETER, _a_. Having _four_ metrical _feet_. _Tyrwhitt_. PENTAMETER, _n._ A Greek or Latin verse of _five feet_; a series of five metres. PENTAMETER, _a_. Having _five_ metrical _feet_. _Warton_. HEXAMETER, _n._ A verse or line of poetry, having _six feet_, either dactyls or spondees; the heroic, and most important, verse among the Greeks and Romans;--a rhythmical series of six metres. HEXAMETER, _a_. Having _six_ metrical _feet_. _Dr. Warton_." According to these definitions, Dimeter has as many feet as Tetrameter; and Trimeter has as many as Hexameter!

[487] It is common, at any rate, for prosodists to speak of "the _movement_ of the voice," as do Sheridan, Murray, Humphrey, and Everett; but Kames, in treating of the Beauty of Language from Resemblance, says "There is _no resemblance_ of sound to motion, nor of sound to sentiment."--_Elements of Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 63. This usage, however, is admitted by the critic, had cited to show how, "causes that have no resemblance may produce resembling effects."--_Ib._ 64. "By a number of syllables in succession, an emotion is sometimes raised extremely similar to that raised by successive motion: which may be evident even to those who are defective in taste, from the following fact, that the term _movement_ in all languages is equally applied to both."--_Ib._ ii. 66.

[488] "From what has been said of accent and quantity in our own language, we may conclude them to be essentially distinct _and perfectly separable_: nor is it to be doubted that they were _equally separable_ in the learned languages."--_Walkers's Observations on Gr. and Lat. Accent and Quantity_, §20; Key, p. 326. In the speculative essay here cited, Walker meant by _accent_ the rising or the falling _inflection_,--an upward or a downward _slide_ of the voice: and by _quantity_, nothing but the open or close sound of some vowel; as of "the _a_ in _scatter_" and in "_skater_," the initial syllables of which words be supposed to differ in quantity as much as any two syllables can!--_Ib._, §24; Key, p. 331. With these views _of the things_, it is perhaps the less to be wondered at, that Walker, who appears to have been a candid and courteous writer, charges "that excellent scholar Mr. Forster--with a _total ignorance_ of the accent and quantity of his own language," (_Ib., Note on §8_; Key, p. 317;) and, in regard to accent, ancient or modern, elsewhere confesses his own ignorance, and that of every body else, to be _as_ "_total_." See marginal note on Obs. 4th below.

[489] (1.) "We shall now take a view of sounds when united into _syllables_. Here a beautiful variation of _quantity_ presents itself as the next object of our attention. The knowledge of _long_ and _short_ syllables, is the most excellent and most neglected quality in the whole art of pronunciation.

The disputes of our modern writers on this subject, have arisen chiefly from an absurd notion that has long prevailed; viz. that there is no difference between the _accent_ and the _quantity_, in the English language; that the accented syllables are always _long_, and the unaccented always _short_.

An absurdity so glaring, does not need refutation. Pronounce any one line from Milton, and the ear will determine whether or not the accent and quantity always coincide. Very seldom they do."--HERRIES: _Bicknell's Gram._, Part ii, p. 108.

(2.) "Some of our Moderns (especially Mr. _Bishe_, in his _Art of Poetry_) and lately Mr. _Mattaire_, in what he calls, _The English Grammar_, erroneously use _Accent_ for _Quantity_, one signifying the Length or Shortness of a Syllable, the other the raising or falling of the Voice in _Discourse_."--_Brightland's Gram._, London, 1746, p. 156.

(3.) "Tempus cum accentu a nonnullis malè confunditur; quasi idem sit acui et produci. Cum brevis autem syllaba acuitur, elevatur quidem vox in eà proferendà, sed tempus non augetur. Sic in voce _hominibus_ acuitur _mi_; at _ni_ quæ sequitur, æquam in efferendo moram postulat."--_Lily's Gram._, p. 125. Version: "By some persons, _time_ is improperly confounded with _accent_; as if to acute and to lengthen were the same. But when a short syllable is acuted, the voice indeed is raised in pronouncing it, but the time is not increased. Thus, in the word _hominibus, mi_ as the acute accent; but _ni_, which follows, demands equal slowness in the pronunciation." To English ears, this can hardly seem a correct representation; for, in pronouncing _hominibus_, it is not _mi_, but _min_, that we accent; and this syllable is manifestly as much longer than the rest, as it is louder.

[490] (1.) "Syllables, with respect to their _quantity_, are either _long, short_, or _common_."--_Gould's Adam's Lat. Gram._, p. 243. "Some syllables are _common_; that is, sometimes long, and sometimes short."--_Adam's Lat. and Eng. Gram._, p. 252. _Common_ is here put for _variable_, or _not permanently settled in respect to quantity_: in this sense, from which no third species ought to be inferred, our language is, perhaps, more extensively "_common_" than any other.

(2.) "Most of our Monosyllables either take this Stress or not, according as they are more or less emphatical; and therefore English Words of one Syllable may be considered as _common_; i.e. either as long or short in certain Situations. These Situations are chiefly determined by the Pause, or Cesure, of the Verse, and this Pause by the Sense. And as the English abounds in Monosyllables, there is probably no Language in which the Quantity of Syllables is more regulated by the Sense than in English."--_W. Ward's Gram._, Ed. of 1765, p. 156.

(3.) Bicknell's theory of quantity, for which he refers to Herries, is this: "The English _quantity_ is divided into _long, short_, and _common_. The longest species of syllables are those that end in a vowel, and are under the accent; as, _mo_ in har_mo_nious, _sole_ in con_sole_, &c. When a monosyllable, which is unemphatic, ends in a vowel, it is always short; but when the emphasis is placed upon it, it is always long. _Short_ syllables are such as end in any of the six mutes; as cu_t_, sto_p_, ra_p_i_d_, ru_g_ge_d_, lo_ck_. In _all such syllables_ the sound cannot be lengthened: they are necessarily and invariably _short_. If another consonant intervenes between the vowel and mute, as re_nd_, so_ft_, fla_sk_, the syllable is rendered _somewhat longer_. The other species of syllables called _common_, are such as terminate in a half-vowel or aspirate. For instance, in the words ru_n_, swi_m_, cru_sh_, pu_rl_, the concluding sound can be continued or shortened, as we please. This scheme of quantity," it is added, "is founded on fact and experience."--_Bicknell's Gram._, Part ii, p. 109. But is it not a _fact_, that such words as _cuttest, stopping, rapid, rugged_, are _trochees_, in verse? and is not _unlock_ an _iambus_? And what becomes of syllables that end with vowels or liquids and are not accented?

[491] I do not say the mere absence of stress is _never_ called _accent_; for it is, plainly, the doctrine of some authors that the English accent differs not at all in its nature from the accent of the ancient Greeks or Romans, which was distinguished as being of three sorts, _acute, grave, inflex_; that "the stronger breathing, or higher sound," which distinguishes one syllable of a word from or above the rest, is _the acute accent_ only; that "the softer breathing, or lower sound," which belongs to an _unacuted_ (or _unaccented_) syllable, is _the grave accent_; and that a combination of these two sounds, or "breathings," upon one syllable, constitutes the _inflex or circumflex accent_. Such, I think, is the teaching of Rev. William Barnes; who further says, "English verse is constructed upon sundry orders of _acute and grave accents_ and matchings of rhymes, while the poetic language of the Romans and Greeks is formed upon rules of the sundry clusterings of _long and short syllables_."--_Philological Grammar_, p. 263. This scheme is not wholly consistent, because the author explains accent or accents as being applicable only to "words of two or more syllables;" and it is plain, that the accent which includes the three sorts above, must needs be "some other thing than what we call accent," if this includes only the acute.

[492] Sheridan used the same comparison, "To illustrate the difference between the accent of the ancients and that of _ours_" [our tongue]. Our accent he supposed, with Nares and others, to have "no reference to _inflections_ of the voice."--See _Art of Reading_, p. 75; _Lectures on Elocution_, p. 56; _Walker's Key_, p. 313.

[493] (1.) It may in some measure account for these remarkable omissions, to observe that Walker, in his lexicography, followed Johnson in almost every thing but pronunciation. On this latter subject, his own authority is perhaps as great as that of any single author. And here I am led to introduce a remark or two touching _the accent and quantity_ with which he was chiefly concerned; though the suggestions may have no immediate connexion with the error of confounding these properties.

(2.) Walker, in his theory, regarded the _inflections_ of the voice as pertaining to _accent_, and as affording a satisfactory solution of the difficulties in which this subject has been involved; but, as an English orthoëpist, he treats of accent in no other sense, than as _stress laid on a particular syllable of a word_--a sense implying contrast, and necessarily dividing all syllables into accented and unaccented, except monosyllables. Having acknowledged our "_total ignorance_ of the nature of the Latin and Greek accent," he adds: "The accent of the English language, which is constantly sounding in our ears, and every moment open to investigation, seems _as much a mystery_ as that accent which is removed almost two thousand years from our view. Obscurity, perplexity, and confusion, run through every treatise on the subject, and nothing could be so hopeless as an attempt to explain it, did not a circumstance present itself, which at once accounts for the confusion, and affords a clew to lead us out of it. Not one writer on accent has given such a definition of the voice as acquaints us with its essential properties. * * * But let us once divide the voice into its rising and falling inflections, the obscurity vanishes, and accent becomes as intelligible as any other part of language. * * * On the present occasion it will be sufficient to observe, that _the stress we call accent_ is as well understood as is necessary for the pronunciation of single words, which is the object of this treatise."--_Walker's Dict._, p. 53, _Princip._ 486, 487, 488.

(3.) Afterwards, on introducing _quantity_, as an orthoëpical topic, he has the following remark: "In treating this part of pronunciation, it will not be necessary to enter into the nature of _that quantity which constitutes poetry_; the quantity here considered will be that which relates to words taken singly; and this is _nothing more than the length or shortness of the vowels_, either as they stand alone, or as they are differently combined with the vowels or consonants." _Ib._, p. 62, _Princip._ 529. Here is suggested a distinction which has not been so well observed by grammarians and prosodists, or even by Walker himself, as it ought to have been. So long as the practice continues of denominating certain mere _vowel sounds_ the _long_ and the _short_, it will be very necessary to notice that these are not the same as the _syllabic quantities_, long and short, which constitute English verse.

[494] (1.) In the Latin and Greek languages, this is not commonly supposed to be the case; but, on the contrary, the quantity of syllables is professedly adjusted by its own rules independently of what we call accent; and, in our English pronunciation of these languages, the accentuation of all long words is regulated by the quantity of the last syllable but one. Walker, in the introduction to his Key, speaks of "The English pronunciation of Greek and Latin [as] injurious to quantity." And no one can deny, that we often accent what are called short syllables, and perhaps oftener leave unaccented such as are called long; but, after all, were the quantity of Latin and Greek syllables always judged of by their actual time, and not with reference to the vowel sounds called long and short, these our violations of the old quantities would be found much fewer than some suppose they are.

(2.) Dr. Adam's view of the accents, acute and grave, appears to be peculiar; and of a nature which may perhaps come nearer to an actual identity with the quantities, long and short, than any other. He says,

"1. The _acute_ or _sharp_ accent raises the voice in pronunciation, and is thus marked [´]; _prófero, prófer_. [The English word is written, not thus, but with two Effs, _proffer_.--G. B.]

"2. The _grave_ or _base_ accent depresses the voice, or keeps it in its natural tone; and is thus marked [`]; as, doctè. [Fist] _This accent properly belongs to all syllables which have no other_.

"The accents are hardly ever marked in English books, except in dictionaries, grammars, spelling-books, or the like, where the acute accent only is used. The accents are likewise seldom marked in Latin books, unless for the sake of distinction; as in these adverbs, _aliquò, continuò, doctè, unà_, &c."--_Adam's Latin and English Grammar_, p. 266.

(3.) As stress naturally lengthens the syllables on which it falls, if we suppose the grave accent to be the opposite of this, and to belong to all syllables which have no peculiar stress,--are not enforced, not acuted, not circumflected, not emphasized; then shall we truly have an accent with which our short quantity may fairly coincide. But I have said, "the mere absence of stress, which produces short quantity, we do not call _accent_;" and it may be observed, that the learned improver of Dr. Adam's Grammar, B. A. Gould, has totally rejected all that his predecessor taught concerning _accent_, and has given an entirely different definition of the thing. See marginal notes on page 771, above. Dr. Johnson also cites from _Holder_ a very different explanation of it, as follows: "_Accent_, as in the Greek names and usage, seems to have regarded the tune of the voice; the acute accent, raising the voice in some certain syllables, to a higher, (_i.e._ more acute) pitch or tone; and the grave, depressing it lower; [Fist] _and both having some emphasis_, i.e. _more vigorous pronunciation_. HOLDER."--_Johnson's Quarto Dict., w. Accent_.

[495] (1.) "Amongst them [the ancients,] we know that accents were marked by certain _inflexions_ [inflections] of the voice like musical notes; and the grammarians to this day, with great formality inform their pupils, that the acute accent, is the raising [of] the voice on a certain syllable; the grave, a depression of it; and the circumflex, a raising and depression both, in one and the same syllable. _This jargon they constantly preserve_, though they have no sort of ideas annexed to these words; for if they are asked to shew how this is to be done, they cannot tell, and their practice always belies their precept."--_Sheridan's Lectures on Eloc._, p. 54.

(2.) "It is by the accent chiefly that the quantity of our syllables is regulated; but not according to the _mistaken rule_ laid down by _all who have written_ on the subject, that the accent _always makes the syllable long_; than which _there cannot be any thing more false_."--_Ib._, p. 57.

(3.) "And here I cannot help taking notice of a circumstance, which shews in the strongest light, the _amazing deficiency_ of those, who have hitherto employed their labours on that subject, [accent, or pronunciation,] _in point of knowledge_ of the true genius and constitution of our tongue. Several of the compilers of dictionaries, vocabularies, and spelling books, have undertaken to mark the accents of our words; but so _little acquainted_ were they with the nature of our accent, that they thought it necessary only to mark _the syllable_ on which the stress is to be laid, without marking the _particular letter_ of the syllable to which the accent belongs."--_Ib._, p. 59.

(4.) "The mind thus taking a bias under the prejudice of false rules, never arrives at a knowledge of the true nature of _quantity_; and accordingly we find that _all attempts hitherto_ to settle the prosody of our language, have been vain and fruitless."--_Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram._, p. 52.

[496] In the following extract, this matter is stated somewhat differently: "The _quantity_ depends upon the seat of the accent, whether it be on the vowel or [on the] consonant; if on the vowel, the syllable is necessarily long: as it makes the vowel long; if on the consonant, _it may be either long or short_, according to the nature of the consonant, or _the time taken up_ in dwelling upon it."--_Sheridan's Lectures on Eloc._, p. 57. This last clause shows the "distinction" to be a very weak one.--G. BROWN.

[497] "If the consonant be in its nature a short one, the syllable is necessarily short. If it be a long one, that is, one whose sound is capable of being lengthened, it _may be long or short_ at the will of the speaker. By a short consonant I mean one whose sound cannot be continued after a vowel, such as c or k p t, as ac, ap, at--whilst that of long consonants _can_, as, el em en er ev, &c."--_Sheridan's Lectures on Elocution_, p. 58. Sheridan here forgets that "_bor'row_" is one of his examples of short quantity.

Murray admits that "accent on a _semi-vowel_" may make the syllable long; and his semivowels are these: "_f, l, m, n, r, v, s, z, x_, and _c_ and _g_ soft." See his _Octavo Gram._, p. 240 and p. 8.

[498] On account of the different uses made of the breve, the macron, and the accents, one grammarian has proposed a new mode of marking poetic quantities. Something of the kind might be useful; but there seems to be a reversal of order in this scheme, the macrotone being here made light, and the stenotone dark and heavy. "Long and short syllables have _sometimes_ been designated by the same marks _which_ are used for accent, tones, and the quality of the vowels; but it will be better[,] to prevent confusion[,] to use different marks. This mark º may represent a long syllable, and this · a short syllable; as,

· · ° · · ° · · ° · ° 'At the close of the day when the hamlet is still.'" --_Perley's Gram._, p. 73. [no · over 'let', sic--KTH]

[499] _Dr. Adam's Gram._, p. 267; _B. A. Gould's_, 257. The Latin word _cæsura_ signifies "_a cutting_, or _division_." This name is sometimes Anglicized, and written "_Cesure_." See _Brightland's Gram._, p. 161; or _Worcester's Dict., w. Cesure_.

[500] "As to the long quantity arising from the succession of two consonants, which the ancients are uniform in asserting, if it did not mean that the preceding vowel was to lengthen its sound, _as we should do_ by pronouncing the _a_ in _scatter_ as we do in _skater_, (one who skates,) _I have no conception of what it meant_; for if it meant that only the _time of the syllable_ was prolonged, the vowel retaining the same sound, I must confess as ut er [sic--KTH] an inability of _comprehending this source_ of quantity in the Greek and Latin as in English."--_Walker on Gr. and L. Accent_, §24; Key, p. 331. This distinguished author seems unwilling to admit, that the consonants occupy time in their utterance, or that other vowel sounds than those which _name_ the vowels, can be protracted and become long; but these are _truths_, nevertheless; and, since every letter adds _something_ to the syllable in which it is uttered, it is by consequence a "_source of quantity_," whether the syllable be long or short.

[501] Murray has here a marginal note, as follows: "Movement and measure are thus distinguished. _Movement_ expresses the progressive order of sounds, whether from strong to weak, from long to short, or vice versa. _Measure_ signifies the proportion of time, both in sounds _and pauses_."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 259. This distinction is neither usual nor accurate; though Humphrey adopts it, with slight variations. Without some species of _measure_,--Iambic, Trochaic, Anapestic, Dactylic, or some other,--there can be no regular _movement_, no "progressive _order_ of sounds." Measure is therefore too essential to movement to be in contrast with it. And the movement "from _strong_ to _weak_, from _long_ to _short_," is but one and the same, a _trochaic_ movement; its reverse, the movement, "_vice versa_," from _weak_ to _strong_, or from _short_ to _long_, is, of course, that of _iambic_ measure. But Murray's doctrine is, that _strong_ and _long, weak_ and _short_, may be separated; that _strong_ may be _short_, and _weak_ be _long_; so that the movement from _weak_ to _strong_ may be from _long_ to _short_, and _vice versa_: as if a trochaic movement might arise from iambic measure, and an iambic movement from trochaic feet! This absurdity comes of attempting to regulate the _movement_ of verse by accent, and not by quantity, while it is admitted that quantity, and not accent, forms the _measure_, which "signifies _the proportion of time_." The idea that _pauses belong to measure_, is an other radical error of the foregoing note. There are more pauses in poetry than in prose, but none of them are properly "_parts_" of either. Humphrey says truly, "_Feet_ are the _constituent parts_ of verse."--_English Prosody_, p. 8. But L. Murray says, "_Feet and pauses_ are the constituent parts of verse."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 252. Here Sheridan gave bias. Intending to treat of verse, and "the pauses peculiarly belonging to it," the "_Cæsural_" pause and the "_Final_," the rhetorician had _improperly_ said, "The constituent _parts_ of verse are, feet, and pauses."--_Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram._, p. 64.

[502] "But as many Ways as Quantities may be varied by Composition and Transposition, so many different Feet have the _Greek_ Poets contriv'd, and that under distinct Names, from two to six Syllables, to the Number of 124. But it is the Opinion of some Learned Men in this Way, that Poetic Numbers may be sufficiently explain'd by those of two or three Syllables, into which the rest are to be resolv'd."--_Brightland's Grammar_, 7th Ed., p. 161.

[503] "THE BELLS OF ST. PETERSBURGH."

"Those ev'ning bells, those ev'ning bells, _How_ many a tale their music tells!"--_Moore's Melodies_, p. 263.

This couplet, like all the rest of the piece from which it is taken, is iambic verse, and to be divided into feet thus:--

"Those ev' | -ning bells, | those ev' | -ning bells, How man | -y a tale | their mu | -sic tells!"

[504] Lord Kames, too, speaking of "English Heroic verse," says: "Every line consists of ten syllables, _five short and five long_; from which [rule] there are but two exceptions, both of them rare."--_Elements of Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 89.

[505] "The Latin is a far more _stately_ tongue than our own. It is essentially _spondaic_; the English is as essentially _dactylic_. The _long_ syllable is the spirit of the Roman (and Greek) verse; the _short_ syllable is the essence of ours."--_Poe's Notes upon English Verse; Pioneer_, Vol. i, p. 110. "We must search for _spondaic words_, which, in English, are rare indeed."--_Ib._, p. 111.

[506] "There is a rule, in Latin prosody, that a vowel _before two consonants_ is long. We moderns have not only no such rule, but profess inability to comprehend its _rationale_."--_Poe's Notes: Pioneer_, p. 112.

[507] The opponents of capital punishment will hardly take this for a fair version of the sixth commandment.--G. B.

[508] These versicles, except the two which are Italicized, are _not iambic_. The others are partly trochaic; and, according to many of our prosodists, wholly so; but it is questionable whether they are not as properly amphimacric, or Cretic.

[509] See exercises in Punctuation, on page 786, of this work.--G. B.

[510] The Seventieth Psalm is the same as the last five verses of the Fortieth, except a few unimportant differences of words or points.

[511] It is obvious, that these two lines may easily be reduced to an agreeable stanza, by simply dividing each after the fourth foot--G. B.

[512] In Sanborn's Analytical Grammar, on page 279th, this couplet is ascribed to "_Pope_;" but I have sought in vain for this quotation, or any example of similar verse, in the works of that poet. The lines, one or both of them, appear, _without reference_, in _L. Murray's Grammar, Second Edition_, 1796, p. 176, and in subsequent editions; in _W. Allen's_, p. 225; _Bullions's_, 178; _N. Butler's_, 192; _Chandler's New_, 196; _Clark's_, 201; _Churchill's_, 187; _Cooper's Practical_, 185; _Davis's_, 137; _Farnum's_, 106; _Felton's_, 142; _Frazee's_, 184; _Frost's_, 164; _S. S. Greene's_, 250; _Hallock's_, 244; _Hart's_, 187; _Hiley's_, 127; _Humphrey's Prosody_, 17; _Parker and Fox's Gram._, Part iii, p. 60; _Weld's_, 211; _Ditto Abridged_, 138; _Wells's_, 200; _Fowler's_, 658; and doubtless in many other such books.

[513] "Owen succeeded his father Griffin in the principality of North Wales, A. D. 1120. This battle was fought near forty years afterwards. North Wales is called, in the fourth line, '_Gwyneth_;' and 'Lochlin,' in the fourteenth, is Denmark."--_Gray_. Some say "Lochlin," in the Annals of Ulster, means Norway.--G. B.

[514] "The red dragon is the device of Cadwallader, which all his descendants bore on their banners."--_Gray_.

[515] This passage, or some part of it, is given as a trochaic example, in many different systems of prosody. Everett ascribes it entire to "_John Chalkhill_;" and Nutting, more than twenty years before, had attached the name of "_Chalkhill_" to a part of it. But the six lines "of three syllables," Dr. Johnson, in his Grammar, credits to "_Walton's Angler_;" and Bicknell, too, ascribes the same to "_Walton_." The readings also have become various. Johnson, Bicknell, Burn, Churchill, and Nutting, have "_Here_" for "_Where_" in the fifth line above; and Bicknell and Burn have "_Stop_" in the eighth line, where the rest read "_Stops_." Nutting has, for the ninth line, "_Others'_ joys," and not, "_Other_ joys," as have the rest.--G. B.

[516] OBS.--Of this, and of every other example which requires no amendment, let the learner simply say, after reading the passage, "This sentence is correct as it stands."--G. BROWN.

[517] OBSERVATION.--In the Bible, the word LORD, whenever it stands for the Hebrew name JEHOVAH, not only commences with a full capital, but has small or half capitals for the other letters; and I have thought proper to print both words in that manner here. In correcting the last example, I follow Dr. Scott's Bible, except in the word "_God_," which he writes with a small _g_. Several other copies have "_first_" and "_last_" with small initials, which I think not so correct; and some distinguish the word "_hosts_" with a capital, which seems to be needless. The sentence here has eleven capitals: in the Latin Vulgate, it has but six, and one of them is for the last word, "_Deus_," God.--G. B.

[518] OBS.--This construction I dislike. Without hyphens, it is improper; and with them it is not to be commended. See Syntax, Obs 24th on Rule IV.--G. B.

[519] On the page here referred to, the author of the Gazetteer has written "_Charles city_," &c. Analogy requires that the words be compounded, because they constitute three names which are applied to _counties_, and not to _cities_.

[520] OBS.--The following words, _as names of towns_, come under Rule 6th, and are commonly found correctly compounded in the books of Scotch geography and statistics; "Strathaven, Stonehaven, Strathdon, Glenluce, Greenlaw, Coldstream, Lochwinnoch, Lochcarron, Loehmaber, Prestonpans, Prestonkirk, Peterhead, Queensferry, Newmills," and many more like them.

[521] Section OBS.--This name, in both the Vulgate and the Septuagint, is _Pharao Nechao_, with two capitals and no hyphen. Walker gives the two words separately in his Key, and spells the latter _Necho_, and not _Nechoh_. See the same orthography in _Jer._, xlvi, 2. In our common Bibles, many such names are needlessly, if not improperly, compounded; sometimes with one capital, and sometimes with two. The proper manner of writing Scripture names, is too little regarded even by good men and biblical critics.

[522] "[Marcus] Terentius Varro, vir Romanorum eruditissimus."--QUINTILIAN. Lib. x, Cap. 1, p. 577.

[523] NOTE.--By this amendment, we remove a multitude of errors, but the passage is still very faulty. What Murray here calls "_phrases_," are properly _sentences_; and, in his second clause, he deserts the terms of the first to bring in "_my_," "_our_," and also "_&c._," which seem to be out of place there.--G. BROWN.

[524] _An other_ is a phrase of two words, which ought to be written separately. The transferring of the n to the latter word, is a gross vulgarism. Separate the words, and it will be avoided.

[525] _Mys-ter-y_, according to Scott and Cobb; _mys-te-ry_, according to Walker and Worcester.

[526] Kirkham borrowed this doctrine of "Tonics, Subtonics, and Atonies," from Rush: and dressed it up in his own worse bombast. See Obs. 13 and 14, on the Powers of the Letters.--GB.

[527] There is, in most English dictionaries, a contracted form of this phrase, written _prithee_, or _I prithee_; but Dr. Johnson censures it as "a familiar _corruption_, which some writers have _injudiciously_ used;" and, as the abbreviation amounted to nothing but the slurring of one vowel sound into an other, it has now, I think, very deservedly become obsolete.--G. BROWN.

[528] This is the doctrine of Murray, and his hundred copyists; but it is by no means generally true. It is true of adverbs, only when they are connected by conjunctions; and seldom applies to _two_ words, unless the conjunction which may be said to connect them, be suppressed and understood.--G. BROWN.

[529] Example: "Imperfect articulation comes not so much from bad _organs_, as from the abuse of good ones."--_Porter's Analysis_. Here _ones_ represents _organs_, and prevents unpleasant repetition.--G. BROWN.

[530] From the force of habit, or to prevent the possibility of a false pronunciation, these ocular contractions are still sometimes carefully made in printing poetry; but they are not very important, and some modern authors, or their printers, disregard them altogether. In correcting short poetical examples, I shall in general take no particular pains to distinguish them from prose. All needful contractions however will be preserved, and sometimes also a capital letter, to show where the author commenced a line.

[531] The word "_imperfect_" is not really necessary here; for the declaration is true of _any phrase_, as this name is commonly applied.--G. BROWN.

[532] A _part of speech_ is a _sort of words_, and not _one word only_. We cannot say, that every pronoun, or every verb, is _a part of speech_, because the parts of speech are _only ten_. But every pronoun, verb, or other word, is _a word_; and, if we will refer to this genus, there is no difficulty in defining all the parts of speech in the singular, with _an_ or _a_: as, "A _pronoun_ is _a word_ put for _a noun_." Murray and others say, "_An Adverb_ is _a part of speech_," &c., "A _Conjunction_ is _a part of speech_," &c., which is the same as to say, "_One adverb_ is _a sort of words_," &c. This is a palpable absurdity.--G. BROWN.

[533] The propriety of this conjunction, "_nor_," is somewhat questionable: the reading in both the Vulgate and the Septuagint is--"_they, and_ their wives, _and_ their sons, _and_ their daughters."

[534] All our lexicographers, and all accurate authors, spell this word with an _o_; but the gentleman who has furnished us with the last set of _new terms_ for the science of grammar, writes it with an _e_, and applies it to the _verb_ and the _participle_. With him, every verb or participle is an "_asserter_;" except when he forgets his creed, as he did in writing the preceding example about certain "_verbs_." As he changes the names of all the parts of speech, and denounces the entire technology of grammar, perhaps his innovation would have been sufficiently broad, had he for THE VERB, the most important class of all, adopted some name which he knew how to spell.--G. B.

[535] It would be better to omit the word "_forth_," or else to say--"whom I _brought forth from_ the land of Egypt." The phrase, "_forth out of_," is neither a very common nor a very terse one.--G. BROWN.

[536] This _doctrine_, that participles divide and specify time, I have elsewhere shown to be erroneous.--G. BROWN.

[537] Perhaps it would be as well or better, in correcting these two examples, to say, "There _are_ a generation." But the article _a_, as well as the literal form of the noun, is a sign of unity; and a complete uniformity of numbers is not here practicable.

[538] Though the pronoun _thou_ is not much used in _common discourse_, it is as proper for the grammarian to consider and show, what form of the verb belongs to it _when it is so used_, as it is for him to determine what form is adapted to any other pronoun, when a difference of style affects the question.

[539] "_Forgavest_," as the reading is in our common Bible, appears to be wrong; because the relative _that_ and its antecedent _God_ are of the third person, and not of the second.

[540] All the corrections under this head are directly contrary to the teaching of William S. Cardell. Oliver B. Peirce, and perhaps some other such writers on grammar; and some of them are contrary also to Murray's late editions. But I am confident that these authors teach erroneously; that their use of indicative forms for mere suppositions that are contrary to the facts, is positively ungrammatical; and that the potential imperfect is less elegant, in such instances, than the simple subjunctive, which they reject or distort.

[541] This is what Smith must have _meant_ by the inaccurate phrase, "_those_ in the first." For his first example is, "He went to school;" which contains only the _one_ pronoun "He."--See _Smith's New Gram._, p. 19.

[542] According to modern usage, _has_ would here be better than _is_,--though _is fallen_ is still allowable.--G. BROWN.

[543] From this opinion, I dissent. See Obs. 1st on the Degrees of Comparison, and Obs. 4th on Regular Comparison, in the Etymology of this work, at pp. 279 and 285.--G. BROWN.

[544] "The country _looks beautiful_;'" that is, _appears_ beautiful--_is_ beautiful. This is right, and therefore the use which Bucke makes of it, may be fairly reversed. But the example was ill chosen; and I incline to think, it may also be right to say, "The country _looks beautifully_;" for the _quality_ expressed by _beautiful_, is nothing else than the _manner_ in which the thing _shows_ to the eye. See Obs. 11th on Rule 9th.--G. BROWN.

[545] Many examples and authorities may be cited in favour of these corrections; as, "He acted independently _of_ foreign assistance."-- _Murray's Key, Gram._, Vol. ii, p. 222. "Independently _of_ any necessary relation."--_Murray's Gram._, Vol. i. p. 275. "Independently _of_ this peculiar mode of construction."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 473. "Independent _of_ the will of the people."--_Webster's Essays_, p. 13. "Independent one _of_ an other."--_Barclay's Works_, i, 84. "The infinitive is often independent _of_ the rest of the sentence."--_Lennie's Gram._, p. 85. "Some sentences are independent _of_ each other."--_Murray's Gram._, i, 277. "As if it were independent _of_ it"--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 186. "Independent of appearance and show."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 13.

[546] The preposition _of_ which Jefferson uses before _about_, appears to me to be useless. It does not govern the noun _diameter_, and is therefore no substitute for the _in_ which I suppose to be wanting; and, as the preposition _about_ seems to be sufficient between _is_ and _feet_, I omit the _of_. So in other instances below.--G. BROWN.

[547] Murray, Jamieson, and others, have this definition with the article "a," and the comma, but without the hyphen: "APOSTROPHE is _a turning off_ from the regular course," &c. See errors under Note 4th to Rule 20th.

[548] This sentence may be written correctly in a dozen different ways, with precisely the same meaning, and very nearly the same words. I have here made the noun _gold_ the object of the verb _took_, which in the original appears to govern the noun _treasure_, or _money_, understood. The noun _amount_ might as well be made its object, by a suppression of the preposition _to_. And again, for "_pounds' weight_," we may say, "_pounds in_ weight." The words will also admit of many other positions.--G. BROWN.

[549] See a different reading of this example, cited as the first item of false syntax under Rule 16th above, and there corrected differently. The words "_both of_," which make the difference, were probably added by L. Murray in some of his _revisals_; and yet it does not appear that this popular critic ever got the sentence _right_.--G. BROWN.

[550] "If such maxims, and such practices prevail, what _has become_ of national liberty?"--_Hume's History_. Vol. vi, p. 254; _Priestley's Gram._, p. 128.

[551] According to my notion, _but_ is never a preposition; but there are some who think otherwise.--G. BROWN.

[552] "Cùm vestieris te coccino, cùm ornata fueris monili aureo, et _pinxeris stibio oculos tuos_, frustra componêris."--_Vulgate_. "[Greek: Eàn peribálæ[i] kókkinon, kaì kosm'æsæ[i] kósmw[i] chrys~w[i]· eàn egchrísæ[i] stíbi toùs ophthalmoús sou eìs mátaion wraïsmós sou.]"--_Septuagint_. "Quoique tu te revêtes de pourpre, que tu te pares d'ornemens d'or, et _que tu te peignes les yeux avec du fard_, tu t'embellis en vain."--_French Bible_.

[553] The word "_any_" is here omitted, not merely because it is _unnecessary_, but because "_every any other piece_,"--with which a score of our grammarians have pleased themselves,--is not good English. The impropriety might perhaps be avoided, though less elegantly, by _repeating the preposition_, and saying,--"or _of_ any other piece of writing."--G. BROWN.

[554] This correction, as well as the others which relate to what Murray says of the several forms of ellipsis, doubtless conveys the sense which he intended to express; but, as an assertion, it is by no means true of all the examples which he subjoins, neither indeed are the rest. But that is a fault of his which I cannot correct.--G. BROWN.

[555] The article _may_ be repeated in examples like these, without producing _impropriety_; but then it will alter the construction of the adjectives, and render the expression more formal and emphatic, by suggesting a repetition of the noun.--G. BROWN.

[556] "The whole number of verbs in the English language, regular and irregular, simple and compounded, taken together, is about 4300."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 59; _Murray's_, 12mo, p. 98; 8vo, p. 109; _et al._

[557] In Singer's Shakspeare, Vol. ii, p. 495, this sentence is expressed and pointed thus: "O, shame! where is thy blush?"--_Hamlet_, Act III, Sc. 4. This is as if the speaker meant, "O! it is a shame! where is thy blush?" Such is not the sense above; for there "_Shame_" is the person addressed.

[558] If, in each of these sentences, the colon were substituted for the latter semicolon, the curves might well be spared. Lowth has a similar passage, which (bating a needful variation of guillemets) he pointed thus: "_as_ ----, _as_; expressing a comparison of equality; '_as_ white _as_ snow:' _as_ ----, _so_; expressing a comparison sometimes of equality; '_as_ the stars, _so_ shall thy seed be;' that is, equal in number: but" &c.--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 109. Murray, who broke this passage into paragraphs, retained at first these semicolons, but afterwards changed them _all_ to colons. Of later grammarians, some retain the former colon in each sentence; some, the latter; and some, neither. Hiley points thus: "_As_ requires _as_, expressing equality; as, 'He is _as_ good _as_ she.'"--_Hiley's E. Gram._, p. 107.

End of Project Gutenberg's The Grammar of English Grammars, by Goold Brown