diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-23 09:38:23 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-23 09:38:23 -0800 |
| commit | f9ec8d084893b14d334671a614a3f5342629b7dd (patch) | |
| tree | f6d8011a47a84a7a513a36ab44a214c3c72603da | |
| parent | cb3341c85e7409e4b2ee14c69401ad441d75fc0f (diff) | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/64554-0.txt | 13239 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/64554-0.zip | bin | 240511 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/64554-h.zip | bin | 431727 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/64554-h/64554-h.htm | 17993 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/64554-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 171580 -> 0 bytes |
8 files changed, 17 insertions, 31232 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ffce5fa --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #64554 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/64554) diff --git a/old/64554-0.txt b/old/64554-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 4604261..0000000 --- a/old/64554-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,13239 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Etymology and Syntax of the English -Language, by Alexander Crombie - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Etymology and Syntax of the English Language - Explained and Illustrated - -Author: Alexander Crombie - -Release Date: February 14, 2021 [eBook #64554] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -Produced by: Turgut Dincer, John Campbell and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was - produced from images generously made available by The Internet - Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX OF THE -ENGLISH LANGUAGE *** - - - - - TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE - - Italic text is denoted by _underscores_. - - Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been - placed at the end of the book. - - Contractions such as ’tis are displayed as in the original text, - so they sometimes have a space (’t is). - - Several letters from Old English (Anglo-Saxon) and the Insular script - are used. These will display on this device as: - - ð eth - þ thorn - ħ h with stroke - ꝼ insular f - ꞃ insular r - ꞅ insular s - ꞇ insular t - - There are several words and phrases in Greek and Hebrew. These may - display imperfectly on some devices. - - The many tables in this book are best viewed using a monospace font. - - Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book. - - - - - THE - - ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX - - OF THE - - ENGLISH LANGUAGE - - EXPLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED. - - - BY THE REV. ALEX. CROMBIE, - LL.D. F.R.S. M.R.S.L. AND F.Z.S. - - - SEVENTH EDITION. - - - LONDON: - SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO., - STATIONERS’ HALL COURT. - - 1853. - - - - - LONDON: - GEORGE WOODFALL AND SON, - ANGEL COURT, SKINNER STREET. - - - - -PREFACE - -TO THE SECOND EDITION. - - -The success with which the principles of any art or science are -investigated, is generally proportioned to the number of those, whose -labours are directed to its cultivation and improvement. Inquiry is -necessarily the parent of knowledge; error itself, proceeding from -discussion, leads ultimately to the establishment of truth. - -Were we to estimate our progress in the knowledge of English grammar -from the number of works already published on the subject, we should -perhaps be prompted to infer, that in afield so circumscribed, -and at the same time so often and so ably explored, no object -worthy of notice could have escaped attention. And yet in this, as -in every other art or science, strict examination will convince -us, that, though much may have been accomplished, still much -remains, to stimulate the industry, and exercise the ingenuity, of -future inquirers. The author indeed is fully persuaded, that it -is impossible to examine the English language with any degree of -critical accuracy, and not perceive, that its syntactical principles -especially are yet but imperfectly illustrated, and that there are -many of its idioms, which have entirely eluded the attention of our -grammarians. That these defects are all supplied by the present work, -the author is far from having the vanity to believe. That he has -examined a few peculiarities, and elucidated some principles, which -have escaped the observation of other grammarians, he trusts the -intelligent reader will remark. - -The Treatise, the second edition of which now solicits the notice -of the public, is intended chiefly for the improvement of those, -who have made some advancement in classic literature. That an -acquaintance with Greek and Latin facilitates the acquisition -of every other language, and that by a knowledge of these the -classical scholar is therefore materially assisted in attaining -a critical acquaintance with his native tongue, it would argue -extreme perversity to deny. But that an extensive knowledge of Greek -and Latin is often associated with an imperfect and superficial -acquaintance with the principles of the English language, is a -fact, which experience demonstrates, and it would not be difficult -to explain. To make any tolerable progress in a classical course, -without acquiring a general knowledge of English grammar, is -indeed impossible; yet to finish that course, without any correct -acquaintance with the mechanism of the English language, or any -critical knowledge of its principles, is an occurrence neither -singular nor surprising. No language whatever can be critically -learned, but by careful study of its general structure, and peculiar -principles. To assist the classical scholar in attaining a correct -acquaintance with English grammar, is the chief, though not the sole, -end for which the present Treatise was composed. That it is, in some -degree, calculated to answer this purpose, the author, from its -reception, is willing to believe. - -His obligations to his predecessors in the same department of -literature, he feels it his duty to acknowledge. He trusts, at the -same time, that the intelligent reader will perceive, that he has -neither copied with servility nor implicitly adopted the opinions -of others; but has, in every question, exercised his own judgment, -in observance of that respect, which all men owe to truth, and -consistently, he hopes, with that deference, which is confessedly due -to transcendent talents. - -The Treatise, he believes, contains some original observations. That -all of these deserve to be honoured with a favourable verdict in the -court of Criticism, he has neither the presumption to insinuate, -nor the vanity to suppose. If they be found subservient to the -elucidation of any controverted point, be the ultimate decision what -it may, the author will attain his aim. - -The work having been composed amidst the solicitudes and distractions -of a laborious profession, the author has reason to apprehend, that -some verbal inaccuracies may have escaped his attention. But, in -whatever other respects the diction may be faulty, he trusts at -least, that it is not chargeable with obscurity; and that he may be -able to say, in the humble language of the poet, - - ... “Ergo, fungar vice cotis, acutum - Reddere quæ ferrum valet, exsors ipsa secandi.” - _Hor. Art. Poet._ - - Greenwich. - - - - -PREFACE - -TO THE THIRD EDITION. - - -The following work, which has been for some time out of print, having -been favoured with the gratifying approbation of the Rev. Professor -Dale, and selected by that learned and worthy preceptor, as one of -the text books for the class of English literature in the University -of London, a new edition has become necessary. The author’s time -and attention having been recently devoted to another publication, -which was not completed until it became indispensable that this -volume should be sent to press, the only additions here introduced -are such as occurred to the author while the work was proceeding -through the hands of the printer. They will be found, however, to -be in number not inconsiderable; and it is hoped, that in quality -they will be thought not unworthy of the student’s attention. They -consist chiefly of examples of solecism and impropriety, accompanied -with such critical remarks as these errors have suggested, and such -illustrations as they seemed to require. This mode of enlargement -the author has preferred, persuaded of the truth of Dr. Lowth’s -observation, that one of the most successful methods of conveying -instruction is, “to teach what is right, by showing what is wrong.” - - York Terrace, Regent’s Park. - - - - - CONTENTS. - - - INTRODUCTION. - PAGE - - Of Language in general, and the English Alphabet 1 - - - PART I. - - OF ETYMOLOGY 12 - - - CHAPTER I. - - Of the Noun 16 - - - CHAPTER II. - - Of the Article 38 - - - CHAPTER III. - - Of the Pronoun 50 - - - CHAPTER IV. - - Of the Adjective 64 - - - CHAPTER V. - - Of the Verb 77 - - - CHAPTER VI. - - Of the Participle 102 - - - CHAPTER VII. - - Of Adverbs 142 - - - CHAPTER VIII. - - Of Prepositions 145 - - - CHAPTER IX. - - Of Conjunctions 153 - - - CHAPTER X. - - Of Interjections 160 - - - PART II. - - OF SYNTAX 161 - - - PART III. - - CHAPTER I. - - CANONS OF CRITICISM 224 - - - CHAPTER II. - - Critical Remarks and Illustrations. - - SECT. I.--The Noun 236 - - SECT. II.--The Adjective 244 - - SECT. III.--The Pronoun 254 - - SECT. IV.--The Verb 264 - - SECT. V.--The Adverb 284 - - SECT. VI.--The Preposition 290 - - SECT. VII.--The Conjunction 293 - - - - - ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX - - OF - - THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. - - - - -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 sounds, or 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. - -Man, like every other animal, has a natural language intelligible -to all of his own species. This language, however, is extremely -defective, being confined entirely to the general expression of -joy, grief, fear, and the other passions or emotions of the mind; -it is, therefore, wholly inadequate to the purposes of rational -intercourse, and the infinitely-diversified ideas of an intelligent -being. Hence arises the necessity of an artificial or articulate -language; a necessity coeval with the existence of man in his rudest -state, increasing also with the enlargement of his ideas, and the -improvement of his mind. Man, therefore, was formed capable of -speech. Nature has furnished him with the necessary organs, and with -ingenuity to render them subservient to his purposes. And though -at first his vocabulary was doubtless scanty, as his wants were -simple, and his exigencies few, his language and his intellect would -naturally keep pace. As the latter improved, the former would be -enlarged. - -Oral language, we have reason to suppose, continued long to be -the only medium by which knowledge could be imparted, or social -intercourse maintained. But, in the progress of science, various -methods were devised for attaining a more permanent and more -extensive vehicle of thought. Of these, the earliest were, as -some think, picture-writing and hieroglyphics. Visible objects -and external events were delineated by pictures, while immaterial -things were emblematically expressed by figures representative of -such physical objects as bore some conceived analogy or resemblance -to the thing to be expressed. These figures or devices were termed -hieroglyphics[1]. It is obvious, however, that this medium of -communication must not only have embarrassed by its obscurity, but -must have also been extremely deficient in variety of expression. - -At length oral language, by an effort of ingenuity which must ever -command admiration, was resolved into its simple or elementary -sounds, and these were characterized by appropriate symbols[2]. -Words, the signs of thought, came thus to be represented by letters, -or characters arbitrarily formed, to signify the different sounds -of which the words were severally composed. The simplest elementary -part of written language is, therefore, a letter: and the elements or -letters into which the words of any language may be analyzed, form -the necessary alphabet of that language. - -In the English alphabet are twenty-six letters. - - 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. - 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. - -Of these there are six vowels, or letters which by themselves -make every one a perfect sound. The remaining twenty are called -consonants, or letters which cannot be sounded without a vowel. - -This alphabet is both redundant and defective. It is redundant; for -of the vowels, the letters _i_ and _y_ are in sound the same: one of -them therefore is unnecessary. Of the consonants, the articulator -_c_ having sometimes the sound of _k_, and sometimes of _s_, one -of these must be unnecessary. _Q_, having in all cases the sound -of _k_, may likewise be deemed superfluous. _W_ appears to me in -every respect the same with the vowel _u_ (_oo_), and is therefore -supernumerary[3]. The double consonant _x_ might be denoted by the -combination of its component letters, _gs_ or _ks_. - -It is to be observed also, that _g_, when it has the soft sound, is -a double consonant, and performs the same office as the letter _j_; -each having a sound compounded of the sounds of _d_ and the French -_j_. Thus, _g_ in _general_ has the same sound as _j_ in _join_. _J_, -however, is not, as some have supposed, resolvable into two letters, -for we have no character to express the simple sound of the French -_j_, of which, with the consonant _d_, the sound of the English -_j_ is compounded. To resolve it into _dg_, as some have done, is -therefore an error; as the soft _g_, without the aid of the other -consonant, is precisely identical, in respect to sound, with the -consonant _j_. The letter _h_ is no consonant; it is merely the note -of aspiration. - -Our alphabet is likewise defective. There are nine simple vowel -sounds, for which we have only six characters, two of which, as it -has been already observed, perform the same office. The simple vowel -sounds are heard in these words, - - Hall, hat, hate, met, mete, fin, hop, hope, but, full. - -Some of these characters occasionally perform the office of -diphthongs. Thus, in the word _fine_, the vowel _i_ has the -diphthongal sound of the letters _â è_, as these are pronounced in -French; and the vowel _u_ frequently represents the diphthong _eu_ -(e-oo), as fume (fe-oom). - -There are, besides, four different consonants for which we have no -proper letters; namely, the initial consonant in the word _thin_, the -initial consonant in _then_, the sibilating sound of _sh_, and the -final consonant (marked _ng_), as in the word _sing_. - -Consonants are generally divided into mutes and semi-vowels. The -mutes are those which entirely, and at once, obstruct the sound of -the vowel, and prevent its continuation. These are called perfect -mutes. Those which do not suddenly obstruct it are called imperfect -mutes. - -Semi-vowels are those consonants which do not entirely obstruct the -voice: but whose sounds may be continued at pleasure, thus partaking -of the nature of vowels. - -The nature of these consonants I proceed briefly to explain. - -A vowel sound may be continued at pleasure, or it may be terminated, -either by discontinuing the vocal effort, in which case it is not -articulated by any consonant, as in pronouncing the vowel _o_; or by -changing the conformation of the mouth, or relative position of the -organs of speech, so that the vowel sound is lost by articulation, -as in pronouncing the syllable _or_. It is to be observed, also, -that a vowel may be articulated, not only by being terminated by a -consonant, as in the example now given, but likewise by introducing -the sound with that position of the organs, by which it had, in the -former case, been terminated, as in pronouncing the syllable _ro_. - -In pronouncing the consonants, there are five distinguishable -positions of the organs[4]. The first is the application of the -lips to each other, so as to close the mouth. Thus are formed the -consonants _p_, _b_, and _m_. - -In the second position, the under lip is applied to the fore teeth of -the upper jaw; and in this manner we pronounce the consonants _f_ and -_v_. - -The third position is, when the tongue is applied to the fore teeth; -and thus we pronounce _th_. - -In the fourth position we apply the fore part of the tongue to the -fore part of the palate, and by this application we pronounce the -letters _t_, _d_, _s_, _z_, _r_, _l_, _n_. - -The fifth position is, when the middle part of the tongue is applied -to the palate, and thus we pronounce _k_, the hard sound of _g_ (as -in _ga_), _sh_, _j_, and _ng_. - -In the first position we have three letters, of which the most -simple, and indeed the only articulator, being absolutely mute, is -_p_. In the formation of this letter, nothing is required but the -sudden closing of the mouth, and stopping the vowel sound; or the -sound may be articulated by the sudden opening of the lips, in order -to emit the compressed sound of the vowel. - -Now, if instead of simply expressing the vowel sound by opening the -lips, in saying for example _pa_, we shall begin to form a guttural -sound, the position being still preserved; then, on opening the lips, -we shall pronounce the syllable _ba_. The guttural sound is produced -by a compression of the larynx, or windpipe; and is that kind of -murmur, as Bishop Wilkins expresses it, which is heard in the throat, -before the breath is emitted with the vocal sound. _B_, therefore, -though justly considered as a mute, is not a perfect mute. - -The mouth being kept in the same position, and the breath being -emitted through the nostrils, the letter _m_ is produced. - -In the first position, therefore, we have a perfect mute _p_, having -no audible sound; a labial and liquid consonant _m_, capable of a -continued sound; and between these two extremes we have the letter -_b_, somewhat audible, though different from any vocal sound. - -Here, then, are three things to be distinguished. 1st, The perfect -mute, having no sound of any kind: 2dly, The perfect consonant, -having not only a proper, but continued sound: and 3dly, Between -these extremes we find the letter _b_, having a proper sound, but so -limited, that, in respect to the perfect consonant, it may be termed -a mute, and in relation to the perfect mute may be properly termed -imperfect. - -In the second position, we have the letters _f_ and _v_, neither -of which are perfect mutes. The letter _f_ is formed by having the -aspiration not altogether interrupted, but emitted forcibly between -the fore teeth and under lip. This is the simple articulation in this -position. If to this we join the guttural sound, we shall have the -letter _v_, a letter standing in nearly the same relation to _f_, as -_b_ and _m_, in the first position, stand to _p_. The only difference -between _f_ and _v_ is, that, in the former, the compression of the -teeth and under lip is not so strong as in the latter; and that the -former is produced by the breath only, and the latter by the voice -and breath combined. - -The consonant _f_, therefore, though not a mute like _p_, in having -the breath absolutely confined, may notwithstanding be considered as -such, consistently with that principle, by which a mute is understood -to be an aspiration without guttural sound. - -Agreeably to the distinction already made, _v_ may be termed a -perfect consonant, and _f_ an imperfect one, having no proper sound, -though audible. Thus we have four distinctions in our consonantal -alphabet; namely, of perfect and imperfect consonants; perfect and -imperfect mutes: thus, - -_p_ is a perfect mute, having no sound. - -_b_ an imperfect mute, having proper sound, but limited. - -_m_ a perfect consonant, having sound, and continued. - -_f_ an imperfect consonant, having no sound, but audible. - -In the third position we have _th_ as heard in the words _then_ and -_thin_, formed by placing the tip of the tongue between the teeth, -and pressing it against the upper teeth. The only difference between -these articulations is, that like _f_ and _v_, the one is formed by -the breath only, and the other by the breath and voice together[5]. - -Here also may be distinguished the perfect and the imperfect -consonant; for the _th_ in _thin_ has no sound, but is audible, -whereas the _th_ in _this_, _there_, has a sound, and that -continued[6]. - -In the fourth position there are several consonants formed. - -1st, If the breath be stopped, by applying the fore part of the -tongue forcibly to that part of the palate, which is contiguous to -the fore teeth, we produce the perfect mute _t_, having neither -aspiration nor guttural sound. By accompanying this operation of the -tongue and palate with the guttural sound, we shall pronounce the -letter _d_, which, like _b_, of the first position, may be considered -as a mute, though not perfect. For in pronouncing _ed_, the tongue at -first gently touches the gum, and is gradually pressed closer, till -the sound is obstructed; whereas in pronouncing _et_, the tongue is -at once pressed so close, that the sound is instantly intercepted. - -2dly, If the tip of the tongue be turned up towards the upper gum, -so as not to touch it, and thus the breath be cut by the sharp point -of the tongue passing through the narrow chink left between that and -the gum, we pronounce the sibilating sound of _s_. If we accompany -this operation with a guttural sound, as in _b_, _v_, and _th_ in -_then_, we shall pronounce the letter _z_; the same difference -subsisting between _s_ and _z_ as between _f_ and _v_, _p_ and _b_, -_tħ_ and _th_. - -3dly, If we make the tip of the tongue vibrate rapidly between the -upper and lower jaw, so as not to touch the latter, and the former -but gently, we shall pronounce the letter _r_. The more closely and -forcibly the tongue vibrates against the upper jaw, the stronger will -the sound be rendered. It is formed about the same distance from the -teeth as the letter _d_, or rather somewhat behind it. - -4thly, If the end of the tongue be gently applied to the fore part of -the palate, a little behind the seat of the letter _d_, and somewhat -before the place of _r_, and the voice be suffered to glide gently -over the sides of the tongue, we shall pronounce the letter _l_. Here -the breadth of the tongue is contracted, and a space left for the -breath to pass from the upper to the under part of the tongue, in -forming this the most vocal of all the consonants. - -5thly, If the aspirating passage, in the formation of the preceding -consonant, be stopped, by extending the tongue to its natural -breadth, so as to intercept the voice, and prevent its exit by the -mouth, the breath emitted through the nose will give the letter _n_. - -In the fifth position, namely, when we apply the middle or back part -of the tongue to the palate, we have the consonants _k_, _g_, _sh_, -_j_, and _ng_. - -If the middle of the tongue be raised, so as to press closely against -the roof of the mouth, and intercept the voice at once, we pronounce -the letter _k_ (_ek_). If the tongue be not so closely applied at -first, and the sound be allowed to continue a little, we have the -letter _g_ (_eg_). Thus _ek_ and _eg_ bear the same analogy to each -other, as _et_ and _ed_ of the fourth position. If the tongue be -protruded towards the teeth, so as not to touch them, and be kept in -a position somewhat flatter than in pronouncing the letter _s_, the -voice and breath passing over it through a wider chink, we shall have -the sound of _esh_. - -If we apply the tongue to the palate as in pronouncing _sh_, but a -little more forcibly, and accompanying it with the guttural sound, we -shall have the sound of the French _j_. Thus _j_ is in this position -analogous to the letters _b_, _v_, _th_, in the first, second, and -third positions, and is a simple consonant: _j_ in English is a -double consonant, compounded of _d_ and the French _j_, as in _join_. - -If we raise the middle of the tongue to the palate gently, so as -to permit part of the voice to issue through the mouth, forcing -the remainder back through the nose, keeping at the same time the -tongue in the same position as in pronouncing _eg_, we shall have the -articulating sound of _ing_, for which we have no simple character. - -The only remaining letter _h_ is the note of aspiration, formed in -various positions, according to the vowel with which it is combined. - -The characters of the several letters may be seen in the following -table: - - +-------+-----------+-----------+--------+ - |Perfect|Sounded, or| Imperfect | | - | Mutes.| Imperfect.|Consonants.|Perfect.| - +-------+-----------+-----------+--------+ - | P | B | | | - +-------+-----------+-----------+--------+ - | | | | M | - +-------+-----------+-----------+--------+ - | | | F | V | - +-------+-----------+-----------+--------+ - | | | tħ | th the | - +-------+-----------+-----------+--------+ - | T | D | | | - +-------+-----------+-----------+--------+ - | | | S | Z | - +-------+-----------+-----------+--------+ - | | | | R | - +-------+-----------+-----------+--------+ - | | | | L | - +-------+-----------+-----------+--------+ - | | | | N | - +-------+-----------+-----------+--------+ - | K | G | | | - +-------+-----------+-----------+--------+ - | | | Sh |J French| - +-------+-----------+-----------+--------+ - | | | | ng | - +-------+-----------+-----------+--------+ - -What effect the compression of the larynx has in articulation may be -seen by comparing these pairs of consonants: - - With compression. Without compression. - B P - G K - D T - Z S - Th Tħ - V F - J Sh - -These, as Mr. Tooke observes, differ, each from its partner, by a -certain unnoticed and almost imperceptible motion or compression of -or near the larynx. This compression, he remarks, the Welsh never -use. For instead of - - I vow by God, that Jenkin is a wizard; - -they say, - - I fow by Cot, that Shenkin iss a wisart. - -The consonants have been distributed into different classes, -according to the organs chiefly employed in their formation. - - The Labial are eb, ep, ef, ev. - Dental ed, et, etħ, eth. - Palatal eg, ek, el, er, ess, esh, ez, ej. - Nasal em, en, ing. - -The association of two vowels, whether the sound of each be heard or -not, is called a diphthong, and the concurrence of three is called a -triphthong. - -Of diphthongs there are twenty, viz. _ai_, _au_, _ea_, _ee_, -_ei_, _eo_, _eu_, _ie_, _oa_, _oo_, _ui_, _ay_, _ey_, _uy_, _oi_, -_oy_, _ou_, _aw_, _ew_, _ow_. Of the diphthongs seventeen have a -sound purely monophthongal; hence they have been called improper -diphthongs. It would be idle to dispute the propriety of a term -almost universally adopted; but to call that a diphthong whose sound -is monophthongal is an abuse of language, and creates confusion. The -only proper diphthongs in our language are _eu_, _oi_, _ou_, in which -each vowel is distinctly heard, forming together one syllable. The -triphthongs are three, _eau_, _ieu_, _iew_. Of these, the first _eau_ -is sometimes pronounced _eu_, as in _beauty_; sometimes _o_, as in -_beau_: the other two have the diphthongal sound of _eu_. - - - - -PART I. - -ETYMOLOGY. - -OF WORDS IN GENERAL, AND THE PARTS OF SPEECH. - - -A word, in oral language, is either a significant simple sound, or -a significant combination of sounds. In written language, it may -be defined to be a simple character, or combination of characters, -expressive of significant sounds, simple or compound. - -A word of one syllable is called a monosyllable; of two syllables, a -dissyllable; a word of three syllables, a trisyllable; and a word of -more than three syllables is called a polysyllable. The last term, -however, is frequently applied to words exceeding two syllables. - -Words are either derivative or primitive. - -A primitive is that which is formed from no other word, being itself -a root, whence others spring, as _angel_, _spirit_, _school_. - -A derivative is that which is derived from some other word, as -_angelic_, _spiritual_, _scholar_. - -A compound is a word made up of two or more words, as _archangel_, -_spiritless_, _schoolman_. - -In examining the character of words as significant of ideas, we find -them reducible into classes, or denominations, according to the -offices which they severally perform. These classes are generally -called parts of speech; and how many of these belong to language has -long been a question among philosophers and grammarians. Some have -reckoned two, some three, and others four; while the generality have -affirmed, that there are not fewer than eight, nine, or ten[7]. This -strange diversity of opinion has partly arisen from a propensity to -judge of the character of words more from their form, which is a -most fallacious criterion, than from their import or signification. -One thing appears certain, how much soever the subject may have been -obscured by scholastic refinements, that to assign names to objects -of thought, and to express their properties and qualities, are the -only indispensable requisites in language. If this be admitted, it -follows, that the noun and the verb are the only parts of speech -which are essentially necessary; the former being the name of the -thing of which we speak, and the latter, verb, (or _the word_, by way -of eminence,) expressing what we think of it[8]. All other sorts of -words must be regarded as subsidiaries, convenient perhaps for the -more easy communication of thought, but by no means indispensably -requisite. - -Had we a distinct name for every individual object of sensation -or thought, language would then be composed purely of proper -names, and thus become too great a load for any memory to retain. -Language, therefore, must be composed of general signs, that it may -be remembered; and as all our sensations and perceptions are of -single objects, it must also be capable of denoting individuals. -Now, whatever mode be adopted to render general terms significant -of individual objects, or whatever auxiliaries be employed for -this purpose, the general term, with its individuating word, must -be regarded as a substitute for the proper name. Thus _man_ is a -general term to denote the whole of a species; if I say, _the man_, -_this man_, _that man_, it is obvious that the words _the_, _this_, -and _that_, termed definitives, serve, with the general term, as a -substitute for the proper name of the individual. - -Hence it is evident, that those words which are termed definitives, -how useful soever, cannot be regarded as indispensable. - -The pronoun is clearly a substitute for the noun: it cannot therefore -be deemed essential. The adjective expressing merely the property -or quality _in concreto_, without affirmation, may be dispensed -with; the connexion of a substance with a quality or property -being expressible by the noun and the verb. Thus, “a good man” is -equivalent to “a man _of_, _with_, or _having_, goodness.” Adverbs, -which have been termed attributes of the second order, are nothing -but abbreviations, as, _here_, for _in this place_, _bravely_, for -_brave like_. These, therefore, cannot be considered as essentials -in language. In the same manner it might be shown, that all parts -of speech, noun and verb excepted, are either substitutes or -abbreviations, convenient indeed, but not indispensably requisite. -But, as there will be occasion to illustrate this theory, when the -generally received parts of speech are severally examined, it is -unnecessary to enlarge on the subject at present. - -Though the essential parts of speech in every language are only two, -the noun and the verb; yet, as there is in all languages a number of -words not strictly reducible to either of these primary divisions, -it has been usual with grammarians to arrange words into a variety -of different classes. This distribution is partly arbitrary, there -being no definite or universally-received principle, by which to -determine what discriminative circumstances are sufficient to entitle -any species of words to the distinction of a separate order. Hence -grammarians are not agreed concerning the number of these subordinate -classes. But, into whatever number of denominations they may be -distributed, it should be always remembered, that the only necessary -parts of speech are noun and verb; every other species of words being -admitted solely for despatch or ornament. The parts of speech in -English may be reckoned ten: Noun, Article, Pronoun, Adjective, Verb, -Participle, Adverb, Preposition, Conjunction, Interjection. - - - - -CHAPTER I. - -OF THE NOUN. - - -SECTION I. - -Noun (Nomen) is that part of speech which expresses the subject of -discourse, or which is the name of the thing spoken of, as, _table_, -_house_, _river_. - -Of nouns there are two kinds, proper and appellative. - -A proper noun, or name, is the name of an individual, as _Alexander_, -_London_, _Vesuvius_. - -An appellative, or common noun, expresses a genus, or class of -things, and is common or applicable to every individual of that class. - -Nouns or Substantives (for these terms are equivalent) have also been -divided into natural, artificial, and abstract. Of the first class, -_man_, _horse_, _tree_, are examples. The names of things of our own -formation are termed artificial substantives, as, _watch_, _house_, -_ship_. The names of qualities or properties, conceived as existing -by themselves, or separated from the substances to which they belong, -are called abstract nouns; while Adjectives, expressing these -qualities as conjoined with their subjects, are called concretes. -_Hard_, for example, is termed the concrete, _hardness_ the abstract. - -Nouns have also been considered as denoting genera, species, and -individuals. Thus _man_ is a generic term, _an Englishman_ a special -term, and _George_ an individual. Appellative nouns being employed -to denote genera or species, and these orders comprising each many -individuals, hence arises that accident of a common noun, called -Number, by which we signify, whether one or more individuals of any -genus or species be intended. - -In English there are two numbers, the singular and the plural. The -singular, expressing only one of a class or genus, is the noun in -its simple form, as, _river_; the plural, denoting more than one, -is generally formed by adding the letter s to the singular, as, -_rivers_[9]. To this rule, however, there are many exceptions. - -Nouns ending in _ch_, _sh_, _ss_, or _x_, form their plural by adding -the syllable _es_ to the singular number, as, _church, churches_. -Dr. Whately, (Archbishop of Dublin,) in violation of this universal -rule, writes _premiss_ in the singular number, and _premises_ in the -plural. (See his Logic, pp. 25, 26.) _Premise_, like _promise_, is -the proper term, and makes _premises_ in the plural. _Premiss_ and -_premises_ are repugnant to all analogy.--_Ch_ hard takes _s_ for -the plural termination, and not _es_, as _patriarch, patriarchs_; -_distich, distichs_. - -Nouns ending in _f_ or _fe_, make their plural by changing _f_ or -_fe_ into _ves_, as, _calf, calves_; _knife, knives_. Except _hoof_, -_roof_, _grief_, _dwarf_, _mischief_, _handkerchief_, _relief_, -_muff_, _ruff_, _cuff_, _snuff_, _stuff_, _puff_, _cliff_, _skiff_, -with a few others, which in the formation of their plurals follow the -general rule. - -Nouns in _o_ impure form their plural by adding _es_, as, _hero, -heroes_; _echo, echoes_: those which end in _o_ pure, by adding _s_, -as, _folio, folios_. - -Some nouns have their plural in _en_, thus following the Teutonic -termination, as, _ox, oxen_; _man, men_. - -Some are entirely anomalous, as, _die, dice_; _penny, pence_; _goose, -geese_; _sow, swine_; and _brother_ makes _brethren_[10], when -denoting persons of the same society or profession. _Die_, a stamp -for coining, makes _dies_ in the plural. - -_Index_ makes in the plural _indexes_, when it expresses a table of -contents, and _indices_, when it denotes the exponent of an algebraic -quantity. - -Some are used alike in both numbers, as, _hose_[11], _deer_, _sheep_, -these being either singular or plural. - -Nouns expressive of whatever nature or art has made double or plural -have no singular, as, _bowels_, _lungs_, _scissors_, _ashes_, -_bellows_. - -Nouns ending in _y_ impure form their plural by changing _y_ into -_ies_, as _quality, qualities_. - -Nouns purely Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, &c., retain their original -plurals. - - _Sing._ _Pl._ - _Lat._ Arcanum Arcana - _Fr._ Beau Beaux - _Lat._ Erratum Errata - _Fr._ Monsieur Messieurs, Messrs. - _Heb._ Cherub Cherubim - _Heb._ Seraph Seraphim - _Lat._ Magus Magi - _Gr._ Phenomenon Phenomena - _Lat._ Stratum Strata - _Gr._ Automaton Automata - _Lat._ Vortex Vortices - _Lat._ Radius Radii - _Lat._ Genus Genera - _Gr._ Crisis Crises - _Gr._ Emphasis Emphases - _Gr._ Hypothesis Hypotheses - _Lat._ Genius Genii, - -when denoting aërial spirits; but when signifying _men of genius_, -or employed to express the plural of that combination of mental -qualities which constitutes genius, it follows the general rule. - -A proper name has a plural number when it becomes the name of more -individuals than one, as, _the two Scipios_; _the twelve Cæsars_. -It is to be observed, however, that it ceases then to be, strictly -speaking, a proper name. - -Some nouns have no plural. 1st. Those which denote things measured -or weighed, unless when they express varieties, as, _sugar, sugars_; -_wheat, wheats_; _oil, oils_; _wine, wines_. Here, not numbers of -individuals, but different species or classes, are signified. In this -sense the nouns are used plurally. - -2d. Names of abstract, and also of moral qualities, as, _hardness_, -_softness_, _prudence_, _envy_, _benevolence_, have no plural. It -is to be observed, however, that several nouns of this class ending -in _y_, when they do not express the quality or property in the -abstract, but either its varieties or its manifestations, are used -plurally. Thus we say, _levities_, _affinities_, _gravities_, &c. -There may be different degrees and different exhibitions of the -quality, but not a plurality. - -Where displays of the mental quality are to be expressed, it is -better in all cases to employ a periphrasis. Thus, instead of using -with Hume (vol. vii. p. 411) the plural _insolences_, the expression -_acts of insolence_, would be preferable. - -Some of those words which have no singular termination are names of -sciences, as, _mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _politics_, _ethics_, -_pneumatics_, &c. - -Of these, the term _ethics_ is, I believe, considered as either -singular or plural. - -_Mathematics_ is generally construed as plural; sometimes, however, -we find it as singular. “It is a great pity,” says Locke, (vol. iii. -p. 427, 8vo. 1794,) “Aristotle had not understood mathematics, as -well as Mr. Newton, and made use of _it_ in natural philosophy.” - -“But when mathematics,” says Mr. Harris, “instead of being applied -to this excellent purpose, _are_ used not to exemplify logic, but to -supply its place, no wonder if logic pass into contempt.” - -Bacon improperly uses the word as singular and plural in the same -sentence. “If a child,” says he, “be bird-witted, that is, hath -not the faculty of attention, the mathematics _giveth_ a remedy -thereunto; for in _them_, if the wit be caught away but a moment, -one is new to begin.” He likewise frequently gives to some names of -sciences a singular termination; and Beattie, with a few others, -have, in some instances, followed his example. - -“Thus far we have argued for the sake of argument, and opposed -_metaphysic_ to metaphysic.”--_Essay on Truth._ - - “See physic beg the Stagyrite’s defence, - See metaphysic call for aid on sense.”--_Pope._ - -This usage, however, is not general. - -_Metaphysics_ is used both as a singular and plural noun. - -“Metaphysics _has_ been defined, by a writer deeply read in the -ancient philosophy, ‘The science of the principles and causes of all -things existing.’”--_Encyc. Brit._ Here the word is used as singular; -as likewise in the following example: - -“Metaphysics _has_ been represented by painters and sculptors as a -woman crowned and blindfolded, holding a sceptre in her hand, and -having at her feet an hour-glass and a globe.” - -“Metaphysics _is_ that science, in which are understood the -principles of other sciences.”--_Hutton._ - -In the following examples it is construed as a plural noun. - -“Metaphysics _tend_ only to benight the understanding in a cloud of -its own making.”--_Knox._ - -“Here, indeed, lies the justest and most plausible objection against -a considerable part of metaphysics, that _they_ are not properly a -science.”--_Hume._ - -The latter of these usages is the more common, and more agreeable to -analogy. The same observation is applicable to the terms _politics_, -_optics_, _pneumatics_, and other similar names of sciences. - -“But in order to prove more fully that politics _admit_ of general -truths.”--_Hume._ - -Here the term is used as plural. - -_Folk_ and _folks_ are used indiscriminately; but the plural -termination is here superfluous, the word _folk_ implying plurality. - -_Means_ is used both as a singular and plural noun. Lowth recommends -the latter usage only, and admits mean as the singular of means. But -notwithstanding the authority of Hooker, Sidney, and Shakspeare, for -the expressions _this mean_, _that mean_, &c., and the recommendation -they receive from analogy, custom has so long decided in favour of -_means_, repudiating the singular termination, that it may seem, -perhaps, idle, as well as fastidious, to propose its dismission. - -It is likewise observable, that the singular form of this noun is not -to be found in our version of the Bible; a circumstance which clearly -shows, that the translators preferred the plural termination. - -That the noun _means_ has been used as a substantive singular by -some of our best writers, it would be easy to prove by numberless -examples. Let a few suffice. - -“By _this_ means it became every man’s interest, as well as his duty, -to prevent all crimes.”--_Temple_, vol. iii. p. 133. - -“And by _this_ means I should not doubt.”--_Wilkins’s real Character._ - -“He by _that_ means preserves his superiority.”--_Addison._ - -“By _this_ means alone the greatest obstacles will vanish.”--_Pope._ - -“By _this_ means there was nothing left to the parliament of -Ireland.”--_Blackstone_, vol. i. p. 102. - -“Faith is not only _a_ means of obeying, but a principal act of -obedience.”--_Young._ - -“_Every_ means was lawful for the public safety.”--_Gibbon._ - -That this word is also used as plural, the most inattentive English -reader must have frequently observed. - -“He was careful to observe what means _were_ employed by his -adversaries to counteract his schemes.” - -While we offer these examples to show that the term is used either -as a singular or as a plural noun, we would at the same time remark, -that though the expression “a mean” is at present generally confined -to denote “a middle, or medium, between two extremes,” we are -inclined to concur with the learned Dr. Lowth, and to recommend a -more extended use of the noun singular. This usage was common in the -days of Shakspeare. - -“I’ll devise a _mean_ to draw the Moor out of the way.”--_Othello._ - -“Pamela’s noble heart would needs gratefully make known the valiant -_mean_ of her safety.”--_Sidney._ - -“Their virtuous conversation was a _mean_ to work the Heathen’s -conversion unto Christ.”--_Hooker._ - -Melmoth, Beattie, and several other writers, distinguished by their -elegance and accuracy of diction, have adopted this usage. _A means_, -indeed, is a form of expression which, though not wholly unsupported -by analogy, is yet so repugnant to the general idiom of our language, -and seems so ill adapted to denote the operation of a single cause, -that we should be pleased to see it dismissed from use. If we -say, “This was _one of the means_ which he employed to effect his -purpose,” analogy and metaphysical propriety concur in recommending -_a mean_, or _one mean_, as preferable to _a means_. _News_, _alms_, -_riches_, _pains_, have been used as either singular or plural; but -we never say, “one of the news,” “one of the alms,” “one of the -riches,” “one of the pains,” as we say “one of the means;” we may, -therefore, be justified, notwithstanding the authority of general -usage, in pronouncing “a means” a palpable anomaly. - -_News_ is likewise construed sometimes as a singular, and sometimes -as a plural noun. The former usage, however, is far the more general. - -“A general joy at _this_ glad news appeared.”--_Cowley._ - -“No news so bad as _this_ at home.”--_Shakspeare_, _Richard III._ - -“The amazing news of Charles at once _was_ spread.”--_Dryden._ - -“The king was employed in his usual exercise of besieging castles, -when the news _was_ brought of Henry’s arrival.”--_Swift._ - -“The only news you can expect from me _is_ news from heaven.”--_Gay._ - -“_This_ is all the news talked of.”--_Pope._ - -Swift, Pope, Gay, with most other classic writers of that age, seem -to have uniformly used it as singular. - -A few examples occur of a plural usage. - -“When Rhea heard _these_ news.”--_Raleigh_, _Hist. World_. - -“_Are_ there any news of his intimate friend?”--_Smollett._ - -“News _were_ brought to the queen.”--_Hume._ - -The same rule as that just now recommended in regard to the noun -_means_ might perhaps be useful here also, namely, to consider -the word as singular when only one article of intelligence is -communicated, and as plural when several new things are reported. - -_Pains_ is considered as either singular or plural, some of our best -writers using it in either way. This word is evidently of French -extraction, being the same with _peine_, pains or trouble, and was -originally used in a singular form thus, “Which may it please your -highness to take the _payne_ for to write.”--_Wolsey’s Letter to -Henry VIII._ It seems probable, that this word, after it assumed -a plural form, was more frequently used as a singular than as a -plural noun. Modern usage, however, seems to incline the other way. -A celebrated grammarian indeed, has pronounced this noun to be in -all cases plural; but this assertion might be proved erroneous by -numberless examples[12]. - -“The pains they had taken _was_ very great.”--_Clarendon._ - -“Great pains _has_ been taken.”--_Pope._ - -“No pains _is_ taken.”--_Pope._ - -In addition to these authorities in favour of a singular usage, it -may be observed, that the word _much_, a term of quantity, not of -number, is frequently joined with it, as, - -“I found much art and pains employed.”--_Middleton._ - -“He will assemble materials with much pains.”--_Bolingbroke on -History._ - -The word _much_ is never joined to a plural noun; _much labours_, -_much papers_, would be insufferable[13]. - -_Riches_ is generally now considered as a plural noun; though it was -formerly used either as singular or plural. This substantive seems to -have been nothing but the French word _richesse_; and therefore no -more a plural than _gentlenesse, distresse_, and many others of the -same kind. In this form we find it in Chaucer: - - “But for ye spoken of swiche gentlenesse, - As is descended out of old richesse. - And he that ones to love doeth his homage, - Full often times dere bought is the richesse.” - -Accordingly he gives it a plural termination, and uses it as a plural -word. - -“Thou hast dronke so much hony of swete temporal richesses, and -delices, and honours of this world.” - -It seems evident, then, that this word was originally construed -as a substantive singular, and even admitted a plural form. The -orthography varying, and the noun singular assuming a plural -termination, it came in time to be considered by some as a noun -plural. - -In our translation of the Bible, it is construed sometimes as a -singular, but generally as a plural noun. - -“In one hour is so great riches come to nought.”--_Bible._ - -“Riches take to themselves wings, and fly away.”--_Ibid._ - -Modern usage, in like manner, inclines to the plural construction; -there are a few authorities, however, on the other side, as, - -“_Was_ ever riches gotten by your golden mediocrities?”--_Cowley._ - -“The envy and jealousy which great riches _is_ always attended -with.”--_Moyle._ - -_Alms_ was also originally a noun singular, being a contraction of -the old Norman French _almesse_, the plural of which was _almesses_. - -“This almesse shouldst thou do of thy proper things.”--_Chaucer._ - -“These ben generally the almesses and workes of charity.”--_Ibid._ - -Johnson says this word has no singular. It was, in truth, a first a -noun singular, and afterwards, by contraction, receiving a plural -form, it came to be considered by some as a noun plural. Johnson -would have had equal, nay, perhaps, better authority for saying that -this word has no plural. Our translators of the Bible seem to have -considered it as singular. “To ask _an_ alms,” “to give _much_ alms,” -and other similar phraseologies, occur in Scripture. Nay, Johnson -himself has cited two authorities, in which the indefinite article is -prefixed to it. - - ... “My arm’d knees, - Which bow’d but in my stirrup, bend like his - That hath received _an_ alms.”--_Shakspeare._ - -“The poor beggar hath a just demand of _an_ alms from the rich -man.”--_Swift._ - -Lowth objected to the phraseology _a means_, for this reason, that -_means_, being a plural noun, cannot admit the indefinite article, or -name of unity. The objection would be conclusive, if the expressions -_this means, that means_, did not oppose the learned author’s -opinion, that _means_ is a noun plural. To the substantive _alms_, -as represented by Johnson to have no singular, the objection is -applicable. - -_Thanks_ is considered to be a plural noun, though denoting only one -expression of gratitude. It occurs in Scripture as a substantive -singular. “What thank have ye?” - -It has been observed, that many of those words which have no singular -denote things consisting of two parts, and therefore have a plural -termination. Hence the word _pair_ is used with many of them, as, “_a -pair of bellows_, _a pair of scissors_, _a pair of colours_, _a pair -of drawers_.” - - -SECTION II. - -_Of Genders._ - -We not only observe a plurality of substances, or of things of -the same sort, whence arises the distinction of number; but we -distinguish also another character of some substances, which we -call sex. Every substance is either male or female, or neither the -one nor the other. In English, all male animals are considered as -masculine; all female animals as feminine; and all things inanimate, -or destitute of sex, are termed neuter, as belonging neither to the -male nor the female sex. In this distribution we follow the order -of nature; and our language is, in this respect, both simple and -animated. - -The difference of sex is, in some cases, expressed by different -words, as, - - _Masc._ _Fem._ - Boy Girl - Buck Doe - Bull Cow - Bullock Heifer - Boar Sow - Drake Duck - Friar Nun - Gaffer Gammer - Gander Goose - Gelding } Mare - Horse } - Milter Spawner - Nephew Niece - Ram Ewe - Sloven Slut - Stag Hind - Widower Widow - Wizard Witch - -Sometimes the female is distinguished by the termination _ess_ or -_ix_. - - _Masc._ _Fem._ - Abbot Abbess - Actor Actress - Adulterer Adulteress - Ambassador Ambassadress - Arbiter Arbitress - Author Authoress - Baron Baroness - Chanter Chantress - Count Countess - Deacon Deaconess - Duke Duchess - Elector Electress - Emperor Empress - Governor Governess - Heir Heiress - Hunter Huntress - Jew Jewess - Lion Lioness - Marquis Marchioness - Master Mistress - Patron Patroness - Prince Princess - Peer Peeress - Prior Prioress - Poet Poetess - Prophet Prophetess - Shepherd Shepherdess - Sorcerer Sorceress - Traitor Traitress - Tutor Tutress - Tiger Tigress - Viscount Viscountess - -There are a few whose feminine ends in _ix_, viz. - - _Masc._ _Fem._ - Administrator Administratrix - Executor Executrix - Testator Testatrix - Director Directrix - -Where there is but one word to express both sexes, we add another -word to distinguish the sex; as, _he-goat, she-goat_; _man-servant, -maid-servant_; _cock-sparrow, hen-sparrow_. - -It has been already observed, that all things destitute of sex are -in English considered as of the neuter gender; and, when we speak -with logical accuracy, we follow this rule. Sometimes, however, -by a figure in rhetoric, called personification, we assign sex to -things inanimate. Thus, instead of “virtue is _its_ own reward,” we -sometimes say, “virtue is _her_ own reward;” instead of “_it_ (the -sun) rises,” we say, “he rises;” instead of “_it_ (death) advances -with hasty steps,” we say, “_he_ advances.” - -This figurative mode of expression, by which we give life and sex to -things inanimate, and embody abstract qualities, forms a singular -and striking beauty in our language, rendering it in this respect -superior to the languages of Greece and Rome, neither of which -admitted this animated phraseology[14]. - -When we say, - - “The sun _his_ orient beams had shed,” - -the expression possesses infinitely more vivacity than - - “The sun _its_ orient beams had shed.” - -In assigning sex to things inanimate, it has been supposed that -we have been guided by certain characters or qualities in the -inanimate objects, as bearing some resemblance to the distinctive or -characteristic qualities of male and female animals. Thus, it has -been said, that those inanimate substances, or abstract qualities, -which are characterized by the attributes of giving or imparting, -or which convey an idea of great strength, firmness, or energy, are -masculine; and that those, on the contrary, which are distinguished -by the properties of receiving, containing, and producing, or which -convey an idea of weakness or timidity, having more of a passive -than active nature, are feminine. Hence it has been observed, that -the _sun_, _death_, _time_, the names also of great rivers and -mountains, are considered as masculine; and that the _moon_, a -_ship_, the _sea_, _virtue_, in all its species, are considered as -feminine. Of these and such speculations it may be truly said, as the -learned author of them remarks himself, that they are at best but -ingenious conjectures. They certainly will not bear to be rigorously -examined; for there are not any two languages which harmonize in -this respect, assigning the same sex to the same inanimate objects, -nor any one language in which this theory is supported by fact[15]. -Hence it is evident, that neither reason nor nature has any share -in the regulation of this matter; and that, in assigning sex to -inanimate things, the determination is purely fanciful. In Greek, -_death_ is masculine: in Latin, feminine. In those languages the -_sun_ is masculine; in the Gothic, German, Anglo-Saxon, and some -other northern languages, it is feminine; in Russian it is neuter. In -several of the languages of Asia, the _sun_ is feminine. According to -our northern mythology, the sun was the wife of Tuisco. The Romans -considered the winds as masculine; the Hebrews, says Caramuel, -represented them as nymphs. In the Hebrew language, however, they -were of the masculine gender, as were also the _sun_ and _death_. In -short, we know not any two languages which accord in this respect, -or any one language in which sex is assigned to things inanimate -according to any consistent or determinate rule. - -In speaking of animals whose sex is not known to us, or not regarded, -we assign to them gender either masculine or feminine, according, -as it would appear, to the characteristic properties of the animal -himself. In speaking, for example, of the horse, a creature -distinguished by usefulness and a certain generosity of nature, -unless we be acquainted with the sex and wish to discriminate, we -always speak of this quadruped as of the male sex; thus, - - “While winter’s shivering snow affects the horse - With frost, and makes _him_ an uneasy course.”--_Creech._ - -In speaking of a hare, an animal noted for timidity, we assign to -it, if we give it sex, the feminine gender; thus, “the hare is so -timorous a creature, that _she_ continually listens after every -noise, and will run a long way on the least suspicion of danger: so -that _she_ always eats in terror.” - -The elephant is generally considered as of the masculine gender, an -animal distinguished not only by great strength and superiority of -size, but also by sagacity, docility, and fortitude. - - “The elephant has joints, but not for courtesy; - _His_ legs are for necessity, not flexure.”--_Shakspeare._ - -To a cat we almost always assign the female sex; to a dog, on the -contrary, or one of the canine species, we attribute the masculine -gender. - -“A cat, as _she_ beholds the light, draws the ball of _her_ eye small -and long.”--_Peacham on Drawing._ - -“The dog is a domestic animal remarkably various in _his_ species.” - -It would be easy to illustrate, by more examples, this ascription of -either male or female sex to animals, when we speak of them in the -species, or are not acquainted with the sex of the individual; but -these now adduced will, I presume, be sufficient. - -By what principle this phraseology is dictated, or whether it be -merely casual or arbitrary in its origin, it would be of no utility -at present to inquire. It may be necessary, however, to remark that, -when speaking of animals, particularly those of inferior size, we -frequently consider them as devoid of sex. “_It_ is a bold and daring -creature,” says a certain writer, speaking of a cat, “and also cruel -to _its_ enemy; and never gives over, till _it_ has destroyed it, if -possible. _It_ is also watchful, dexterous, swift, and pliable.” - -Before I dismiss this subject, I would request the reader’s -attention to an idiom which seems to have escaped the notice of our -grammarians. It frequently happens, as I have already observed, -that our language furnishes two distinct terms for the male and the -female, as _shepherd, shepherdess_. It is to be observed, however, -that the masculine term has a general meaning, expressing both male -and female, and is always employed, when the office, occupation, -profession, &c., and not the sex of the individual is chiefly to be -expressed; and that the feminine term is used in those cases only, -when discrimination of sex is indispensably necessary. This may be -illustrated by the following examples. If I say, “The poets of this -age are distinguished more by correctness of taste, than sublimity -of conception,” I clearly include in the term _poet_, both male and -female writers of poetry. If I say, “She is the best poetess in this -country,” I assign her the superiority over those only of her own -sex. If I say, “She is the best poet in this country,” I pronounce -her superior to all other writers of poetry, both male and female. -“Spinning,” says Lord Kames in his Sketches, “is a female occupation, -and must have had a female inventor.” If he had said “a female -inventress,” the expression would have been pleonastic. If he had -said “must have had an inventress,” he would not have sufficiently -contrasted the male and the female; he would have merely predicated -the necessity of an inventress. He, therefore, properly adopts the -term _inventor_ as applicable to each of the sexes, limiting it to -the female by the appropriate term[16]. When distinction of sex is -necessary for the sake of perspicuity, or where the sex, rather -than the general idea implied by the term, is the primary object, -the feminine noun must be employed to express the female; thus, “I -hear that some _authoresses_ are engaged in this work.”--_Political -Register._ Here the feminine term is indispensable[17]. This subject -will be resumed in “the Critical Remarks and Illustrations.” - - -SECTION III. - -_Of Cases._ - -The third accident of a noun is case, (_casus_, or fall,) so called -because ancient grammarians, it is said, represented the cases as -declining or falling from the nominative, which was represented by -a perpendicular, and thence called _Casus rectus_, or upright case, -while the others were named _Casus obliqui_, or oblique cases. The -cases, in the languages of Greece and Rome, were formed by varying -the termination; and were intended to express a few of the most -obvious and common relations. - -In English there are only three cases, nominative, genitive, and -objective, or accusative case. In substantives the nominative case -and the objective, have, like neuter nouns in Greek and Latin, the -same form, being distinguishable from each other by nothing but their -place; thus, - - Nom. Obj. - _Achilles slew Hector_, - _Hector slew Achilles_, - -where the meaning is reversed by the interchange of the nouns, the -nominative or agent being known by its being placed before the verb; -and the subject of the action by its following it. Pronouns have -three cases, that is, two inflexions from the nominative, as, _I, -mine, me_; _thou, thine, thee_. - -The genitive in English, by some called the possessive case, is -formed by adding to the nominative the letter s, with an apostrophe -before it, as _king, king’s_. It expresses a variety of relations, -and was hence called by the Greeks the general case[18]. The relation -which it most commonly denotes is that of property or possession, -as, _the king’s crown_; and is, in general, the same with that which -is denoted by the word _of_, as, _the crown of the king_, _the rage -of the tyrant_, _the death of the prince_, equivalent to _the king’s -crown_, _the tyrant’s rage_, _the prince’s death_. - -The nature of the relation which the genitive expresses must, in -some instances, be collected from the scope of the context; for, in -English, as in most other languages, this case frequently involves an -ambiguity. When I say, “neither life nor death shall separate us from -the love of God,” it may mean, either from the love which we owe to -God, or the love which he bears to us; for “God’s love” may denote -either the relation which the affection bears to its subject, or that -which it bears to its object. If the latter be the meaning intended, -the ambiguity may be prevented by saying, “love to God.” - -An ambiguity likewise arises from it, as expressing either the -relation of the effect to its cause, or that of the accident to its -subject. “A little after the reformation of Luther,” says Swift. -This may import either the change produced by Luther, or a change -produced in him. The latter indeed is properly the meaning, though -not that which was intended by the author. He should have said, “the -reformation by Luther.” It is clear, therefore, that the relation -expressed by the genitive is not uniformly the same, that the phrase -may be interpreted either in an active or passive sense[19], and that -the real import must be collected not from the expression, but the -context. - -Mr. Harris has said, that the genitive is formed to express all -relations commencing from itself, and offers the analysis of this -case in all modern languages as a proof. That it expresses more than -this, both in English and Latin, and that it denotes relations, -not only commencing from itself, but likewise directed to itself, -the examples already quoted are sufficient to prove. Nay, were it -necessary, it would be easy to demonstrate, that this ambiguity in -the use of the genitive is not confined to these two languages, but -is found in Greek, Hebrew, Italian, and, I believe, in all the modern -languages of Europe. - -Concerning the origin of the English genitive, grammarians and -critics are not agreed. That the cases, or nominal inflexions, in -all languages were originally formed by annexing to the noun in -its simple form a word significant of the relation intended, is a -doctrine which, I conceive, is not only approved by reason, but -also attested by fact. That any people, indeed, in framing their -language, should affix to their nouns insignificant terminations, -for the purpose of expressing any relation, is a theory extremely -improbable. Numerous as the inflexions are in the Greek and Latin -languages, I am persuaded that, were we sufficiently acquainted with -their original structure, we should find that all these terminations -were at first words significant, subjoined to the _radix_, and -afterwards abbreviated. This opinion is corroborated by the structure -of the Hebrew, and some other oriental languages, whose affixes and -prefixes, in the formation of their cases and conjugation of their -verbs, we can still ascertain. - -Now the English genitive being formed by annexing to the nominative -the letter _s_, with an apostrophe, several critics, among whom is -Mr. Addison, deliver it as their opinion, that this termination is a -contraction for the possessive pronoun _his_. This opinion appears to -be countenanced by the examples which occur in the Bible, and Book -of Common Prayer, in which, instead of the English genitive, we find -the nominative with the possessive pronoun masculine of the third -person; thus, “for Christ his sake,” “Asa his heart was perfect.” Dr. -Lowth considers these expressions as errors either of the printers -or the authors. That they are not typographical mistakes I am fully -persuaded. They occur in the books now mentioned, and also in the -works of Bacon, Donne, and many other writers, much too frequently to -admit this supposition. If errors, therefore, they are errors not of -the printers, but of the authors themselves. - -To evince the incorrectness of this phraseology, and to show that -Addison’s opinion is erroneous, Dr. Lowth observes that, though -we can resolve “the king’s crown” into “the king his crown,” we -cannot resolve “the queen’s crown” into “the queen her crown,” -or “the children’s bread” into “the children their bread.” This -fact, he observes, ought to have demonstrated to Mr. Addison the -incorrectness of his opinion. Lowth, therefore, refers the English -to the Saxon genitive for its real origin, and observes, that its -derivation from that genitive decides the question[20]. Hickes, in -his _Thesaurus_, had previously delivered the same opinion. Speaking -of the Anglo-Saxon genitive in _es_, he observes, “Inde in nostratium -sermone nominum substantivorum, genitivus singularis, et nominativus -pluralis, exeunt in es, vel _s_.” From the introduction of the Saxons -into this island, to the Norman conquest, the Saxon genitive was -in universal use. From the latter period to the time of Henry II. -(1170), though the English language underwent some alterations, we -still find the Saxon genitive. Thus, in a poem, entitled “The Life of -St. Margaret,” in the Normanno-Saxon dialect, we find the following -among other examples, “chrisꞇes angles,” and the pronoun hyꞅ (his) -spelled _is_; thus, “Theodosius was _is_ name.”--See _Hickes_, -_Thes._ vol. i. p. 226. - -Webster has asserted that, in the age of Edward the Confessor (1050), -he does not find the Saxon genitive; and as a proof that the pronoun -_his_ was used instead of the Saxon termination, he quotes a passage -from a charter of Edward the Confessor, where the words, “bissop -his land” occur, which he conceives to be equivalent to “bishop’s -land.” Now, had he read but a small part of that charter, he would -have found the Saxon genitive; and what he imagines to be equivalent -to the English genitive is neither that case, nor synonymous with -it. The passage runs thus: “And ich ke þe eu þat Alfred havet iseld -Gise bissop his land at Llyton;” the meaning of which is, “Know that -Alfred hath sold to Bishop Gise his land at Lutton.” In the time -of Richard II. (1385) we find Trevisa and Chaucer using the Saxon -genitive. Thus, in Trevisa’s translation of the Athanasian creed, we -find among other examples, “Godes sight.” - -In Gavin Douglas, who lived in the beginning of the sixteenth -century, we find _is_ instead of _es_, thus, _faderis hands_. - -In the time of Henry the Eighth we find, in the works of Sir T. More, -both the Saxon and the English genitive; and in a letter, written -in 1559, by Maitland of Lethington, the English genitive frequently -occurs. Had this genitive, then, been an abbreviation for the noun -and the pronoun _his_, the use of the words separately would have -preceded their abbreviated form in composition. This, however, was -not the case. - -To form the genitive plural, we annex the apostrophe without the -letter _s_, as _eagles’ wings_, that is, _the wings of eagles_. The -genitive singular of nouns terminating in _s_, is formed in the same -manner, as, _righteousness’ sake_, or _the sake of righteousness_. - -I finish this article with observing, that there are in English a -few diminutive nouns, so called from their expressing a small one -of the kind. Some of these end in _kin_, from a Dutch and Teutonic -word signifying a _child_, as _manikin_, a little man, _lambkin_, -_pipkin_, _thomkin_. Proper names ending in _kin_ belonged originally -to this class of diminutives, as, _Wilkin_, Willielmulus; _Halkin, -Hawkin_, Henriculus; _Tomkin_, Thomulus; _Simkin_, _Peterkin_, &c. - -Some diminutives end in _ock_, as, _hill, hillock_; _bull, bullock_; -some in _el_, as _pike, pickrel_; _cock, cockrel_; _sack, satchel_; -some in _ing_, as _goose, gosling_. These seem to be the only -legitimate ones, as properly belonging to our language. The rest are -derived from Latin, French, Italian, and have various terminations. - - - - -CHAPTER II. - -OF THE ARTICLE. - - -Language is chiefly composed of general terms, most substantives -being the names of _genera_ or species. When we find a number of -substances resembling one another in their principal and most obvious -qualities, we refer them to one species, to which we assign a name -common to every individual of that species. In like manner, when -we find several of these species resembling one another in their -chief properties, we refer them to a higher order, to which also we -assign a common and more general name than that which was affixed -to the inferior class. Thus we assign the general name _man_ to the -human species, as possessing a common form, and distinguished by the -common attributes of life, reason, and speech. If we consider man as -possessed of life only, we perceive a resemblance in this respect -between him and other beings. To this higher class or genus, the -characteristic attribute of which is vitality, we affix the more -generic name of animal[21]. Hence, when we use an appellative or -common noun, it denotes the genus or class collectively, of which it -is the name, as, - -“The proper study of mankind is man,” _i.e._ not one man, not many -men, but all men. - -Not only, however, has this rule its limitations, though these seem -governed by no fixed principle, but we frequently find the articles -admitted when the whole genus or species is evidently implied. Thus -we may say, - -“Metal is specifically heavier than water;” _i.e._ not this or that -metal, but all metals. But we cannot say, “Vegetable is specifically -lighter than water;” or, “Mineral is specifically heavier than -water.” Again; we say, “Man is born unto trouble;” but we cannot -say, “Tiger is ferocious,” or, “Fox is cunning;” but, “The tiger, -or a tiger, is ferocious;” “The fox, or a fox, is cunning;” the -expressions being applicable to the whole species. It would appear, -indeed, that when proper names assume the office of appellatives, -the reverse of the rule takes place. Thus we say, “A Douglas braves -the pointed steel;” the meaning being “every Douglas.” Suppress the -indefinite article, and the general proposition becomes individual. - -But, though our words are general, all our perceptions are -individual, having single existences for their objects. It is -often necessary, however, to express two, three, or more of these -individual existences; and hence arises the use of that species -of words which have been called numerals, that is, words denoting -number. To signify unity or one of a class, our forefathers employed -_ae_ or _ane_, as _ae man_, _ane ox_. When unity, or the number -one, as opposed to two or more, was to be expressed, the emphasis -would naturally be laid on the word significant of unity; and when -unity was not so much the object as the species or kind, the term -expressive of unity would naturally be unemphatical; and hence -_ae_, by celerity of pronunciation, would become _a_, and _ane_ -be shortened into _an_. These words _a_ and _an_ are now termed -indefinite articles; it is clear, however, that they are truly -numerals, belonging to the same class with two, three, four, &c.; -or, perhaps, more properly, these numerals may be considered as -abbreviations for the repeated expression of the term _one_. By -whatever name these terms, _a_, _an_, may be designed, it seems -evident that they were originally synonymous with the name of unity, -or rather themselves names of unity, emphasis only distinguishing -whether unity or the species were chiefly intended. Hence _a_ and -_an_ cannot be joined with a plural noun. - -Some grammarians, indeed, have asserted that in every example where -_a_ or _an_ occurs, the term _one_ may be substituted in its stead, -without in the least degree injuring the sense. As far as the primary -idea denoted by these words is concerned, this opinion is doubtless -incontrovertible, for they each express unity; but with regard to the -secondary or implied ideas which these terms convey, the difference -is obvious. An example will illustrate this: If I say, “Will one man -be able to carry this burden so far?” I evidently oppose one to more: -and the answer might be, “No; but two men will.” Let us substitute -the term _a_, and say, “Will a man be able to carry this burden?” Is -the idea nowise changed by this alteration? I apprehend it is; for -the answer might naturally be, “No; but a horse will.” I have here -substituted _a_, for _one_; the converse will equally show that the -terms are by no means mutually convertible, or strictly synonymous. -If, instead of saying, “A horse, a horse, a kingdom for a horse,” -I should say, “One horse, one horse, one kingdom for one horse,” -the sentiment, I conceive, would not be strictly the same. In both -expressions the species is named, and in both one of that species -is demanded; but with this difference, that in the former the name -of the species is the emphatic word, and it opposes that species to -every other; in the latter, unity of object seems the leading idea, -“one kingdom for one horse.” In this respect, our language appears to -me to have a decided superiority over those languages where one word -performs the office of what we term an article, and at the same time -denotes the idea of unity. _Donnez-moi un livre_ means either “give -me one book,” _i.e._ not two or more books; or “give me a book,” that -is, “a book, not something else; a book, not a pen,” for example. - -I acknowledge that, in oral language, emphasis may serve to -discriminate the sentiments, and prevent ambiguity. But emphasis is -addressed to the ear only, not to the eye; it can, therefore, be of -no service in written language. It is true also, that by attending to -the context, error may often be avoided; but let it be remembered, -as Quintilian observes[22], that language should be, not such as -the reader may understand if he will take the trouble to examine -it carefully, but such as he cannot even without effort fail to -comprehend. When it is asserted, therefore, that _one_ may in every -case be substituted for _a_, without in the least degree injuring the -expression, the position appears to me erroneous and false. Whatever -creates ambiguity, whether with respect to the primary or secondary -ideas annexed to words, in some degree, without question, violates -the sense. Be it observed also, that, though _a_, _an_, _ae_, _ane_, -_one_, may have been all etymologically the same, it does not follow, -nor is it practically true, as has been now shown, that they are all -precisely equivalent words. In Scotland, the distinction between -_a_ and _ae_ is well known. “Give me _a_ book,” means any book, in -contradistinction to any other object, as “a chair,” “a pen,” “a -knife;” “give me _ae_ book,” is in contradistinction to one or more. -Such also is the difference between _a_ and _one_. - -It seems, therefore, undeniable that the word _a_, termed the -indefinite article, was originally identical with the name of unity, -expressing either one of any species, as opposed to more of that -species, or one of this kind, as opposed to one of that. Whether -the distinction of its noting one or unity, with less emphasis than -the appropriate name of unity, should entitle it to be referred -to a different class of words from the numeral _one_, and called -an article, it is unimportant to inquire. To me, however, I must -acknowledge the distinctive name of article assigned to this word -appears to be useless. Were emphasis to be admitted as the principle -of classification, (and I see no other distinction between _a_ and -_one_,) the parts of speech might be multiplied beyond number. - -Besides the words _a_ and _an_, termed indefinite articles, as not -defining which of the species is signified, we have also another -word, _the_, named the definite article, because it is said to point -out the individual object. This word, I doubt not, proceeded from -the word _this_ or _that_, much in the same manner as _a_ and _an_ -from _ae_ and _ane_. To what class of words _this_ and _that_ should -be referred has been a subject of controversy[23]. That they are not -pronouns, as some have asserted, seems abundantly evident; for they -never represent a noun. By some they have been called definitives; -and, though this designation be not strictly consonant with their -import, it is perhaps the least exceptionable. When opposed to each -other, they appear to be reducible to that species of words termed -adjectives of order; the only difference between them and ordinary -numerals being this, that the former express the arrangement in -relation to two objects, the latter in relation to a series. _This_ -means “the nearer,” “the latter,” or “the second;” _that_, “the more -remote,” “the former,” or “the first.” Their office, in general, -seems to be emphatically to individuate some particular object -whose character was either previously known, or is then described; -hence they have also been named demonstratives. Under which of the -generally received parts of speech they should be comprehended it may -be difficult to determine. As, like simple attributives they accord -with nouns, frequently denoting the accident of place, they may be -grammatically referred to the class of adjectives. Their import will -appear from a few examples. - -“That kind Being who is a father to the fatherless, will recompense -thee for this.” - -Here a species is referred to, distinguished by benevolence. Of -this species one individual is emphatically particularized: “That -kind being.” Who? his distinctive character follows, “is a father -to the fatherless.” The concluding word _this_, points to something -previously described. - - “---- ’T was idly done - To tell him of another world; for wits - Knew better; and the only good on earth - Was pleasure; not to follow _that_ was sin.” - -Here the word _that_ refers with emphasis to a thing previously -specified, namely, pleasure. - -“It is no uncommon thing to find a man who laughs at everything -sacred, yet is a slave to superstitious fears. I would not be that -man, were a crown to tempt me.” Here one indefinitely of a species is -mentioned, _a man_. The subject is afterwards limited by description -to one of a certain character, “who laughs at things sacred, and -is a slave to superstitious fears.” The word _that_ selects and -demonstrates the person thus described. The word _the_ has nearly -the same import; but is less emphatical. It seems to bear the same -analogy to _that_, which _a_ does to _one_. Hence in many cases they -may be used indifferently. - -“Happy the man whose cautious feet shun the broad way that sinners -go.” - -Here, “happy that man” would express the same idea. The Latins -accordingly employed the demonstrative word _ille_; _beatus ille_, -“happy the man.” - -What, then, is the difference between _the_ and _that_? To ascertain -this, let us inquire, in what cases _the_ is employed, and whether -_that_ can be substituted in its stead. - -The word _the_ is employed, - -1st, When we express an object of eminence or notoriety, or the only -one of a kind in which we are interested, as, “the king,” when we -mean “the king of England.” “He was concerned in bringing about the -revolution,” when we mean the revolution in this country. “Virgil -copied the Grecian bard,” or “Homer.” “I am going to the city,” when -I mean “London.” In none of these cases can we substitute _that_ -for _the_, without laying a particular emphasis on the subject, and -implying that its character is there described in contradistinction -to some other of the same species. Thus, “he was concerned in that -revolution, which was accomplished by the English barons.” “He copied -that Grecian bard, who disputes the claim of antiquity with Homer.” - -2dly, We employ it in expressing objects of repeated perception, or -subjects of previous conversation. I borrow an example from Harris. -If I see, for the first time, a man with a long beard, I say, “there -goes a man with a long beard.” If I see him again, I say, “there goes -the man with the long beard.” Were the word _that_ substituted for -_the_, the same observation would be applicable as in the preceding -examples. - -3dly, Mr. Harris has said, that the article _a_ is used to express -objects of primary perception, and _the_ employed to denote those -only of secondary perception. This opinion is controverted by the -author of the article Grammar in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Ed. -3d. who gives the following example to disprove its truth. “I am in -company, and finding the room warm, I say to the servant, Request -_the_ gentleman in the window seat (to whom I am an entire stranger) -to draw down the sash.” The example is apposite, and is sufficient to -overturn the hypothesis of Mr. Harris. There can be no question but -_the_ is frequently employed to denote objects of primary perception; -and merely particularizes, by some discriminating circumstance, -an individual whose character, person, or distinctive qualities, -were previously unknown. In the example now quoted, _that_ may be -substituted for _the_, if we say, “who is in the window seat.” - -4thly, The definite article is used to distinguish the explicative -from the determinative sense. In the former case it is rarely -employed: in the latter it should never be omitted, unless when -something still more definite supplies its place. “Man, who is born -of a woman, is of few days, and full of trouble.” Here the relative -clause is explicative, and not restrictive; all men being “born of -a woman;” the definite article therefore is not employed. “The man” -would imply that all men are not thus born; and would confine the -predicating clause to those who are. In the latter sense, _that_ -may, without any alteration in the phraseology, be substituted for -the article; for _the man_, and _that man_, are in this instance -equivalent. - -5thly, The definite article is often used to denote the measure of -excess. “The more you study, the more learned you will become;” that -is, “by how much the more you study, by so much the more learned you -will become.” “The wiser, the better;” “that (by that) wiser, that -(by that) better.” There also _that_ and _the_ may be considered as -equivalent; and the Latins accordingly said “eo melior.” - -From the preceding examples and observations it must appear, that -the definite article, and the word _that_, though not strictly -synonymous, are words nearly of the same import. - -Their difference seems to be, - -1st, That the article _the_, like _a_, must have a substantive -conjoined with it; whereas _that_, like _one_, may have it -understood. Speaking of books, I may select one and say, “give me -_that_,” but not “give me _the_;” “give me _one_,” but not “give me -_a_.” Here the analogy holds between _a_ and _one_, _the_ and _that_. - -2dly, As the difference between _a_ and _one_ seems to be, that _one_ -denotes unity in contradistinction to more, with greater emphasis -than _a_, so the distinction in general between _the_ and _that_ is, -that the latter marks the object more emphatically than the former, -being indirectly opposed to _this_. I cannot say, “there goes that -man with that long beard,” without implying a contrast with “this -man with this long beard,” the word _that_ being always emphatical -and discriminative. - -The opinion here offered, respecting these words, receives some -corroboration from the following circumstances. - -In Latin _ille_ frequently supplies the place of our definite -article. “Thou art the man.” _Tu es ille (iste) homo._ - -The _le_ in French is clearly a derivative from _ille_, of which the -former syllable _il_ expresses _he_, and the latter denotes _that_ -unemphatically, serving as the definite article. From the same source -also proceed the Italian articles _il_, _lo_, _la_. - -In Hebrew, in like manner, our definite article is expressed by the -prefix of the pronoun _ille_; thus, _aretz_, _terra_, “earth;”[24] -_ha’aretz_, _illa_ seu _hæc terra_, “the earth,” the letter _he_ -abbreviated from _hou_, _ille_, expressing _the_;--_ashri_, -_haish_[25], _beatus ille vir_, “happy the man,” or “that man,” the -_he_ in like manner signifying _the_ or _that_. - -It appears to me, then, that as _ae_, _ane_, when not opposed to -_more_, and therefore unemphatical, by celerity of pronunciation were -changed into _a_, _an_; so _that_, when not opposed to _this_, or -when it was unemphatical, was shortened to _the_. Hence, the words -termed articles seem to be the name of unity, and the demonstrative -word _that_ abbreviated. - -Besides the words _a_, _an_, _the_, there are others which may -be considered as reducible to the same class with these; such as -_this_, _that_, _any_, _other_, _same_, _all_, _one_, _none_. _This_ -and _that_ I have already considered. That they are not pronouns -is evident, for they are never used as the representatives of a -noun, and always require to be associated with a substantive. If -ever they appear without this accompaniment, it will invariably be -found that the expression is elliptical, some substantive or other -being necessarily understood. If I say, “This was a noble action.” -This what? “This action.” “This is true virtue.” This what? “This -practice,” “this habit,” “this temper.” To what class of words I -conceive them to belong has been already mentioned. - -_One_ is a word significant of unity, and cannot, without manifest -impropriety, be called a pronominal adjective; unless, by an abuse -of all language, we be disposed to name _two_, _three_, _four_, -pronominal adjectives. - -_Some_ is reducible to the same class, denoting an indefinite, but, -comparatively to _many_, a small number. - -_Many_, _few_, _several_, are words of the same order, significant of -number indefinitely. - -_None_, or _not one_, implies the negation of all number, exclusive -even of unity itself. - -_Other_, which is improperly considered by some as a pronoun, is the -Saxon oðer coming from oððe. The Arabic _ahd_, the Hebrew _had_, or -_ahad_, the Saxon oððe, the Teutonic _odo_, and the Swedish _udda_, -with our English word _odd_, seem all to have sprung from the same -origin, the etymon expressing “one separately,” or “one by itself,” -answering nearly to the Latin _singulus_. The English word _odd_ -plainly indicates its affinity to these words. We say, “He is an odd -character,” or “singular character.” “He had some odd ones,” that is, -“some separate from the rest,” not paired, or connected with them, -“single.”[26] - - “As he in soueraine dignity is odde, - So will he in loue no parting fellowes have.” - _Sir T. More’s Works._ - -The same idea of singularity and separation is expressed by _other_; -which is now generally used as a comparative, and followed by _than_. - -_Other_ is sometimes used substantively, and has then a plural -number, as, “Let others serve whom they will; as for me and my -house, we will serve the Lord.” The word _one_ has a plural number -when an assemblage of units is expressed, not in the aggregate, but -individually; and then it is used as a substantive, as, “I saw a -great many fine ones.” It is also used indefinitely, in the same -sense with the French _on_, as, “One would imagine these to be -expressions of a man blessed with ease.”--_Atterbury._ And, in using -it in this sense, it may be observed, in passing, that an error is -often committed by employing the personal pronouns as referring to -_one_; thus, “One is apt to exaggerate his own injuries,” instead -of “one’s own injuries.” It is sometimes, though rarely, used as -referring to a plural noun. “The Romans and the Carthaginians now -took the field; the one ambitious of conquest, and the others in -self-defence.” This mode of expression is objectionable. We should -rather say, “the former,” and “the latter.” - -_Any_, _an_, _a_, _one_, seem all to be nearly equivalent words, and -derived from one origin, I mean from _ane_, the name of unity. Hence -_a_, or _an_, and _any_, are frequently synonymous. “A considerate -man would have acted differently;” that is, “any considerate man.” -Hence also, like _one_, it is opposed to _none_, as, “Have you a -book (any book) which you can lend me?” “None; my books are in the -country; nor, if they were here, have I any (or one) which would suit -you.” From expressing _one_ indefinitely, like _a_ or _an_, it came, -by an easy and natural transition, to denote “_whatever it be_,” -“_what you please_.” “Give me one (ane), any, no matter which.” In -this sense it corresponds to the Latin _quivis_ or _quilibet_[27] -in affirmative sentences; whereas, in interrogative or negative -sentences, it corresponds to _quisquam_, _quispiam_, or _ullus_. The -preceding observations it may be useful to recapitulate. - -Nouns are names of genera, and not of individuals; our perceptions -are, on the contrary, all individual, not general. Hence, to denote -one or more individuals of a species, numerals, or words significant -of number, were invented. Some express a precise number, as _one_, -_two_, _three_; others number indefinitely, as _some_, _few_, -_many_, _several_. Our perceptions being all individual, and one -being the basis of all number, the term significant of unity must -frequently recur in expressing our sentiments. To denote this idea -our forefathers employed _ae_, _ane_. In the progress of language, -where unity was not to be expressed, as opposed to two or more, the -terms, thus becoming unemphatical, would naturally be abbreviated -into _a_, _an_. These latter, therefore, are the offspring of the -names of unity, and belong to the class of words named cardinal -numerals. To what part of speech these are reducible (if they can be -reduced to any) it is difficult to determine. In some languages they -have the form of adjectives; but, if their meaning be considered, it -is clear that they have no claim to this appellation, as they express -no accident, quality, or property whatever. In fact, they appear to -be a species of words totally different in character from any of the -parts of speech generally received; all of them, except the first of -the series, being abbreviations for the name of unity repeated. - -It being necessary not only to express an individual indefinitely -of any species, but also to specify and select some particular one, -which at first would probably be done by pointing to the object, if -in sight, the words _this_ and _that_, hence called demonstratives, -were employed; the one to express the nearer, the other the more -distant object. From one of these proceeded the word _the_, having -the same relation to its original as _a_ or _an_ has to the name of -unity. Hence the words synonymous with _this_ and _that_, in those -languages which have no definite article, are frequently employed to -supply its place. - -The use of these terms being to express any individual whatever of -a class, and likewise some certain or particular object; we have -also the words _few_, _some_, _many_, _several_, to denote a number -indefinitely, and the cardinal numerals _two_, _three_, _four_, &c., -a precise number of individuals. - - - - -CHAPTER III. - -OF PRONOUNS. - - -Whether we speak of things present, or of things absent, of -ourselves, or of others, and to whomsoever we address our discourse, -the repetition of the names of those persons or things would not only -be tiresome, but also sometimes productive of ambiguity. Besides, the -name of the person addressed may be unknown to the speaker, and the -name of the speaker may be unknown to the person addressed. Hence -appears the utility of pronouns, words, as the etymology of the term -denotes, supplying the place of nouns. They have therefore been -denominated by some grammarians, nouns of the second order. - -When the person who addresses speaks of himself, the pronoun _I_, -called the pronoun of the first person, is employed instead of the -name of the speaker, as, “The Lord said to Moses, _I_ (the Lord) am -the God of Abraham.” - -When the person addressed is the subject of discourse, the pronoun -_thou_, called the pronoun of the second person, is used instead of -his name, as, “Nathan said unto David, _Thou_ (David) art the man.” - -When neither the person who speaks, nor the person addressed, but -some other person or thing, is the subject of discourse, we employ -the pronouns of the third person, namely, _he_, _she_, _it_; as, -“When Jesus saw the multitude, _he_ (Jesus) had compassion on them.” - -I have said that pronouns are employed to prevent the tiresome -repetition of names. It is not, however, to be hence inferred, that -even the repetition of the name would, in all cases, answer the -same purpose, or denote the subject with the same precision as the -pronoun. For, as there is hardly any name, strictly speaking, proper -or peculiar to one individual, the employment of a name, belonging to -more persons than one, would not so clearly specify or individuate -the object as the appropriate pronoun. Hence it would often be -necessary to subjoin to the name some distinctive circumstances, to -discriminate the person intended from others of that name; or the -speaker would be obliged to point to the individual if he happened -to be present. Nay, though the person or subject designed might be -thus sufficiently ascertained, it is easy to see that the phraseology -would have nothing of that simplicity and energy which accompany -the pronoun. If, in the first example, instead of saying, “I am -the God,” we should say, “The Lord is the God;” or in the second, -instead of “Thou art the man,” “David is the man,” the energy of -the expression would be entirely destroyed. If any person, speaking -of himself, should distinguish himself from others of the same -name, by subjoining the necessary discriminating circumstances, so -as to leave no doubt in the mind of the hearer, it is obvious that -this phraseology would not only be inelegant, but also feeble and -unimpressive. To be convinced of the truth of this observation, it -is only necessary to compare the exanimate, stiff, and frequently -obscure diction of a common card, with the freedom, perspicuity, and -vivacity of a letter. - -Pronouns may be divided into substantive and adjective, personal and -impersonal, relative and interrogative. The personal substantive -pronouns are _I_, _thou_, _he_, _she_. The impersonal substantive -pronoun is _it_. - -The personal substantive pronouns have three cases, and are thus -declined: - - - _First Person, Masc. and Fem._ - - _Sing._ _Plur._ - _Nom._ I[28] We - _Gen._ Mine Ours - _Obj._ Me Us. - - _Second Person, Masc. and Fem._ - - _Sing._ _Plur._ - _Nom._ Thou[29] Ye or you - _Gen._ Thine Yours - _Obj._ Thee You. - - - _Third Person._ - - _Masc._ - - _Nom._ He[30] They - _Gen._ His Theirs - _Obj._ Him Them. - - - _Fem._ - - _Sing._ _Plur._ - _Nom._ She[31] They - _Gen._ Hers Theirs - _Obj._ Her Them. - - - _Third Person._ - - _Neuter._ - - _Impersonal._ - _Nom._ It[32] They[33] - _Gen._ Its Theirs - _Obj._ It Them. - -_My_, _thy_, _our_, _your_, _their_, being the representatives of -nouns, have the essential character of pronouns. Thus, when Decius -says to Cato, “Cæsar is well acquainted with your virtues,” the -pronoun is employed as a substitute for _Cato’s_. As they express not -only the subject, but also the relation of property or possession, -they are by some grammarians considered to be the genitives of -their respective substantive pronouns. In usage, however, they are -distinguished from the English genitive by their incapacity to stand -alone. Thus we say, “It is the king’s,” “It is yours;” but we cannot -say, “It is your,” the presence of a noun being necessary to the last -expression. They are, therefore, more correctly named pronominal -adjectives. For the purpose of denoting emphatically the relation -of possession or property, the word _own_ is frequently joined to -them, as, _my own_, _thy own_, _our own_. And to mark the person with -emphasis, they are compounded with the word _self_; in Saxon, _sylf_; -from the Gothic _silba_, _ipse_: thus, _myself, thyself_; _ourselves, -yourselves_. _Theirselves_ is now obsolete, _themselves_ being used -in its stead. - -The pronouns of the first and second persons are either masculine -or feminine. The reason is, says Mr. Harris, because the sex of -the speaker and of the person addressed is generally obvious. This -explanation, which has been adopted by most grammarians, appears to -me unsatisfactory and erroneous. Others have said that the pronouns -of the first and second persons have no distinction of sex, because -all distinction of this kind is foreign to the intention of the -speaker, who, when he uses the pronoun _I_, means the person who -speaks, be it man or woman; and when he employs the pronoun _thou_, -means the person addressed, without any regard to the sex of the -individual. This matter seems sufficiently plain. Language, to be -useful, must be perspicuous and intelligible, exhibiting the subject -and its attributes with clearness and precision. If it should be -asked why the pronoun of the third person has three varieties, Mr. -Harris would answer, “to mark the sex.” If it were inquired whence -arises the necessity of marking the sex, he would answer, and very -justly, “in order to ascertain the subject of discourse.” It is -obvious, therefore, that to note the sex is not the primary object, -and that the principal aim of the speaker is to discriminate and -mark the subject. The pronouns of the first and second persons have -no variety of form significant of sex, because the speaker and the -person addressed are evident without it. Mr. Harris, therefore, -should have said that the pronouns in question have no distinction -of gender, not because the _sex_ of the speaker and of the person -addressed, but because the _persons_ themselves, are in general -obvious, without the aid of sexual designation. The intention of -the speaker is not to denote the sex, but the person spoken of, -whether male or female; to ascertain which person, if absent, the -discrimination of sex is generally necessary. The sex, therefore, -enters not as an essential, but as an explanatory circumstance; -not as the subject of discourse, but to distinguish the subject. -Where the person is present, and is either the speaker or the -person addressed, discrimination of sex becomes unnecessary, the -pronoun itself marking the individuals. When the person or subject -of discourse is absent, the distinction of sex serves frequently to -determine the subject. Hence the pronoun of the third person has -three varieties, _he_ for the masculine, _she_ for the feminine, and -_it_ for the neuter. - -The four personal pronouns, _I_, _thou_, _he_, and _she_, have three -cases, viz., the nominative or leading case, expressing the principal -subject, and preceding the verb; the genitive case, whose form and -office have been already defined; and the objective, accusative, or -following case, (for it has obtained these three names,) expressing -the object to which the energy is directed, or the subject acted -upon. This case follows the verb. - -_Mine_, _thine_, _hers_, _theirs_, _his_, _yours_, _ours_, are truly -pronouns in the possessive or genitive case. Johnson has indeed said -that _my_ and _mine_ are words precisely synonymous, _my_, according -to him, being used before a consonant, and _mine_ before a vowel; as, -_my sword_, _mine arm_. It is doubtless true that _mine_ and _thine_ -are sometimes used as _my_ and _thy_, which are not substantive -pronouns, but pronominal adjectives; but that they are not precisely -synonymous or mutually convertible, is obvious; for _my_ and _thy_ -cannot be used for _mine_ and _thine_, though _mine_ and _thine_, as -has been observed, may be used for _my_ and _thy_. Example: “Whose -book is this?” I cannot answer, “it is my,” but “it is mine.” We may -indeed say “it is my book;” but the addition of the substantive is -necessary. - -As _my_ and _mine_, _thy_ and _thine_, _our_ and _ours_, _your_ and -_yours_, _their_ and _theirs_, are not mutually convertible, they -cannot be regarded as synonymous each with its fellow. - -_This_ and _that_, which have improperly been referred by some to the -class of pronouns, have been considered already. The former makes in -the plural _these_, the latter _those_. - -The relative pronouns, so called because they directly relate or -refer to a substantive preceding, which is therefore termed _the -antecedent_, are _who_, _which_, _that_. - -The pronoun _who_ is of the masculine or feminine gender, referring -to persons, male or female. The pronoun _which_ is neuter. _That_ is -common to the three genders. - - _Sing. and Plur._ _Sing. and Plur._ - _Nom._ Who[34] Which - _Gen._ Whose Whose - _Obj._ Whom Which. - -Lowth and several other grammarians have asserted that the pronoun -_which_ admits no variation. Numberless examples, however, from the -best authors might be cited to disprove this assertion. Shakspeare -occasionally uses _whose_ as the genitive of _which_; and, since his -time, writers of the highest eminence have employed it in the same -manner. - - “Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit - Of that forbidden tree, _whose_ mortal taste.”--_Milton._ - - “The lights and shades, _whose_ well-accorded strife - Gives all the strength and colour of our life.”--_Pope._ - -“A true critic is like a dog at a feast, _whose_ thoughts and stomach -are wholly set on what the guests fling away.”--_Swift._ - -This usage is favourable to conciseness, and can very seldom create -ambiguity. Where obscurity indeed is apprehended, the periphrasis, -_of which_, should be adopted. I have, therefore, given _whose_ as -the genitive of _which_; not only because this usage is sanctioned -by classical authority, but likewise, because the other form, _of -which_, is frequently awkward and inelegant. - -_Who_ is applied to persons, that is, to animals distinguished by -rationality, or represented as possessing it. - - “The man _who_ has no music in himself.”--_Shakspeare._ - -The antecedent _man_, being a person, is followed by _who_. - -“A stag, _who_ came to drink at a river, seeing his own image in the -clear stream, said thus to himself.” - -Here the stag is represented as possessing reason and speech, and -therefore the pronoun _who_ is employed. In mythological writings -in general, such as the Fables of Æsop, inferior animals are very -properly denoted by the personal relative. - -_Which_ is applied to things inanimate, and creatures either devoid -of all indications of rationality, or represented as such. “The city, -_which_ Romulus built, was called Rome.” Here _which_ is used, the -word _city_ being the antecedent, to which it refers. - -“The sloth, _which_ is a creature remarkable for inactivity, lives on -leaves and the flowers of trees.” Here the sloth, an animal hardly -possessing sensation or life, is expressed by _which_. - -The rule here given for the use of these pronouns is not uniformly -observed, several good writers occasionally applying them -indifferently to inferior animals, without any determinate principle -of discrimination. It would be better, however, were this rule -universally followed; and if such modes of expression as “frequented -by that fowl, _whom_ nature has taught,” were entirely repudiated. - -Priestley, whose doctrine on this subject seems nearly to coincide -with ours, has even objected to the application of the pronoun -_who_ to children, because this pronoun conveys an idea of persons -possessing reason and reflection, of which mere children are -incapable. He, therefore, disapproves of Cadogan’s phraseology, when -he says, “a child who.” - -_That_ is applied indiscriminately to things animate and inanimate, -and admits no variation. - -The pronouns _who_, _which_, and _that_, are sometimes resolvable -into _and he_, _and she_, _and it_. Mr. Harris, indeed, has said, -that the pronoun _qui_ (who) may be always resolved into _et ille_, -_a_, _ud_ (_and he_, _and she_, _and it_). This opinion, however, is -not perfectly correct; for it is thus resolvable in those examples -only in which the relative clause does not limit or modify the -meaning of the antecedent. If I say, “Man who is born of a woman, -is of few days, and full of trouble,” the relative clause is not -restrictive; I may, therefore, resolve the pronoun, and say, “Man -is of few days, and he is born of woman.” “Light is a body which -moves with great velocity,” is resolvable into “Light is a body, -and it moves with great velocity.” But when the relative clause -limits the meaning of the antecedent, the relative is clearly not -thus resolvable. “Virgil was the only epic poet, among the Romans, -who can be compared to Homer.” The signification of the antecedent -is here restricted by the relative clause: we cannot, therefore, by -resolution, say, “Virgil was the only epic poet among the Romans, and -he can be compared to Homer;” for the former of these propositions is -not true, nor is the sentiment, which it conveys, accordant with the -meaning of the author. - -The pronoun _what_, if not employed interrogatively, is equivalent -to _that which_; and is applicable to inanimate things only, as, “I -believe what I see,” or “that which I see.” - -_What_ admits no variation. - -The relative pronouns _who_, _which_, are often used interrogatively, -and are, therefore, in such cases considered as interrogatives. -When thus employed, it is the opinion of the author of the British -Grammar, that they still retain their relative character. “The only -difference,” says he, “is this, that the relative refers to an -antecedent and definite subject, and the interrogative to something -subsequent and unknown.” The example which he adduces in support -of his opinion is the following: “Who first seduced them to that -foul revolt?” “The very question,” says he, “supposes a seducer, to -which, though unknown, the pronoun _who_ has a reference.” Answer, -“The infernal serpent.” He continues, “Here, in the answer, we have -the subject, which was indefinite, ascertained; so that the _who_ -in the interrogation is as much a relative as if it had been said -originally, without any interrogation at all. It was the infernal -serpent who seduced them.” Others adopt an opinion diametrically -opposite, contending that _who_ and _which_ are properly -interrogatives, and that even, when used as relatives, they still -retain their interrogative character. This theory a few examples will -sufficiently illustrate. - -“The man who?” (which man?) his character follows, “has no music in -himself.” - -“The city which? (what city?) Romulus built was called Rome.” - -“Happy the man whose cautious feet.” - -“Happy that man who? his (whose) cautious feet.” - -“Light is a body which? (body) moves with great velocity.” - -Of these two theories I have no hesitation in adopting the former. -My reasons are these. The intention of language is to communicate -our sentiments; to express what we think, feel, perceive, or desire. -Hence its general character is indicative or assertive. “I believe,” -“I wish,” “I see,” are affirmative sentences; and whatever variety of -forms the phraseology may assume, they are all strictly significant -of assertion, and all resolvable into the language of affirmation. -“Go,” “teach,” “read,” are equivalent to, “I desire you to go,” “to -teach,” “to read.” “Have you finished your task?” means, when the -sentiment is fully expressed, “I desire to know, whether you have -finished your task.” Ellipses of this kind are natural. They spring -from an eagerness to impart to the vehicle of our thoughts a degree -of celerity, suited to the promptitude with which the mind conceives -them. Vehemence or passion, impatient of delay, uniformly resorts to -them. The assertive form of expression I therefore conceive to be the -parent whence every other is derived, and to which it is reducible. -If this be the case, no interrogative, conceived purely as such, can -claim so early an origin as definite or affirmative terms. Hence we -may conclude, that _who_, _which_, _when_, _where_, were at first -used as relatives, and came afterwards, by implication, to denote -interrogations. - -Again, we know that the meaning of an expression is frequently -collected, not so much from the strict import of the terms, as from -the tone or manner in which it is delivered. If I say, “he did it,” -the sentence is affirmative; yet, by the tone of voice or manner of -the speaker, this affirmative sentence may denote an interrogation. -Thus, “he did it?” by an elevation of the voice, or the mode of -notation, maybe rendered equivalent to “did he do it?” “Who did it” -is in like manner an affirmative clause; but it is obvious that this -form of expression, like the other now adduced, may be likewise -employed to note an interrogation, thus, “Who did it?” And it is -evident, that, if the ellipsis be supplied, the sentence would read -thus, “I want to know who did it.” The preceding clause, however, is -sufficiently supplied by the manner of the speaker. An ellipsis of -this kind seems to be involved in every interrogation. If I say, “did -he do it?” it is equivalent to “tell me, if he did it.” Accordingly, -we find that the Latins, in such interrogations, employed only the -latter clause; for _an_ (whether), which is termed an interrogative, -is, in fact, nothing but the Greek ἂν, synonymous with _si_ (if) -among the Latins. “_An fecit_,” did he do it? is therefore strictly -equivalent to “_si fecit_” if he did it, the former clause “tell -me,” being understood, and its import supplied by the manner of the -speaker, or the mode of notation. - -Besides, let any person ask himself what idea he annexes to the word -_who_, considered as an interrogative, and I am persuaded he will be -sensible that he cannot form any distinct conception of its import. - -I am inclined therefore to think that interrogatives are strictly -relatives: and that these relatives, by the aid of voice, gesture, or -some explanatory circumstance, answer the purpose of interrogation. - -In using these pronouns interrogatively, it is to be observed, that -_who_ and _which_ are each applied to persons, which is not the case -when they are employed as relatives. This difference, however, is to -be observed, that when the pronoun _which_ is used interrogatively, -and applied to persons, it is generally, if not always, understood -that the character of the individual, who is the object of inquiry, -is in presence of the inquirer, or is in some degree known. _Who_ is -more indefinite. If I say, “which is the man?” I mean “who _of those -now before me_?” or of those who have been described? Agreeably to -this notion, we say, “which of _the_ two,” not “who of the two,” was -guilty of this crime? - -If I say, “Who is the man that will dare to affirm?” it implies that -I am entirely a stranger to him, and that I even doubt his existence. -“Which is the man?” not only implies his existence, but also that the -aggregate of individuals, whence the selection is made, is known to -me. - -_What_ is also used interrogatively, and is employed in introducing -questions, whether the subject be persons or things, as, “What man -is that?” “What book is this?” When no substantive is subjoined, it -is then wholly indefinite, as, “What is man that thou art mindful of -him?” When we inquire, therefore, into the character of any person, -and not for the individual himself, it is to be remembered that we -employ this pronoun, and not _who_ or _which_. - -There seems to be the same difference between _who_ and _what_ -definite, as between _who_ and _which_. If I say, “What man will dare -to affirm this?” and “Which man will dare?” &c., it is obvious that -the former interrogatory is more indefinite than the latter; the one -implying a total ignorance of the individual, and some doubt of his -existence; the other, that he is one of a number in some degree known -to the inquirer. - -When any defining clause is subjoined, either may be used, as, “What, -or which, man among you, having a hundred sheep, and losing one, -would not leave the ninety and nine?” - -The pronoun _whether_ is equivalent to “which of the two.” It is the -Teutonic word _wether_, bearing the same relation to _wer_, “who” or -“which,” as _either_ does to _ein_, “one,” and _neither, newether_, -to _nie_ or _nehein_, “none.” - -This word, though now generally employed or considered as a -conjunction, is in truth reducible to the class of words which we -are now examining, and is precisely synonymous with _uter_, _tra_, -_trum_, of the Latins. “Whether is it easier to say?”--_Bible._ - -Here _whether_ is truly a pronoun, and is the nominative to the -following verb. - -“Whether is greater, the gold or the temple?”--_Ibid._ - -In these examples, _whether_ is precisely the same with “which of -the two.” It seems now to be giving place to the word _which_, as -the comparative, when two things are compared, is often supplanted -by the superlative. Thus we often say, when speaking of two, -“which is the best,” instead of “whether is better.” The Latins -almost uniformly observed the distinction:--“Uter dignior, quis -dignissimus?”--_Quint._ - -The pronoun _it_ is used indefinitely, and applied to persons or -things. - -Dr. Johnson has objected to the use of this pronoun in those examples -wherein the pronouns of the first or second persons are employed; and -Dr. Lowth has censured it when referring to a plural number, as in -the following example: - - “’T is these, that give the great Atrides spoils.”--_Pope._ - -I concur, however, with the learned author of the Philosophy of -Rhetoric, who regards the objections of these critics as, in this -instance, of no weight. For when a question is asked, the subject of -which is totally unknown, there must be some indefinite word employed -to denote the subject of the interrogation. The word which we use for -this purpose is _it_, as, “Who is it?” “What is it?” This phraseology -is established by universal usage, and is therefore unexceptionable. -This being the case, there can be no impropriety in repeating in the -answer the indefinite term employed in the question. We may therefore -reply, “It is I,” “It is he,” “It is she.” - -Now, if the term be admitted in questions and answers where the -subject may be either male or female, and of the first, second, or -third person, it surely is admissible in those cases also where the -subject is in the plural number. Nay, to use in the answer any other -word to express the subject than that by which it is signified in -the question, would be in all cases, if not productive of ambiguity, -at least less precise. “Who is it?” says a master to his servant, -hearing a voice in the hall. “It is the gentlemen who called -yesterday,” replies the servant. Who sees not that “they are the -gentlemen,” would be an answer less accordant with the terms of the -question, and would less clearly show that “the gentlemen,” and “the -subject of inquiry,” both being denoted by one term, are one and the -same? Had the master known that it was the voice of a gentleman, and -that there were more than one, and had he accordingly said, “Who are -they?” the answer would have properly been “They are the gentlemen.” -But when the question is “Who is it?” I apprehend the only apposite -answer is, “It is the gentlemen,” the identity of the terms (_it_ -being repeated) clearly evincing an identity of subject in the -question and in the answer; in other words, that the subject of the -inquiry, and the subject of the answer, are one and the same. - -I conclude with observing, that, though I have here considered the -word _that_ as a pronoun, there can be no question that in its import -it is precisely the same with the demonstrative _that_, which has -been already explained. “The house that you built is burned,” is -resolvable thus, “The house is burned, you built that.” - - - - -CHAPTER IV. - -OF THE ADJECTIVE. - - -An adjective has been defined by most grammarians to be “that part -of speech which signifies an accident, quality, or property of a -thing.” This definition appears to me to be somewhat defective and -incorrect: for the adjective does not express the quality simply, -but the quality or property, as conjoined with a substance; or, as -grammarians have termed it, _in concreto_. Thus, when we say “good -man,” _goodness_ is the name of the quality, and _good_ is the -adjective expressing that quality, as conjoined with the subject -_man_. Accordingly, every adjective is resolvable into the name of -the thing implied, and any term of reference or conjunction, as -_of_, _with_. Thus “a prudent man” is equivalent to “a man with” or -“having prudence” or to “a man of prudence.” An adjective, therefore, -is that part of speech which denotes any substance or attribute, -not by itself, but as conjoined with a subject, or pertaining to -its character. This conjunction is generally marked by changing the -termination of the simple name of the substantive or attribute, as -_fool_, _foolish_, _wax_, _waxen_. Sometimes no change is made; and -the simple name of the substance, or attribute, is prefixed to the -name of the subject, as _sea fowl_, _race horse_, _corn field_. In -writing these, and similar expressions, the conjunction is sometimes -marked by a hyphen, as _sea-fowl_, _river-fish_, _wine-vessel_. - -As every appellative denotes the whole of a genus or species, the -intention and effect of the adjective is, by limiting the generic -meaning of the substantive, to specify what part of the genus or -species is the subject of discourse. If I say “man,” the term is -universal: it embraces the species. If I say “a man,” the expression -is indefinite, being applicable to any individual of the kind. If I -say “a good man,” I confine the term to an individual distinguished -by goodness. Here _man_ expresses the substance; and _good_ the -quality _in concreto_. Sometimes, on the contrary, the substantive -is the general name of the quality or property; and the adjective -modifies or determines its degree, as, _wisdom_, _little wisdom_. Let -us take another example. The word _stone_ is applicable to a whole -species of substances. If I say _round stone_, I confine the meaning -of the substantive to that part of the genus which is distinguished -by roundness. Here the substantive denotes the matter, or substance, -in general, and the adjective limits its signification, by expressing -the form. Sometimes the converse takes place, as _golden globe_. -Here the substantive is the generic name of a certain figure; and -the adjective, by expressing the matter, confines that figure to the -substance of gold. - -Some grammarians have denominated this part of speech by the name of -adjective noun; to others this designation appears inadmissible. The -latter observe, that neither is the adjective the name of anything, -nor is it in English variable, like the substantive. They allow, -that in Greek and Latin, the designation in question is, in some -degree, justifiable, because, though the noun and adjective differ -essentially in office, in these languages, they agree in form; but in -our language they deem it a singular impropriety[35]. - -I have said that the adjective denotes a substance, quality, or -property, “as pertaining,” or _in concreto_. Now, it is to be -observed, that substances do not admit degrees of _more_ or _less_, -in regard to their essential character. “A wooden table” cannot be -more or less wooden. “An iron bar” cannot be more or less such. In -these cases, the adjective, as I have already remarked, by expressing -the matter, limits the form to one species of substance. The same -observation is applicable to the converse circumstance, in which -the form strictly limits the matter, as “triangular board.” Here -it is obvious, that the substance limited to one form by the term -_triangular_, cannot be more or less triangular. But this is not -the case with qualities or properties, which may exist in different -substances in different degrees. And, as it is sometimes necessary -to express the existence of a quality, as greater or less in one -substance than another, hence arises the utility of some form of -expression to denote these relative degrees of its existence. It -is in this case only, that the termination of the adjective admits -variation; and then it is said to be in a state of comparison. - -In all qualities susceptible of intension or remission, the number of -degrees, from the lowest to the highest, may be accounted infinite. -Hardness, for example, gravity, magnitude, genius, wisdom, folly, -are severally diversified by an infinitude of gradations, which it -would elude the capacity of any language to discriminate. To denote -these degrees, is, therefore, utterly impracticable, as it is wholly -unnecessary. - -In English, as in most other languages, we employ two variations: -the one to denote simple excess, or a greater degree of the quality -than that which is expressed by the adjective itself; and the other -to denote the greatest excess. Thus, if I compare wood with stone, -as possessing the quality of hardness, I say, “wood is hard,” “stone -is harder.” If I compare these with iron, I say, “wood is hard,” -“stone harder,” “iron the hardest.” Thus, in truth, there are only -two degrees of comparison, viz. the comparative and the superlative, -the positive expressing the quality simply and absolutely. - -The comparative is formed by adding _er_ to the positive, if it end -with a consonant; or the letter _r_, if it end with a vowel; as, -_soft, softer_; _safe, safer_. - -The superlative is formed by adding _est_, or _st_, as, _soft, -softest_; _safe, safest_[36]. - -Some adjectives are compared irregularly, as, - - _Pos._ _Comp._ _Super._ - Good Better Best - Bad or Evil Worse Worst - Little Less Least - Much More Most - Many More Most - Near Nearer Nearest or next - Late Later Latest or last. - -The comparative degree is frequently expressed by the word _more_, -and the superlative by _most_, as, - - _Pos._ _Comp._ _Super._ - Hard More hard Most hard. - -Monosyllabic adjectives are generally compared by annexing _r_ or -_er_, _st_ or _est_; adjectives of two or more syllables by _more_ -and _most_, as, _strong, stronger, strongest_; _certain, more -certain, most certain_. - -Dissyllabic adjectives in _y_ form an exception to this rule, as -_happy, happier, happiest_. - -Adjectives of two syllables ending in _le_, after a mute, are also -excepted, as, _able, abler, ablest_. - -Euphony seems here to be generally consulted, and the ear may be -allowed perhaps to furnish the best rule. - -Some form their superlative by adding _most_ to the comparative, as, -_nether, nethermost_; _lower, lowermost_; _under, undermost_: others -by adding _most_ either to the positive or comparative, as, _hind, -hindmost_, or _hindermost_; _up, upmost_ or _uppermost_. From _in_, -we have _inmost_ and _innermost_[37]. - -Besides this definite and direct kind of comparison, there is -another, which may be termed indefinite or indirect, expressed by the -intensive words _too_, _very_, _exceedingly_, &c., as, _too good_, -_very hard_, _exceedingly great_. - -When the word _very_, or any other of the same import, is put before -the positive, it is called by some writers the superlative of -eminence, to distinguish it from the other superlative, which has -been already mentioned, and is called the superlative of comparison. -Thus, _very hard_ is termed the superlative of eminence; _most hard_, -or _hardest_, the superlative of comparison. - -I have said that the comparative denotes simple excess, and the -superlative the greatest. It is not, however, to be hence inferred, -that the comparative may not be employed in expressing the same -pre-eminence or inferiority with the superlative. If I say, “Of all -acquirements virtue is the most valuable,” I may also convey the -same sentiment by saying, “Virtue is more valuable than every other -acquirement.” If it be asked, what then is the difference between the -comparative and superlative? I answer, - -1st. That the superlative expresses the absolutely highest or -lowest degree of the quality, as when we say, “O God most high;” or -the greatest or least degree, in relation merely to the subjects -of comparison, thus expressing a superiority of excess above the -comparative, as when I say, “In estimating the worth of these human -attainments, learning, prudence, and virtue, it cannot be denied -that learning is valuable, that prudence is more valuable, but that -virtue is the most valuable.” The comparative expresses merely simple -excess, but never the highest or lowest degree of the quality. This -distinction is, perhaps, the most precise, and the most worthy of -attention. - -I observe, however, that the sentiment in the last example may be -expressed by the comparative, but not simply, or by itself; thus, -“Learning is valuable, prudence more valuable, and virtue more -valuable still,” the word _still_ implying a continued gradation. -Were this word suppressed, the sentence would imply that prudence -and virtue are each more valuable than learning, but would assert no -superiority of virtue to prudence. The same sentiment may likewise be -expressed by combining the two first, and marking simply the excess -of the third, thus, “virtue is better than both.” - -2dly. When we express the superiority or inferiority of one of two -things, or of two aggregates, we almost always use the comparative. -Thus, speaking of Cæsar and Cato, I say, “Cato was the more -virtuous, Cæsar the more eloquent;” or of two brothers, we say, “John -was the elder.” - -In such cases the superlative is sometimes employed, as, “the best of -the two,” instead of “the better of the two.” The former phraseology, -however, is more consonant to established usage, and is in every case -to be preferred. “Whether is it easier to say, ‘take up thy bed and -walk,’ or to say, ‘thy sins are forgiven thee?’” that is, which of -the two is “easier,” not “easiest,” the simple excess of one thing -above another being here denoted. - -3dly. When we use the superlative, we always compare one thing, or -an aggregate number of things, with the class to which they belong, -or to which we refer them; whereas, when we use the comparative, -except in the case just mentioned, the things compared either -belong, or are conceived as belonging, to different classes, being -placed in opposition to each other. Thus, in comparing Socrates, who -was an Athenian, with the other Athenians, we say, “Socrates was -the wisest of the Athenians;” that is, “of,” “out of,” or “of the -class of Athenians.” Hence in Latin the superlative often takes the -preposition _ex_ (out of) to denote that the object compared belongs -to the order of things with which it is compared; the comparative -very rarely. - -Now the same sentiment may be expressed by the comparative; but then -the _Athenians_ and _Socrates_, though belonging to one species, are -conceived as mutually opposed, and referred to different places, -whereas the superlative refers them to one common aggregate. Thus, if -we employ the comparative, we say, “Socrates was wiser than any other -Athenian.” - -Agreeably to the observation now made, we cannot say, “Cicero was -more eloquent than the Romans,” or “than any Roman;” because Cicero -was himself a Roman, one of the class with which he is compared, -and could not therefore be more eloquent than himself. As the -objects compared belong, therefore, to one class, and are not two -individuals, nor two aggregates, the comparative cannot be employed, -unless by placing them in opposition, or referring them to different -places, as, “Cicero was more eloquent than any other Roman.” Here -the word _other_ denotes that opposition, that diversity of place -or species, which, in all cases but the one already mentioned, is -essentially implied in the use of the comparative. - -I have observed already, that when the superlative is employed, the -things compared are referred to one aggregate; and that when the -comparative is used, they are contradistinguished by a different -reference. This distinction obtains uniformly, unless when we compare -only two individuals, or two classes, both referred to one aggregate, -as “the elder of the Catos,” “of these two nations (speaking of -the Greeks and Romans), the latter were the more warlike.” In -such examples as these, the comparative, while it retains its own -distinctive character, denoting simple excess, partakes also of the -nature of the superlative, the objects compared being referred by the -preposition to one and the same aggregate. But as the superlative -is always followed by _of_, and the comparative, in every case -except the one now mentioned, followed by _than_, some writers say, -“the eldest of the two,” “the latter were the most warlike.” This -phraseology, however conformable to the generally distinguished -usage of the comparative and superlative, is repugnant to the -characteristic power of these degrees, by which one denotes simple -excess, while the other heightens or lessens the quality to its -highest or lowest degree. - -From the preceding remarks will appear the impropriety of saying, -“Jacob loved Joseph more than all his children.”[38] Joseph being one -of his children, the sentiment expressed involves an absurdity: it -should be “more than all his other children.” “In the beginning of -the 16th century, Spain is said to have possessed a thousand merchant -ships, a number probably far superior to that of any nation in Europe -in that age.” (Robertson’s America.) It should be, “that of any other -nation in Europe:” for, Spain being one of the European nations, she -could not possess a number superior to her own. The comparative -required the terms to be contrasted by the word _other_. - - “Adam - The comeliest of men since born - His sons. The fairest of her daughters Eve.”--_Milton._ - -“Adam,” the antecedent subject of comparison, is here improperly -referred to the aggregate of “men since born.” To this aggregate he -cannot be said to belong, not having been “born,” nor being reducible -to the class of “his own sons.” Eve also is referred to a species of -which she was no part. In neither of these comparisons can the second -term include the first; yet the preposition refers them to one class. -Such phraseologies as these, though not ungrammatical, involve an -absurdity, and should therefore be dismissed. - -Adjectives, whose signification does not admit intension or -remission, cannot be compared. Among these are to be reckoned, -1st, All words expressive of figure, as _circular_, _square_, -_triangular_, _perpendicular_, _straight_; for it is obvious, that -if a body or figure be triangular, or square, or circular, it -cannot be more or less so. It is either circular, or not circular; -triangular, or not triangular; straight, or not straight. If the -affirmative be the case, gradation from more or less, or conversely, -is impossible; if the negative be true, then the attributes denoted -by these adjectives do not belong to it; and therefore the epithets -_circular_, _triangular_, _straight_, &c., are inapplicable. Hence -such expressions as these, “place the staff more erect,” “make the -field more triangular,” are highly improper. We should say, “set the -staff erect,” “make the field triangular.” - -2dly. All adjectives whose signification, in their simple form, -implies the highest or lowest possible degree, admit not comparison, -as, _chief_, _supreme_, _universal_, _perfect_, _extreme_, &c. Hume, -speaking of enthusiasm, says (Essays, vol. i. p. 72), “it begets the -most extreme resolutions.” _Extreme_ implies the farthest, or the -greatest possible, and cannot admit intension. - -I am aware that usage may be pleaded in favour of “_more_ and _most -universal_, _more_ and _most perfect_.” This usage, however, is -not such as will sanction the former of these phraseologies; for -good writers generally avoid it. Besides, there is no necessity for -resorting to this mode of expression, as we have an attributive -appropriate to the idea intended: thus, instead of saying, -“Literature is more universal in England than America,” we should -say, “Literature is more general.” It is almost unnecessary to -observe, that literature in England is either universal, or it is -not; if the former be true, it cannot be more than universal; if -the latter, the term is inapplicable. The word _general_ does not -comprise the whole; it admits intension and remission: the adjective -_universal_ implies totality. A general rule admits exceptions; a -universal rule embraces every particular. - -The expression “_more perfect_” is, in strictness of speech, equally -exceptionable; usage, however, has given it a sanction which we -dare hardly controvert. It has been proposed, indeed, to avoid this -and similar improprieties, by giving the phraseology a negative, -or indirect form. Thus, instead of saying, “A time-keeper is a -more perfect machine than a watch,” it has been proposed to say, -“A time-keeper is a less imperfect machine than a watch.” This -phraseology is logically correct, perfection being predicable of -neither the one thing nor the other; it might likewise, in many -cases, be adopted with propriety. In the language of passion, -however, and in the colourings of imagination, such expressions would -be exanimate and intolerable. A lover, expatiating with rapture on -the beauty and perfection of his mistress, would hardly call her, -“the _least imperfect of her sex_.” - -In all languages, indeed, examples are to be found of adjectives -being compared whose signification admits neither intension nor -remission. It would be easy to assign several reasons for this, did -the discussion belong to the province of the grammarian[39]. Suffice -it to say, that such phraseologies should never be admitted where the -language will furnish correct, and equally apposite, expressions. - -I observe also, that as those adjectives whose signification cannot -be heightened or lessened admit not comparison, so, for the same -reason, they exclude all intensive words. The expressions, _so -universal_, _so extreme_, and such like, are therefore improper. -The former is indeed common enough; but it is easy to see, as it -has been already remarked, that whatever is universal cannot be -increased or diminished; and that what is less than universal, cannot -be characterized by that epithet. The phrase _so universal_ implies -a gradation in universality, and that something is less so than an -another; which is evidently impossible. - -It has been questioned, whether _prior_, _superior_, _ulterior_, -_exterior_, and several others, which have the form of the Latin -comparative, should be deemed comparatives. I am inclined to think, -they ought not, for these reasons; 1st, They have not the form of the -English comparative; 2dly, They are never followed by _than_, which -uniformly accompanies the English comparative, when the subjects are -opposed to each other, or referred to different classes; 3dly, It is -not to be conceived, that every adjective, which implies comparison, -is therefore a comparative or superlative, otherwise _preferable_ -(better than), _previous_ (prior to), might be deemed comparatives; -4thly, Many of these have truly a positive meaning, not implying an -excess of the quality, but merely the quality, as opposed to its -contrary. The _interior_ means simply the _inside_, as opposed to the -_exterior_ or _outside_; the _anterior_, “the one before,” opposed to -_posterior_, “the one behind.” - -I dismiss this article with observing, that the signification of the -positive is sometimes lessened by the termination _ish_; as, _white, -whitish_; _black, blackish_. Johnson remarks, that the adjective -in this form may be considered as in a state of comparison; it may -properly be called a diminutive. - - - - -CHAPTER V. - -OF THE VERB. - - -A verb has been defined to be “that part of speech which signifies -to be, to do, or to suffer;” or more correctly, “that part of speech -which predicates some action, passion, or state of its subject,” -as “I strike,” “I am wounded,” “I stand.” Its essence consists in -affirmation, and by this property it is distinguished from every -other part of speech. The adjective expresses an accident, quality, -or property of a thing _in concreto_; that is, when joined to the -name of a substance, it expresses that substance, as accompanied by -some attribute: in other words, it limits a generic name, confining -it to that part of the kind, which possesses the character, which -the attributive specifies; but it affirms nothing. Thus, if we say, -“_a wise man_,” which is equivalent to “a man with,” or “having -wisdom,” there is no affirmation; an individual is singled from a -species, under the character of wisdom, but nothing is asserted of -this individual. If we say “the man is wise,” there is something -affirmed of the man, and the affirmation is expressed by _is_. If -the attribute and the assertion be combined in the expression, as -in Latin _vir sapit_, it is obvious that the essence of the verb -consists, not in denoting the attribute wisdom, but in affirming -that quality, as belonging to the subject; for, if you cancel the -assertion, the verb is immediately converted into an adjective, and -the expression becomes _vir sapiens_, a wise man. - -The simplest of all verbs is that which the Greeks call a verb of -existence, namely, the verb _to be_. This verb frequently denotes -pure affirmation, as “God is good,” where the verb, or _copula_, -as it has been termed, serves to predicate of the Deity, the -attribute denoted by the following word. Hence, as it expresses -mere affirmation, the Latins call it a substantive verb, in -contradistinction to those verbs which, with an attribute, denote -assertion, and were called by some grammarians adjective verbs. - -Sometimes it predicates pure or absolute existence, as “God is,” -that is, “God _exists_.” In the following example it occurs in both -senses. “We believe that thou art, and that thou art the rewarder of -them who diligently seek thee.” - -As nouns denote the subjects of our discourse, so verbs predicate -their accidents, or properties. The former are the names of things, -the latter what we say concerning them. These two, therefore, must -be the only essential parts of speech; for to mental communication -nothing else can be indispensably requisite, than to name the subject -of our thoughts, and to express our sentiments of its attributes -or properties. And as the verb essentially expresses affirmation, -without which there could be no communication of sentiment, it has -been hence considered as the principal part of speech, and was -therefore called, by the ancient grammarians, _verb_, or _the word_, -by way of eminence. The noun, however, is unquestionably of earlier -origin. To assign names to surrounding objects would be a matter of -the first necessity: the next step would be to express their most -common actions, or states of being. This indeed is the order of -nature--the progress of intellect. - -Mr. Tooke observes that, “the verb does not imply any assertion, and -that no single word can.” “Till one single thing,” says he, “can be -found to be a couple, one single word cannot make an assertion or -affirmation: for there is joining in that operation, and there can be -no junction of one thing.” This theory he illustrates by the tense -_ibo_, which he resolves thus: - - _English_ Hi[40] Wol Ich - _Latin_ I Vol O - _Greek_ Ι Βουλ Εω. - -The first of each triad are the simple verbs, equivalent to _go_. -The second are the verbs _Wol_, _Vol_, Βουλ, denoting _will_. The -third are the pronouns of the first person. Whatever opinion may be -formed respecting the truth of this analysis, its ingenuity will -not be questioned. There are two objections, however, by which its -justness may possibly be controverted. The first is, if the personal -pronouns are contained, as Mr. Tooke says, in the Greek and Latin -terminations of the three persons of their verbs, why is the pronoun -repeated with the verb? If the _o_ in _volo_ be an abbreviated suffix -for _ego_, why do we redundantly say _ego volo_? Now, in answer to -this objection, it might be observed, were we disposed to indulge -in mere hypothesis, that the involution of the pronoun may have -eluded the attention of the Latins; or, if this explanation should be -deemed too improbable, it may be supposed that usage, against whose -decree there is no appeal, may have established the repetition of the -pronoun at the expense of strict propriety. One thing particularly -deserves attention, that the pronoun was seldom or never used, unless -in cases where emphasis was implied, or an antithesis of persons was -to be strongly marked. But without resorting to conjectures, which -may be deemed vague and unsatisfactory, we may appeal to a fact which -is decisive of the point in question. I have already observed, that -in the Hebrew language we can distinctly mark the pronouns suffixed -to the verb; yet we find the Hebrew writers repeating the pronouns -even in cases where no emphasis is intended. Thus, in Gen. xlviii. -22, _Ve-ani nathatti_, “and I have given;” Job xix. 25, _Ve-ani -iadahgti_, “and I knew;” Deut. ix. 2, _attah iadahghta, ve-atta -shamahgh ta_, “thou knowest, and thou hast heard.” In these examples, -the pronoun is both incorporated with the verb and repeated by -itself. Whatever may be the abstract propriety of this phraseology, -its existence in Hebrew is sufficient to obviate the objection -proposed. - -Again, it may be urged, if the pronoun _ego_ be suffixed to the verb, -why do not all the tenses in the first person singular end in _o_? -This second objection may also be partly, if not entirely, removed. -The Latin language appears to be a commixture of Greek and one of the -northern languages. This commixture will account for the first person -singular sometimes ending in _o_, in imitation of the Greeks, and at -other times in _m_, in imitation of the Celts. The present tense of -the Gaelic, a dialect of the Celtic, proceeds thus: _sgriobh-aim_, “I -write,” sgriobh-air, sgriobh-aidh, sgriobh-amoid, sgriobh-aoidhesi, -sgriobh-aidsion. Here, as Whiter observes, we have something -resembling the Latin verb _scribo_: and it is to be remarked that the -first person singular ends in _m_, which the Romans most probably -adopted as one of their verbal terminations. And could we prosecute -the inquiry, and investigate the structure of the Greek and Celtic -tenses themselves, we should doubtless find, that they involve, along -with the radical word, one or more terms expressing the accessary -ideas of action, passion, state, person, time, and so forth. The same -theory, we are persuaded, may be applied to all languages, in which -the tenses are formed by variety of termination. - -Nothing, I conceive, can be more evident, than that the inflexions -of nouns and verbs, how inexplicable soever they may now prove, -were not originally the result of systematic art, but were separate -terms significant of the circumstances intended, and afterwards, by -celerity of pronunciation, coalesced with the words of which they now -form the terminations. - -It has been observed, that the essence of the verb consists in -affirmation. This theory, I have remarked, is controverted by Mr. -Tooke. It must be obvious, however, from the preceding observations, -that the difference between the opinion of this eminent philologist, -and that which is here delivered, is more apparent than real. For -Mr. Tooke will not deny, that an affirmation is implied in _ibo_; he -merely observes, that every assertion requires “a couple of terms.” -Now it is of little moment to the point in question whether the two -terms be incorporated in one, as in _lego_, or remain separate, as “I -read.” In either case the verb affirms something of its nominative, -whether that nominative appear in a simple or in a compound state. -Sometimes the affirmation is expressed by a separate and appropriate -sign, as _ille est dives_, “he is rich:” and the verb of existence -(_to be_) is supposed, by several critics and philologists, to have -been coeval with the earliest infancy of language. In English, the -affirmation, and also the action, are frequently denoted, simply by -the junction of the name of the attribute with the nominative of -the subject, whether noun or pronoun. Thus, if we say, “my will,” -“the children’s will,” there is no affirmation implied, and the term -_will_ is considered as a mere name. But if we say, “I will,” “the -children will,” it becomes invested with a different character, -and affirms the volition to belong to the subject. Thus also, “the -hero’s might,” “the hero might,” “my ken” (my knowledge or ability), -“I ken,” _I can_, or _I am able_; “my love,” “I love.” Mr. Tooke -observes, that when we say “I love,” there is an ellipsis of the word -_do_. This appears to me a probable opinion, though not entirely -unobjectionable. For though we find the auxiliary more frequently -used in old English than in modern compositions, yet it does not -occur so frequently as, according to this hypothesis, we should -naturally expect. Mr. Tooke indeed admits the fact; but observes, -that Chaucer had less occasion to use it, because in his time the -distinguishing terminations of the verb still remained, though they -were not constantly employed. Now I find, as Mr. Tyrwhitt remarks, -that Chaucer seldom uses the word _do_ as an auxiliary, even in those -cases where the verb and the noun are identical. This circumstance -might lead us to infer that the English present was derived from -the Saxon, by dropping the termination, as _ic lufige_, _I love_; -the affirmation and the action being sufficiently obvious from the -construction, and that it was originally optional to say either “I -love,” or “I do love.” Be that as it may, the assertion expressed by -“I do,” equivalent to “I act,” appears clearly to be signified by the -junction of the nominative pronoun with the sign of action. Whether a -note of affirmation was at first separately employed, and afterwards -involved in the verbal termination, or whether the affirmation be -merely inferred and not signified, this is certain, that it is by the -verb, and the verb only, that we can express affirmation. - -As every subject of discourse must be spoken of as either doing or -suffering something, either acting or acted upon; or as neither doing -nor suffering; hence verbs have been divided by all grammarians into -active, passive, and neuter. - -The verb active denotes that the subject of discourse is doing -something, as, _I write_; the passive verb, that the subject suffers, -or is acted upon, as, _the book is burned_; and the neuter denotes -neither the one nor the other, but expresses merely the state, -posture, or condition of the subject, as unaffected by anything else, -as, _I sit_, _I sleep_, _I stand_. - -Action, energy, or motion may either be confined to the agent, or -pass from him to something extrinsic. Hence active verbs have been -divided into transitive and intransitive. An active transitive verb -denotes that kind of action by which the agent affects something -foreign to himself, or which passes from the agent to something -without him, as, _to beat a drum_, _to whip a horse_, _to kill a -dog_. _Beat_, _whip_, _kill_, are active transitive verbs; and it is -the characteristic of these verbs that they admit a noun after them, -denoting the subject of the action. - -An active intransitive verb denotes that species of action or energy, -which passes not from the agent to anything else; that is, it -expresses what has been termed immanent energy. Hence an intransitive -verb does not admit a noun after it, there being no extrinsic subject -or object affected by the action. Thus, _I run_, _I walk_, _the horse -gallops_, are examples of active intransitive verbs[41]. - -Webster, in his Dissertations on the English Language, delivers it -as his opinion, that the division of verbs into active, passive, and -neuter is incorrect; and that the only accurate distribution is into -transitive and intransitive. “Is not a man,” says he, “passive in -hearing? yet hearing is called an active verb.” - -It is doubtless true, that _to hear_, and many other verbs, commonly -called active, denote chiefly, perhaps, the effect of an extrinsic or -foreign act. But whether we view the matter as a question either in -metaphysics or in grammar, we shall perceive but little impropriety -in adopting the common distinction. For, though the verb _to hear_ -denotes, perhaps, chiefly, that a certain impression is made on -the mind through the auditory organ, yet even here the mind is not -entirely passive, as, were this the place for such a discussion, it -would be easy to prove. _I see_, _I hear_, _I feel_, _I perceive_, -denote not only the sensation in which we are passive, but also -a perception, to which the consent or activity of the mind is -unquestionably essential. Hence these verbs have, in all languages, -been denominated active. But if the term transitive be the only -correct name, it may be asked, why does Mr. Webster call this verb by -that appellation? He would answer, I doubt not, “because something -passes from the agent to something else.” What, then, is that -something which passes? I am afraid Mr. Webster would have difficulty -in answering this question, so as to justify the term transitive, -without admitting the verb to be active. For, if it be not an act, an -energy, or some operation of the mind, what is it, or how can it pass -from one to another? The truth is, this objection of Mr. Webster to -the term active in such cases, is founded neither on metaphysical nor -grammatical principles; for by an active transitive verb is meant, -that which admits a noun as its regimen; and, for the purposes of -grammar, this name is sufficiently correct. If the point in question -be metaphysically considered, it would be easy to demonstrate that, -though in sensation the mind be passive, in perception it is active. - -I would here observe, in passing, that there are many verbs neuter -and intransitive, which, followed by a preposition, may be truly -considered as active transitive verbs. These have been denominated, -by the learned Dr. Campbell, compound active verbs. _To laugh_, for -example, is a neuter verb; it cannot therefore admit a passive voice, -as, “_I am laughed_.” _To laugh at_ may be considered as an active -transitive verb; for it not only admits an objective case after it -in the active voice, but is likewise construed as a passive verb, -as, “_I am laughed at_.” Here an obvious analogy obtains between -these two and the verbs _rideo_, _derideo_, in Latin; the former of -which is a neuter, and the latter an active verb. Nor, as the same -ingenious writer observes, does it matter whether the preposition be -prefixed to the simple verb, as in Latin, in order to form the active -verb, or be put after, and detached, as is the case in English. The -only grammatical criterion in our language between an active and -a neuter verb is this: if the verb admits an objective case after -it, either with or without a preposition, to express the subject or -object of the energy, the verb may be grammatically considered as a -compound active verb; for thus construed it has a passive voice. If -the verb does not thus admit an objective case, it must be considered -grammatically as neuter or intransitive, and has no passive voice. -_To smile_ is a neuter verb; it cannot, therefore, be followed by an -objective case, nor be construed as a passive verb. We cannot say, -_she smiled him_, or _he was smiled_. _To smile on_, according to -the principle now proposed, is a compound active verb; we therefore -say, _she smiled on him_. _He was smiled on by Fortune in every -undertaking[42]._ - -As all things exist in time, and whatever is predicable of any -subject must be predicated as either past, present, or future, every -action, energy, or state of being, coming under one or other of -these predicaments, hence arises the utility of tenses, to express -the times, or relative order of their existence. In regard to the -number of these tenses[43], necessary to render a language complete, -grammarians have been somewhat divided in opinion. - -In our language we have two simple tenses, the present and the -preterperfect[44]. The latter is generally formed by adding _d_ -or _ed_ to the present, as _love, loved_; _fear, feared_. That the -suffix here is a contraction for _did_, as Mr. Tooke supposes, I can -easily imagine; thus, _fear_, _fear-did_, _feared_, or _did fear_; -but the question returns, whence comes the termination _ed_ in -_doed_, from which _did_ itself is contracted? This query seems to -have escaped the attention of the learned author[45]. - -Actions and states of being may be predicated as either certain or -contingent, free or necessary, possible or impossible, obligatory -or optional; in short, as they may take place in a variety of ways, -they may be spoken of, as diversified in their modes of production. -Hence arises another accident of verbs, called a mood, expressing -the mode or manner of existence. These modes are, in some languages, -partly expressed by inflexions, partly by auxiliary verbs, or -words significant of the model diversity. In English there is only -one mood, namely, the indicative. The Greeks and Romans expressed -by inflections the most common modes of action or existence, as -conditionality, power, contingency, certainty, liberty, and duty. In -our language they are denoted by auxiliary verbs. - -The English verb has only one voice, namely, the active. Dr. -Lowth, and most other grammarians, have assigned it two voices, -active and passive. Lowth has, in this instance, not only violated -the simplicity of our language, but has also advanced an opinion -inconsistent with his own principles. For, if he has justly excluded -from the number of cases in nouns, and moods in verbs, those which -are not formed by inflexion, but by the addition of prepositions and -auxiliary verbs, there is equal reason for rejecting a passive voice, -if it be not formed by variety of termination. Were I to ask him why -he denies _from a king_ to be an ablative case, or _I may love_ to be -the potential mood, he would answer, and very truly, that those only -can be justly regarded as cases or moods which, by a different form -of the noun or verb, express a different relation or a different mode -of existence. If this answer be satisfactory, there can be no good -reason for assigning to our language a passive voice, when that voice -is formed, not by inflexion, but by an auxiliary verb. _Doceor_ is -truly a passive voice; but _I am taught_ cannot, without impropriety, -be considered as such. Besides, as it is justly observed by Dr. Ash, -our author, when he parses the clause, “I am well pleased,” tells -us that _am_ is the indicative mood, present tense of the verb _to -be_; and _pleased_, the passive participle of the verb to _please_. -Now, in parsing, every word should be considered as a distinct part -of speech: whether, therefore, we admit _pleased_ to be a passive -participle or not, (for this point I shall afterwards examine,) it -is obvious that on the principle now laid down, and acknowledged -by Dr. Lowth, _am pleased_ is not a present passive, nor has the -author himself parsed it in this manner. Into such inconsistencies do -our grammarians run, from a propensity to force the grammar of our -language into a conformity with the structure of Greek and Latin. - -The same reasoning will also account for my assigning to English -verbs no more than two tenses and one mood. For, if we consider the -matter, not metaphysically, but grammatically, and regard those only -as moods which are diversified by inflexion, (and, as Lowth himself -observes, as far as grammar is concerned, there can be no others,) we -find that our language has only one mood and two tenses. - -This doctrine, in respect to the cases, is very generally admitted. -For though the Greeks and Romans expressed the different relations -by variety of inflexion, which they termed cases, it does not follow -that we are to acknowledge the same number of cases as they had, -when these relations are expressed in English, not by inflexions, -but by prepositions or words significant of these relations. The -Latins would not have acknowledged _absque fructu_, without fruit, -as forming a seventh case, though they acknowledged _fructu_, by -fruit, as making an ablative or sixth case. And why? because the -latter only was formed by inflexion. For this reason, I consider -giving the name of dative case to the combination of words _to a -king_, or of ablative case to the expression _from a king_, to be a -palpable impropriety. Our language knows no such cases; nor would an -Englishman, unacquainted with Greek or Latin, ever dream of these -cases, though perfectly master of his own language. - -In the same manner it may be asked, what could lead him to -distinguish a diversity of moods, or a plurality of voices, where -there is no variety of termination to discriminate them? The -distinction of circumstances, respecting the modes of existence, he -expresses by words significant of these accidents; but he would no -more dream of giving these forms of expression the name of moods, -than he would be disposed to call _from a king_ by the name of _casus -ablativus_, or _permit me to go_ the first person singular of the -imperative mood. If, indeed, he were somewhat acquainted with Latin, -he might, in the true spirit of modern grammarians, contend that _let -me go_, or _permit me to go_, is truly the first person singular of -the imperative mood; assigning as a reason for this assertion, that -such is the designation of _eam_ in Latin. With the most correct -knowledge, however, of his own language only, he could never be -seduced into this absurdity. A little reflection indeed might teach -him, that even _eam_ in Latin is an elliptical expression for _sine -ut eam_, the word _eam_ itself denoting neither entreaty nor command. - -In truth, we may as reasonably contend that our language has all -the tenses which are to be found in Greek and Latin, because, by -the aid of auxiliaries and definitives, we contrive to express -what they denoted by one word, as to contend that we have a -potential, an optative or imperative mood, or a passive voice; -because by auxiliaries or variety of arrangement we can express the -circumstances of power, liberty, duty, passion, &c. No grammarian -has yet gone so far as to affirm that we have in English a _paulo -post future_, because our language, by definitives or auxiliaries, -is capable of expressing that time. Or, what should we think of -that person’s discernment, who should contend that the Latins had -an optative mood, because _utinam legeres_ signifies “I wish you -would read”? It is equally absurd to say that we have an imperfect, -preterpluperfect, or future tenses; or that we have all the Greek -varieties of mood, and two voices, because by the aid of auxiliary -words and definite terms we contrive to express these accidents, -times, or states of being. I consider, therefore, that we have no -more cases, moods, tenses, or voices in our language, as far as its -grammar, not its capacity of expression, is concerned, than we have -variety of termination to denote these different accessary ideas. - -As the terminations of most verbs in languages are varied by tense -and mood, so are they also varied according as the subject is of -the first, second, or third person. Thus, in the only two tenses -that we have in English, namely, the present and the preterperfect -tenses, the second person singular of each is formed from the first, -by adding _st_ or _est_, as, _I love, thou lovest_; _I loved, thou -lovedst_; and the third person singular of the present is formed by -adding _s_, or the syllable _eth_ or _th_, to the first as, _love, -loves_, or _loveth_; _read, reads_, or _readeth_. These are the only -variations which our verbs admit, in concordance with the person of -the nominative singular. The three persons plural are always the same -with the first person singular. - -Before I proceed to the conjugation of verbs in general, I shall -first explain the manner in which the auxiliaries are conjugated. -Of these the most extensively useful is the verb _to be_, denoting -simple affirmation, or expressing existence. The next is that which -signifies action, namely, the verb _to do_. The third is the verb _to -have_, implying possession. The others are, _shall_, _will_, _may_, -_can_, &c. I begin with the verb _to be_. - - - _Indicative Mood._ - - _Present Tense._ - - _Sing._[46] I am Thou art He, she, or it is - _Plur._ We are Ye or you are They are. - - - _Preterite._ - - _Sing._ I was Thou wast[47] He was - _Plur._ We were Ye or you were They were. - - - _Imperfect Conditional._ - - _Sing._ I were Thou wert He were - _Plur._ We were Ye or you were They were. - - _Infinitive._ - - To be. - -It may seem inconsistent with the opinion which I have delivered -concerning moods, to assign an infinitive to this verb; and the -existence of this infinitive may appear, perhaps, a sufficient -refutation of that opinion. I shall, therefore, briefly repeat what -I have said, and offer a few additional observations. - -I have remarked that the first care of men, in a rude and infant -state, would be to assign names to surrounding objects; and that the -noun, in the natural order of things, must have been the first part -of speech. Their inventive powers would next be employed to express -the most common energies or states of being, such as are denoted by -the verbs _to do_, _to be_, _to suffer_. Hence, by the help of these -combined with a noun, they might express the energy or state of that -thing, of which the noun was the name. Thus, I shall suppose that -they assigned the word _plant_, as the name of a vegetable set in the -ground. To express the act of setting it, they would say, _do plant_, -that is, _act plant_. The letters _d_ and _t_ being nearly allied, it -is easy to conceive how the word _do_, by a variation very natural -and common to all languages, might be changed into _to_; and thus the -word _to_ prefixed to a noun would express the correspondent energy -or action. - -In what light, then, are we to consider the phrase _to plant_, termed -an infinitive, or to what class of words is it reducible? Previously -to my answering this question, it is necessary to remind the reader, -that a verb joined to a noun forms a sentence; that affirmation is -essential to the character of a verb; and that, for this reason, -and this only, it has been pre-eminently distinguished by the -name of verb, or the word. Destroy this characteristic, and it is -immediately confounded with the adjective, or the participle. It is -its power of predication only, which constitutes it a distinct part -of speech, and discriminates it from every other. _Vir sapit_, and -_vir est sapiens_, are equivalent expressions. Cancel the assertion, -and the verb is lost. The expression becomes _vir sapiens_, “a wise -man.” This opinion, I am persuaded, requires only to be examined to -be universally adopted. If this be the case, the infinitive which -affirms nothing, cannot, without impropriety, be deemed a verb. It -expresses merely an action, passion, or state abstractedly. Hence -many grammarians have justly considered it as no part of the verb; -and, in the languages of Greece and Rome, the infinitive was employed -like a common substantive, having frequently an adjective joined with -it, and subject to the government of verbs and prepositions. This -opinion has been lately controverted by a writer of considerable -eminence as a Latin scholar. But, after examining the matter with -attention, I take upon me to affirm, that not a single example can be -produced wherein the infinitive, as used by the Greeks and Romans, -might not be supplied by the substitution of a noun. Wherefore, -admitting the established principle, _voces valent significatione_, -there cannot exist a doubt that the infinitive, which may in all -cases be supplied by a noun, has itself the real character of a -noun. And, if the essence of a verb consist in predication, and not, -as some think, in implying time in conjunction with an attribute, -which is the characteristic of a participle, then the infinitive, -as it can predicate nothing, and joined to a substantive makes no -sentence, cannot therefore be deemed a verb. When I say, _legere est -facile_, “to read is easy,” it is obvious that there is only one -sentence in each of these expressions. But if _legere_ (to read) -were a verb as well as _est_ (is), then there would be two verbs and -also two affirmations, for affirmation is inseparable from a verb. -I remark also, that the verbal noun _lectio_ (reading) substituted -for _legere_ (to read) would precisely express the same sentiment. -For these reasons I concur decidedly with those grammarians who are -so far from considering the infinitive as a distinct mood, that they -entirely exclude it from the appellation of verb[48]. - -It may be asked, what then is it to be called? In answer to this -query, I observe, that it matters little what designation be assigned -to it, provided its character and office be fully understood. The -ancient Latin grammarians, as Priscian informs us, termed it properly -enough, _nomen verbi_, “the noun or name of the verb.” To proscribe -terms, which have been long familiar to us, and, by immemorial -possession, have gained an establishment, is always a difficult, and -frequently an ungracious task. I shall therefore retain its usual -name, having sufficiently guarded the reader against a misconception -of its character. - -Now, in our language, the infinitive has not even the distinction -arising from termination, to entitle it to be ranked in the number -of moods; its form being the same with that of the present tense, -and probably, both in its termination and its prefix, originally -identical. For, if the doctrine just proposed be correct, the word -_do_ was put before each. To this rule the English language furnishes -only one exception, namely, the verb of existence, in which the -present indicative is _am_, whereas the infinitive is _to be_. This, -however, can scarcely be deemed an exception, when it is considered, -that the present indicative of this verb was originally _be_ as -well as _am_; though the former be now in a state of obsolescence, -or rather entirely obsolete. At the same time, as this is the only -verb in which the infinitive differs in form from the present of the -indicative, I have judged it necessary to note the exception, and -assign the infinitive. - - _Present part._ Being - _Past part._ Been[49]. - - - TO DO. - - _Indicative Mood._ - - _Present._ - - _Sing._ I do Thou doest or dost He doeth, doth or does - _Plur._ We do Ye or you do They do. - - - _Preterperfect._ - - _Sing._ I did Thou didst He, she, or it did[50] - _Plur._ We did Ye or you did They did. - - - _Participles._ - - _Present_ Doing - _Past_ Done. - - - TO HAVE. - - _Indicative Mood._ - - _Present._ - - _Sing._ I have Thou hast He hath or has - _Plur._ We have Ye or you have They have. - - - _Preterperfect._ - - _Sing._ I had Thou hadst He had - _Plur._ We had Ye or you had They had. - - - _Participles._ - - _Present_ Having - _Past_ Had. - - Liberty is expressed by the verb - MAY. - - - _Indicative Mood._ - - _Present._ - - _Sing._ I may Thou mayest He may - _Plur._ We may Ye or you may They may[51]. - - - _Preterperfect._ - - _Sing._ I might Thou mightest He might - _Plur._ We might Ye or you might They might. - - Power or ability is expressed by - CAN. - - - _Indicative Mood._ - - - _Present._ - - _Sing._ I can Thou canst He can - _Plur._ We can Ye or you can They can[52]. - - - _Preterperfect._ - - _Sing._ I could Thou couldst He could - _Plur._ We could Ye or you could They could. - -Futurition and duty are expressed by the verb _shall_, but not each -in the three persons. - - - _Indicative Mood._ - - _Present._ - - _Sing._[53] I shall Thou shalt He shall - _Plur._ We shall Ye or you shall They shall. - - - _Preterperfect._ - - _Sing._ I should Thou shouldst He should - _Plur._ We should Ye or you should They should. - -Volition and futurity are expressed by the verb _to will_. - - - _Present._ - - _Sing._ I will Thou wilt He will - _Plur._ We will Ye or you will They will[54]. - - - _Preterperfect._ - - _Sing._ I would Thou wouldst He would - _Plur._ We would Ye or you would They would. - -Priestley and Lowth, who have in this been followed by most other -grammarians, call the tenses _may_, _can_, _shall_, _will_, absolute -tenses; _might_, _could_, _should_, _would_, conditional. That -_might_, _could_, _should_, _would_, frequently imply conditionality, -there can be no question; but I am persuaded that the proper -character of these tenses is unconditional affirmation, and for these -two reasons: - -1st. Their formation seems to indicate that they are preterites -indicative, proceeding from their respective presents, in the same -manner as _did_ from _do_, _had_ from _have_, and having therefore -the same unconditional meaning. Thus, _I may_, is equivalent to “I am -at liberty;” _I might_, to “I was at liberty;” _I can_, means “I am -able;” _I could_, “I was able;” _I will_, “I am willing;” _I would_, -“I was willing.” - -2dly. They are used to express unconditional meaning. If we say, -“This might prove fatal to your interest,” the assertion of the -possibility of the event is as unconditional as absolute, as, “This -may prove fatal to your interest.” “This, if you do it, _will_ ruin -your cause,” is precisely equivalent to, “This, were you to do -it, _would_ ruin your cause;” equivalent as far, at least, as the -unconditional affirmation of the consequence of a supposed action is -involved[55]. “I may write, if I choose,” is not more absolute than -“I might write, if I chose.” If I say, “I might have gone to the -Continent,” the expression is as unconditional as, “I had it in my -power,” “I was at liberty to go to the Continent.” “Can you construe -Lycophron?” “I cannot now; but once _I could_.” “May you do as you -please?” “Not now; but once I _might_.” Is there any conditionality -implied in the latter clause of each of these answers? Not the least. -They are unconditionally assertive. The formation of these tenses, -therefore, being analogous to that of preterites indicative, and -their import in these examples, as in many others which might be -adduced, being unconditional and absolute, I am inclined to consider -them as preterites indicative, agreeably to their form, and as -properly unconditional in respect to signification. - -I observe, however, that though _might_, _could_, _would_, _should_, -are preterite tenses, they are frequently employed to denote present -time[56]; but in such examples care must be taken that congruity of -tense be preserved, and that the subsequent be expressed in the same -tense with the antecedent verb. Thus I say, “I may go if I choose,” -where the liberty and inclination are each expressed as present; or, -“I might go if I chose,” where, though present time be implied, the -liberty is expressed by the preterite, and the inclination is denoted -by the same tense. - -Before I proceed to show how these auxiliary verbs are joined with -others, to express the intended accessary ideas, I shall offer a few -observations on the participle. - - - - -CHAPTER VI. - -OF THE PARTICIPLE. - - -A participle is a part of speech derived from a verb, agreeing with -its primitive in denoting action, being, or suffering, but differing -from it in this, that the participle implies no affirmation[57]. - -There are two participles, the present, ending in _ing_, as -_reading_[58]; and the perfect or past, generally ending in _d_ or -_ed_, as _heard_, _loved_. - -The present participle denotes the relatively present, or the -contemporary continuation of an action, or state of being. If we -say, “James was building the house,” the participle expresses the -continuation of the action, and the verb may be considered as -active. If we say, “the house was building, when the wall fell,” -the participle, the same as in the preceding example, denotes -here the continuation of a state of suffering, or being acted -upon; and the verb may be considered as passive. This participle, -therefore, denoting either action or passion, cannot with propriety -be considered, as it has been by some grammarians, as entirely an -active participle. Its distinctive and real character is, that in -point of time it denotes the relatively present, and may therefore -be called the present participle; and, in regard to action or -passion, it denotes their continuance or incompletion, and may -therefore be termed imperfect. In respect to time, therefore, it -is present; in respect to the action or state of being, it is -continued or imperfect. But whether it express action or passion can -be ascertained only by inquiring whether the subject be acting or -suffering; and this is a question which judgment only can decide, the -participle itself not determining the point. If we say, “the prisoner -was burning,” our knowledge of the subject only can enable us to -determine whether the prisoner was active or passive; whether he was -employing fire to consume, or was himself consuming by fire. - -The other participle, ending generally in _ed_ or _d_, has -been called by some grammarians the passive participle, in -contradistinction to the one which we have now been considering, -and which they have termed the active participle. “This participle -has been so called,” says the author of the British Grammar, -“because, joined with the verb _to be_, it forms the passive -voice.” If the reason here assigned justify its denomination as a -passive participle, there exists the same reason for calling it an -active participle; for, with the verb _to have_, it forms some of -the compound tenses of the active voice. The truth is, that, as -those grammarians have erred who consider the participle in _ing_ -as an active participle, when it in fact denotes either action or -passion, so those, on the other hand, commit a similar mistake, who -regard the participle in _ed_ as purely passive. A little attention -will suffice to show that it belongs to neither the one voice nor -the other peculiarly: and that it denotes merely completion or -perfection, in contradistinction to the other participle, which -expresses imperfection or continuation. If it be true, indeed, that -the participle in _ing_ does not belong to the active voice only, -but expresses merely the continuation of any act, passion, or state -of being, analogy would incline us to infer, that the participle -in _ed_, which denotes the completion of an act or state of being, -cannot belong exclusively to the passive voice; and I conceive that, -on inquiry, we shall find this to be the case. If I say, “he had -concealed a poniard under his coat,” the participle here would be -considered as active. If I say, “he had a poniard concealed under his -clothes,” the participle would be regarded as passive. Does not this -prove that this participle is ambiguous, that it properly belongs to -neither voice, and that the context only, or the arrangement, can -determine, whether it denote the perfection of an action, or the -completion of a passion or state of being? When I say, “Lucretia -stabbed herself with a dagger, which she had concealed under her -clothes,” it is impossible to ascertain whether the participle be -active or passive, that is, whether the verb _had_ be here merely -an auxiliary verb, or be synonymous with the verb _to possess_. -If the former be intended, the syntactical collocation is, “she -had concealed (which) dagger under her clothes:” if the latter, -the grammatical order is, “she had which dagger concealed:” and it -requires but little discernment to perceive that “she had concealed -a dagger,” and “had a dagger concealed,” are expressions by no means -precisely equivalent. - -I need not here remind the classical scholar, that the Latins had two -distinct forms of expression to mark this diversity; the one, _quem -abdiderat_, and the other _quem abditum habebat_. The latter is the -phraseology of Livy, describing the suicide of Lucretia. His words, -if translated, “which she had concealed,” become ambiguous; for this -is equally a translation of _quem abdiderat_. It is observable also, -that the phrase _quem abdiderat_ would not imply, that the dagger was -in the possession of Lucretia at the time. - -The participle in _ed_, therefore, I consider to be perfectly -analogous to the participle in _ing_, and used like it in either an -active or passive sense; belonging, therefore, neither to the one -voice nor the other exclusively, but denoting the completion of an -action or state of being, while the participle in _ing_ denotes its -continuation. - -In exhibiting a paradigm of the conjugation of our verbs, many -grammarians have implicitly and servilely copied the Latin grammar, -transferring into our language the names both of tenses and moods -which have formally no existence in English. “I may burn,” is -denominated, by the author of the British Grammar, the present -subjunctive; “I might burn,” the imperfect subjunctive; “I may have -burned,” the preterperfect; and so on. This is directly repugnant to -the simplicity of our language, and is in truth as absurd as it would -be to call “we two love,” the dual number of the present tense; or -“he shall soon be buried,” a paulo post future. Were this principle -carried its full length, we should have all the tenses, moods, and -numbers, which are to be found in Greek or Latin. It appears to me, -that nothing but prejudice or affectation could have prompted our -English grammarians to desert the simple structure of their own -language, and wantonly to perplex it with technical terms, for things -not existing in the language itself. - -I purpose, therefore, in exhibiting the conjugation of the English -verb, to give the simple tenses, as the only ones belonging to our -language; and then show how, by the aid of other words combined -with these, we contrive to express the requisite modifications, and -various accessary ideas. - - _Indicative Present._ _Preter._ _Part. Perf._ - Write Wrote Written. - - -_Present Tense._ - - _S._ I write Thou writest He writes or writeth - _P._ We write Ye or you write They write. - -This tense is by some grammarians called the present indefinite; -while by others it is considered as either definite or indefinite. -When it expresses an action now present, it is termed the present -definite, as, - -“I write this after a severe illness.”--_Pope’s Letters._ - -“Saul, why persecutest thou me?”--_Bible._ - - “This day begins the woe, others must end.”--_Shakspeare._ - -If the proposition expressed be general, or true at all times, this -tense is then termed the present indefinite; as, “The wicked flee, -when no man pursueth.” - - “Through tatter’d clothes small vices do appear; - Robes and furred gowns hide all.”--_Shakspeare._ - - - _Preterperfect._ - - _S._ I wrote Thou wrotest He wrote - _P._ We wrote Ye or you wrote They wrote. - -This tense is indefinite, no particular past time being implied. - -These are the only two tenses in our language formed by varying the -termination; the only two tenses, therefore, which properly belong to -it. - - - _Present Progressive, or continued._ - - _S._ I am writing Thou art writing He is writing - _P._ We are writing You are writing They are writing. - -This tense denotes a present action proceeding. In regard to time, it -has been termed definite; and, in respect to action, it differs from -the other present in this, that the former has no reference either to -the perfection or imperfection of the action; whereas this denotes -that the action is continued and imperfect. - - - _Present Emphatic._ - - _S._ I do write Thou dost write He doth or does write - _P._ We do write Ye or you do write They do write. - -This form of the verb is emphatic, and generally implies doubt or -contradiction on the part of the person addressed, to remove which -the assertion is enforced by the auxiliary verb. In respect to time -and action, it is precisely the same with _I write_. - -“You cannot dread an honourable death.” - -“I do dread it.” - -“Excellent wretch! perdition seize my soul, but I do love thee.” - -Cancel the auxiliary verb, and the expression becomes feeble and -spiritless. This is one of those phraseologies, which it would be -impossible to render in a transpositive language. _Di me perdant, -quin te amem_, is an expression comparatively exanimate and insipid. - - - _Preterite, Indefinite, and Emphatic._ - - _S._ I did write Thou didst write He did write - _P._ We did write You did write They did write. - -as, “This to me in dreadful secrecy impart they did.” The emphasis -here, however, may partly arise from the inverted collocation. The -following example is therefore more apposite. “I have been told that -you have slighted me, and said, I feared to face my enemy. You surely -did not wrong me thus?” “I _did_ say so.” - -This tense is indefinite, in respect both to the time, and the -completion of the action. - - - _Preter. Imp. &c. continued._ - - _S._ I was writing Thou wast writing He was writing - _P._ We were writing Ye were writing They were writing. - -This tense denotes that an action was proceeding, or going on, at a -time past either specified or implied, as “I was writing when you -called.” - - - _Preterperfect._ - - _S._ I have Thou hast He has } written. - _P._ We have You have They have } - -This tense expresses time as past, and the action as perfect. It is -compounded of the present tense of the verb denoting possession and -the perfect participle. It signifies a perfect action either newly -finished, or in a time of which there is some part to elapse, or -an action whose consequences extend to the present. In short, it -clearly refers to present time. This, indeed, the composition of the -tense manifestly evinces. Thus, “I have written a letter,” means -“I possess at present the finished action of writing a letter.” -This phraseology, I acknowledge, seems uncouth and inelegant; but, -how awkward soever it may appear, the tense is unquestionably thus -resolvable. - -1st. It expresses an action newly finished, as, “I understand that a -messenger has arrived from Paris,” that is, “newly,” or “just now,” -arrived. - -2dly. An action done in a space of time, part of which is yet to -elapse; as, “It has rained all this week,” “We have seen strange -things this century.” - -3dly. An action perfected some time ago, but whose consequences -extend to the present time; as, “I have wasted my time, and now -suffer for my folly.” - -This tense has been termed, by some grammarians, the perfect -indefinite, and “I wrote,” the perfect definite. The argument -which they offer for this denomination is, that the latter admits -a definitive, to specify the precise time, and the former rejects -it. Those who reason in this manner seem to me not only chargeable -with a perversion of terms, but also to disprove their own theory. -For what is meant by a definite term? Not surely that which admits -or requires a definitive to give it precision; but that which of -itself is already definite. If, therefore, “I wrote,” not only -admits, but even requires, the subjunction of a defining term or -clause to render the time definite and precise, it cannot surely be -itself a definite tense. Besides, they appear to me to reason in -this case inconsistently with their own principles. For they call _I -am writing_ a definite tense; and why? but because it defines the -action to be imperfect, or the time to be relatively present[59]. But -if they reason here as they do in respect to the preterite tenses, -they ought to call this an indefinite tense, because it admits not -a definitive clause. They must, therefore, either acknowledge that -_I have written_ is a definite tense, and _I wrote_, indefinite; or -they must, contrary to their own principles, call _I am writing_ -indefinite. - -Dr. Arthur Browne, in an Essay on the Greek Tenses[60], contends, -that _I wrote_ is the perfect definite, and _I have written_ the -perfect indefinite. “_I wrote_,” says he, “is not intelligible -without referring to some precise point of time, _e.g._ when I was -in France. Why, then, does Dr. Beattie say _I wrote_ is indefinite, -because it refers to no particular past time? No: it is indefinite -because the verb in that tense does not define whether the action be -complete or not complete. And why does he say, _I have written_ is -definite in respect of time? for it refers to no particular time at -which the event happened. Put this example: A says to B, ‘I wish you -would write to that man.’ ‘_I have written to him_,’ the sense is -complete; the expression is not supposed to refer to any particular -time, and does not necessarily elicit any further inquiry. But if -B answers, ‘_I wrote to him_,’ he is of course supposed to have in -his mind a reference to some particular time, and it naturally calls -on A to ask when? It is not clear, then, that _I wrote_ refers to -some particular time, and cannot have been called indefinite, as Dr. -Beattie supposes, from its not doing so?” - -Dr. Browne’s argument is chargeable with inconsistency. He says, that -because _I have written_ elicits no farther inquiry, and renders the -sense complete, it denotes no determinate time; and that _I wrote_ -refers to a particular time, prompting to farther inquiry. This at -least I take to be the scope of his reasoning; for if it be not from -their occasioning, or not occasioning, farther interrogation, that -he deduces his conclusion concerning the nature of these tenses, his -argument seems nothing but pure assertion. Now, so far from calling -that a definite tense, which necessarily requires, as he himself -states, a defining clause to specify the point of time, I should call -it an indefinite tense. He admits that _I wrote_ refers to time past -in general, and that it requires some farther specification to render -the time known, as _I wrote yesterday_. In this case, surely it is -not the term _wrote_, but _yesterday_, which defines the precise -time; the tense itself expressing nothing but past time in general. - -For the same reason, if, as he acknowledges, _I have written_ elicits -no farther inquiry, it is an argument that the sense is complete, -and the time sufficiently understood by the hearer. Besides, is it -not somewhat paradoxical to say that a tense which renders farther -explanation unnecessary, and the sense complete, thus satisfying the -hearer, is indefinite? and that a tense which does not satisfy the -hearer, but renders farther inquiry necessary, is definite? This, to -say the least, is somewhat extraordinary. - -The observations of Lord Monboddo on this subject are not -inapplicable to the point in question: I shall therefore transcribe -them. - -“There are actions,” says he, “which end in energy, and produce no -work which remains after them. What shall we say of such actions? -cannot we say, I have danced a dance, taken a walk, &c., and how can -such actions be said in any sense to be present? My answer is, that -the consequences of such actions, respecting the speaker, or some -other person or thing, are present, and what these consequences are, -appears from the tenor of the discourse. ‘I have taken a walk, and am -much better for it.’ ‘I have danced a dance, and am inclined to dance -no more.’” - -The order of nature being maintained, as Mr. Harris observes, by a -succession of contrarieties, the termination of one state of things -naturally implies the commencement of its contrary. Hence this tense -has been employed to denote an attribute the contrary to that which -is expressed by the verb. Thus the Latins used _vixit_, “he hath -lived,” to denote “he is dead;” _fuit Ilium_, “Troy has been,” to -signify _Troy is no more_. A similar phraseology obtains in English; -thus, “I _have_ been young,” is equivalent to “now I am old.” - - - _Preter Imperfect._ - - _Sing._ I have been Thou hast been He has been } writing. - _Plur._ We have been You have been They have been } - -This tense, in respect to time, is the same as the last, but implies -the imperfection of the action, and denotes its progression. - - - _Preter Pluperfect._ - - _Sing._ I had Thou hadst He had } written. - _Plur._ We had Ye or you had They had } - -This tense denotes that an action was perfected before another action -was done. - - - _Plusquam Preterite Imperfect._ - - _Sing._ I had been Thou hadst been He had been } writing. - _Plur._ We had been Ye had been They had been } - -This tense, in respect to time, is more than past, and in respect to -action is imperfect. It denotes that an action was going on, or in a -state of progression, before another action took place, or before it -was perfected; as, “I had been writing before you arrived.” - - - _Future Indefinite._ - - _Sing._ I shall Thou shalt He shall } write. - _Plur._ We shall Ye or you shall They shall } - OR - _Sing._ I will Thou wilt He will } write. - _Plur._ We will Ye or you will They will } - -These compound tenses denote the futurity of an action indefinitely, -without any reference to its completion. The meaning of the several -persons has been already explained. - - - _Future Imp. Progressive._ - - I shall or will be We shall or will be } - Thou shalt or wilt be Ye shall or will be } writing. - He shall or will be They shall or will be } - -This tense agrees with the former in respect to time, but differs -from it in this, that the former has no reference to the completion -of the action, while the latter expresses its imperfection and -progression. - - - _Future Perfect._ - - I shall have We shall have } - Thou shalt have Ye shall have } written. - He shall have They shall have } - -This tense denotes that a future action will be perfected, before the -commencement or completion of another action, or before a certain -future time; as, “Before you can have an answer, I shall have written -a second letter.” “By the time he shall have arrived, you will have -conquered every difficulty.” In short, it denotes, that at some -future time an action will be perfected. - -As it has been a subject of great controversy among grammarians, what -tenses should be called definite and what indefinite, I shall now -offer a few observations which may serve to illustrate the point in -question. - -Duration, like space, is continuous and uninterrupted. It is -divisible in idea only. It is past or future, merely in respect -to some intermediate point, which the mind fixes as the limit -between the one and the other. Present time, in truth, does not -exist, any more than a mathematical line can have breadth, or a -mathematical point be composed of parts. This position has, indeed, -been controverted by Dr. Beattie; but, in my judgment, without the -shadow of philosophical argument[61]. Harris, Reid, and several -others, have incontrovertibly proved it. But though present time, -philosophically speaking, has no existence, we find it convenient to -assume a certain portion of the past and the future, as intermediate -spaces between these extremes, and to consider these spaces as -present; for example, the present day, the present week, the present -year, the present century, though part of these several periods be -past, and part to come. We speak of them, however, as present, as -“this month,” “this year,” “this day.” Time being thus in its nature -continuous, and past and future being merely relative terms, some, -portion or point of time being conceived where the one begins and the -other ends, it is obvious that all tenses indicative of any of these -two general divisions must denote relative time, that is, time past -or future, in relation to some conceived or assumed space; thus it -may be past or future, in respect to the present hour, the present -day, the present week. - -Again. The term indefinite is applicable either to time or to action. -It may, therefore, be the predicate of a tense denoting either -that the precise time is left undetermined, or that the action -specified is not signified, as either complete or imperfect. Hence -the controversy has been partly verbal. Hence, also, the contending -parties have seemed to differ, while, in fact, they were agreed; and, -on the contrary, have seemed to accord, while their opinions were, in -truth, mutually repugnant. - -Dr. Browne confines the term to action only, and pleads the authority -of Mr. Harris in his favour. It is true, indeed, that Mr. Harris -calls those tenses definite which denote the beginning, the middle, -or the perfection of an action: but it is obvious, from the most -superficial examination of his theory, that he denominates the tenses -definite or indefinite, not in respect to action, but to time. When, -in the passage from Milton, - - “Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth, - Unseen, both when we wake and when we sleep;” - -he considers “_walk_” as indefinite, is it in regard to action? No. -“It is,” says he, “because they were walking, not at that instant -only, but indefinitely, at any instant whatever.” And when he terms, -_Thou shalt not kill_, an indefinite tense, is it because it has no -reference to the completion or the imperfection of the action? No; -it is “because,” says he, “this means no particular future time, but -is extended indefinitely to every part of time.” Besides, if Mr. -Harris’s and Dr. Browne’s ideas coincide, how comes it that the one -calls that a definite tense, which the other terms indefinite? This -does not look like accordance in sentiment, or in the application of -terms. Yet the tenses in such examples as these, - -“The wicked flee when no man pursueth;” - -“Ad pœnitendum properat, cito qui judicat;” - -“God is good;” “Two and two are four;” - -which Harris and Beattie properly call indefinite, Browne terms -definite. Nay, he denominates them thus for the very reason for which -the others call them indefinite, namely, because the sentiments are -always true, and the time of their existence never perfectly past. So -far in respect to Mr. Harris’s authority in favour of Browne, when he -confines the terms definite and indefinite to action only[62]. - -But I forbear to prosecute this controversy further, or to point out -the inaccuracies with which I apprehend many writers on this subject -are chargeable. I therefore proceed to review and illustrate the -doctrine of the tenses which I have already offered. - -The present time being, as I have already observed, an assumed -space, and of no definite extent, as it may be either the present -minute, the present hour, the present month, the present year, all -of which consist of parts, it follows that, as the present time is -itself indefinite, having no real existence, but being an arbitrary -conception of the mind, the tense significant of that time must be -also indefinite. This, I conceive, must be sufficiently evident. -Hence the present tense not only admits, but frequently requires, -the definitive _now_ to limit the interval between past and future, -or to note the precise point of time. - -Time past and time future are conceived as infinitely more extended -than the present. The tenses, therefore, significant of these two -grand divisions of time, are also necessarily indefinite. - -Again, an action may be expressed, either as finished, or as -proceeding; or it may be the subject of affirmation, without any -reference to either of these states. In English, to denote the -continuation of the action we employ the present or imperfect -participle; and to denote its completion we use the preterite or -perfect participle. When neither is implied, the tenses significant -of the three divisions of time, without any regard to the action as -complete or imperfect, are uniformly employed. - -The tenses, therefore, indefinite as to time and action are these: - - _The Present_ I write - _The Preterite_ I wrote - _The Future_ I shall write. - -The six following compound tenses are equally indefinite in point of -time; but they denote either the completion or the progress of the -action, and in this respect are definite. - - _Its progress._ _Its perfection_, as - I am writing I have written - I was writing I had written - I shall be writing I shall have written. - - - _I write_ _I am writing_ _I have written._ - -The first is indefinite as to time and action. If I say, “I write,” -it is impossible to ascertain by the mere expression, whether be -signified, “I write now,” “I write daily,” or, “I am a writer in -general.” It is the concomitant circumstances only, either expressed -or understood, which can determine what part of the present time -is implied. When Pope introduces a letter to Lady M. W. Montague -with these words, “I write this after a severe illness,” is it the -tense which marks the time, or is it not the date of the letter, -with which the writing is understood to be contemporary? If you -and I should see a person writing, and either of us should say, -“He writes,” the proposition would be particular, and time present -with the speaker’s observation would be understood: but, is it not -evident, that it is not the tense which defines the _present now_, -but the obvious circumstances of the person’s writing at the time? -And when the king, in Hamlet, says, - - “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: - Words, without thoughts, never to heaven go,” - -what renders the two first propositions particular, or confines -the tenses to the time then present, while the last proposition is -universally true, and the tense indefinite? Nothing, I conceive, but -the circumstances of the speaker. Nay, does it not frequently happen, -that we must subjoin the word _now_ to this tense, in order to define -the point of time? Did the tense of itself note the precise time, -this definitive would in no case be necessary. If I say, “Apples are -ripe,” the proposition, considered independently on adventitious -circumstances, is general and indefinite. The time may be defined -by adding a specific clause, as, “in the month of October;” or, if -nothing be subjoined, the ellipsis is supplied either by the previous -conversation, or in some other way, and the hearer understands, “are -_now_ ripe.” This tense, therefore, I consider as indefinite in point -of time. That it is indefinite in regard to action, there can be no -question. - - _I am writing._ - -This tense also is indefinite in respect to time. It derives its -character as a tense from the verb _am_, which implies affirmation -with time, either _now_, _generally_, or _always_. Mr. Harris calls -it the present definite, as I have already remarked; and in regard -to action it is clearly definite. It is this, and this only, which -distinguishes it from the other present, _I write_, the latter -having no reference to the perfection or imperfection of the action, -while _I am writing_ denotes its continuation. Hence it is, that the -latter is employed to express propositions generally or universally -true, the idea of perfection or incompletion being, in such cases, -excluded. Thus we say, _The wicked flee when no man pursueth_; but -not, as I conceive, with equal propriety, _The wicked are fleeing -when no man is pursuing_. - - _I have written._ - -As _I am writing_ denotes the present continuation of an action, so -_I have written_ expresses an action completed in a time supposed to -be continued to the present, or an action whose consequences extend -to the present time. As a tense, it derives its character from the -tense _I have_, significant of present time; while the perfection of -the action is denoted by the perfect participle. But as I have shown -that every tense significant of present time must be, in regard to -time, indefinite, so this tense, compounded of the present tense _I -have_, must, in this respect, be therefore indefinite. - -Lowth, Priestley, Beattie, Harris, and several others, have assigned -it the name of the preterite definite, and _I wrote_ they have -termed the preterite indefinite. Browne, and one or two others, -have reversed this denomination. Now, that _I wrote_ does not of -itself define what part of past time is specified, appears to me -very evident. This is, indeed, admitted by those who contend for -the definite nature of this tense. Why, then, do they call it a -definite tense? Because, they say, it admits a definitive term, -by the aid of which it expresses the precise time, as, “I wrote -yesterday,” “a week ago,” “last month;” whereas we cannot say, “I -have written yesterday.” Now, as I remarked before, this appears -to me a perversion of language; for we do not denominate that term -_definite_, which requires a definitive to render it precise. Why -have the terms _the_, _this_, _that_, been called definitives? Is it -because they admit a defining term? or is it not because they limit -or define the import of general terms? I concur, therefore, with -the author of the article “Aorist,” in the “Nouvelle Encyclopédie,” -when he ridicules a M. Demandre for giving the character of definite -to a tense which marks past time indefinitely. This certainly is a -perversion of terms. - -“When we make use of the auxiliary verb,” says Dr. Priestley, “we -have no idea of any certain portion of time intervening between the -time of action and the time of speaking of it; the time of action -being some period that extends to the present, as, ‘I have this year, -this morning, written,’ spoken in the same year, the same morning; -whereas, speaking of an action done in a period past, we use the -preterite tense and say, ‘I wrote,’ intimating that a certain portion -of time is past, between the time of action and the time of speaking -of it.” To the same purpose nearly are the words of the author of -the article “Grammar,” in the “Encyclopedia Britannica.” “_I have -written_,” says he, “is always joined with a portion of time which -includes the present _now_ or _instant_; for otherwise it could not -signify, as it always does, the present possession of the finishing -of an action. But the aorist, which signifies no such possession, is -as constantly joined with a portion of past time, which excludes the -present _now_ or _instant_. Thus we say, ‘_I have written_ a letter -this day,’ ‘this week,’ &c., but ‘_I wrote_ a letter yesterday;’ and -to interchange these expressions would be improper.” - -The explanation which these grammarians have given of the tense _I -have written_, appears to me perfectly correct, and I would add, -that, though the interval between the time of action and the time of -speaking of it may be considerable; yet, if the mind, in consequence -of the effect’s being extended to the present time, should conceive -no time to have intervened, this tense is uniformly employed. - -That the aorist excludes the present instant is equally true: -but that it is incapable of being joined, as the latter of these -grammarians supposes, to a portion of time part of which is not yet -elapsed, is an assertion by no means correct; for I can say, “I wrote -to-day,” or “this day,” as well as, “_I have written_.” “I dined -to-day,” says Swift, “with Mr. Secretary St. John.” “I took some -good walks in the park to-day.” “I walked purely to-day about the -park.” “I was this morning with Mr. Secretary about some business.” -Numberless other examples might be produced in which this tense is -joined with a portion of time not wholly elapsed. - -What then, it may be asked, is the difference between this and the -tense which is termed the preterite definite? I shall endeavour -to explain it, though, in doing this, I may be chargeable with -repetition. - -When an action is done in a time continuous to the present instant, -we employ the auxiliary verb. Thus on finishing a letter I say, “I -have written my letter,” “_I possess_ (now) _the finished action of -writing a letter_.” - -Again: When an action is done in a space of time which the mind -assumes as present, or when we express our immediate possession of -things done in that space, we use the auxiliary verb. “I have this -week written several letters.” “_I have now the perfection of writing -several letters_, finished this week.”[63] - -Again: When an action has been done long ago, but the mind is still -in possession of its consequences, these having been extended to the -present time, unconscious or regardless of the interval between the -time of acting and the time of speaking, we use the auxiliary verb. -Thus, “I, like others, have, in my youth, trifled with my health, -and old age now prematurely assails me.” In all these cases, there -is a clear reference to present time. _I have_ must imply present -possession, and that the action, either as finished or proceeding, is -present to the speaker. This must be admitted, unless we suppose that -the term _have_ has no appropriate or determinate meaning. - -On the other hand, the aorist excludes all idea of the present -instant. It supposes an interval to have elapsed between the time of -the action and the time of speaking of it; the action is represented -as leaving nothing behind it which the mind conceives to have any -relation to its present circumstances, as “Three days ago I lodged in -the Strand.” - -But, though it unquestionably excludes the present instant, or the -moment of speaking, which the verb _have_ embraces, yet it does not -exclude that portion of present time which is represented as passing. -All that is necessary to the use of this tense is, that the present -_now_ be excluded, that an interval have elapsed between the time of -action and the time of speaking of it, and that these times shall -not appear to be continuous. When Swift says, “It has snowed terribly -all night, and is vengeance cold,” it is to be observed, that though -the former of these events took place in a time making no part of the -day then passing, yet its effects extended to that day; he therefore -employs the auxiliary verb. When he says, “I have been dining to-day -at Lord Mountjoy’s, and am come home to study,” he, in like manner, -connects the two circumstances as continuous. - -But when he says, “It snowed all this morning, and was some inches -thick in three or four hours,” it is to be observed that, contrary -to the opinion of the author[64] I have quoted, he joins the aorist -with a portion of time then conceived as present or passing, but the -circumstances which had taken place were nowise connected with the -time of his writing, or conceived as continuous to the date of his -letter. If he had said, “It _has_ snowed all this morning, and is now -two inches thick,” the two times would have appeared as continuous, -their events being connected as cause and effect. - - _I wrote_ _I was writing_ _I had written._ - -The first of these, as a tense, has been already explained; it -remains, therefore, to inquire, whether it be definite or indefinite -in respect to action. - -I observe, then, that a tense may frequently, by inference, denote -the perfection of an action, and thus appear to be definite; though, -in its real import, it be significant neither of completion nor -imperfection, and therefore, in regard to action, is indefinite. This -seems to be the character of the tenses, _I write_, _I wrote_, _I -shall write_. - -“Mr. Harris,” says Browne, “truly calls _I wrote_ and _I write_ -indefinites, although the man _who wrote_, _has written_, that is, -the action is perfected, and the man _who writes_, _is writing_, that -is, the action is imperfect; but the perfection and imperfection, -though it be implied, not being expressed, not being brought into -view, (to do which the auxiliary verb is necessary,) nor intended to -be so, such tenses are properly called indefinites.” - -Though I am persuaded that Harris and Browne, though they concur in -designing certain tenses indefinite, are in principle by no means -agreed, yet the observations of the latter, when he confines the -terms to action, appear to me incontrovertible. I would only remark, -that it is not the presence of the auxiliary, as Browne conceives, -which is necessary to denote the completion of the action, but the -introduction of the perfect participle. Nay, I am persuaded, that, -as it is the participle in _ing_, and this only, which denotes the -progression or continuation of the action, this circumstance in every -other phraseology being inferred, not expressed, so I am equally -convinced, that it is the perfect participle only which denotes the -completion of the action; and that, if any tense not compounded of -this participle, express the same idea, it is by inference, and not -directly. According to this view of the matter, a clear and simple -analogy subsists among the tenses; thus, - - _First class._ _Second._ _Third._ - I write I am writing I have written - I wrote I was writing I had written - I shall write I shall be writing I shall have written. - -Now, if the progression or the perfection of an action, as present, -past, or future, be all the possible variations, and if these be -expressed by the second and third classes, it follows that, if there -be any precise distinction between these and the first class, or -unless the latter be wholly supernumerary, it differs in this from -the second and third, that while _they_ express, either that the -action is progressive, or that it is complete, the first has no -reference to its perfection, or imperfection. - - _I was writing._ - -This tense, like _I wrote_, is, in point of time, indefinite; but, -in respect to action, it is definite. It denotes that an action -was proceeding in a time past, which time must be defined by some -circumstance expressed or understood. - - _I had written._ - -This, as a tense, derives its character from the preterite of the -verb _to have_, implying past possession. _Had_ being an aorist, -this tense, in regard to time, must therefore be indefinite. In -respect to action it is definite, implying, that the action was -finished. As the aorist expresses time past, and by inference -the perfection of the action, while the latter circumstance is -additionally denoted by the participle, this compound tense is -employed to denote, that an action was perfected before another -action or event, now also past, took place. - -The character of the remaining tenses seems to require no farther -explanation. I proceed therefore to consider how we express -interrogations, commands, necessity, power, liberty, will, and some -other accessary circumstances. - -An interrogation is expressed by placing the nominative after -the concordant person of the tense; thus, “Thou comest” is an -affirmation; “Comest thou?” is an interrogation. If the tense be -compound, the nominative is placed after the auxiliary, as “Dost thou -come?” “Hast thou heard?” - -A command, exhortation, or entreaty, is expressed by placing the -pronoun of the second person after the simple form of the verb; as, - - Write thou Write ye - or or - Do thou write Do ye write: - -and sometimes by the verb simply, the person being understood; as, -_write_, _run_, _be_, _let_[65]. By the help of the word _let_, -which is equivalent to “permit thou,” or “permit ye,” we express the -persons of the Latin and Greek imperatives; thus, _let me, let us, -let him, let them, write_. - - _Present necessity_ is denoted by the verb _must_, thus, - - I must Thou must He must } write[66]. - We must Ye must They must } - -This verb having only one tense, namely, the present, _past_ -necessity is expressed by the preterite definite of the verb, -significant of the thing necessary, as, - - I must have Thou must have, &c. } written. - We must have Ye must have, &c. } - - - _Present Liberty._ - - I may Thou mayest He may } write. - We may Ye may They may } - - - _Past Liberty._ - - I might Thou mightest He might } write. - We might Ye might They might } - - - _Or_, - - I might have Thou mightest have, &c. } written. - We might have Ye might have, &c. } - - - _Present Ability._ - - I can Thou canst He can } write. - We can Ye can They can } - - - _Past Ability._ - - I could Thou couldst He could } write. - We could Ye could They could } - - - _Or_, - - I could have Thou couldst have, &c. } written. - We could have Ye could have, &c. } - -_Could_, the preterite of the verb _can_, expressing past power or -ability, is, like the tense _might_ of the verb _may_, frequently -employed to denote present time. Of their denoting past time the -following may serve as examples. - -“Can you construe Lycophron now? No; but once I could.” - -“May you speak your sentiments freely? No; but once I might.” - -That they likewise denote present time, I have already adduced -sufficient evidence. _Might_ and _could_, being frequently used -in conjunction with other verbs, to express present time, past -liberty and ability are generally denoted by the latter phraseology; -thus, “I might have written,” “I could have written.” Some farther -observations respecting the nature of these tenses I purpose to make, -when I come to consider what has been termed the subjunctive or -conjunctive mood. - - - _Present Duty or Obligation._ - - I ought Thou oughtest He ought } to write. - We ought Ye ought They ought } - - - _Past Duty._ - - I ought Thou oughtest He ought } to have - We ought Ye ought They ought } written. - -The same is expressed by the verb _should_. _Ought_ being now always -considered as a present tense, past duty is expressed by taking the -preterite definitive of the following verb. - -Having shown how most of the common accessary circumstances are -signified in our language, I proceed to explain how we express the -circumstance of suffering, or being acted upon. - -The manner of denoting this in English is simple and easy. All that -is necessary is to join the verb _to be_ with the present participle, -if the state of suffering be imperfect or proceeding; and with the -perfect participle, if it be complete; thus, - - I am Thou art He is } written to. - We are Ye are They are } - - - _Preterite._ - - I was Thou wast He was } written to. - We were Ye were They were } - - I have been I had been I shall be } written to. - I may be I might be I could be } - -If the state be imperfect, the participle in _ing_ must be -substituted; thus, - - The house is building } - The house was building } Progressive. - The house shall be building } - - The house is built } - The house was built } Perfect. - The house shall be built } - -Neuter verbs, expressing neither action nor passion, admit, without -altering their signification, either phraseology; thus, _I have -arisen_, or _I am arisen_; _I was come_, or _I had come_. - -I conclude this part of the subject with a few observations -concerning the subjunctive or potential mood. - -Various disputes have arisen respecting the existence and the use -of this mood; nor is there, perhaps, any other point in grammar, on -which respectable authorities are so much divided. - -That there is not in English, as in Latin, a potential mood properly -so called, appears to me unquestionable. _Amarem_ signifies ability -or liberty[67], involving the verbs _possum_ and _licet_, and may -therefore be termed a potential mood; but in English these accessary -circumstances are denoted by the preterites of the verbs _may_ and -_can_; as, _I might_ or _could love_. - -That there is no subjunctive mood, we have, I conceive, equal -authority to assert. If I say in Latin, _cum cepisset_, “when he had -taken,” the verb is strictly in the subjunctive mood; for, were not -the verb subjoined to _cum_, it must have taken the indicative form; -but I hesitate not to assert, that no example can be produced in -English, where the indicative form is altered _merely_ because the -verb is preceded by some conjunctive particle. If we say, “though he -were rich, he would not despise the poor,” _was_ is not here turned -into _were_ because subjoined to _though_; for _though_ is joined -to the indicative mood, when the sentiment requires it; the verb -therefore is not in the subjunctive mood. - -In respect to what has been denominated the conditional form of the -verb, I observe, that the existence of this form appears to me highly -questionable. My reasons are these: - -1st. Several of our grammarians have not mentioned it; among these -are the celebrated Dr. Wallis, and the author of the British Grammar. - -2dly. Those, who admit it, are not agreed concerning its extent. -Lowth and Johnson confine it to the present tense, while Priestley -extends it to the preterite. - -3dly. The example which Priestley adduces of the conditional -preterite, _if thou drew_, with a few others which might be -mentioned, are acknowledged by himself to be so stiff and so harsh, -that I am inclined to regard them rather as anomalies, than as -constituting an authority for a general rule. - -4thly. If then this form be, agreeably to the opinions of Lowth and -Johnson, confined to the present tense, I must say that I have not -been able to find a single example, in which the present conditional, -as it is termed, is anything but an ellipsis of the auxiliary verb. - -5thly. Those who admit this mood make it nothing but the plural -number of the correspondent indicative tense without variation; as -_I love_, _thou love_, _he love_, &c. Now as this is, in fact, the -radical form of the verb, or what may be deemed the infinitive, as -following an auxiliary, it forms a presumption that it is truly an -infinitive mood, the auxiliary being suppressed. - -The opinion here given will, I think, be confirmed by the following -examples. - -“If he say so, it is well,” _i.e._ “if he shall say so.” - -“Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him,” (_Bible_) _i.e._ -“though he should slay.” - -“Though thou detain me, I will not eat,” (_Ibid._) _i.e._ “shouldst -detain me.” - -“If thy brother trespass against thee,” (_Ibid._) _i.e._ “should -trespass.” - -“Though he fall, he shall not utterly be cast down,” (_Ibid._) _i.e._ -“though he should fall.” - -“Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day,” (_Ibid._) _i.e._ -“thou shouldst keep.” - -There are a few examples in the use of the auxiliaries _do_ and -_have_, in which, when the ellipsis is supplied, the expression -appears somewhat uncouth; but I am persuaded that a little attention -will show, that these examples form no exception to this theory. - -“If now thou do prosper my way.”--_Bible._ It is here obvious, that -the event supposed was future; the appropriate term, therefore, to -express that idea, is either _shall_ or _will_. If the phrase were, -“if thou prosper my way,” it would be universally admitted that the -auxiliary is suppressed, thus, “if thou shalt or wilt prosper my -way.” Again, when we say, “if thou do it, I shall be displeased,” -it is equally evident that the auxiliary is understood, thus, “if -thou shalt do it.” Now, if these examples be duly considered, -and if the import of the verb _to do_, as formerly explained, be -remembered, I think it will appear that the expression is elliptical, -and truly proceeds thus, “if thou (shalt) do prosper my way.” The -same observations are applicable to Shakspeare’s phraseology, when -he says, “if thou do pardon, whosoever pray.” Again; when Hamlet -says, “if damned custom have not brazed it so,” it is obvious that -the auxiliary verb _may_ is understood; for, if the expression be -cleared of the negative, the insertion of the auxiliary creates no -uncouthness; thus, “if damned custom may have brazed it so.” - -I am therefore inclined to think, that the conditional form, unless -in the verb _to be_[68], has no existence in our language. - -Though this be not strictly the proper place, I would beg the -reader’s attention to a few additional observations. - -Many writers of classic eminence express future and contingent events -by the present tense indicative. In colloquial language, or where -the other form would render the expression stiff and awkward, this -practice cannot justly be reprehended. But where this is not the -case, the proper form, in which the note of contingency or futurity -is either expressed or understood, is certainly preferable. Thus, - -“If thou neglectest, or doest unwillingly, what I command thee, I -will rack thee with old cramps.”--_Shakspeare._ Better, I think, “if -thou shalt neglect or do.” - -“If any member absents himself, he shall forfeit a penny for the use -of the club.”--_Spectator._ Better, “if any member absent, or shall -absent.” - -“If the stage becomes a nursery of folly and impertinence, I shall -not be afraid to animadvert upon it.”--_Spectator._ Preferably thus, -“If the stage become, or shall become.” - -I observe also, that there is something peculiar and deserving -attention in the use of the preterite tense[69]. To illustrate the -remark, I shall take the following case. A servant calls on me for a -book; if I am uncertain whether I have it or not, I answer, “if the -book _be_ in my library, or if I _have_ the book, your master shall -be welcome to it:” but if I am certain that I have not the book, I -say, “if the book _were_ in my library, or if I had the book, it -should be at your master’s service.” Here it is obvious that when we -use the present tense it implies uncertainty of the fact; and when we -use the preterite, it implies a negation of its existence. Thus also, -a person at night would say to his friend, “if it _rain_, you shall -not go,” being uncertain at the time whether it did or did not rain; -but if, on looking out, he perceived it did not rain, he would then -say, “if it _rained_, you should not go,” intimating that it did not -rain. - -“Nay, and the villains march wide between the legs, as if they had -gyves on.”--_Shakspeare._ Where _as if they had_ implies that “they -had not.” - -In the same manner, if I say, “I will go, if I can,” my ability is -expressed as uncertain, and its dependent event left undetermined. -But if I say, “I would go, if I could,” my inability is expressly -implied, and the dependent event excluded. Thus also, when it is -said, “if I may, I will accompany you to the theatre,” the liberty -is expressed as doubtful; but when it is said, “if I might, I would -accompany you,” the liberty is represented as not existing. - -In thus expressing the negation of the attribute, the conjunction is -often omitted, and the order inverted; thus, “if I had the book,” or -“had I the book.” “Were I Alexander,” said Parmenio, “I would accept -this offer;” or, “if I were Alexander, I would accept.” _Were_ is -frequently used for _would be_, and _had_ for _would have_; as, “it -_were_ injustice to deny the execution of the law to any individual;” -that is, “it would be injustice.” “Many acts, which _had_ been -blameable in a peaceable government, were employed to detect -conspiracies;” where _had_ is put for _would have_[70].--_Hume’s -History of England._ - -Ambiguity is frequently created by confounding fact with hypothesis, -or making no distinction between dubitative and assertive -phraseologies. Thus, if we employ such expressions as these, “if -thou knewest,” “though he was learned,” not only to express the -certainty of a fact, but likewise to denote a mere hypothesis as -opposed to fact, we necessarily render the expression ambiguous. -It is by thus confounding things totally distinct, that writers -have been betrayed not into ambiguity only, but even into palpable -errors. In evidence of this, I give the following example: “Though he -were divinely inspired, and spoke therefore as the oracles of God, -with supreme authority; though he were endowed with supernatural -powers, and could, therefore, have confirmed the truth of what -he asserted by miracles; yet in compliance with the way in which -human nature and reasonable creatures are usually wrought upon, he -reasoned.”--_Atterbury’s Sermons._ - -Here the writer expresses the inspiration and the supernatural powers -of Jesus, not as properties or virtues which he really did possess, -but which, though not possessing them, he might be supposed to -possess. Now, as his intention was to ascribe these virtues to Jesus, -as truly belonging to him, he should have employed the indicative -form _was_, and not _were_, as in the following sentence: “though -he _was_ rich, yet for our sakes he became poor.” “Though he _were_ -rich,” would imply the non-existence of the attribute; in other -words, “that he was _not_ rich.” - -A very little attention would serve to prevent these ambiguities and -errors. If the attribute be conceived as unconditionally certain, -the indicative form without ellipsis must be employed, as, “I -teach,” “I had taught,” “I shall teach.” If futurity, hypothesis, or -uncertainty, be intended, with the concessive term, the auxiliary -may be either expressed or understood, as perspicuity may require, -and the taste and judgment of the writer may dictate; thus, “if any -man teach strange doctrines, he shall be severely rebuked.” In the -former clause the auxiliary verb _shall_ is unnecessary, and is -therefore, without impropriety, omitted. “Then hear thou in heaven, -and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, that -thou teach them the good way wherein they should walk.”--_Bible._ -In this example the suppression of the auxiliary verb is somewhat -unfavourable to perspicuity, and renders the clause stiff and -awkward. It would be better, I think, “thou mayest teach them the -good way.” Harshness, indeed, and the appearance of affectation, -should be particularly avoided. Where there is no manifest danger -of misconception, the use of the assertive for the dubitative form -is far preferable to those starched and pedantic phraseologies -which some writers are fond of exhibiting. For this reason, such -expressions as the following appear to me highly offensive: “if thou -have determined, we must submit;” “unless he have consented, the -writing will be void;” “if this have been the seat of their original -formation;” “unless thou shall speak, we cannot determine.” The last -I consider as truly ungrammatical. In such cases, if the dubitative -phraseology should appear to be preferable, the stiffness and -affectation here reprehended may frequently be prevented by inserting -the note of doubt or contingency. - -I observe farther, that the substitution of _as_ for _if_ when -the affirmation is unconditional, will often serve to prevent -ambiguity[71]. Thus, when the ant in the fable says to the -grasshopper who had trifled away the summer in singing, “if you sung -in summer, dance in winter;” as the first clause, taken by itself, -leaves the meaning somewhat ambiguous, “as you sung,” would be the -better expression. - - -IRREGULAR VERBS. - -The general rule for the formation of the preterite tense, and the -perfect participle, is to add to the present the syllable _ed_, if -the verb end with a consonant, or _d_, if it end with a vowel, as - - Turn, Turned, Turned; Love, Loved, Loved. - -Verbs, which depart from this rule, are called irregular, of which I -believe the subsequent enumeration to be nearly complete[72]. - - _Present._ _Preterite._ _Perfect Participle._ - Abide Abode Abode - Am Was Been - Arise Arose Arisen - Awake Awoke R Awaked - - Bake Baked Baken R - Bear, to bring forth Bore, or Bear Born[73] - Bear, to carry Bore, or Bear Borne - Beat Beat Beaten - Begin Began Begun - Become Became Become - Behold Beheld Beheld, or Beholden[74] - Bend Bent R Bent R - Bereave Bereft R Bereft R - Beseech Besought Besought - Bid Bade, or Bid Bidden - Bind Bound Bound - Bite Bit Bitten, Bit[75] - Bleed Bled Bled - Blow Blew Blown - Break Broke, or Brake Broken[76] - Breed Bred Bred - Bring Brought Brought - Build Built R Built[77] R - Burst Burst Burst - Buy Bought Bought - - Can Could - Cast Cast Cast - Catch Caught R Caught R - Chide Chid[78] Chidden - Choose Chose Chosen - Cleave, to stick Clave R Cleaved - or adhere - Cleave, to split Clove, or Clave, Cloven, - or Cleft or Cleft - Cling Clung Clung - Climb Clomb[79] R Climbed - Clothe Clad[80] R Clad R - Come Came Come - Cost Cost Cost - Crow Crew R Crowed - Creep Crept Crept - Cut Cut Cut - - Dare, to venture Durst R Dared - Dare, to challenge, is regular. - Deal Dealt R Dealt R - Dig Dug R Dug R - Do Did Done - Draw Drew Drawn - Drive Drove Driven - Drink Drank Drunk - Dwell Dwelt R Dwelt R - - Eat Ate Eaten - - Fall Fell Fallen - Feed Fed Fed - Feel Felt Felt - Fight Fought Fought - Find Found Found - Flee Fled Fled - Fly Flew Flown - Fling Flung Flung - Forget Forgot Forgotten - Forgo[81] Forgone - Forsake Forsook Forsaken - Freeze Froze Frozen - Freight Freighted Freighted, or Fraught[82] - - Get Gat, or Got Gotten, or Got - Gild Gild R Gilt R - Gird Girt R Girt R - Give Gave Given - Go Went Gone - Grave Graved Graven R - Grind Ground Ground - Grow Grew Grown - - Have Had Had - Hang[83] Hung R Hung R - Hear Heard Heard - Heave Hove[84] R Hoven R - Help Helped Holpen[85] R - Hew Hewed Hewn R - Hide Hid Hidden[86], or Hid - Hit Hit Hit - Hold Held Holden[87], or Held - Hurt Hurt Hurt - - Keep Kept Kept - Kneel Knelt Knelt - Knit Knit, or Knitted Knit, or Knitted - Know Knew Known - - Lade Laded Laden[88] - Lay Laid Laid[89] - Lead Led Led - Leave Left Left - Lend Lent Lent - Let Let Let - Lie, to lie down Lay Lien, or Lain[90] - Lift Lifted, or Lift Lifted, or Lift - Light Lighted, or Lit[91] Lighted, or Lit - Load Loaded Loaden, or Loaded - Lose Lost Lost - - Make Made Made - May Might - Mean Meant R Meant R - Meet Met Met - Mow Mowed Mown[92] R - Must - - Pay Paid Paid - Put Put Put - - Quit Quit, or Quitted[93] Quit - - Read Read Read - Rend Rent Rent - Ride Rode, or Rid Rid[94], or Ridden - Rid Rid Rid - Ring Rang, or Rung Rung - Rise Rose Risen - Rive Rived Riven - Roast Roasted Roasted, or Roast[95] - Rot Rotted Rotten R - Run Ran Run - - Saw Sawed Sawn R - Say Said Said - See Saw Seen - Seek Sought Sought - Seethe Seethed, or Sod Sodden - Sell Sold Sold - Send Sent Sent - Set Set Set - Shake Shook Shaken[96] - Shall Should - Shape Shaped Shapen R - Shave Shaved Shaven R - Shear Shore Shorn - Shed Shed Shed - Shine Shone R Shone R - Shew Shewed Shewn - Show Showed Shown - Shoe Shod Shod - Shoot Shot Shot - Shrink Shrank[97], or Shrunk Shrunk - Shred Shred Shred - Shut Shut Shut - Sing Sang[98], or Sung Sung - Sink Sank, or Sunk Sunk - Sit Sat Sitten[99], or Sat - Slay Slew Slain - Sleep Slept Slept - Slide Slid Slidden - Sling Slang, or Slung Slung - Slink Slank, or Slunk Slunk - Slit Slit R Slit, or Slitted - Smite Smote Smitten - Sow Sowed Sown R - Speak Spoke, or Spake Spoken - Speed Sped Sped - Spend Spent Spent - Spill Spilt R Spilt R - Spin Spun, or Span Spun - Spit Spat, or Spit Spitten, or Spit - Split Split, or Splitted Split, Splitted - Spread Spread Spread - Spring Sprang, or Sprung Sprung - Stand Stood Stood - Steal Stole Stolen - Stick Stuck Stuck - Sting Stung Stung - Stink Stank, or Stunk Stunk - Stride Strode, or Strove Stridden - Strike Struck Struck, or Stricken - String Strung Strung - Strive Strove Striven - Strew, or Strewed, or } Strown - Strow Strowed } - Swear Swore, or Sware Sworn - Sweat Sweat Sweat - Sweep Swept Swept - Swell Swelled Swelled, or Swollen - Swim Swam, or Swum Swum - Swing Swang Swung - - Take Took Taken - Teach Taught Taught - Tear Tore, or Tare Torn - Tell Told Told - Think Thought Thought - Thrive Throve[100] Thriven - Throw Through Thrown - Thrust Thrust Thrust - Tread Trod Trodden - - Wax Waxed Waxen R - Wash Washed Washed[101] - Wear Wore Worn - Weave Wove Woven - Weep Wept Wept - Will Would - Win Won Won - Wind Wound[102] R Wound - Work Wrought R Wrought R - Wring Wrung R Wrung - Write Wrote Written[103] - Writhe Writhed Writhen. - - -DEFECTIVE VERBS. - -These, as Lowth observes, are generally not only defective, but also -irregular, and are chiefly auxiliary verbs. - - _Present._ _Preterite._ _Perfect Participle._ - - Must - May Might - Quoth Quoth - Can Could - Shall Should - Wit[104], or Wot Wot - Will[105] Would - Wis[106] Wist - Ought[107] - - -OF IMPERSONAL VERBS. - -The distinctive character of impersonal verbs has been a subject of -endless dispute among grammarians. Some deny their existence in the -learned languages, and others as positively assert it. Some define -them to be verbs devoid of the two first persons; but this definition -is evidently incorrect: for, as Perizonius and Frischlinus observe, -this may be a reason for calling them defective, but not for naming -them impersonal verbs. Others have defined them to be verbs, to which -no certain person, as the subject, can be prefixed. But with the -discussion of this question, as it respects the learned languages, -the English grammarian has no concern. I proceed, therefore, to -observe, that impersonal verbs, as the name imports, are those which -do not admit a person as their nominative. Their real character -seems to be, that they assert the existence of some action or state, -but refer it to no particular subject. In English we have very few -impersonal verbs. To this denomination, however, may certainly be -referred, _it behoveth_, _it irketh_; equivalent to, _it is the -duty_, _it is painfully wearisome_. That the former of these verbs -was once used personally, we have sufficient evidence; and it is not -improbable that the latter also was so employed, though I have not -been able to find an example of its junction with a person. They are -now invariably used as impersonal verbs. We cannot say, _I behove_, -_thou behovest_, _he behoves_; _we irk_, _ye irk_, _they irk_. - -There are one or two others, which have been considered as -impersonal verbs, in which the personal pronoun in the objective -case is prefixed to the third person singular of the verb, as -_methinks_, _methought_, _meseems_, _meseemed_; analogous to the -Latin expressions _me pœnitet_, _me pœnituit_. _You thinketh_, _him -liketh_, _him seemeth_, have long been entirely obsolete. _Meseems_ -and _meseemed_ occur in Sidney, Spenser, and other contemporary -writers; but are now universally disused. Addison sometimes says -_methoughts_, contrary, I conceive, to all analogy. - - - - -CHAPTER VII. - -OF ADVERBS. - - -An adverb is that part of speech which is joined to a verb, -adjective, or other adverb, to express some circumstance, quality, -degree, or manner of its signification; and hence adverbs have been -termed attributives of the second order. - -“As the attributives hitherto mentioned,” says Mr. Harris, “viz. -adjective and verb, denote the attributes of substances, so there -is an inferior class of them, which denote the attributes only of -attributes. If I say, ‘Cicero was eloquent,’ I ascribe to him the -attribute of eloquence simply and absolutely; if I say, ‘he was -exceedingly eloquent,’ I affirm an eminent degree of eloquence, -the adverb _exceedingly_ denoting that degree. If I say, ‘he died, -fighting _bravely_ for his country,’ the word _bravely_ here added to -the verb denotes the manner of the action.” An adverb is, therefore, -a word joined to a verb, or any attributive, to denote some -modification, degree, or circumstance, of the expressed attribute. - -Adverbs have been divided into a variety of classes, according to -their signification. Some of those which denote - - _Quality_ simply, are, Well, ill, bravely, prudently, softly, - with innumerable others formed from - adjectives and participles. - _Certainty_ or { Verily, truly, undoubtedly, yea, yes, - _Affirmation_ { certainly. - _Contingence_ Perhaps, peradventure, perchance. - _Negation_ Nay, no, not, nowise. - _Explaining_ Namely. - _Separation_ Apart, separately, asunder. - _Conjunction_ Together, generally, universally. - _Indication_ Lo. - _Interrogation_ Why, wherefore, when, how. - _Excess_ or } Very, exceedingly, too, more, better, - _Preeminence_ } worse, best, worst. - _Defect_ Almost, nearly, less, least. - _Preference_ Rather, chiefly, especially. - _Likeness_ or } So, thus, as, equally. - _Equality_ } - _Unlikeness_ or } Else, otherwise. - _Inequality_ } - _Abatement_ or } Piecemeal, scarcely, hardly. - _Gradation_ } - _To_ or _in a place_ Here, there, where. - _To a place, only_ Hither, thither, whither. - _Towards a place_ Hitherward, thitherward, whitherward. - _From a place_ Hence, thence, whence. - _Time present_ Now, to-day. - _---- past_ { Yesterday, before, heretofore, already, - { hitherto, lately. - _---- future_ { To-morrow, hereafter, presently, - { immediately, afterwards. - _Repetition of } Often, seldom, frequently. - times indef._ } - _---- Definitely_ Once, twice, thrice, again. - _Order_ First[108], secondly, thirdly, &c. - _Quantity_ Much, little, enough, sufficiently. - -On inquiring into the meaning and etymology of adverbs, it will -appear, that most of them are abbreviations or contractions for two -or more words. Thus, _bravely_, or “in a brave manner,” is probably -derived by abbreviation from _brave-like_, _wisely_ from _wise-like_, -_happily_ from _happy-like_[109]. Mr. Tooke, indeed, has proved, as -I conceive incontrovertibly, that most of them are either corruptions -of other words, or abbreviations of phrases or of sentences. One -thing is certain, that the adverb is not an indispensable part of -speech, as it serves merely to express in one word what perhaps would -otherwise require two or more words. Thus, - - Where[110] denotes In what place - Here In this place - There In that place - Whither To what place - Hither To this place - Thither To that place. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII. - -OF PREPOSITIONS. - - -A preposition has been defined to be “that part of speech which shows -the relation that one thing bears to another.” According to Mr. -Harris, it is a part of speech devoid itself of signification, but -so formed as to unite words that are significant, and that refuse to -unite or associate of themselves. He has, therefore, compared them to -pegs or pins, which serve to unite those parts of the building which -would not, by their own nature, incorporate or coalesce. When one -considers the formidable objections which present themselves to this -theory, and that the ingenious author now quoted has, in defence of -it, involved himself in palpable contradictions, it becomes matter -of surprise that it should have so long received from grammarians -an almost universal and implicit assent. This furnishes one of -many examples, how easily error may be imposed and propagated by -the authority of a great name. But, though error may be repeatedly -transmitted from age to age, unsuspected and unquestioned, it -cannot be perpetuated. Mr. Horne Tooke has assailed this theory by -irresistible arguments, and demonstrated that, in our language at -least, prepositions are significant of ideas, and that, as far as -import is concerned, they do not form a distinct species of words. - -It is not, indeed, easy to imagine, that men, in the formation -of any language, would invent words insignificant, and to which, -singly, they attached no determinate idea; especially when it is -considered, that, in every stage of their existence, from rudeness -to civilization, new words would perpetually be wanting to express -new ideas. It is not, therefore, probable that, while they were -under the necessity of framing new words, to answer the exigences of -mental enlargement, and while these demands on their invention were -incessantly recurring, they would, in addition to this, encumber -themselves with the idle and unnecessary task of forming new words -to express nothing. - -But, in truth, Harris himself yields the point, when he says, that -prepositions, when compounded, transfuse something of their meaning -into the compound; for they cannot transfuse what they do not -contain, nor impart what they do not possess. They must, therefore, -be themselves significant words. - -But it is not so much their meaning with which the grammarian -is concerned, as their syntactical character, their capacity of -affecting other words, or being affected by them. In both these -lights, however, I propose to consider them. - -The name of preposition has been assigned to them, because they -generally precede their regimen, or the word which they govern. What -number of these words ancient and modern languages contain, has been -much disputed; some grammarians determining a greater and some a less -number. This, indeed, of itself affords a conclusive proof that the -character of these words has not been clearly understood; for, in the -other parts of speech, noun, adjective, and verb, the discriminative -circumstances are so evident, that no doubt can arise concerning -their classification. - -That most of our English prepositions have signification _per se_, -and form no distinct species of words, Mr. Tooke has produced -incontrovertible evidence: nor is it to be doubted, that a perfect -acquaintance with the Northern languages would convince us, that all -of them are abbreviations, corruptions, or combinations of other -words. A few of Mr. Tooke’s examples I shall now present to the -reader. - - _Above_, from the Anglo-Saxon _ufa_, high; hence _bufan_, _on - bufan_, bove, above. - - _With_, from _withan_, to join, of which _with_ is the imperative; - thus, “_a house with a party wall_,”--“a house, _join_ a party - wall;” or it is sometimes the imperative of _wyrthan_, “to be;” - hence, _by_ and _with_ are often synonymous, the former being - derived from _beon_, “to be.” - - _Without_, from the Saxon preposition _withutan_, _extra_, _sine_, - which is properly the imperative of the verb _wyrthanutan_, “to - be out.” _Withutan_, _beutan_, “without,” “be out,” or “but.” The - Saxon preposition occurs frequently in the writings of Chaucer, and - is still used in Scottish poetry[111]. - - _From_[112], is simply the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic noun _frum_, - “beginning,” “source,” “origin;” thus, “Figs came _from_ Turkey;” - that is, Figs came; “the source,” or “beginning,” Turkey; to which - is opposed the word. - - _To_, the same originally as _do_, signifying finishing or - completion; thus “Figs came _from_ Turkey _to_ England;” “the - beginning,” or “source,” Turkey; “the finishing,” or “end,” England. - - _Beneath_, is the imperative _be_, compounded with the noun - _neath_, of the same import with _neden_ in Dutch, _ned_ in Danish, - _niedere_ in German, and _nedre_ or _neder_ in Swedish, signifying - the lower place; hence, the astronomical term _Nadir_, opposed to - _Zenith_. Hence also _nether_ and _nethermost_. - - _Between_, “be twain,” “be two,” or “be separated.”[113] - - _Before_, } - _Behind_, } Imperative _be_, and the nouns, _fore_, _hind_, _side_, - _Beside_, } _low_. - _Below_, } - - _Under_, i.e. _on neder_. - - _Beyond_, imperative _be_, and the participle past _goned_ of the - verb _gan_, “to go:” as, “beyond the place,” i.e. “be passed the - place.” - - _Among_, from _gemong_, the preterperfect of the verb _mengan_, to - mix, used as a participle, and signifying “mixed.” - -Many other examples might be produced from Tooke’s ingenious -illustration of his theory; but those which I have now offered -suffice to prove, that our prepositions, so far from being words -insignificant, belong to the class of nouns or verbs either single or -compounded. - -Besides, if prepositions denote relations, as Harris admits, it -is surely absurd to suppose, that they have no meaning; for the -relation, whether of propinquity, contiguity, approach, or regress, -&c., may be expressed, and apprehended by the mind, though the -objects between which the relation subsists be not specified. If I -hear the word _with_, I naturally conceive the idea of conjunction; -the reverse takes place when I hear _without_. If it be said _a -soldier with_, I have the idea of a soldier associated with something -else, which association is denoted by _with_. What is conjoined to -him I know not, till the object be specified, as, “a soldier _with_ a -musquet;” but the mere association was before sufficiently expressed, -and clearly apprehended. Again, if a person say, “_he threw a glass -under_,” I have instantly an idea of a glass, and of inferiority -of place, conceiving a glass removed into a situation lower than -something else. To ascertain that _something_, I ask, _under what?_ -and the answer may be, _under the table_. Now, if _under_ had no -meaning, this question would be insignificant, or rather impossible. - -From the examples given, I trust the young reader sufficiently -understands the difference between the doctrine of Harris on this -subject, and that of Horne Tooke; nay, I think, he must perceive, -that the former is merely a theory, while the latter is supported by -reason and fact. The syntax of our prepositions will be afterwards -explained. I shall only observe at present, that the words which are -in English considered as prepositions, and joined to the objective -case are these: - - Above Beneath Since - About Below Through } - After Beside Throughout } - Against By Till } - Among } Down Until } - Amongst } For To } - Amid } From Unto } - Amidst } In Toward } - Around } Into Towards } - Round } Near } Under } - At Nigh } Underneath } - Between } Of Up - Betwixt } Off With - Beyond Over Within - Before On } Without - Behind Upon } - -Some of these, though they are commonly joined to an objective case, -and may therefore be deemed prepositions, are, notwithstanding, of -an equivocal character, resembling the Latin adverbs _procul_ and -_prope_, which govern a case by the ellipsis of a preposition. Thus -we say, “near the house” and “near _to_ the house,” “nigh the park,” -and “nigh _to_ the park,” “off the table,” and “off _from_ the table.” - -Several are used as adverbs, and also as prepositions, no ellipsis -being involved, as, _till_, _until_, _after_, _before_. - -There are certain particles, which are never found single -or uncompounded, and have therefore been termed inseparable -prepositions. Those purely English are, _a_, _be_, _fore_, _mis_, -_un_. The import of these, and of a few separable prepositions when -prefixed to other words, I proceed to explain. - - _A_, signifies _on_ or _in_, as, _a foot_, _a shore_, that is, _on - foot_, _on shore_. Webster contends, that it was originally the - same with _one_. - - _Be_, signifies _about_, as, _bestir_, _besprinkle_, that is, _stir - about_; also _for_ or _before_, as, _bespeak_, that is, _speak - for_, or _before_. - - _For_, denies, or deprives, as, _bid, forbid_, _seek, forsake_, - i.e. _bid, bid not_; _seek, not seek_. - - _Fore_, signifies _before_, as, _see, foresee_, that is, _see - beforehand_. - - _Mis_, denotes defect or error, as, _take, mistake_, or _take - wrongly_; _deed, misdeed_, that is, _a wrong_ or _evil deed_. - - _Over_, denotes eminence or superiority, as, _come, overcome_; also - excess, as, _hasty_, _over hasty_, or _too hasty_. - - _Out_, signifies excess or superiority, as, _do, outdo_, _run, - outrun_, that is, “to surpass in running.” - - _Un_, before an adjective, denotes negation, or privation, as, - _worthy, unworthy_, or “_not_ worthy.” Before verbs it denotes - the undoing or the destroying of the energy or act, expressed - by the verb, as, _say, unsay_, that is, “affirm,” retract the - “affirmation.” - - _Up_, denotes motion upwards, as, _start, upstart_; rest in a - higher place, as, _hold, uphold_; sometimes subversion, as, _set, - upset_. - - _With_, signifies _against_, as, _stand, withstand_, that is, - “stand against, or resist.” - -The Latin prepositions used in the composition of English words are -these, _ab_ or _abs_, _ad_, _ante_, _con_, _circum_, _contra_, _de_, -_di_, _dis_, _e_ or _ex_, _extra_, _in_, _inter_, _intro_, _ob_, -_per_, _post_, _præ_, _pro_, _præter_, _re_, _retro_, _se_, _sub_, -_subter_, _super_, _trans_. - - _A, ab, abs_, signify _from_ or _away_, as, _to abstract_, that is, - “to draw away.” - - _Ad_, signifies _to_ or _at_, as, _to adhere_, that is, “to stick - to.” - - _Ante_, means _before_, as, _antecedent_, that is, “going before.” - - _Circum_, round, _about_, as, _circumnavigate_, or “sail round.” - - _Con, com, co, col_, signify _together_, as, _convoke_, or “call - together,” _co-operate_, or “work together,” _colleague_, “joined - together.” - - _Contra_, _against_, as, _contradict_, or “speak against.” - - _De_, signifies _down_, as, _deject_, or “throw down.” - - _Di, dis_, _asunder_, as _distract_, or “draw asunder.” - - _E_, _ex_, _out of_, as, _egress_, or “going out,” _eject_, or - “throw out,” _exclude_, or “shut out.” - - _Extra_, _beyond_, as, _extraordinary_, or “beyond the ordinary or - usual course.” - - _In_, before an adjective, like _un_, denotes privation, as, - _active_, _inactive_, or “not active;” before a verb, it has its - simple meaning. - - _Inter_, _between_, as, _intervene_, or “come between,” - _interpose_, or “put between.” - - _Intro_, _to within_, as, _introduce_, or “lead in.” - - _Ob_, denotes opposition, as, _obstacle_, that is, “something - standing in opposition,” “an impediment.” - - _Per_, _through_, or _thoroughly_, as, _perfect_, or “thoroughly - done,” to _perforate_, or “to bore through.” - - _Post_, _after_, as, _postscript_, or “written after,” that is, - after the letter. - - _Præ_, _before_, as, _prefix_, or “fix before.” - - _Pro_, _forth_, or _forwards_, as, _promote_, or “move forwards.” - - _Præter_, _past_, or _beyond_, as, _preternatural_, or “beyond the - course of nature.” - - _Re_, _again_, or _back_, as, _retake_, or “take back.” - - _Retro_, _backwards_, as, _retrograde_, or “going backwards.” - - _Se_, _apart_, or _without_, as, _to secrete_, “to put aside,” or - “to hide,” _secure_, “without care or apprehension.” - - _Subter_, _under_, as, _subterfluous_, or “flowing under.” - - _Super_, _above_, or _over_, as, _superscribe_, or “write above, or - over.” - - _Trans_, _over_, _from one place to another_, as, _transport_, that - is, “carry over.” - -The Greek prepositions and particles compounded with English words -are, _a_, _amphi_, _anti_, _hyper_, _hypo_, _meta_, _peri_, _syn_. - - _A_, signifies privation, as, _anonymous_, or “without a name.” - - _Amphi_, _both_, or _the two_, as, _amphibious_, “having both - lives,” that is, “on land and on water.” - - _Anti_, _against_, as, _anti-covenanter_, _anti-jacobin_, that is, - “an opponent of the covenanters,” “an enemy to the jacobins.” - - _Hyper_, _over and above_, as, _hypercritical_, or “over,” that is, - “too critical.” - - _Hypo_, _under_, implying concealment or disguise, as, _hypocrite_, - “one dissembling his real character.” - - _Meta_, denotes change or transmutation, as, _to metamorphose_, or - “to change the shape.” - - _Para_, denotes sometimes propinquity or similarity, and sometimes - contrariety. It is equivalent to the Latin terms _juxta_ and - _præter_, as, “to paraphrase,” παραφράζειν, _juxta alterius - orationem loqui_; “to speak the meaning of another.” _Paradox_, - “beyond,” or “contrary to, general opinion,” or “common belief.” - - _Peri_, _round about_, as, _periphrasis_, that is, “circumlocution.” - - _Syn_, _together_, as _synod_, “a meeting,” or “coming together,” - _sympathy_, or “feeling together.” - - - - -CHAPTER IX. - -OF CONJUNCTIONS. - - -A conjunction has been defined to be “that part of speech which -connects words and sentences together.” - -Mr. Ruddiman, and several other grammarians, have asserted, that -conjunctions never connect words, but sentences. This is evidently -a mistake; for if I say, “a man of wisdom and virtue is a perfect -character,” it implies not “that a man of wisdom is a perfect -character, and a man of virtue a perfect character,” but “a man who -combines wisdom and virtue.” The farther discussion of this question, -however, I shall at present postpone, as it will form a subject of -future inquiry. - -Conjunctions have been distributed, according to their significations, -into different classes: - - _Copulative_, And, also, but, (bot). - _Disjunctive_, Either, or. - _Concessive_, Though, although, albeit, yet. - _Adversative_, But, however. - _Exclusive_, Neither, nor. - _Causal_, For, that, because, since. - _Illative_, Therefore, wherefore, then. - _Conditional_, If. - _Exceptive_, Unless. - -This distribution of the conjunctions I have given, in conformity -to general usage, that the reader may be acquainted with the common -terms by which conjunctions have been denominated, if these terms -should occur to him in the course of reading. In respect to the real -import, and genuine character of these words, I decidedly adopt the -theory of Mr. Tooke, which considers conjunctions as no distinct -species of words, but as belonging to the class of attributives, or -as abbreviations for two or more significant words. - -Agreeably to his theory, _and_ is an abbreviation for _anad_, the -imperative of _ananad_, “to add,” or “to accumulate;” as, “two and -two make four;” that is, “two, add two, make four.” _Either_ is -evidently an adjective expressive of “one of two;” thus, “it is -either day or night,” that is, “one of the two, day or night.” It is -derived from the Saxon _ægther_, equivalent to _uterque_, “each.”[114] - -_Or_ is a contraction for _other_, a Saxon and English adjective -equivalent to _alius_ or _alter_, and denotes diversity, either of -name or of subject. Hence _or_ is sometimes a perfect disjunctive, -as when it expresses contrariety or opposition of things; and -sometimes a subdisjunctive, when it denotes simply a diversity in -name. Thus, when we say, “It is either even or odd,” _or_ is a -perfect disjunctive, the two attributives being directly contrary, -and admitting no medium. If I say, “Paris or Alexander” (these being -names of the same individual); or if I say, “Gravity or weight,” -“Logic, or the art of reasoning;” _or_ in these examples is a -subdisjunctive or an explicative, as it serves to define the meaning -of the preceding term, or as it expresses the equivalence of two -terms. The Latins express the former by _aut_, _vel_, and the latter -by _seu_ or _sive_. In the following sentence both conjunctions are -exemplified: “Give me _either_ the black _or_ the white;” _i.e._ -“Give me one of the two--the black--other, the white.” - -To these are opposed _neither_, _nor_, as, “Give me _neither_ poverty -_nor_ riches;” _i.e._ “Give me not one of the two, poverty--nor, -_i.e._ not the other, riches.” - -According to Mr. Tooke, the conjunction _if_ is the imperative of -the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic verb _gifan_, “to give.” Among others, he -quotes the following example. “How will the weather dispose of you -to-morrow? If fair, it will send me abroad; if foul, it will keep me -at home”--_i.e._ “Give,” or “grant it to be fair;” “give,” or “grant -it to be foul.” - -_Though_ is the same as _thaf_, an imperative from _thafan_, to -allow, and is in some parts of the country pronounced _thof_; as, -“Though he should speak truth, I would not believe him;” _i.e._ -“allow or grant, what? he should speak truth,” or “allow his speaking -truth, I would not believe him.” - -_But_, from _beutan_, the imperative of _beon utan_, to _be out_, is -the same as _without_ or _unless_, there being no difference between -these in respect to meaning. Grammarians, however, in conformity -to the distinction between _nisi_ and _sine_, have called _but_ a -conjunction, and _without_ a preposition. _But_, therefore, being -a word signifying exception or exclusion, I have not termed it an -“adversative,” as most grammarians have, but an “exceptive.” In this -sense it is synonymous with _præter_, _præterquam_, or _nisi_; thus, -“I saw nobody but John,” _i.e._ “unless,” or “except John.” - -_But_, from _bot_, the imperative of _botan_, to _boot_ or -_superadd_, has a very different meaning. This word was originally -written _bot_, and was thus distinguished from but[115]. They are -now written alike, which tends to create confusion. The meaning of -this word is, “add,” or, “moreover.” This interpretation is confirmed -by the probable derivation and meaning of synonymous words in other -languages. Thus, the French _mais_ (but) is from _majus_, or _magis_, -“more,” or “in addition;” the Italian _ma_, the Spanish _mas_, and -the Dutch _maar_, are from the same etymon, signifying “more.” -And it is not improbable, that _adsit_ (be it present, or be it -added) by contraction became _ast_ and _at_: thus, _adsit_, _adst_, -_ast_, _at_. In this sense _but_ is synonymous with _at_, _autem_, -_cæterum_, “moreover,” or “in addition.” - -It is justly observed by Mr. Tooke, that _bot_ or _but_ allays or -mitigates a good or bad precedent, by the addition of something; -for _botan_ means “to superadd,” “to supply,” “to atone for,” “to -compensate,” “to add something more,” “to make amends,” or “make up -deficiency.” Thus, - - “Once did I lay an ambush for your life, - A trespass, that doth vex my grieved soul: - But (bot), ere I last received the sacrament, - I did confess...” - _Richard II._ - -“Add (this) ere I last received.” - -When _but_ means _be out_, or _without_, it should, says Mr. Tooke, -be preceded by a negative; thus, instead of saying, “I saw but John,” -which means, “I saw John be out,” we should say, “I saw none but -John,” _i.e._ “none, John be out,” or “had John been out,” or, “John -being excluded.” This, observes the ingenious author, is one of the -most faulty ellipses in our language, and could never have obtained, -but through the utter ignorance of the meaning of the word _but_ -(bot). - -_Yet_, from the imperative of _getan_, “to get.” - -_Still_, from _stell_ or _steall_, the imperative of _stellan_, -_ponere_, “to suppose.” - -Horne Tooke observing that these words, like _if_ and _an_[116], -are synonymous, accounts for their equivalence by supposing them to -be derived from verbs of the same import. His mode of derivation, -however, appears at first hearing to be incorrect: the meaning of -the conjunctions have little or no affinity to that of the verbs. -Mr. Tooke himself does not seem perfectly satisfied with its truth. -Both these conjunctions are synonymous with “notwithstanding,” -“nevertheless;” terms, the obvious meaning of which does not accord -with verbs denoting “to get,” or “to suppose.” I am inclined, -however, to think that Tooke’s conjecture is founded in truth. If -I say, “he was learned, yet modest,” it may be expressed, “he was -learned, notwithstanding this, or this being granted, even thus, or -_be it so_ (_licet ita esset_) he was modest;” where the general -incompatibility between learning and modesty is conceived, not -expressed, the expression denoting merely the combination of the -qualities in the individual mentioned. _Notwithstanding_ indirectly -marks the repugnance, by signifying that the one quality did not -prevent the co-existence of the other; _yet_ or _still_ supposes -the incompatibility to be sufficiently known. This derivation is -rendered the more probable, as the word _though_ (_thof_, _grant_) -may be substituted to express the same idea, as “_though_ (grant) he -was learned, he was modest;” which is equivalent to “he was learned, -yet (this granted) he was modest.” Hence many repeat the concessive -term, and say, “_though_ he was learned, _yet_ he was modest.” - -_Unless._ Mr. Horne Tooke is of opinion that this exceptive -conjunction is properly _onles_, the imperative of the verb -_onlesan_, to dismiss; thus, “you cannot be saved _unless_ you -believe;” _i.e._ “dismiss your believing, and you cannot be saved,” -or, “you cannot be saved, your believing being dismissed.” - -_Lest_ is contracted for _lesed_, the participle of the same verb, -_onlesan_ or _lesan_, signifying “dismissed;” as, “Young men should -take care to avoid bad company, _lest_ their morals be corrupted, and -their reputation ruined;” that is, “Young men should take care to -avoid bad company, _lest_ (this being dismissed, or omitted) their -morals be corrupted,” &c. - -_That_ is evidently in all cases an adjective, or, as some consider -it, a demonstrative pronoun; as, “They say _that_ the king is -arrived;” “They say that (thing) the king is arrived.” - -_Whether_ is an adjective, denoting “which of two;” thus, “Whether he -live or die;” that is, “Which of the two things, he live or die.” - -_As_ is the same with _es_, a German article, meaning _it_, _that_, -or _which_. - -_So_ is _sa_ or _so_, a Gothic article of the same import. - -_Than_, which Mr. Tooke does not seem to have noticed, is supposed to -be a compound of the definitive _tha_, and the additive termination, -_en_, thus, _tha en, thænne, then_, and now spelled _than_[117]. - -These few examples will serve to explain Mr. Tooke’s theory on this -subject; and I am persuaded, that the further we investigate the -etymology and real import of conjunctions, the more probable will it -appear that they are all nouns or attributives, some belonging to -kindred languages, and others compounds or abbreviations in our own. -I am persuaded, also, that from a general review of this subject, it -must be evident that adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions, form -no distinct species of words, and that they are all reducible to the -class either of nouns or attributives, if their original character -and real import be considered. But, as many of them are derived -from obsolete words in our own language, or from words in kindred -languages, the radical meanings of which are, therefore, either -obscure, or generally unknown--and as the syntactical use of several -of them has undergone a change--it can be no impropriety, nay, it is -even convenient, to regard them not in their original character, but -their present use. When the radical word still remains, the case is -different. Thus _except_ is by some considered as a preposition; but -as the verb _to except_ is still in use, _except_ may, and indeed -should, be considered as the imperative of the verb[118]. But in -parsing, to say that the word _unless_ is the imperative of the verb -_onlesan_, “to dismiss,” that verb belonging to a different language, -would serve only to perplex and to confound, were it even true -that the etymology is correct. For this reason, though I perfectly -concur with Mr. Tooke as to the proper and original character of -these words, I have distributed them under the customary head of -prepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions. - - - - -CHAPTER X. - -OF INTERJECTIONS. - - -An interjection has been defined to be, “that part of speech which -denotes some affection or emotion of the mind.” It is clearly not a -necessary part of speech; for, as Tooke observes, interjections are -not to be found in books of history, philosophy, or religion: they -occur in novels only, or dramatic compositions. Some of these are -entirely instinctive and mechanical, as, _ha! ha! ha!_ sounds common -to all men, when agitated with laughter. These physical emissions -of sound have no more claim to be called parts of speech than the -neighing of a horse, or the lowing of a cow. There are others which -seem arbitrary, and are expressive of some emotion, not simply by -the articulation, but by the accompanying voice or gesture. Grief, -for example, is expressed in English by the word _ah!_ or _oh!_ in -Latin by _oi_, _ei!_ and in Greek by οἶ, οἶ, αἶ, αἶ! Here the sounds -are not instinctive, or purely mechanical, as in laughing; but the -accompanying tone of voice, which is the same in all men, under the -influence of the same emotion, indicates clearly the feeling or -passion of the speaker. Others, which have been deemed interjections, -are, in truth, verbs or nouns, employed in the rapidity of thought -and expression, and under the influence of strong emotion, to denote, -what would otherwise require more words to express: as, _strange!_ -for _it is strange_; _adieu!_ for _I recommend you to God_; _shame!_ -for _it is shame_; _welcome!_ for _you are welcome_. - -The words which have been considered by our English grammarians as -interjections, are the following, expressive of - - 1. _Joy_, as, Hey, Io. - - 2. _Grief_, Ah, alas, alack. - - 3. _Wonder_, Vah! hah! aha! - - 4. _Aversion_, Tush, pish, pshaw, foh, fie, pugh. - - 5. _Laughter_, Ha, ha, ha. - - 6. _Desire of attention_, Hark, lo, halloo, hem, hip. - - 7. _Languor_, Heigh ho. - - 8. _Desire of silence_, Hush, hist, mum. - - 9. _Deliberation_, Hum. - - 10. _Exultation_, Huzza. - - 11. _Pain_, Oh! ho! - - 12. _Taking leave_, Adieu. - - 13. _Greeting_, Welcome. - - - - -PART II. - -SYNTAX. - - -Syntax is the arrangement of words in sentences or phrases, agreeably -to established usage, or to the received rules of concord and -government. - -Sentences are either simple or complex. - -A simple sentence consists of only one member, containing therefore -but one subject, and one finite verb, as, “Alexander the Great is -said to have wept.” - -A complex sentence consists of two or more members, as, “Alexander, -when he had conquered the world, is said to have wept, because there -were not other worlds to subdue.” - -Complex sentences are divided into members; and these, if complex, -are subdivided into clauses, as, “The ox knoweth his owner | and the -ass his master’s crib || but Israel doth not know | my people doth -not consider.” This complex sentence has two members, each of which -contains two clauses. - -When a member of a complex sentence is simple, it is called -indifferently a member, or a clause; as, “I have called, but ye have -refused.” The two parts, into which this sentence divides itself, are -termed each either a member or a clause. - -When a complex sentence is so framed, that the meaning is suspended -till the whole be finished, it is called a period; otherwise the -sentence is said to be loose. The following sentence is an example -of a period: “If Hannibal had not wintered at Capua, by which -circumstance his troops were enervated, but had, on the contrary, -after the battle of Cannæ, proceeded to Rome, it is not improbable -that the great city would have fallen.” - -The criterion of a period is, that you cannot stop before you reach -the end of the sentence, otherwise the sentence is incomplete. The -following is an example of a loose sentence. “One party had given -their whole attention during several years, to the project of -enriching themselves, and impoverishing the rest of the nation; and, -by these and other means, of establishing their dominion, under the -government, and with the favour of a family, who were foreigners: and -therefore might believe, they were established on the throne, by the -good-will and strength of this party alone.” In this sentence you may -stop at the words _themselves_, _nation_, _dominion_, _government_, -or _foreigners_; and these pauses will severally complete the -construction, and conclude perfect sentences. Thus, in a period, the -dependence of the members is reciprocal; in a loose sentence, the -preceding are not necessarily dependent on the subsequent members; -whereas the following entirely depend on those which are antecedent. -The former possesses more strength, and greater majesty; hence it is -adapted to the graver subjects of history, philosophy, and religion. -The latter is less artificial, and approaches nearer to the style -of conversation; hence it is suited to the gayer and more familiar -subjects of tales, dialogues, and epistolary correspondence. - -Concord is the agreement of one word with another, in case, gender, -number, or person; thus, “I love.” Here _I_ is the pronoun singular -of the first person, and the verb is likewise in the first person, -and singular number; they agree therefore in number and person. - -Government is the power which one word hath over another in -determining its state; thus, “he wounded us.” In this sentence, -_wounded_ is an active transitive verb, and governs the pronoun in -the objective case. - - - - -CHAPTER I. - -OF CONCORD. - - -RULE I.--A verb agrees with its nominative in number and person, as, - - _We teach_ - _He learns_ - -where _we_ and _teach_ are each plural, and of the first person; _he_ -and _learns_ are each singular, and of the third person. - - _Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such examples as these, “I - likes,” “thou loves,” “he need,” “you was.” In reference to the - last example, the reader should observe, that _you_ is plural, - whether it relate to only one individual or to more, and ought - therefore to be joined with a plural verb. It is no argument to - say, that when we address a single person, we should use a verb - singular; for were this plea admissible, we ought to say, “you - wast,” for _wast_ is the second person singular, and not “you was,” - for _was_ is the first or third. Besides, no one says, “you is,” or - “you art,” but “you are.” - - _Note_ 2.--The nominative to a verb is known by putting the - question, Who? or What? to the verb, as, _I read_; Who reads? Ans. - _I_. - - _Note_ 3.--The infinitive often supplies the place of a nominative - to a verb, thus, “To excel in every laudable pursuit should be the - aim of every one.” What should be the aim? Ans. “To excel.” - - _Note_ 4.--_As_, considered now as a conjunction, but being, in its - primitive signification, equivalent to _it_, _that_, or _which_, - likewise supplies the place of a nominative, thus, “As far as - regards his interest, he will be sufficiently careful not to - offend.” Some grammarians suppose _it_ to be understood - - _Note_ 5.--A verb is frequently construed with a whole clause as - its nominative, thus, “His being at enmity with Cæsar was the cause - of perpetual discord;” where, _his being at enmity_, the subject of - the affirmation, forms the nominative to the verb. - - _Note_ 6.--The nominative, when the verb expresses command or - entreaty, is often suppressed, as, “speak,” for “speak thou,” - “honour the king,” for “honour ye the king.” It is also frequently - suppressed in poetry, as “Lives there, who loves his pain?” - _Milton_:--_i.e._ “Lives there a man?” “To whom the monarch;” - _replied_ being understood. - - _Note_ 7.--A noun singular, used for a plural, is joined to a - plural verb, as, “Ten _sail_ of the line _were_ descried at - a distance.” It has been already observed, that the plural - termination is sometimes suppressed, as, “ten thousand,” “three - brace,” “four pair.” - - _Note_ 8.--Priestley has said, that when the particle _there_ is - prefixed to a verb singular, a plural noun may follow, “without a - very sensible impropriety.” But, if there be an impropriety at all, - why should the phraseology be adopted? His example is this, “There - necessarily follows from thence these plain and unquestionable - consequences.” Nothing, we apprehend, can justify this violation - of analogy. It should be, “follow.” Would Dr. Priestley have said - “There _is_ men who never reason?” - - _Note_ 9.--The nominative generally precedes the verb, and is, in - some examples, known by nothing but its place. This arrangement, - however, is sometimes altered, and the verb placed before the - nominative. - - 1st. Where the sentence is interrogative, as, “Does wealth make - men happy?” Here the nominative _wealth_ follows the auxiliary: - “wealth does” would denote affirmation. “Stands Scotland where - it did?” Here also the nominative follows the verb, to denote - interrogation[119]. - - 2ndly. In expressing commands or request, as “go thou,” “read ye.” - - 3rdly. When a supposition is elliptically expressed, the - conditional particle _if_ being understood, as, “Were I Alexander,” - said Parmenio, “I would accept the offer,” where “were I,” is - equivalent to “if I were.” - - 4thly. After the introductory word _there_, as “There was a man - sent by God, whose name was John.” “There are many who have - the wisdom to prefer virtue to every other acquirement.” This - arrangement is preferable to “a man was sent,” “many are,” &c.; - and, as a general rule, I observe, that this collocation is not - only proper but requisite, when a sentiment of importance is to be - introduced to the hearer’s particular attention. - - 5thly. When the speaker is under the influence of vehement emotion, - or when vivacity and force are to be imparted to the expression, - the nominative energetically follows the verb, as, “Great is Diana - of the Ephesians.” Alter the arrangement, saying, “Diana of the - Ephesians is great,” and you efface the signature of impetuosity, - and render the expression frigid and unaffecting. “Blessed is - he, that cometh in the name of the Lord.” “He is blessed” would - convert, as Campbell judiciously observes, a fervid exclamation - into a cold aphorism. “Fallen, fallen is Babylon, that great city.” - The energy of the last expression arises partly, I acknowledge, - from the _epijeuxis_ or reduplication[120]. - - 6thly. The auxiliary verb is placed before the nominative, when the - sentence or member begins with _nor_ or _neither_, as, “Nor _did - we_ doubt that rectitude of conduct would eventually prove itself - the best policy.” Thus also is placed the principal verb, as, “Nor - left he in the city a soul alive.” - - Besides the cases now enumerated, in which the verb should precede - the nominative, there are several others not easily reducible - to any precise rule. In general, however, it may be remarked, - that the place of the nominative depends, in some degree, on its - connexion with other parts of the sentence. “Hence appears the - impossibility, that this undertaking should be carried on in a - monarchy.” _Impossibility_ being here in sense closely connected - with the following words, this arrangement is preferable to that - in the original. Hume says, “Hence the impossibility appears, that - this undertaking should be carried on in a monarchy.” - - Priestley has said, that nouns, whose form is plural, but - signification singular, require a singular verb, as, “Mathematics - is a useful study.” This observation, however, is not justified by - general usage, reputable writers being in this case much divided. - (See p. 19.) - - -RULE II.--Two or more substantives singular, denoting different -things, being equivalent to a plural, take a plural verb; or, when -two or more substantives singular are collectively subjects of -discourse, they require a plural verb, and plural representatives, -as, “Cato and Cicero _were_ learned men; and _they_ loved _their_ -country.” - - _Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such examples as this, “I do - not think, that leisure of life and tranquillity of mind, which - fortune and your own wisdom _has_ given you, could be better - employed.”--_Swift._ - - _Note_ 2.--It was customary with the writers of antiquity, when the - substantives were nearly synonymous, to employ a verb singular, as, - _mens, ratio, et consilium in senibus est_, “understanding, reason, - and prudence _is_ in old men.” In imitation of these, some English - authors have, in similar instances, employed a verb singular. I - concur, however, with L. Murray in disapproving this phraseology. - For either the terms are synonymous, or they are not. If their - equivalence be admitted, all but one are redundant, and there is - only one subject of discourse; only one term should therefore be - retained, and a verb singular be joined with it. If they be not - equivalent, there are as many distinct ideas as there are terms, - and a plurality of subjects requires a plural verb. - - This observation, however, requires some limitation. It - occasionally happens that one subject is represented by two names, - neither of which singly would express it with sufficient strength. - In such cases, the two nouns _may_ take a verb singular; and if - the noun singular should be in juxta-position with the verb, the - singular number _should_ be used; as “Why _is_ dust and ashes - proud?”--_Ecclesiasticus_, chap. x. - - _Note_ 3.--In such expressions as the following, it has been - doubted, whether the verb should be in the singular or in the - plural number: “Every officer and soldier claim a superiority - in regard to other individuals.”--_De Lolme on the British - Constitution._ Here, I conceive, the phraseology is correct. Such - an expression as “every officer and soldier claims” might signify - one individual under two different designations. Whether we should - say, “Every officer, and every soldier, claim,” is a point more - particularly questioned. We often hear correct speakers say, in - common conversation, “Every clergyman, and every physician, is by - education a gentleman;” and there seems to be more ease, as well as - more precision, in this, than in the other mode of expression. It - is unquestionably, however, more agreeable to analogy to say, “are - gentlemen.” - - _Note_ 4.--It is not necessary, that the subjects of discourse - be connected, or associated by conjunctions: it is sufficient, - if the terms form a plurality of subjects to a common predicate, - whether with or without any connexive word, as “Honour, justice, - religion itself, were derided and blasphemed by these profligate - wretches.”[121] In this example the copulative is omitted. “The - king, with the lords and commons, constitute an excellent form of - government.” Here the connexive word is not a conjunction, but a - preposition; and though _the lords and commons_ be properly in - the objective case, and _the king_ therefore the only nominative - to the verb, yet as the three subjects collectively constitute - the government, the verb without impropriety is put in the plural - number. This phraseology, though not strictly consonant with the - rules of concord, frequently obtains both in ancient and modern - languages; in some cases, indeed, it seems preferable to the - syntactical form of expression. - - _Note_ 5.--It is to be observed, that, when a pronominal adjective, - compounded with _self_, is joined to a verb, the simple pronoun, - which is the real nominative, is sometimes understood. “If there - be in me iniquity, slay me thyself:” (_Bible_:) _i.e._ “Do thou - thyself slay me.” - - “To know but this, that thou art good, - And that myself am blind:”--_Pope._ - - that is, “that I myself am blind.” - - _Note_ 6.--Where comparison is expressed or implied, and not - combination, the verb should be singular; thus, “Cæsar, as well as - Cicero, _was_ remarkable for eloquence.” - - “As she laughed out, until her back, - As well as sides, _was_ like to crack.”--_Hudibras._ - - _Note_ 7.--When the nominatives are of different persons, the first - person is preferred to the second, and the second to the third. In - other words, _I and you_, _I and he_, are sylleptically the same - as _we_; _you and he_ the same as _ye_. This observation, however, - is scarcely necessary, as the verb plural admits no personal - inflexion: it can be useful only in determining what pronoun should - be the representative of the terms collectively, as, “he and I - shared it between _us_.” - - _Note_ 8.--In the learned languages the pronoun of the first person - is deemed more worthy than that of the second, and the second than - that of the third; and hence arises the syllepsis of persons which - obtains in Greek and Latin. But, though we admit the figure in - English, we do not precisely adopt the arrangement of the Latins; - for though, like them, we place the pronoun of the second person - before that of the third, we modestly place the pronoun of the - first person after those of the second and third. Thus, where a - Roman would say, _Si tu et Tullia valetis, ego et Cicero valemus_, - we should say, “If you and Tullia are well, Cicero and I are well.” - - -RULE III.--When, of two or more substantives singular, one -exclusively is the subject of discourse, a verb singular is required, -as, “John, James, or Andrew, intends to accompany you;” that is, one -of the three, but not more than one. - - _Note._--When the predicate is to be applied to the different - subjects, though they be disjoined by the conjunction, they may - be followed by a plural verb. “Neither you, nor I, are in fault.” - This is the usual form of expression. If we consider _neither_ - in its proper character, as a pronoun, we should say, “neither - you nor I, is in fault:” _neither_ being the nominative to the - verb. The former, however, is the common phraseology, and is - analogous to the Latin idiom. “Quando nec gnatus, nec hic, mihi - quicquam obtemperant.”--_Ter. Hec._ “Id neque ego, neque tu, - fecimus.”--_Id._ “Num Lælius, aut qui duxit ab oppressa meritum - Carthagine nomen, ingenio offensi?”--_Hor._ - - -RULE IV.--Nouns of number, or collective nouns, may have a singular -or plural verb, thus, - - “My people _do_ not consider,” - “My people _does_ not consider.” - - This licence, however, as Priestley observes, is not entirely - arbitrary. If the term immediately suggest the idea of number, the - verb is preferably made plural; but, if it suggest the idea of a - whole or unity, it should be singular. Thus it seems harsh and - unnatural to say, “In France the peasantry _goes_ barefoot, and - the middle sort _makes_ use of wooden shoes.” It would be better - to say, “the peasantry _go_”--“the middle sort _make_;” because - the idea is that of number. On the contrary, there is something - incongruous and unnatural in these expressions: “The court of Rome - _were_ not without solicitude--The house of commons _were_ of small - weight--Stephen’s party _were_ entirely broken up.”--_Hume._ - - -RULE V.--The adjectives _this_ and _that_ agree with their -substantives in number, as, - - _This man_ _These men_ - _That woman_ _Those women_. - -All other adjectives are inflexible, as, - - _Good man_ _Good men_. - - _Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such expressions as these, - which too frequently occur, “_These_ kind of people.” “_Those_ sort - of goods.” - - _Note_ 2.--The substantive, with which the adjective is connected, - is ascertained by putting the question, who, or what? to the - adjective, as, “a ripe apple.” What is ripe? Ans. “The apple.” - - _Note_ 3.--The inflexibility of the English adjective sometimes - occasions ambiguity, rendering it doubtful to which of two or - more substantives the adjective refers. The defect is sometimes - supplied by the note termed _hyphen_. If, for example, we hear a - person designated “an old bookseller,” we may be at a loss to know, - whether the person intended be an old man who sells books, that - is, “an old book-seller,” or one who sells old books, that is, “an - old-book seller.” When we read the notice, “Lime, slate, and coal - wharf,” we are indebted to the exercise of common sense, and not - to the perspicuity of the diction, for understanding what is meant - by attaching the term wharf to all the preceding nouns, while in - strict grammatical construction the notice might bear a different - signification. - - _Note_ 4.--Every adjective has a substantive, either expressed or - understood, as “the just shall live by faith,” _i.e._ “the just - man;” “few were present,” _i.e._ “few persons.” - - _Note_ 5.--The adjective is generally placed immediately before the - substantive, as, “a learned man,” “a chaste woman.” - - _Exc._ 1.--When the adjective is closely connected with some other - word, by which its meaning is modified or explained, as, “a man - loyal to his prince,” where the attributive _loyal_ is closely - connected with the following words. - - _Exc._ 2.--When the verb _to be_ expresses simple affirmation, as, - “thou art good;” or when any other verb serves as a mere copula to - unite the predicate with its subject, as, “he seems courageous,” - “it looks strange.” - - _Exc._ 3.--For the sake of harmony, as, “Hail! bard divine.” - - _Exc._ 4.--When there are more adjectives than one connected with - the substantive, as, “a man wise, valiant, and good.” - - _Exc._ 5.--Adjectives denoting extent, whether of space or of time, - are put after the clause expressing the measure, as, “a wall ten - feet high,” “a child three years old,” “a speech an hour long.” - - _Note_ 6.--It has been doubted whether the cardinal should precede - or follow the ordinal numeral. Atterbury says, in one of his - letters to Pope, “Not but that the four first lines are good.” We - conceive the expression to be quite correct, though the other form, - namely, “the first four,” be often employed to denote the same - conception. There is no contrast intended between these four and - any other four, otherwise he should have said, “The first four.” If - we say, “the first seven years,” it implies a division into sevens, - as takes place, for example, in the terms of a lease; “the seven - first years” implies no such division. The Latins, as far as I have - observed, had only one mode of arrangement. “Itaque quinque primis - diebus.”--_Cæs._ _B. C._ i. 5. “Tribus primis diebus.”--_Ib._ i. - 18. That the adoption of one and the same collocation, in all - cases, would sometimes mislead the reader, is evident. If we take, - for example, seven objects, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and say “the - first, and the three last,” we clearly refer to A, and E, F, G; but - if we say “the first and the last three,” we may indicate A, B, C, - the first three, and E, F, G, the last three. - - _Note_ 7.--_Each_ is employed to denote two things taken - separately, and is therefore used as singular[122]. _Either_ is - also singular, and implies only one of two; as, _take either_, - that is “the one or the other, but not both.” _Both_ is a plural - adjective, and denotes the two collectively. - - _Note_ 8.--_Every_ is an adjective singular, applied to more than - two subjects taken individually, and comprehends them all. It is - sometimes joined to a plural noun, when the things are conceived - as forming one aggregate, as, _every twelve years_, _i.e._ “every - period of twelve years.” - - _Note_ 9.--_All_ is an adjective either singular or plural, - denoting the whole, whether quantity or number, as, “All men are - mortal.” “Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work.” - - _Note_ 10.--_Much_ is an adjective of quantity, and of the singular - number, as, “much fruit.” _Many_ an adjective of number, and - therefore plural, as, “many men.” This word, however, is sometimes - construed with a noun singular, as, - - “Many a poor man’s son would have lain still.”--_Shakspeare._ - - _Note_ 11.--_More_, as the comparative of _much_, is singular, - denoting a greater quantity; as the comparative of _many_, it is - plural, and signifies a greater number, as _more fruit_, or, “a - greater quantity;” _more men_, “or a greater number.” - - _Note_ 12.--_Enough_ is an adjective singular, and denotes - quantity, as, “bread enough:” _enow_ denotes number, as “books - enow.” - - _Note_ 13.--The correlative word to the adjective _such_, is _as_, - and not _who_. There is an impropriety in saying, with Mr. Addison, - “Such, who are lovers of mankind,” instead of “Such as,” or, “Those - who.” - - _Note_ 14.--The superlative degree is followed by _of_, and also - the comparative, when selection is implied, as, “Hector was the - bravest of the Trojans.” “Africanus was the greater of the (two) - Scipios.” When opposition is signified, the comparative is followed - by _than_, as, “Wisdom is better than wealth.” - - _Note_ 15.--There is an ambiguity in the adjective _no_, against - which it is necessary to guard, and which Priestley seems to think - that it is impossible to avoid in any language. Thus, if we say, - “No laws are better than the English,” it may mean either, that the - absence of all law is better than the English laws, or that no code - of jurisprudence is superior to the English. If the latter be the - meaning intended, the ambiguity is removed by saying, “There are no - laws better than the English.” If the former is the sentiment to be - expressed, we might say, “The absence of all law is preferable to - the English system.” - - _Note_ 16.--Adjectives are sometimes improperly used for adverbs, - as _indifferent well_, _extreme bad_, for _indifferently well_, - _extremely bad_. An example of this error is also found in - the following sentence. “He was interrogated relative to that - circumstance.” _Relative_ is an adjective, and must have a - substantive expressed or understood; the question is then, what, - or who was relative? The answer, according to the rules of - construction, should be _he_. This, however, is not the meaning. - The word ought to be _relatively_. - - I am somewhat, however, inclined to think that our grammarians have - been hypercritical, if not chargeable with error, in condemning - such expressions as these, _exceeding great_, _exceeding strong_. - This phraseology, I apprehend, has been reprobated, partly because - not conformable to the Latin idiom, and partly because such - expressions as these, _excessive good_, _extreme dear_, _excellent - well_, are justly repudiated. Neither of these, however, can be - deemed a sufficient reason for condemning this phraseology. For - when it is said, “His strength was exceeding great,” may not the - expression be considered as elliptical, the word _exceeding_ being - construed as a participle, thus, “his strength was exceeding,” or - “surpassing great strength,” that is, “his strength exceeded great - strength.”[123] So Shakspeare says, “it was passing strange.” - Though _exceedingly strong_, _exceedingly good_, are now considered - to be the preferable phraseologies, there can be no doubt, as - Webster has observed, that adjectives are sometimes used to modify - the sense of other adjectives; thus we say, “red hot,” “a closer - grained wood,” “a sharper edged sword.” - - In connection with the preceding note, we would here observe, that - adjectives are used to modify the meaning of the verbs to which - they refer; thus we say, “Open thy hand wide.”--_Bible._ “Cry - shrill with thy voice.”--_Ib._ “He fought hard for his life.” The - use of the kindred adverbs, as will be afterwards shown, would in - many instances materially alter the meaning. - - -RULE VI.--The article _a_ or _an_ is joined to nouns of the singular -number only, or nouns denoting a plurality of things in one -aggregate, as, - - _A man_ _An army_ _A thousand_ _A few_. - - _Note_ 1.--To distinguish between the use of _a_ and _an_, it - is usually given as a general rule that _a_ be placed before - consonants and _h_ aspirated, and _an_ before vowels and _h_ not - aspirated, as _a table_, _a hat_, _an oak_, _an heir_. In respect - to _a_ before _h_ aspirated, it must be observed, that usage is - divided. It would appear that, when the Bible was translated, and - the Liturgy composed, _an_ was almost universally used before _h_, - whether the aspirate belonged to an emphatic or an unemphatic - syllable. A change has since taken place; and some give it as a - rule, to put _a_ before _h_, when the syllable is emphatic, and - _an_ when the syllable has not the emphasis. This rule, however, - is not universally observed; some writing “a history,” others “an - history;” some writing “a hypothesis,” others “an hypothesis.” As - far as easy pronunciation is concerned, or the practice of Greek - and Roman writers may furnish a precedent, there seems to be no - solid objection to either of these modes. The former is more common - in Scotch and Irish writers than it is in English authors, with - whom the aspiration is less forcible, and less common. - - _An_ is used before a vowel; but from this rule two deviations are - admitted. Before the simple sound of _u_, followed by another vowel - sound, whether signified or not, _a_ and not _an_ is used. Thus - we say, “such _a_ one,” “such a woman.” If the sound of “one” be - analyzed, we shall find it resolvable into _oo-un_ or _won_, as - some orthoepists have expressed it; and _woman_ into _oo-umman_. - Again, before the diphthongal sound of _eu_, in whatsoever manner - that sound may be noted, _a_ may be, and frequently is, used. Thus - we say, “a youth,” “a yeoman,” “a eunuch,” “a unicorn.” Sheridan, - indeed, contends, that all words beginning with _u_, when it has - the diphthongal sound of _eu_, should be preceded by _a_ and not - _an_. And here I must remark, that it is with no common surprise, I - find Webster, in his introduction to his Dictionary, denying that - the vowel _u_ is anywhere equivalent to _eu_ or _e-oo_. Who those - public speakers are, whom, he says, he heard in England, and to - whose authority he appeals, we are utterly at a loss to conjecture. - But this we confidently affirm, that there is no orthoepist, no - public orator, nay, not an individual in any rank of society, - who does not distinguish between the sound of _u_ in _brute_, - _rude_, _intrude_, and in _cube_, _fume_, _cure_. His reference - to Johnson, who says that _u_ is long in _confusion_, and short - in _discussion_, is irrelevant and nugatory. Dr. Webster surely - has not to learn, that the vowel may be long, whether the sound be - monophthongal, or diphthongal. It is strange, too, that in the very - example which he quotes from Johnson, the _u_ has the diphthongal - sound, which he, notwithstanding, denies as anywhere existing. - - _Note_ 2.--_A_ is employed to express one individual of a species - without determining who or which; _the_ denotes some particular - individual or individuals; thus, “a book” means any book, “the - book” some particular book; and when both articles are omitted - the whole class is signified, as, “Man is born unto trouble,” - _i.e._ “all men.” Hobbes errs against this rule when he says, “God - Almighty has given reason to _a_ man, to be a light to him.” The - article should be suppressed. Pope commits a similar error when he - writes, - - “Who breaks a butterfly upon _a_ wheel.” - - It is not any wheel that he meant to express, but a known - instrument of torture, or “the wheel.” - - The article _a_ serves to distinguish between two subjects - compared with each other, and two subjects compared with a third. - “He is the author of two works of a different character.” If - the writer meant to say that he was the author of two works of - a different character from that of one previously mentioned, - the expression would be correct. But he intended to signify a - dissimilarity between the two productions. He should, therefore, - have omitted the article, and said, “of different character,” or - “of different characters.” - - _Note_ 3.--The indefinite article, though generally placed before - the adjective, as, “a good man,” is put after the adjective _such_; - and where these words of comparison occur, _as_, _so_, _too_, - _how_, its place is between the adjective and substantive, thus, - “Such a gift is too small a reward for so great a service.” When - the order is inverted, this rule is not observed, as “a reward so - small,” “a service so great.” The definite article is likewise - placed before the adjective, as “the great king.” _All_ is the only - adjective which precedes the article. “All the servants,” “all the - money.” - - _Note_ 4.--Pronouns and proper names do not admit the definite - article, themselves sufficiently determining the subject of - discourse; thus we cannot say, _the I_, _the Alexander_. If we - employ the definite article with a proper name, an ellipsis is - involved; thus, if I say, _he commands the Cæsar_, I mean, he - commands the ship called “Cæsar.” - - _Note_ 5.--The definite article is used to distinguish the - explicative from the determinative sense. The omission of the - article, when the sense is restricted, creates ambiguity. For this - reason the following sentence is faulty: “All words, which are - signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.”--_Bolingbroke._ - Here the clause, “which are signs of complex ideas,” is not - explicative, but restrictive; for all words are not signs of - complex ideas. It should, therefore, be “all the,” or “all those - words, which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.” - - “In all cases of prescription, the universal practice of judges - is to direct juries by analogy to the Statute of Limitations, to - decide against incorporeal rights, which for many years have been - relinquished.”--_Erskine on the Rights of Juries._ This sentence - is chargeable at once with ambiguity and error. In the first - place, it is doubtful whether a regard to this analogy governs - the directions of the judge, or is to rule the decision of the - jury. 2ndly. By the omission of the definite article, or the word - _those_ before the antecedent, he has rendered the relative clause - explicative, instead of being restrictive; for, as all incorporeal - rights are not abolished, he should have said, “against those - incorporeal rights.” - - There are certain cases, indeed, in which the antecedent clause - admits the definite article, though the relative clause be not - restrictive, thus, - - “Blest are the pure, whose hearts are clean - From the defiling power of sin.” - - Here the relative clause is merely explanatory, yet the antecedent - admits the article. Thus also, in the following sentence, “My - goodness extendeth not to thee, but to the saints, and the - excellent ones, in whom is all my delight.” The relative clause - is not intended to limit the meaning of the antecedent terms, and - yet they admit the definite article. In all examples, therefore, - like these, where the explanatory meaning admits the article, it is - necessary, for the sake of perspicuity, to mark the determinative - sense by the emphatic words _that_ or _those_. Thus, had the clause - been determinative in the latter of these examples, it would have - been necessary to say, “those saints, and those excellent ones, in - whom is my delight.” - - _Note_ 6.--The definite article is likewise used to distinguish - between things which are individually different, but have one - generic name, and things which are, in truth, one and the same, - but are characterized by several qualities. For example, if I - should say, “the red and blue vestments were most admired,” it - may be doubtful whether I mean that the union of red and blue in - the same vestments was most admired, or that the red and the blue - vestments were both more admired than the rest. In strictness of - speech, the former is the only proper meaning of the words, though - the latter sentiment be often thus expressed. If the latter be - intended, we should say, “the red vestments and the blue,” or “the - red and the blue vestments,” where the article is repeated. If - I say, “the red and blue vestments,” it is obvious that only one - subject is expressed, namely, “vestments,” characterized by two - qualities, “redness,” and “blueness,” as combined in the subject. - Here the subject is one; its qualities are plural. If I say, “the - red vestments and the blue,” or “the red and the blue vestments,” - the subjects are plural, expressed, however, by one generic name, - _vestments_. - - In the same manner, if we say, “the ecclesiastical and secular - powers concurred in this measure,” the expression is ambiguous, - as far as language can render it such. The reader’s knowledge, - as Dr. Campbell observes, may prevent his mistaking it; but, if - such modes of expression be admitted, where the sense is clear, - they may inadvertently be imitated in cases, where the meaning - would be obscure, if not entirely misunderstood. The error might - have been avoided, either by repeating the substantive, or by - subjoining the substantive to the first adjective, and prefixing - the articles to both adjectives; or by placing the substantives - after both adjectives, the article being prefixed in the same - manner; thus, “the ecclesiastical powers, and the secular powers,” - or better, “the ecclesiastical powers, and the secular,” or “the - ecclesiastical, and the secular powers.” The repetition of the - article shows, that the second adjective is not an additional - epithet to the same subject, but belongs to a subject totally - different, though expressed by the same generic name. “The lords - spiritual and temporal,” is a phraseology objectionable on the - same principle, though now so long sanctioned by usage, that we - dare hardly question its propriety. The subjects are different, - though they have but one generic name. It should therefore be, “the - spiritual and the temporal lords.” - - On the contrary, when two or more adjectives belong as epithets to - one and the same thing, the other arrangement is to be preferred. - Thus, “the high and mighty states.” Here both epithets belong to - one subject. “The states high and mighty,” would convey the same - idea. - - Where the article is not used, the place of the substantive - ought to show, whether both adjectives belong to the same thing, - or to different things having the same generic name. “Like an - householder, who bringeth out of his treasure things new and old.” - This arrangement is faulty; both epithets cannot belong to the same - subject. It should be, “new things and old.” - - If both adjectives belong to one and the same subject, the - substantive ought either to precede both adjectives, or to follow - both, the article being uniformly omitted before the second - adjective, whether prefixed to the substantive before the first, - or suppressed. If, on the contrary, they belong to different - subjects, with the same name, the substantive ought to follow the - first adjective, and may be either repeated after the second, or - understood; or it should follow both adjectives, the article being - prefixed to each of them. - - _Note_ 7.--The omission, or the insertion of the indefinite - article, in some instances, nearly reverses the meaning; thus, - - “Ah, little think the gay, licentious proud.”--_Thomson._ - - Here _little_ is equivalent to “not much,” or rather by a common - trope it denotes _not at all_. Locke says, “I leave him to - reconcile these contradictions, which may be plentifully found in - him by any one, who reads with but a little attention.” Here, on - the contrary, where the indefinite article is inserted, “a little” - means “not none,” or “some.” - - In like manner, when it is said, “Strait is the gate, and narrow - is the way, and few there be that find it;” _few_ is opposed to - _many_. Thus also, “_Many_ are called, but _few_ are chosen.” - But when it is said, “Tarry a few days, till thy brother’s fury - turn;” _a few_ is here equivalent to _some_, not as opposed to - _many_, but as opposed to _not none_. If we say, “_few_ accompanied - the prince,” we seem to diminish the number, and represent it - as inconsiderable, as if we said, “not many,” or “fewer than - expectation:” if we say, _a few_, we seem to amplify;--we represent - the number as not unworthy of attention, or as equal, at least, if - not superior to expectation. In short, if the article be inserted, - the clause is equivalent to a double negative, and thus it serves - to amplify; if the article be suppressed, the expression has either - a diminutive or a negative import. - - _Note_ 8.--The indefinite article has, sometimes, the meaning of - _every_ or _each_; thus, “they cost five shillings a dozen,” that - is, “every dozen.” - - “What makes all doctrines plain and clear? - About two hundred pounds a year.”--_Hudibras._ - - That is, “every year.” - - _Note_ 9.--There is a particular use of this article, which merits - attention, as ambiguity may thus, in many cases, be avoided. In - denoting comparison, when the article is suppressed before the - second term, the latter, though it may be an appellative, assumes - the character of an attributive, and becomes the predicate of the - subject, or first term. If, on the contrary, the second term be - prefaced with the article, it continues an appellative, and forms - the other subject of comparison. In the former case, the subject, - as possessing different qualities in various degrees, is compared - with itself; in the latter, it is compared with something else. - - Thus, if we say, “he is a better soldier than scholar,” the article - is suppressed before the second term, and the expression is - equivalent to, “he is more warlike than learned,” or “he possesses - the qualities, which form the soldier, in a greater degree than - those, which constitute the scholar.” If, we say, “he would make - a better soldier, than _a_ scholar,” here the article is prefixed - to the second term; this term, therefore, retains the character - of an appellative, and forms the second subject of comparison. - The meaning accordingly is, “he would make a better soldier, than - a scholar would make;” that is, “he has more of the constituent - qualities of a soldier, than are to be found in any literary man.” - - Pope commits a similar error, when, in one of his letters to - Atterbury, he says, “You thought me not a worse man than a poet.” - This strictly means “a worse man than a poet is;” whereas he - intended to say, that his moral qualities were not inferior to his - poetical genius. He should have said, “a worse man than poet.” - - These two phraseologies are frequently confounded, which seldom - fails to create ambiguity. Baker erroneously considers them as - equivalent, and prefers that, in which the article is omitted - before the second substantive. When there are two subjects with one - predicate, the article should be inserted; but when there is one - subject with two predicates, it should be omitted. - - _Note_ 10.--Perspicuity in like manner requires, that, when an - additional epithet or description of the same subject is intended, - the definite article should not be employed. It is by an attention - to this rule, that we clearly distinguish between subject and - predicate. For this reason the following sentence appears to me - faulty: “The apostle James, the son of Zebedee, and the brother of - St. John, would be declared the apostle of the Britons.”--_Henry’s - History of Britain._ It should be rather, “and brother of St. - John.” When a diversity of persons, or a change of subject is - intended to be expressed, the definite article is necessarily - employed, as “Cincinnatus the dictator, and the master of horse, - marched against the Æqui.” The definite article before the latter - appellative marks the diversity of subject, and clearly shows that - two persons are designed. Were the article omitted, the expression - would imply, that the dictator, and the master of horse, were one - and the same individual. - - -RULE VII.--Substantives signifying the same thing agree in case, -thus, “I, George the Third, king of Great Britain, defender of -the faith.” The words _I_, _George_, _king_, _defender_, are all -considered as the nominative case. “The chief of the princes, _he_ -who defied the bravest of the enemy, was assassinated by a dastardly -villain:” where the pronoun _he_ agrees in case with the preceding -term _chief_. This rule, however, may be deemed unnecessary, as all -such expressions are elliptical; thus, “the chief of the princes was -assassinated,” “he was assassinated.” “He was the son of the Rev. -Dr. West, perhaps _him_ who published Pindar at Oxford.”--_Johnson’s -Life of West._ That is, “the son of him.” Were the pronoun in the -nominative case, it would refer to the son, and not the father, and -thus convey a very different meaning. - - _Note_ 1.--As proper names are, by the trope antonomasia, - frequently used for appellatives, as when we say, “the Socrates of - the present age,” where _Socrates_ is equivalent to “the wisest - man,” so also appellatives have frequently the meaning and force of - attributives. Thus, if we say, “he is a soldier,” it means either - that he is by profession a soldier, or that he possesses all the - qualities of a military man, whether professionally a soldier or - not. According to the former acceptation of the term, it is a - mere appellative; agreeably to the latter, it has the force of an - attributive. - - _Note_ 2.--Two or more substantives in concordance, and forming - one complex name, or a name and title, have the plural termination - annexed to the last only, as, “_the two Miss Louisa Howards_, - _the two Miss Thomsons_.” Analogy, Dr. Priestley observes, would - plead in favour of another construction, and lead us to say, _the - two Misses Thomson_, _the two Misses Louisa Howard_; for if the - ellipsis were supplied, we should say, “the two young ladies of the - name of Thomson,” and this construction he adds, he has somewhere - met with. - - The latter form of expression, it is true, occasionally occurs; - but, general usage, and, I am rather inclined to think, analogy - likewise, decide in favour of the former; for, with a few - exceptions, and these not parallel to the examples now given[124], - we almost uniformly, in complex names, confine the inflexion to - the last substantive. Some proofs of this we shall afterwards have - an opportunity of offering. I would also observe, in passing, - that ellipsis and analogy are different principles, and should be - carefully distinguished. - - -RULE VIII.--One substantive governs another, signifying a different -thing, in the genitive, as, - - The tyrant’s rage. The apostle’s feet. - - _Note_ 1.--This rule takes place when property, possession, or the - general relation, by which one thing appertains to another, is - implied. - - _Note_ 2.--It may be considered as violated in such examples as - these, “Longinus his Treatise on the Sublime.”--_Addison._ “Christ - his sake.”--_Common Prayer._ - - _Note_ 3.--Substantives govern not only nouns, but likewise - pronouns, as, “its strength,” “his reward.” - - _Note_ 4.--This case is generally resolvable into the objective - with the preposition _of_, as, “the king’s sceptre,” or “the - sceptre of the king;” “his head,” or “the head of him.” I have said - _generally_, for it is not _always_ thus resolvable. For example, - the Christian sabbath is sometimes named, “the Lord’s day;” but - “the day of the Lord” conveys a different idea, and denotes “the - day of judgment.” - - _Note_ 5.--The latter or governing substantive is frequently - understood, as, “the king will come to St. James’s to-morrow,” that - is, “St. James’s palace.” “I found him at the stationer’s,” that - is, “the stationer’s shop,” or “the stationer’s house.” - - _Note_ 6.--When a single subject is expressed as the common - property of two or more persons, the last only takes the sign of - the genitive, as, “this is John, William, and Richard’s house;” - that is, “this is the house of John, William, and Richard.” - But when several subjects are implied, as severally belonging - to various individuals, the names of the individuals are all - expressed in the genitive case, as “these are John’s, William’s, - and Richard’s houses.” In such examples as these, the use of the - genitive involves an ambiguity, which it is sometimes difficult - to prevent. Thus, if we say, agreeably to the first observation - in this note, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s posterity were carried - captive to Babylon,” one unacquainted with the history of these - patriarchs, might be at a loss to determine whether “the patriarch - Abraham,” “the patriarch Isaac,” and “the posterity of Jacob,” - were carried captive; in other words, whether there be three - subjects of discourse, namely, _Abraham_, _Isaac_, and _the - posterity of Jacob_, or only one subject, _the posterity of the - patriarchs_. Nor will the insertion of the preposition in all - cases prevent the ambiguity. For, in the example before us, were - the word “descendants” substituted for “posterity,” and the phrase - to proceed thus, “the descendants of Abraham, of Isaac, and of - Jacob,” an ignorant reader might be led to suppose that not one - generation of descendants, but three distinct generations of these - three individuals were carried into captivity. If we say, “the - posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” the expression appears to - me liable to the same misconstruction with the one first mentioned. - If we say, “the common posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, - were carried captive to Babylon,” all ambiguity of expression is - prevented. - - Instead also of saying, “John, William, and Richard’s house,” - I should prefer “a house belonging in common to John, William, - and Richard.” This expression, though laborious and heavy, is - preferable to the inelegance and harshness of three inflected - substantives, while it removes the ambiguity, which might in some - cases be occasioned by withholding the inflexion from the two first - substantives. Where neatness and perspicuity cannot possibly be - combined, it will not be questioned which we ought to prefer. I - observe, also, that though such phraseologies as this, “John’s, - William’s, and Richard’s houses,” be perfectly consonant with - syntactical propriety, and strictly analogous to the established - phraseology, “his, Richard’s, and my houses,” yet, as there appears - something uncouth in the former expression, it would be better to - say, “the houses belonging in common, or severally (as the meaning - may be) to John, William, and Richard.” - - _Note_ 7.--When a name is complex, that is, consisting of more - terms than one, the last only admits the sign of the genitive, as, - “Julius Cæsar’s Commentaries,” “John the Baptist’s head,” “for - Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.” - - _Note_ 8.--When a short explanatory term is subjoined to a name, - it matters little to which the inflexion be annexed, as, “I left - the parcel at Mr. Johnson, the bookseller’s,” or “at Mr. Johnson’s, - the bookseller.” But if the explanatory term be complex, or if - there are more explanatory terms than one, the sign of the genitive - must be affixed to the name, or first substantive, thus, “I left - the book at Johnson’s, a respectable bookseller, a worthy man, - and an old friend.” In the same manner we should say, “this psalm - is David’s, the king, priest, and prophet of the people,” and - not “this psalm is David, the king, priest, and prophet of the - people’s.” - - _Note_ 9.--In some cases we employ both the genitive and a - preposition, as “this is a friend of the king’s,” elliptically, for - “this is a friend of the king’s friends.” We say also, “this is a - friend of the king.” These forms of expression, however, though - in many cases equivalent, sometimes imply different ideas. Thus, - if I say, “this is a picture of my friend,” it means, “this is an - image, likeness, or representation of my friend.” If I say, “This - is a picture of my friend’s,” it means, “this picture belongs to my - friend.” - - As the double genitive involves an ellipsis, and implies part of - a whole, or one of a plurality of subjects, I think the use of it - should be avoided, unless in cases where this plurality may be - implied. Thus we may say, “a kinsman of the traitor’s waited on - him yesterday,” it being implied that the traitor had several or - many kinsmen. The expression is equivalent to “a kinsman of the - traitor’s kinsmen.” But, if the subject possessed were singular, or - the only one of the kind, I should recommend the use of the simple - genitive; thus, if he had only one house, I should say, “this is - the house of the traitor,” or “this is the traitor’s house;” but - not “this is a house of the traitor’s.” - - _Note_ 10.--The recurrence of the analytical expression, and - likewise of the simple genitive, should be carefully avoided. - Thus, there is something inelegant and offensive in the following - sentence, “the severity of the distress of the son of the king - touched the nation.” Much better, “the severe distress of the - king’s son touched the nation.” - - _Note_ 11.--There is sometimes an abrupt vulgarity, or uncouthness, - in the use of the simple genitive. Thus, in “the army’s name,” “the - commons’ vote,” “the lords’ house,” expressions of Mr. Hume, there - is a manifest want of dignity and of elegance. Much better, “the - name of the army,” “the vote of the commons,” “the house of lords.” - - -RULE IX.--Pronouns agree with their antecedents, or the nouns which -they represent, in gender, number, and person, as, “They respected -Cato and his party,” where _Cato_ is singular and masculine, and -_his_ agrees with it in gender and number. “He addressed you and me, -and desired _us_ to follow him,” where _us_ sylleptically represents -the two persons. “Thou, who writest.” Here the antecedent _thou_ -being a person, the relative _who_, not _which_, is employed. The -antecedent also being of the second person and singular number, the -relative is considered as of the same character, and is therefore -followed by the verb in the second person and singular number. “Vice, -which no man practises with impunity, proved his destruction.” Here -the antecedent _vice_ not being a person, the pronoun _which_, of -the neuter gender, is therefore employed. “The rivers, which flow -into the sea.” Here also the antecedent not being a person, the -relative is _which_. It is also considered as in the plural number; -and, as all substantives are joined to the third person, _which_, the -representative of _rivers_, is joined to the third person plural of -the verb. - - _Note_ 1.--This rule is transgressed in the following examples: - “Beware of false prophets, _which_ come to you in sheep’s - clothing.” “The fruit tree bearing fruit after _his_ kind.” “There - was indeed in our destinies such a conformity, as seldom is found - in _that_ of two persons in the same age.” Here that, referring - to _destinies_, is put for _those_. “The crown had it in _their_ - power to give such rewards as they thought proper.”--_Parliamentary - Debates._ - - _Note_ 2.--The relative should be placed as near as possible to the - antecedent, otherwise ambiguity is sometimes occasioned. - - _Note_ 3.--In the earlier editions of Murray’s Grammar, we find the - following rule: “When the relative is preceded by two nominatives - of different persons, it may agree in person with either, as, ‘I - am the man who commands you,’ or ‘I am the man who command you.’” - The rule here given is erroneous. The construction is by no means - arbitrary. If we say, “I am the man who commands you,” the relative - clause, with the antecedent _man_, form the predicate; and the - sentence is equivalent to “I am your commander.” If we say, “I am - the man who command you,” _the man_ simply is the predicate, and - _I who command you_ the subject; thus, “I who command you,” or “I - your commander am the man.” This error, sufficiently obvious to - every discerning reader, I pointed out in the former edition of - this Treatise. Murray’s rule, as it stood, is clearly repugnant to - perspicuity, and syntactical correctness. - - In the last edition of his Grammar, and, I believe, in every - edition posterior to the publication of the “Etymology and Syntax,” - the rule is altered; but whether from a disinclination to expunge - a rule, which he had once delivered--a disinclination perhaps - accompanied with a belief, that it might be corrected with little - prejudice to its original form, or from what other motive he has - left it in its present state, I will not presume to determine; - but in the alteration, which he has introduced, he appears to me - to have consulted neither usefulness nor perspicuity. He says, - “When the relative is preceded by two nominatives of different - persons, it _may_ agree in person with either.” So far he has - transcribed the former rule; but he adds, “according to the - sense.” Now it cannot be questioned, and the learner needs not to - be informed, that the relative _may_ agree with either. If after - having taught the learner, that a Latin adjective _must_ agree - with its substantive, we were to add, as a distinct rule, that it - _may_ agree with either of the two substantives, according to the - sense, I apprehend, we should be chargeable with vain repetition, - or with extreme inattention to correctness and precision. For what - would our rule imply? Clearly nothing more, than that the adjective - is capable of agreeing with the substantive to which it belongs; - and of this capacity no scholar, who had learned to decline an - adjective, could possibly be ignorant; or it might convey some - idea, that the concord is optional. Now, is it not certain, that - the adjective must agree with its proper substantive, namely, that - whose meaning it is intended to modify, and no other? The relative, - in like manner, _must_ agree with that antecedent, and that only, - whose representative it is in the relative clause. There is nothing - arbitrary in either the one case, or the other. - - Perhaps it may be answered that, though the former part of the - altered rule leaves the concord as it first stood, discretionary, - the latter confines the agreement of the relative to its proper - antecedent. But why this apparent contrariety? Why is that - represented as arbitrary, which is determined by the sense? This, - however, is not the only objection; for it may be affirmed, - without hesitation, that the rule, thus considered, is completely - superfluous. For the learner has been already told, that the - relative agrees with the antecedent in gender, number, and person. - And can the antecedent be any other, than that which the sense - indicates? And what does this rule teach? Precisely the same - thing. The rule, therefore, is either calculated to mislead by - representing as arbitrary what is fixed and determinate, or it is - purely a rule of supererogation. As it stood originally, it gave - some new information; but that information was erroneous: as it - stands now, it is either indefinite, or it is useless. - - The scholar may require an admonition, when there are two - antecedents of different persons, to be careful in referring - the relative to its proper antecedent; but to tell him that it - may agree with the one, or the other, according to the sense, - is to tell him nothing, or tell him that, which he already - knows. In the examples just now adduced, the termination of the - verb, by indicating the person of the relative, clearly shows - the antecedent; but, where the substantives are of the same - person, and the verb cannot therefore by its termination indicate - the antecedent, ambiguity should be precluded by the mode of - arrangement. Thus, “He is the hero who did it,” and “He who did it - is the hero.” In the former, _he_ is the subject, and the _hero who - did it_ the predicate; and in the latter, _he who did it_ is the - subject, and the _hero_ the predicate. - - _Note_ 4.--The relative, instead of referring to any particular - word as its antecedent, sometimes refers to a whole clause, thus, - “the bill was rejected by the lords, which excited no small degree - of jealousy and discontent,” that is, “which thing,” namely, the - rejection of the bill. - - _Note_ 5.--The antecedent pronoun of the third person is often - suppressed, when no particular emphasis is implied; as, “Who - steals my purse, steals trash,” _i.e._ “he,” or “the man, who.” - “Whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive,” _Bible_; - _i.e._ “Those whom he would.” “Whosoever committeth sin, is - the servant of sin.” In this example the antecedent _he_, and - nominative to the principal verb, is understood. - - Priestley has remarked that the pronouns _whoever_ and _whosoever_ - have sometimes a double construction. He gives the two following - examples. “Elizabeth publicly threatened that she would have - the head of whoever had advised it.”--_Hume._ “He offered a - great recompense to whomsoever would help him to a sight of - him.”--_Hume._ Though the learned author seems to admit both - these modes of construction, we apprehend that only one of them - is grammatical. It has been just now observed that the antecedent - is often understood to the relative _who_, and to the compounds - _whoever_ and _whosoever_. If the antecedent be supplied, it will - be found that the construction is not arbitrary, as Priestley - supposes, but definite and fixed. The first sentence is correct. - “She would have the head of him, or them, whoever had advised,” - the relative being the nominative to the verb. “He offered a - great recompense to him, or them, whosoever should help him.” - _Whomsoever_ is a solecism: though close to the preposition _to_, - it is not under its government. (_See the following rules._) - - -RULE X.--If no nominative intervene between the relative and the -verb, the relative shall be the nominative to the verb, as, “Solomon, -who was the son of David, built the temple of Jerusalem.” Here _who_ -is the nominative to the verb _was_. - - -RULE XI.--But, if a nominative intervene between the relative -and the verb, the relative shall be under the government of the -preposition going before, or the noun or verb following, as, “God, -whom we worship, is the Lord, by whose gift we live, and by whom -all things were made.” In the first relative clause, where _we_ is -the intervening nominative, the relative is in the objective case, -and governed by the verb following: in the second clause, where the -intervening nominative is likewise _we_, the relative is in the -genitive case, and governed by the noun following, thus, “by whose -gift,” or “by the gift of whom;” and in the third clause, where -_things_ is the intervening nominative, the relative is in the -objective case, and governed by the preposition. - - _Note_ 1.--The case of the relative may always be ascertained - by repeating the antecedent, and arranging the clause in the - natural order, thus, “the city, which is called Rome, was founded - by Romulus,” _i.e._ “the city, which city is called Rome.” The - antecedent repeated is the nominative to the verb _is_, _which_ - therefore agrees with it in case. “God, who sees all things, will - punish the wicked,” _i.e._ “God, which God sees all things;” the - relative, therefore, is the nominative to the verb _sees_, that - is, it is in the same case in which the antecedent would be put, - if again expressed. “Solomon, whom David loved, was the wisest of - princes.” Here, if we arrange the relative clause in the natural - order, beginning with the nominative and the verb, it will run - thus, “David loved whom,” an expression analogous to “David loved - him,” or “David loved which Solomon.” Many solecisms in the - construction of the relative would be easily avoided, by a little - attention to the natural arrangement. Thus, instead of committing - the error involved in the following examples, “The philosopher, who - he saw to be a man of profound knowledge,” “’Twas my brother, who - you met with,” “I was a stranger to the person, who I spoke to,” - we should be led by the natural order to the correct phraseology; - “he saw whom,” “you met with whom,” “I spoke to whom.” It is to be - observed, however, that, though the personal pronouns, when under - the government of a verb, may either precede or follow it, the - relative in the same state of government must invariably go before - it. - - _Note_ 2.--The relatives _who_ and _which_ are often understood, - especially in colloquial language: “The friend I visited yesterday - is dead to-day,” _i.e._ “the friend whom I visited yesterday is - dead to-day.” - - _Note_ 3.--After a comparative, both relative and antecedent are - often understood. “The damage was far greater than he knew.” Here - there is a comparison of two objects, the damage suffered, and - the damage known; but only one is expressed. The sentence, if - the ellipsis were supplied, would run thus, “The damage was far - greater, than what,” or “that, which he knew.” - - _Note_ 4.--There are a few cases, which are considered by some - distinguished critics and grammarians, as requiring the use of - _that_ in preference to the pronouns _who_ and _which_. - - 1st. After superlatives the pronoun _that_ is generally used, as, - “The wisest man, that ever lived, is liable to error.” - - 2ndly. After the word _same_, _that_ is generally used, as, “he - is the same man, that you saw yesterday.” But, if a preposition - should precede the relative, one of the other two pronouns must be - employed, the pronoun _that_ not admitting a preposition prefixed - to it, as, “he is the same man, with whom you were acquainted.” - It is remarkable, however, that when the arrangement is somewhat - changed, the word _that_ admits the preposition, as, “he is the - same man, that you were acquainted with.” - - 3rdly. _That_ is used after _who_, taken interrogatively, as, “Who, - that has the spirit of a man, would suffer himself to be thus - degraded?” - - 4thly. When persons and things are referred to, as, “the _men_ - and _things_, _that_ he hath studied, have not contributed to the - improvement of his morals.” - - -RULE XII.--An active transitive verb governs the accusative or -objective case, as, - - “He teaches me.” - “We honour him.” - - _Note_ 1.--As examples of transgression against this - rule, we may adduce the following: “_Who_ do I love so - much?”--_Shakspeare._ “_Who_ should I meet the other day, but my - old friend?”--_Spectator._ “Those, _who_ he thought true to his - party.”--_Clarendon._ - - _Note_ 2. As substantives have no objective case, the subject - or object of the energy or affection is distinguished by its - place, which is after the verb, as “Achilles slew Hector,” where - _Achilles_, the agent, precedes, and _Hector_, the subject of the - action, follows the verb. Reverse this order, and the meaning is - reversed, as “Hector slew Achilles.” Where the proper arrangement - is not observed, ambiguity or misconstruction is frequently - produced. Thus, when Pope says, Odyss. xix. - - “And thus the son the fervent sire address’d,” - - it may be asked, did the son address the sire, or the sire address - the son? A little attention would have prevented the ambiguity. If - the sire addressed the son, the line should run thus, - - “And thus his son the fervent sire address’d.” - - If the son addressed the sire, - - “And thus the son his fervent sire address’d.” - - _Note_ 3.--An active intransitive verb sometimes governs the - objective case of a noun, of the same or a kindred signification, - as, “Let us run the race, which is set before us.” “If any man - see his brother sin a sin, which is not unto death.”--_Bible._ - The latter verb, however, though thus used, must not be employed - in a transitive sense. It is an error, therefore, to say, “What - have I sinned?”--_Bible._ It should be, “How?” or “In what?” Some - intransitive verbs also, when used in a reflex sense, are joined - to an objective case, as, “Then having shown his wounds, he’d sit - him down.”--_Home’s Douglas._ This is a poetic licence, which, in a - prose writer, would not be tolerated, unless in colloquial and very - familiar language. - - _Note_ 4.--The objective case should not, if possible, be separated - from its verb. This rule is violated in the following sentence: - “Becket could not better discover, than by attacking so powerful an - interest, his resolution to maintain,” &c.--_Hume._ The regimen is - here unnecessarily, and very inelegantly, separated from its verb. - - -RULE XIII.--Verbs signifying to ask, teach, offer, promise, pay, -tell, allow, deny, and some others of like signification, are -sometimes, especially in colloquial language, followed in the passive -voice by an objective case. - - _Note_ 1.--This rule seems to have escaped the attention of all our - English grammarians, except Priestley, who observes, “that in some - familiar phrases, the subject and object of our affirmation seem - to be transposed.” This idiom, except in a very few instances, is - not to be found in Latin, though it occurs pretty often in Greek: - it therefore particularly merits the attention of the junior Latin - scholar, lest in his Anglo-Latin translations it should betray him - into an egregious solecism. “He allowed me great liberty,” turned - passively, in concurrence with the Latin idiom, “great liberty - was allowed me.” But we say also in English, “I was allowed great - liberty.” “He promised (to) me a ship in five days,” passively, “a - ship was promised me,” and “I was promised _her_ in five days.” - “She would not accept the jewels, though they were offered to her - by her mother,” or, “though she was offered _them_ by her mother.” - - _Note_ 2.--After verbs of _giving_, _telling_, _sending_, - _promising_, _offering_, and others of like signification, the - thing is very generally placed before the person. In the time of - Swift and Addison this rule was not uniformly observed. We find - authors of that period saying indiscriminately, “Give it us,” - and “Give us it;” “Tell him it,” and “Tell it him;” “He promised - me it,” and “He promised it me.” In Scotland these two modes of - expression still obtain. In England they are now reduced under one - general rule. We say, “Give it me,” “Tell it him,” “He sent it us.” - - -RULE XIV.--The verb _to be_ has the same case after it as it has -before it, thus denoting that the subjects are identical, or that the -one term is the predicate of the other, as, “It is he,” “You believed -it to be him.” In the former example, _it_ is the nominative to the -verb, the nominative case _he_ therefore follows the verb. In the -latter, _it_ is the regimen of the verb _believed_, the verb _to be_ -is therefore followed by the objective case. - - _Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such examples as “it is _me_,” - “it was _him_,” “I believed it to be _he_,” “_whom_ do men say that - I am?” In the last example, the natural arrangement is, “men say - that I am whom,” where, contrary to the rule, the nominative _I_ - precedes, and the objective case _whom_ follows the verb. - - _Note_ 2.--Priestley has asked, “Who would not say, ‘If it be me,’ - rather than ‘If it be I?’” Our ears are certainly more familiar - with the former than with the latter phraseology, and those who - consult the ear only, may prefer it: but, where no advantage is - gained by a departure from analogy, every deviation is at once idle - and reprehensible. - - _Note_ 3.--The verb _to be_ is called by logicians the _copula_, as - connecting the subject with the predicate. Thus, when we say, “he - is wise,” “they are learned,” _he_ and _they_ are the subjects; - _wise_ and _learned_ the predicates. Now, it particularly deserves - the attention of the classical scholar, that in English almost - any verb may be used as a _copula_. This circumstance is the more - worthy of his notice, as a conformity to the Latin idiom may lead - him to reject expressions, which are unexceptionable, and to adopt - others not strictly correct[125]. Thus we say, “it tastes good,” - “he strikes hard,” “I remember right,” “he feels sick;” “we came - late,” “they rise early,” “he drinks deep.” I am aware that the - words _late_, _early_, are in such examples considered as adverbs. - It appears to me they are adjectives,--that the idiom is truly - English, and that all these expressions are perfectly analogous. - - -RULE XV.--When two verbs come together, the attribute signified by -the one verb being the subject or object of the action, energy, or -affection expressed by the other, the former is governed in the -infinitive mood, as, “he taught me to read,” “I knew him to be.” - - _Note_ 1.--The infinitive thus frequently supplies the place of an - objective case after the verb, as it often stands for a nominative - before it, as, “he loves to study,” or “he loves study.” - - _Note_ 2.--In such examples as, “I read to learn,” where the latter - phrase, though in the same form as _to study_, in the preceding - example, has, notwithstanding, a different meaning, and cannot be - resolved like it into “I read learning,” in such examples, as Tooke - justly observes, the preposition _for_ denoting the object, and - equivalent to _pour_ in French, is understood, as, “I read for to - learn.” Our southern neighbours indeed, in these examples, never - omit the casual term; and Trusler has not improperly observed, - that, when the verb does not express the certain and immediate - effect, but something remote and contingent, the words _in order - to_, which are nearly equivalent to _for_, may be pertinently - introduced as, “in order to acquire fame, men encounter the - greatest dangers.” - - _Note_ 3.--The verbs to _bid_, _dare_, _need_, _make_, _see_, - _hear_, _feel_, _let_, are not followed by the sign of the - infinitive, as, “He bade me go,” “I saw him do it.” It is to be - observed, however, that in the language of Scripture the verb - “to make” is often followed by _to_, as, “He maketh his sun _to_ - rise.” The verb “to dare,” for “to challenge,” or “to defy,” is - also construed with _to_, “I dare thee but _to_ breathe upon my - love.”--_Shakspeare._ - - _Note_ 4.--Nouns, adjectives, and participles, are often followed - by an infinitive, as, “your _desire to improve_ will ultimately - contribute to your happiness.” “Good men are _desirous to do_ good.” - - _Note_ 5.--As the proper tense of the subsequent or secondary - verb has, in certain cases, been a subject of dispute, it may be - necessary to observe, that, when the simple attribute, or merely - the primary idea expressed by the subsequent verb, is intended - to be signified, it should then be put in the present tense: but - when the idea of perfection or completion is combined with the - primary idea, the subsequent verb should have that form, which - is termed the perfect of the infinitive. Or, perhaps, this rule - may, more intelligibly to the scholar, though less correctly, be - thus expressed, that when the action or state, denoted by the - subsequent verb, is contemporary with that of the primary verb, - then the secondary verb must be put in the present tense; but when - the action or state is prior to that expressed by the secondary - verb, the latter must be put in the preterite tense. Usage, indeed, - and the opinions of grammarians, are divided on this subject. But - when nothing but usage can be pleaded in favour of one phraseology, - and when reason concurs with usage to recommend another, it will - not be questioned that the latter deserves the preference. Thus, - we should say, “I expected to see you,” and not “I expected to - have seen you;” because either the expectation and the seeing must - be regarded as contemporary, or the former must be considered as - prior to the latter. But why, it may be asked, must the seeing - be considered as contemporary with the expectation? Might not - the former have been anterior to the latter? This is certainly - possible; I may see a friend before I expect him. But though the - sight, abstractedly considered, may precede the expectation, it - cannot possibly, as an object of expectation, be prior to it. The - idea involves absurdity, equal and analogous to the assertion, that - the paper, on which I write, existed as an object of my perception, - previously to my perceiving it. Agreeably to the second form of - the rule here given, we find that the Latins very generally used - the present of the infinitive, to express an action or state - contemporary with the attribute of the primary verb. Thus, _dixit - me scribere_, “he said that I wrote,” or “was writing,” that is, at - the time of his saying so: _dixit me scripsisse_, “he said that I - had written.” - - I have observed, that, when the simple attribute denoted by the - subsequent verb is implied, we should use the present of the - infinitive. This phraseology should not only be used in all cases, - where contemporary actions or states are to be signified, but - may also be sometimes employed, where the secondary verb denotes - something posterior to what is implied by the first. For though in - no instance, where the simple action or state is to be expressed, - should we use the sign of past or future time, yet for obvious - reasons we may, and often do, employ the present infinitive, - or simple name, to denote what is future, when the primary verb - necessarily implies the futurity of its object. Thus, instead of - saying, “he promised that he would pay,” where the constructive - sign of futurity is used to denote the posteriority of the payment, - we often say, “he promised to pay,” employing the present tense, - synonymous with the simple name, as, “he promised payment.” The - Latins also, though they almost universally, unless in colloquial - language, preferred the former mode of expression, sometimes - adopted the latter, as, _denegavit se dare_.--_Plaut._ _Jusjurandum - pollicitus est dare._--_Id._ “He refused to give,” “he promised to - give,” or “he promised giving,” the secondary verb expressing the - act simply, and the time being necessarily implied. - - _Note_ 6.--The infinitive mood is sometimes used in an absolute - or independent sense, as, “to speak the truth, we are all liable - to error.” “Not to trespass on your time, I will briefly explain - the whole affair,” that is, “that I may speak,” “that I may not - trespass.” - - -RULE XVI.--The imperative, agreeably to the general rule, agrees with -its nominative, as, - - “Love thou;” “listen ye,” or “you.” - - _Note_ 1.--The imperative is frequently used, without its subject, - that is, the nominative being suppressed, but the person or persons - being perfectly understood. “And Samuel said to the people, Fear - not,” _i.e._ “Fear ye not.” - - _Note_ 2.--It is employed in the same way, in an absolute sense, - without its subject. “Our ideas are movements of the nerves of - sense, as of the optic nerve, in recollecting visible ideas, - _suppose_ of a triangular piece of ivory.”--_Darwin._ I agree with - Webster in thinking, that there is “a peculiar felicity” in such - absolute forms of expression, the verb being thus applicable to any - of the three persons, thus, “I may suppose,” “you may suppose,” - “one may suppose.” - - -RULE XVII.--Participles are construed as the verbs to which they -belong, as, - - “_Teaching us_ to deny ungodliness.” - - _Note_ 1.--The imperfect participle is frequently used like a - substantive, and is, in such examples, of the same import with the - infinitive of the verb; as, “they love reading,” _i.e._ “they love - to read.” In some examples it becomes a real noun, and has a plural - number, as, _the outgoings of the morning_. - - _Note_ 2.--Lowth contends that, when the imperfect participle - of a transitive verb is not preceded by the definite article, - it properly governs the objective case, and is analogous to the - Latin gerund, as, “much advantage will be derived from observing - this rule;” in which example, _this rule_ is the regimen of the - participle _observing_; and that, when the definite article - precedes the participle, it becomes then a pure noun, and, - therefore, cannot have the regimen of a verb. He therefore condemns - this expression, “by the sending them the light of thy holy - Spirit.” Some of our grammarians consider Lowth, in this instance, - as fastidiously critical; but to me he appears chargeable with - error. Let us examine the reasons, which the author adduces in - support of his opinion. - - In this inquiry, the first and most pertinent question is, does - usage justify the opinion of the author? He acknowledges the - contrary: he even admits that there is not a single writer who - does not violate this rule. Were it necessary, indeed, after - this concession, it would be easy to evince, that not only our - translators of the Bible, whose authority surely is of great - weight, but also other writers of the highest eminence, employ the - phraseology which he condemns. - - Again. Does the distinction, which he wishes to establish, favour - perspicuity? The very reverse appears to me to be the case; for he - admits an identity of sense in two distinct phraseologies, which - are incontestably, in many instances, susceptible of different - meanings. And, though this ambiguity may not be involved in every - example, we have surely good reasons for repudiating a phraseology - which may, in any instance, be liable to misconstruction. We are to - prescribe, not what may be perspicuous in some instances, but what - must be intelligible in all. - - Lowth says, that we may express the sentiment, either by inserting - the article before the participle and the preposition after it, or - by the omission of both; in other words, that these phraseologies - are equivalent. Thus, according to him, we may say either, “_by - sending_ his Son into the world,” or “by the sending _of_ his Son.” - Here, perhaps, the meaning is sufficiently clear, whichsoever of - these forms of expression be adopted. But let us take another - example, as, “he expressed the pleasure he had, in hearing the - philosopher.” Now, according to Lowth, we may also say, “he - expressed the pleasure he had, in the hearing of the philosopher.” - Is there no difference of sentiment here? Are these expressions - equivalent? The contrary must be obvious to the most inattentive - reader. According to the former phraseology, the philosopher was - heard--he is represented as passive; agreeably to the latter, he - was active--he heard. - - Again. “When the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the - provoking of his sons and daughters.” Our translators have - correctly exhibited the sentiment. The sons and daughters had given - offence; they had provoked the Deity. But, if Lowth’s opinion be - correct, the expression might be “because of provoking his sons and - daughters;” a phrase which evidently conveys a very different idea. - - Again. When it is said, “at the hearing of the ear, they will - believe,” is this expression convertible, without violating the - sense, into, “at hearing the ear they will believe?” Many more - examples might be produced to prove that these phraseologies, which - Lowth considers of the same import, are by no means equivalent. It - appears, then, that perspicuity is not consulted by adopting this - rule. - - Again. He considers the participle, with a preposition before it, - as correspondent to the Latin gerund, and therefore governing - an objective case; but the participle preceded by an article, - he considers as a substantive, and therefore incapable of any - regimen. Now, as the author reasons from one language to another, - we may pertinently ask, is not the Latin gerund a noun, a verbal - substantive, not only having the form, and the inflexions of a - noun, but governed like it, by nouns, adjectives, verbs, and - prepositions, itself likewise governing the case of its verb? This - position, were this the place for it, we could easily prove, - notwithstanding the objections which Scioppius, Vossius, with some - other grammarians, have alleged against it. Nay, whatever theory - be adopted respecting the nature of the gerund, there cannot exist - a doubt, that, in the early ages of Roman literature, the verbal - nouns in _io_ governed an accusative, like the verbs whence they - were derived. _Quid tibi curatio est hanc rem_, is one example from - Plautus out of many, which might be produced[126]. That the supines - also were, in truth, substantives admitting a regimen, is equally - clear: _Difficile dictu_ was originally _difficile in dictu_; and - _misit oratum opem_, _misit ad oratum opem_. Nor can the structure - of the future infinitive passive be so satisfactorily resolved, - notwithstanding a few repugnant examples, as on this supposition: - _Dixit libros lectum iri_ is resolved into _dixit (id) iri ad - lectum libros_, where _libros_ is the regimen of the verbal noun - _lectum_. - - Thus it is evident, that the Latin gerunds, supines, and verbal - nouns in _io_, though in form and inflexion substantives, governed - an accusative case. It matters not, indeed, to the point in - question, what was the practice of the ancients in this respect; - nor should I, therefore, have dwelt so long on this subject, did I - not conceive, that the very authority to which Dr. Lowth seems to - appeal, militates against him; and that the very language, to which - in this, as in most other cases, he strives to assimilate ours, had - nouns governing cases, like the verbs from which they came. - - From the preceding observations, I think it must appear, that the - rule given by Dr. Lowth, is neither sanctioned by general usage, - nor friendly to perspicuity; while the violation of it is perfectly - reconcilable with the practice of the Roman writers, if their - authority can, in this question, be deemed of any value. - - Having attempted to prove the invalidity of Lowth’s argument, - and the impropriety of his rule, as establishing an identity of - meaning, where a difference must exist, I would submit to the - candid and judicious critic the following remarks. - - The participle in _ing_ has either an active or passive - signification; its import must, therefore, be determined by the - judgment of the reader, or by explanatory adjections. Whatever, - then, is calculated to remove all misconstruction, and to render - its import clear and unequivocal, merits attention. Consistently, - then, with some of the examples already adduced, I am inclined to - suggest, that, when the noun, connected with the participle, is - active or doing something, the preposition should be inserted, as, - “in the hearing of the philosopher,” that is, _the philosopher - hearing_; and that, when the noun represents the subject of an - action, or what is suffering, the preposition should be omitted, - as, “in hearing the philosopher,” or _the philosopher being heard_. - An attention to this rule will, I conceive, in most cases prevent - ambiguity. - - If it should be said that I have admitted Lowth’s phraseologies, - I answer, it is true; but with this difference, that he considers - them as equivalent, and I as diametrically opposite. I observe, - likewise, that, though I prefer the suppression of the article when - the participle is not followed by _of_, and its insertion when - it is followed by the preposition, it is not because I perceive - any impropriety in the other phraseology, but because, since the - publication of Lowth’s Grammar, it has been less employed; and - because also it less forcibly marks the distinction, which I - have recommended. That it has the sanction of good authority, is - unquestionable; and that it is not inconsistent with analogy, will - still further appear from the following note. - - _Note_ 3.--The participle in _ing_ is construed like a noun, - governing the genitive case, and, at the same time, having the - regimen of its proper verb, as, “Much depends on Richard’s - observing the rule, and error will be the consequence of his - neglecting it.” In this example, the words _Richard’s_ and _his_ - are in the genitive case, governed by the participles _observing_ - and _neglecting_, while these participles, having here every - character of a noun, admit the objective case. This form of - expression has been received as unexceptionable; the following - phraseology, however, has been censured, though, in truth, - precisely analogous to the one now exemplified: “Much depends on - the rule’s being observed, and error will be the consequence of - its being neglected.” “Here,” said a certain writer, “is a noun - with a pronoun representing it, each in the possessive case, that - is, under the government of another noun, but without any other - noun to govern it; for _being observed_ and _being neglected_ are - not nouns, nor can you supply the place of the possessive case by - the preposition _of_, before the noun or pronoun.” - - I concur with Dr. Campbell, who has examined this objection, in - thinking, that the expression is not only sanctioned by good usage, - but is also agreeable to analogy, and preventive of circumlocution. - The objector, indeed, does not seem to have been aware, that his - opinion is at variance with itself; and that the reason, which he - assigns for rejecting this phraseology, would, with equal force, - conclude against another mode of expression, which he himself - approves. For he would have no objection to say, “Much depends on - his observing the rule, and error will be the consequence of his - neglecting it.” Now let us try whether this sentence be not liable - to the same objection as the other. In the former, he says, you - cannot possibly supply the place of the possessive case, by the - preposition _of_ before the noun or pronoun. This is true; for it - would not be English to say, “Much depends on the being observed of - the rule; and error will be the consequence of the being neglected - of it.” But will his own approved phraseology admit this? Let us - see; “Much depends on the observing of him of the rule, and error - will be the consequence of the neglecting of him of it.” Were - the example simpler, the argument would be equally strong; as, - “Much depends on your pupil’s composing, but more on his reading - frequently.” This sentence, the author alluded to, would have - approved. Let us try if it can be resolved by _of_: “Much depends - on the composing of your pupil, but more on the reading of him - frequently.” - - The author’s argument, then, if it prove anything, proves too much; - it cannot, therefore, have any weight. - - In addition to these observations, I would remark, that the - writer’s argument involves another inconsistency. He admits that - the participle in _ing_ may be thus construed; for he approves - the phrases, “his observing the rule,” and “his neglecting it.” - Why then does he reject “his being” and “its being?” for the past - or perfect participles _observed_ and _neglected_ have no share - in the government, _rule’s_ and _it’s_ being under the regimen of - the participle in _ing_. In fact, then, the phrase seems no more - objectionable than “his being a great man did not make him a happy - man;” which our author would admit to be wholly unexceptionable. - - Some late writers, reasoning doubtless on a principle similar to - that, the absurdity of which we have been attempting to expose, - have discarded a phraseology which appears unobjectionable, and - substituted one which seems less correct. Many writers, instead - of saying, “his being smitten with the love of Orestilla was the - cause of his murdering his son,” would say, “he being smitten with - the love of Orestilla was the cause.” This seems to me an idle - affectation of the Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode - of expression, and less consonant with the genius of our language. - For, ask what was the cause; and, according to this phraseology, - the answer must be _he_; whereas the meaning is, that not _he_, but - _his being smitten_, was the cause of his murder. - - “This jealousy accounts for Hall charging the Duke of Gloucester - with the murder of Prince Edward.” “This,” says Mr. Baker, very - justly, “is, in my opinion, a very uncouth way of speaking, though - much used by ignorant people, and often affected by those who are - not ignorant.” The writer should have said, “for Hall’s charging.” - “His words being applicable to the common mistake of our age - induce me to transcribe them.” Here I agree with the same writer - in thinking, that it would be better to consider _words_ as in - the genitive case plural, governed by the participle, as _Hall’s_ - in the preceding example, and join _his words’ being applicable_, - equivalent to _the applicability of his words_, with the verb - singular; thus, “his words’ being applicable to the common mistake - of our age, induces me to transcribe them.” A ridiculous partiality - in favour of the Latin idiom, which in this case is not so correct - as our own, not exhibiting the sentiment with equal precision, has - given birth to this phraseology, which in many cases conveys not - the intended idea. For, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, “What - think you of my horse’s running to-day?” it is implied, that the - horse did actually run. If it is said, “What think you of my horse - running to-day?” it is intended to ask, whether it be proper for my - horse to run to-day. This distinction, though frequently neglected, - deserves attention; for it is obvious, that ambiguity may arise - from using the latter only of these phraseologies, to express both - meanings. - - _Note_ 4.--This participle is sometimes used absolutely, in the - same manner as the infinitive mood, as, “this conduct, _viewing - it in the most favourable light_, reflects discredit on his - character.” Here the participle is made absolute, and is equivalent - to the infinitive in that state, as, “to view it in the most - favourable light.” Both these modes of expression are resolvable, - either by the hypothetical, or the perfective conjunctions; thus, - “if we view it in the most favourable light.” “To confess the - truth, I have no merit in the case;” _i.e._ “that I may confess.” - - -RULE XVIII.--A noun or pronoun joined to a participle, its case being -dependent on no word in the sentence, is put in the nominative. - - _Note_ 1.--This rule will be perfectly understood by the classical - scholar, when we say, that the absolute case in English is the - nominative. Thus, “We being exceedingly tossed the next day, they - lightened the ship.” The pronoun of the first person, joined to the - participle, _being_, is neither the nominative to any verb, nor is - it connected with any word, of which it can be the regimen. It is - therefore put in the nominative case. - - _Note_ 2.--This rule is violated in such examples as the following, - “Solomon made as wise proverbs as anybody has done, _him_ only - excepted, who was a much wiser man than Solomon.”--_Tillotson._ - - “For only in destroying I find ease - To my relentless thoughts; and, _him_ destroy’d, - Or won to what may work his utter loss, - For whom all this was made, all this will soon - Follow,”--_Milton._ - - This seems to be the only example in which the poet has - transgressed this rule; and in several instances, in which he has - observed it, Bentley would erroneously substitute the objective - case. - - -RULE XIX.--Prepositions are joined with the objective case, or govern -nouns and pronouns in the accusative, as, “he ran to me,” “he was -loved by us.” - - _Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such expressions as these, “Who - servest thou under?” “Who do you speak to?” for the syntactical - arrangement is, “thou servest under who?” “thou speakest to who?” - instead of “under whom?” “to whom?” - - _Note_ 2.--The preposition is frequently separated from its - regimen, as, “Horace is an author, whom I am much delighted with,” - _i.e._ “with whom I am much delighted.” - - _Note_ 3.--The prepositions _to_ and _for_ are often understood, - as, “he gave me a book,” “he told me the news:” _i.e._ “he gave to - me,” “he told to me.” - - Lowth has, indeed, observed, that in such examples, the pronouns, - _me_, _thee_, &c., may be considered to be in the dative case, - as, in truth, they are in Saxon the datives of their respective - pronouns, and in their form include _to_, as, “woe is to me.” This - phrase, he observes, is pure Saxon, the same as, “wae is me,” in - which _me_ is a dative case. - - The preposition _by_ is also, in a few colloquial expressions, - omitted, as, “he went across the bridge,” “he crossed the bridge,” - for “he crossed (the river) by the bridge.” - - _Note_ 4.--A preposition, following a verb, constituting with - it what has been termed a compound active verb, is sometimes - suppressed. We say, “he hoped for a reward,” “you wondered at - his courage.” Addison, Steele, and Johnson, with several other - reputable writers, say, “It is to be hoped,” instead of “to - be hoped for;” and Johnson very generally says, “It is not to - be wondered,” for “not to be wondered at.” The latter form of - expression seems to have been adopted, in order to avoid the abrupt - and inelegant conclusion of the clause, especially when followed by - the word _that_. - - _Note_ 5.--The prepositions _in_, _on_, _for_, and _from_, are - often understood before nouns of time and place; thus, “this day,” - “next month,” “last year,” are often used elliptically for “on - this day,” “in next month,” “in last year.” We say, also, “He was - banished England,” _i.e._ “_from_ England.” - - Care, however, should be taken that the omission create no - ambiguity. If we say, “He was deaf some years before he died,” - referring to a temporary deafness, and a point of time at which it - occurred, the expression is not improper, though the meaning might - be more clearly expressed; but if we intend to signify a continued - deafness, we ought to say, “for” or “during some years.” - - _Note_ 6.--The preposition is improperly omitted in the following - line of Pope’s: - - “And virgins smiled at what they blush’d before.” - - It should be, according to the rules of syntax, “smiled at what - they blushed at before,” both verbs requiring _at_ after them, - thus, “they smiled at that, at which they blushed before.” - - _Note_ 7.--Prepositions should be placed as near as possible to - each of the words, whose relation they express. The following - sentence from Hume is, in this respect, faulty: “The ignorance - of the age in mechanical arts, rendered the progress very slow - of this new invention.” It should be, “the progress of this new - invention.” The following sentence from Johnson, is, for the same - reason, chargeable with faulty arrangement: “The country first - dawned, that illuminated the world, and beyond which the arts - cannot be traced of civil society or domestic life.”--_Rasselas._ - It should be, “the arts of civil society or domestic life cannot be - traced.” Priestley has censured the following clause from Harris, - “being in no sense capable of either intention or remission.” If - it be considered, however, that the word _either_ properly means - “the one or the other,” and in truth denotes the subject, being, - therefore, in strict propriety, the regimen of the preposition, the - arrangement of Harris, though now not so common as the other, will - not appear exceptionable. Nay, whatever may be the future decision - of usage, that great arbitress of all language, (for at present she - is divided,) Harris’s arrangement seems more conformable to the - strict meaning of the words, as well as to Priestley’s own rule, - than that, which the latter recommends; thus, “capable of either - (_i.e._ of the one or of the other), intension, or remission.” - - -RULE XX.--Adverbs have no government. - - _Note_ 1.--They are sometimes improperly used for adjectives, as, - “After those wars of which they hoped for a soon and prosperous - issue.”--_Sidney._ “A soon issue” is not English; an adverb - cannot agree with a substantive; it should be “a speedy and - prosperous issue.” Such expressions likewise as the following, - though not destitute of authority, are exceedingly inelegant, and - irreconcilable with analogy: “the then ministry,” for “the ministry - of that time;” “the above discourse,” for “the preceding discourse.” - - _Note_ 2.--They are sometimes used like substantives, as, “a little - while,” for “in a little time,” or “for a little time.” “Worth - while,” “some how,” “any how,” “any where,” are examples of the - same kind. - - _Note_ 3.--The adverbs _whence_, _thence_, _hence_, are equivalent - to, “from which place,” “from that place,” “from this place;” _from - whence_, _from thence_, _from hence_, are therefore chargeable with - redundancy. - - _Note_ 4.--_Never_ is sometimes erroneously used for _ever_, as, - “they might be extirpated, were they never so many.” It should be, - “ever so many,” _i.e._ “how many soever.” “Who will not hearken to - the voice of the charmer, charm he _never_ so sweetly.” It should - be, “_ever_ so sweetly;” _i.e._ “however sweetly,” or “how sweetly - soever.” - - _Note_ 5.--_Ever_ is likewise sometimes improperly used for - _never_, as, “I seldom or ever see him now.” It should be, “seldom - or _never_,” the speaker intending to say, “that rarely, or rather - at no time, does he see him now;” not “rarely,” or “at any time.” - - _Note_ 6.--Priestley remarks, that the French always place their - adverbs immediately after their verbs, which order, he observes, - by no means suits the English idiom. “His government gave courage - to the English barons to carry farther their opposition.”--_Hume._ - It would be better, “to carry their opposition farther.” “Edward - obtained a dispensation from his oath, which the barons had - compelled Gaveston to take, that he would abjure for ever the - realm;” better “the realm for ever.” - - _Note_ 7.--The adverb is generally placed between the auxiliary - verb and the participle, as, “this is perfectly understood.” When - there are more auxiliaries than one, the same author observes, that - the adverb should be placed after the first. This rule, however, - is by no means universally followed; for many of our best writers - employ a different arrangement, and, I think, with great propriety; - as, “this will be perfectly understood,” where the adverb follows - both auxiliaries. The place of the adverb may, in general, be - ascertained, by considering what word it is intended to qualify: - and, in the last example, it should be closely connected with - _understood_. But more on this subject in the following note. - - _Note_ 8.--The adverb, as its name imports, is generally placed - close to the word, which it modifies or affects: its force, - therefore, very much depends upon its position. Inattention to - the proper collocation of adverbs is frequently the cause of much - obscurity and misconception. To this inattention we may ascribe - the ambiguity in the following sentence: “He was not honoured - with this reward, but with the approbation of the people.” This - sentence may imply, either that he was honoured with this reward, - not without the approbation of the people; or that he was not - honoured with this reward, but was honoured with the approbation - of the people. The latter is the meaning intended. It should - therefore be, “he was honoured, not with this reward, but with the - approbation of the people.” By this arrangement the sentiment is - correctly exhibited--the two subjects, reward and approbation, are - perspicuously contrasted, and while the former is negatived, the - latter is affirmed[127]. - - _Note_ 9.--Lowth observes that “the adverb should be for the - most part placed before adjectives, and after verbs;” thus, “he - was excessively modest,” “he fought bravely.” This is, indeed, - the general arrangement; but it admits many exceptions. In no - case are writers so apt to err as in the position of the word - _only_. Its place, in my opinion, is after the substantive to - which it refers, or which it exclusively implies, and before the - attributive. In the following sentence of Steele’s, the collocation - is faulty: “The bridegroom sits with an aspect which intimates - his thoughts were not only entertained with the joys with which - he was surrounded, but also with a noble gratitude, and divine - pleasure.” This collocation of the two adverbs implies that his - thoughts were something more than entertained: whereas it is the - author’s intention to say, that his thoughts were entertained with - something more than joys. The sentence, therefore, should proceed - thus: “The bridegroom sits with an aspect, which intimates, that - his thoughts were entertained not with the joys only, with which - he was surrounded, but also with a noble gratitude and divine - pleasure.”[128] - - When Addison says (_Spec._ No. 412), “By greatness I do not only - mean the bulk of any single object, but the largeness of a whole - view,” the question naturally occurs, what does he more than mean? - It is evident that, agreeably to this arrangement, the adverb - refers to _mean_, exclusively of all other attributes or actions, - and being prefaced by a negative, implies “that he does something - more than mean.” In this criticism I concur with Blair, who has - expressed his disapprobation of this arrangement. - - Had he, as the same author observes, placed the adverb after - _bulk_, it would have still been wrong. For if he had said, “I - do not mean the bulk only,” then the adverb, following a noun - substantive, must refer to it exclusively of every other, and the - clause being negative, the question would be, what does he mean - more than the bulk? Is it the colour, the beauty, or what else? - - Now, as Mr. Addison intended to say that he did not mean one - thing, the word _only_ should have followed the name of that - thing, whether its designation was simple or complex. He should, - therefore, have said, “the bulk of any single object only, but the - largeness of a whole view.” According to this arrangement, the word - _only_ refers, as it ought, to “the bulk of any single object” as - one idea; and the question occurs, what does he mean more than - the bulk of any single object? to which the answer follows, “the - largeness of a whole view.” It may, however, at the same time be - observed that, consistently with the practice of some of our best - writers, who place the adverb before its subject, there seems no - impropriety here in saying, “I do not mean only,” _i.e._ “one - thing,” “the bulk of a single object, but the largeness of a whole - view.” - - “The perfidious voice of flattery reminded him,” says Gibbon, “that - by exploits of the same nature, by the defeat of the Nemean lion, - and the slaughter of the wild boar of Erymanthus, the Grecian - Hercules had acquired a place among the gods, and an immortal - memory among men.” “_They only_ forgot to observe that, in the - first ages of society, a successful war against savage animals is - one of the most beneficial labours of heroism.” In the beginning - of the latter sentence the adverb _only_ is misplaced. As it - stands, the meaning is that they were the only persons who forgot: - it should be “_only_ they forgot to observe;” _i.e._ “one thing - they forgot,” namely, “to observe.” To this erroneous collocation - in Gibbon, I shall oppose a similar example from Pope, in which - the adverb is correctly placed. In a letter to Hughes, speaking - of the compliments which this gentleman had paid to him on his - translation of Homer, he acquaints him, that he should be ashamed - to attempt returning these compliments; one thing, however, he - would observe, namely, that he esteemed Mr. Hughes too much not to - be pleased with the compliments which he had received from him. His - words, therefore, are, “I should be ashamed to offer at saying - any of those civil things, in return to your obliging compliments, - in regard to my translation of Homer: _only_ I have too great a - value for you not to be pleased with them;” where the word _only_ - introduces the clause, and is equivalent to “one thing is true,” - or “thus much (_tantum_), I say, I have too great a value,” &c. - Here it is obvious that the adverb, as it precedes the pronoun, - does not refer to it; and that Mr. Pope’s collocation of it is - perfectly correct, to express the sentiment, which he intended. Had - he said, “I only,” the adverb would have referred to the pronoun, - and implied that he was the only person who valued. Had he intended - to say, that he merely entertained an esteem for him, but could not - manifest it, then the presence of the auxiliary would have been - necessary, and he would have expressed himself thus, “I do only - entertain too great an esteem for you;” that is, “I do only (one - thing) entertain too great an esteem.” Had he said, “I have only - too great a value for you,” it would be properly opposed to, “and - not too little.” Had he said, “I have too great a value only,” then - _value_ would be contrasted with some other sentiment, as when one - says, he “has wealth only, but not virtue,” for example, or any - other acquirement. As a violation of this rule, I adduce also the - following expression of a reviewer. “We only discharge our duty - to the public;” a declaration which, strictly interpreted, means - “we are the only persons who discharge.” It should be, “we do only - (one thing) discharge our duty;” for the writer intended to say, - that he did nothing but discharge his duty to the public[129]. - In justification of such inaccuracies, it is impertinent to - plead, that a little attention will prevent misconception. It is - the business of every author to guard his reader, as far as the - language in which he writes will permit, from the possibility of - misconstruction, and to render that attention to the language - unnecessary. Quintilian’s maxim cannot be too often repeated to - those who, by such apologies, attempt to defend any avoidable - ambiguity[130]. - - The following sentence is justly censured by Blair, and also by - Baker, in his “Remarks.” “Theism,” says Shaftesbury, “can only be - opposed to polytheism or atheism.” He ought to have said, observes - Baker, “Theism can be opposed only to polytheism or atheism.” - Dr. Blair concurs in opinion with the remarker. I am inclined, - however, to differ from both; and think, that the sentence should - run thus: “Theism can be opposed to polytheism only, or atheism;” - where the adverb _only_ refers to the noun immediately preceding, - and is understood to the other, implying, that these two systems - of belief are the only creeds to which theism can be opposed. If - this be not the proper arrangement, it is obvious, that no definite - rule can be given on the subject. For, if the adverb may be placed - either before or after the substantive, to which it refers, then - precision becomes impossible, and we may say, “_he only_” or “_only - he_” to express the same sentiment; which collocations, I have - already shown, denote ideas materially different. But, if there - be a definite and precise rule for the position of this word, and - if the sense be different, according to the collocation of the - adverb, then I think it will appear, that it ought to be subjoined - to the substantive or pronoun to which it refers; and this opinion - is supported by the authority of Blair himself, in the examples - which I have just now adduced. For why, unless on this principle, - does he contend that the word _only_ should be placed after _the - bulk of a single object_? If the adverb then be, in this example, - rightly placed after the substantive or complex name, to which it - refers, it ought to have the same position assigned to it in every - similar instance. That the adverb, in the last example, refers to - “polytheism,” there can be no question; it should therefore follow, - and not precede, it. - - I am well aware, that many examples may be produced, wherein, with - an arrangement different from that here recommended, the sense - would, notwithstanding, be perfectly clear; and, perhaps, Blair’s - collocation, in the last example, may be adduced as an instance. - But when a rule, conducive to perspicuity, is once established, - every unnecessary deviation from it should be studiously avoided, - or, at least, not wantonly adopted. - - The sentence, as it stands in Shaftesbury, implies that theism is - capable of nothing, but of being opposed to polytheism, or atheism; - “Theism can only (one thing, namely) be opposed to polytheism or - atheism;” where it is evident that _only_ refers to _be opposed_, - agreeably to the rule now given. In the same manner, if I say, “he - was only great,” it is implied, that he was nothing but great, the - adverb being placed before the attributive, to which it refers. - Hence the question naturally is, what was he not besides? The - answer may be, “not good,” “not wise,” “not learned.” Were the - adverb placed after the pronoun, it would imply, that “he was the - only person who was great.”[131] - - I am perfectly aware, that the rule here given will not, in all - cases, preclude ambiguity; but whenever it becomes doubtful, - whether the adverb is intended to affect the preceding substantive, - or the following attributive, a different form of expression may be - adopted, and the use of the auxiliary, along with the principal - verb, will, in many instances, ensure perspicuity. This expedient, - however, cannot always be employed. If we say, “The manufacturer - only was prosperous,” it may be uncertain, whether the adverb is to - restrict the predicate “prosperous” to the manufacturer, implying - that he was the only prosperous man, or to the verb expressing past - time, signifying that he was then, but is not now prosperous. If - the former be the meaning intended, we may say, “he was the only - prosperous man;” if the latter, we may say, “the manufacturer was - once,” or “was then, the only prosperous man.” - - It would have contributed much to perspicuity, if authors had - adopted one uniform practice, placing the adverb constantly, - either before or after its subject, whether a substantive or an - attributive[132]. But, where usage is so divided, and where - the adoption of a new and general rule would be now liable to - insuperable objections, all that can be successfully attempted is, - in accommodation to existing circumstances, to reduce the evil - within narrow limits, if we cannot, by any precise rule, entirely - remove it. With this view we would recommend, that when the adverb - refers not to a word, but to a sentence or clause, it be placed - at the beginning of that sentence or clause; where it refers to - a predicate, it precede the predicating term; and when it has a - reference to a subject, it follow its name or description. An - observation, however, already made, may be here repeated, namely, - that in the last case, a different collocation may often be adopted - without the risk of ambiguity, and even with advantage to the - structure of the sentence. - - _Note_ 10.--Adverbs, as Lowth observes, are generally placed - before the adjective to which they refer. This rule, however, - admits a few exceptions. The adverb _enough_ is always placed - after its adjective, as, “the reward was small enough.” The - proper position of this adverb, indeed, seems to be immediately - after the adjective; it is frequently, however, placed at some - distance from it, as, “a large house enough.” Usage is, indeed, - somewhat divided on this point, Mr. Baker, and a few others, - pleading for the following arrangement, “a large enough house.” The - former collocation, however, seems far the more general; and is - recommended by that rule, by which the substantive and adjective - should be placed in juxta-position, or as near as possible to each - other. The latter is defended by the principle, that the qualifying - adverb should be placed close to the adjective, whose signification - it modifies. This collocation is generally, however, pronounced a - Scotticism; but it is not peculiar to Scotch writers. - - -RULE XXI.--Conjunctions have no government. - - _Note_ 1.--In giving this rule, I differ from all other - grammarians, who have erroneously, as I conceive, assigned them a - regimen. Some conjunctions, says Lowth, govern the indicative, and - some the subjunctive mood. This I affirm without hesitation to be - a great mistake; for not a single example, I venture to assert, - can be produced, in which the verb is divested of its indicative - form, in consequence of its being subjoined to any conjunction. - The Latins had a form of the verb, which they properly enough - denominated the subjunctive mood; because, where the meaning - was unconditionally assertive, they employed this form, if the - clause was preceded by some particular conjunctive or adverbial - term. Thus, when they said, _adeo benevolus erat, ut omnes eum - amarent_, “he was so benevolent, that all men loved him,” though - the assertion in the latter clause, be evidently unconditional, as - the English shows, they changed the indicative into another form, - because the verb is preceded by the conjunction _ut_. No similar - example can be produced in English. - - Lowth informs us, that, when hypothesis, conditionality, or - contingency is implied, the mood should be subjunctive; if - certainty, or something determinate and absolute be signified, - the verb should be indicative. Now surely, if the sense require a - form different from the indicative, the verb cannot be said to be - under the government of the conjunction; for the verb assumes that - form, not because preceded by the conjunctive term, or because it - is under its government, but because the sentiment to be expressed - requires that phraseology. Whether the conditional, or what Lowth - terms the subjunctive, be a distinct form of the verb, or only an - elliptical mode of expression, we have already inquired. See p. 126. - - _Note_ 2.--Mr. Harris says, that the chief difference between - prepositions and conjunctions is, that the former couple words, and - the latter sentences. This opinion is erroneous; for conjunctions - frequently couple words, as in the following example: “A man of - wisdom and virtue is a perfect character.” Here it is not implied, - that “a man of wisdom is a perfect character;” but “a man of - wisdom combined with virtue, or a man of wisdom and virtue.” That - conjunctions, indeed, do not couple at all, in that sense, at - least, in which grammarians have understood the term, Mr. Tooke - seems to have incontestably proved. That they sometimes couple - sentences, or that instances may be produced, in which Harris’s - definition will appear correct, the following example will serve - as an evidence: “You, and I, and John rode to town;” _i.e._ “you - rode,” “and I rode,” “and John rode.” But to assert, that this is - their distinctive property, is to affirm what may be disproved by - numberless examples. If we say, “two and two are four.” Are two - four, and two four? “A B, B C, and C A, form a triangle.” Is A B a - triangle? or B C? or C A? “John and Mary are a handsome couple.” Is - John a couple? and Mary a couple? The common theory, therefore, is - false; nor is it to be doubted, that conjunctions are, in respect - to signification, and were originally in regard to their regimen, - verbs, or words compounded of nouns and attributives. In explaining - them, however, I divided them, as the reader may remember, into - the several classes of adversative, concessive, conditional, &c. - This I did, not only in conformity to general usage, and that he - might not be a stranger to the names assigned to them; but likewise - for this reason, that, though they originally formed no distinct - species of words, but were either verbs, or compounds of nouns and - verbs, they have now assumed another character, and are construed - in a different manner. It is necessary, however, that he should be - acquainted not only with their present use, but also with their - primitive import, and classification. - - How these words were degraded from their original rank, and deemed - insignificant, while some, perhaps, lost their syntactical power, - is a matter, I conceive, of no difficult inquiry. For, when the - verbs, to which any of these words belonged, became obsolete, - the words themselves, thus separated from their parent stock, - and stripped of that consequence and authority which they thence - derived, their extraction becoming daily more dubious, and their - original value more obscure, sunk by degrees into inferior note, - and at last dwindled into comparative insignificance. Besides, many - of them, doubtless, were transplanted into our language without the - _radices_; their etymology, therefore, being little known, their - primitive character, and real import, would soon be involved in - increasing darkness. - - It is to be considered, also, that those who have dispensed - the laws of grammar in our language, or assumed the office of - critics, have been generally such as, though perhaps sufficiently - conversant in Greek and Latin, were entirely unacquainted with - the Northern languages. Accustomed, therefore, to render the - conjunctions and prepositions in Greek or Latin, by synonymous - English words, and unacquainted with the true character of these - vernacular terms, their _etymons_ being obsolete, or having never - been used in our language, it is easy to conceive how they would - naturally assign to the English words the same character and the - same name which were affixed to the synonymous Latin terms. Nay, - this has been so much the case, that we have ascribed an ambiguous - character to several English words, referring them now to one - class, then to another, merely because they agree in signification - with certain Greek and Latin terms, which have been severally - referred by classical grammarians to different orders. That the - word _whether_ has uniformly, in our language, the same import and - the same character, denoting “which of the two,” there can be no - doubt; yet, because this word answers sometimes to _an_, _anne_, - _num_, and sometimes to _uter_, grammarians and lexicographers have - accounted it both a conjunction and a pronoun. _Utrum_ in Latin has - shared the same fate. So far, indeed, has this spirit been carried, - that we will not admit _except_, _according_, _concerning_, - _respecting_, with many similar terms, to be verbs or participles, - because _præter_, _secundum_, _de_, are prepositions. It is from - this propensity to assimilate ours with the Latin language, that - all these errors have arisen. - - That the words now termed prepositions and conjunctions were - originally verbs, or nouns, or compounds of these, Tooke has, in - my judgment, incontrovertibly proved. This being admitted, it - appears to me highly probable, that they were primitively construed - as such, joined either with the nominative or the objective case, - as the verbs had either a transitive or intransitive meaning; - and that they were followed by either single words or clauses. - This, however, is merely conjecture, founded indeed in the nature - of the words, but not supported by any evidence. In process of - time, in consequence of that assimilation which naturally takes - place between a living language and a dead one, much read, much - written, and much admired, these words, when their origin became - obscure, would, as I have remarked, be divested of their primitive - character, and be considered as belonging to those classes, to - which the synonymous Latin words were referred. Hence their - regimen would likewise undergo a change. It would appear awkward - and vicious to say now, “I saw nobody but he;” is not improbable, - however, that the mode of expression was originally, “I saw - nobody, be out he,” _i.e._ “he be out.” But I am now indulging - in conjecture, the very error which chiefly has misled us in our - grammatical researches. One thing, however, is certain, that - several words, which were originally employed as prepositions - or conjunctions indifferently, have now acquired a more fixed - character, and are used but seldom in a double capacity. Of this - the word _without_ is an example. Thus, it was not unusual to - say, “without you go, I will not,” where the term of exclusion, - though in truth a preposition prefixed to a clause, was considered - as a conjunction synonymous with _nisi_. This usage, unless in - conversation, is now almost entirely relinquished; and the term - _without_ is now generally employed as a preposition, being - prefixed to single words. It is likewise certain that in respect - to signification there is no difference between conjunctions and - prepositions: _vidi neminem nisi eum_, is equivalent to _vidi - neminem præter eum_. In like manner, “I saw nobody but him,” is - synonymous with “I saw nobody besides him;” in which examples - the conjunctions _nisi_ and _but_ are perfectly synonymous with - _præter_ and _besides_, which are termed prepositions. - - It may be asked, if then prepositions and conjunctions be alike - verbs, or nouns, or compounds of these, and if many prepositions - and conjunctions be in point of meaning identical, what forms the - ground of distinction between them? It is simply this, that the - former are prefixed to single words only, as nouns and pronouns, - or to clauses involving an infinitive mood[133], the infinitive - being strictly the name of the verb; and that they have a regimen; - while the latter are prefixed to clauses, and have no regimen. - This is the only distinction between prepositions and conjunctions - as discriminated in modern use. Their original character is - sufficiently established by Mr. Tooke. - - I have said that some of these words have, in our language, an - ambiguous character, being employed both as prepositions and - conjunctions. Of this the word _than_ is an example. Priestley - seems to consider it as a preposition, and pleads in favour of the - following expression, “you are taller than him,” not “taller than - he.” “Since it is allowed,” says the Doctor, “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, so that, _greater than me_ will be more grammatical than - _greater than I_.” Here I cannot concur with the learned author. - The same argument would prove that _major quam me_, would be more - grammatical than _major quam ego_; a conclusion which is opposed - by universal authority. The truth is, _than_ must be either a - conjunction or a preposition, or both. If a conjunction, it can - have no government, any more than the Latin _quam_; unless we - confound the distinction which has been just now explained, and is - universally admitted, namely, that conjunctions are distinguished - from prepositions, by their having no government. If it be a - preposition, no argument is necessary to prove that it may be - joined with an objective case; for such is the distinguishing - character of prepositions. If it be either a preposition or a - conjunction, it follows, that it may be construed either with or - without a regimen. Lowth, with greater propriety, considers it as a - conjunction; and Campbell, in his “Rhetoric,” recommends this usage - as the only means of preventing that ambiguity, which necessarily - arises from the employment of this word as a preposition only. For, - if we use it as a preposition, we should say, “I love you better - than him,” whether it be meant “I love you better than I love him,” - or “I love you better than he does.” By using it as a conjunction, - the ambiguity is prevented. For, if the former sentiment be - implied, we say, “I love you better than him,” _i.e._ “than I love - him;” if the latter, we say, “I love you better than he,” _i.e._ - “than he loves you.” Whatever may have been the original character - or syntax of this word, since usage is now divided, some writers - employing it as a conjunction, and others as a preposition, the - grammarian may, consistently with his duty, plead for that usage - only, which prevents ambiguity. - - The rule here recommended is generally violated, when _than_ - is joined with the relative pronoun, as, “Alfred, than whom - a greater king never reigned.” “Beelzebub, than whom, Satan - excepted, none higher sat.” Salmon has attempted to account for - this almost universal phraseology, by saying, that the expression - is elliptical, being the same as, “than compared with whom.” This - explanation is forced and unnatural. It is likewise unnecessary. - The simple fact is, that the word _than_ was formerly used as a - preposition, and, I believe, more frequently than it is now. Hence, - doubtless, arose this phraseology. - - -RULE XXII.--Derivatives are generally construed like their -primitives; as, “it was a happy thing _for_ this country, that the -Pretender was defeated;” or “happily _for_ this country the Pretender -was defeated.” Thus also, “to compare _with_,” and “in comparison -_with_ riches;”--“to depend _on_,” and his “dependence on the court.” - - -RULE XXIII.--One negative destroys another; or two negatives are -equivalent to an affirmative; as, “nor have I no money, which I can -spare;” that is, “I have money, which I can spare.”--“Nor was the -king unacquainted with his designs;” that is, “he was acquainted.” - - _Note_ 1.--Here our language accords with the Latin. In Greek and - French, two negatives render the negation stronger. - - _Note_ 2.--This rule is violated in such examples as this, “Nor - is danger ever apprehended in such a government, no more than we - commonly apprehend danger from thunder or earthquakes.” It should - be _any more_. - - -RULE XXIV.--Interjections are joined with the objective case of the -pronoun of the first person, and with the nominative of the pronoun -of the second, as, “ah me,” “oh me,” “ah thou wretch,” “O thou who -dwellest.” - - _Syntax_ being that part of grammar, which teaches rules not only - for the concord and government, but also for the order of words - in clauses and sentences, I shall subjoin the few following brief - directions for the guidance of the scholar, respecting arrangement. - - 1st. The collocation should never invert the natural order of - events, or violate the principles of reason and metaphysical - propriety. It is obvious, for example, that no person can write, - who cannot read. The ability to do the former necessarily implies - a capacity to do the latter. It is preposterous, therefore, to - say with Addison, “There will be few in the next generation, who - will not at least be able to write and read.” He should have - said, “to read and write.” “He was the son of a mother, who had - nursed him with maternal tenderness, and had borne him in an hour - of the deepest affliction.” The natural order of events should - have dictated the reverse arrangement. There would be a manifest - impropriety in saying “Our father is well, and alive;” the former - state necessarily implying the latter. In the following passage, - however, it is perhaps excusable, the answers particularly - corresponding to the questions: Joseph says to his brothers, “Is - your father well? The old man, of whom ye spake, is he yet alive?” - They answer, “Thy servant, our father, is in good health; he is yet - alive.” This error was termed by the ancient grammarians _hysteron - proteron_; and, though not so palpably as in the preceding - examples, it occurs much more frequently than an inattentive reader - is apt to imagine. - - 2nd. The English language admits but few inflexions, and therefore - little or no room for variety of arrangement. The connection of - one word with another is not to be perceived, as in Greek and - Latin, by correspondence of termination, but by relative position. - This renders it indispensably necessary, that those words which - are intimately related by sense one to another, should be closely - connected by collocation. “The cunning of Hannibal was too powerful - for the Pergamenians, who by the same kind of stratagem had - frequently obtained great victories at land.” The relative here, by - its position, must be understood as referring to the Pergamenians; - whereas it is intended to refer to Hannibal. The relative clause, - therefore, should have followed the name of the Carthaginian. “His - picture, in distemper, of calumny, borrowed from the description - of one painted by Apelles, was supposed to be a satire on that - cardinal.”--_Walpole._ The error here is obvious. He should have - said, “His picture of calumny.” “It is folly to pretend to arm - ourselves against the accidents of life, by heaping up treasures, - which nothing can protect us against, but the good providence of - our heavenly Father.”--_Sherlock._ Here the grammatical antecedent - is _treasures_; but it is intended to be _accidents_. The relative - is removed from its proper subject. - - 3rd. As the converse of the preceding rule, it may be observed, - that those words should be separated, which in juxta-position - may, at first sight, or first hearing, possibly convey a meaning - which the speaker or writer does not intend. “I, like a well-bred - man, who is never disposed to mortify or to offend, praised both - sorts of food.” As the two introductory words are capable of two - meanings, would it not be better to say, “Like a well-bred man - ... I praised both sorts of food.” I am aware, that the other - collocation is preferable, where a particular stress is to be laid - on the principal subject; but ambiguity is an error, which should - be studiously avoided, and the meaning should not be left to the - determination of a comma. - - 4th. From the preceding rules, it follows as a corollary, that - no clause should be so placed in a sentence, as to be referable - either to what precedes, or what follows. “The knight, seeing his - habitation reduced to so small a compass, and himself in a manner - shut out of his own house, _on the death of his mother_, ordered - all the apartments to be flung open.” The clause in italics is - ambiguously placed. - - 5th. When each of two arrangements is equally favourable to - perspicuity, and equally consistent with metaphysical propriety, - that should be preferred which is the more agreeable to the ear. - - 6th. Harsh and abrupt cadences should be avoided; and in elevated - style, the clauses should swell towards the close of the sentence. - This latter rule, however, which requires some limitations, belongs - to the province of the rhetorician, rather than to that of the - grammarian. - - - - -PART III. - - - - -CHAPTER I. - -CANONS OF CRITICISM. - - -Having explained and illustrated the etymology and syntax of the -English language, as fully as the limits, which I have prescribed to -myself, will permit, I would now request the reader’s attention to -some additional observations. - -The grammar of every language is merely a compilation of those -general principles, or rules, agreeably to which that language is -spoken. When I say, a compilation of rules, I would not be understood -to mean, that the rules are first established, and the language -afterwards modelled in conformity to these. The very reverse is -the fact: language is antecedent to grammar. Words are framed and -combined to express sentiment, before the grammarian can enter on -his province. His sole business is, not to dictate forms of speech, -or to prescribe law to our modes of expression; but, by observing -the modes previously established, by remarking their similarities -and dissimilarities, his province is to deduce and explain the -general principles, and the particular forms, agreeably to which the -speakers of that language express themselves. The philosopher does -not determine by what laws the physical and moral world should be -governed; but, by the careful observation and accurate comparison -of the various phenomena presented to his view, he deduces and -ascertains the general principles, by which the system is regulated. -The province of the grammarian seems precisely similar. He is a mere -digester and compiler, explaining what _are_ the modes of speech, not -dictating what they _should be_. He can neither assign to any word a -meaning different from that which custom has annexed to it; nor can -he alter a phraseology, to which universal suffrage has given its -sanction. Usage is, in this case, law; usage _quem penes arbitrium -est, et jus et norma loquendi_. If it were now the practice to say, -“I loves,” instead of “I love,” the former phraseology would rest on -the same firm ground, on which the latter now stands; and “I love,” -would be as much a violation of the rules of grammar, or, which is -the same thing, of established usage, as “I loves” is at present. -_Regula est, quæ rem, quæ est, breviter enarrat; non ut ex regula jus -sumatur, sed ex jure, quod est, regula fiat._--_Paul. Leg. 1, de Reg. -Jur._ - -Having said thus much to prevent misconception, and to define the -proper province of the grammarian, I proceed to observe, that this -usage, which gives law to language, in order to establish its -authority, or to entitle its suffrage to our assent, must be, in the -first place, _reputable_. - -The vulgar in this, as in every other country, are, from their want -of education, necessarily illiterate. Their native language is known -to them no farther, than is requisite for the most common purposes -of life. Their ideas are few, and consequently their stock of words -poor and scanty. Nay, their poverty, in this respect, is not their -only evil. Their narrow competence they abuse and pervert. Some -words they misapply, others they corrupt; while many are employed -by them, which have no sanction, but provincial or local authority. -Hence the language of the vulgar, in one province, is sometimes -hardly intelligible in another. Add to this, that debarred by their -occupations from study, or generally averse to literary pursuits, -they are necessarily strangers to the scientific improvements of a -cultivated mind; and are therefore entirely unacquainted with that -diction, which concerns the higher attainments of life. Ignorant of -any general principles respecting language, to which they may appeal; -unable to discriminate between right and wrong; prone therefore to -adopt whatever usage casual circumstances may present; it is no -wonder, if the language of the vulgar be a mixture of incongruity and -error, neither perfectly consistent with itself, nor to themselves -universally intelligible. Their usage, therefore, is not the -standard, to which we must appeal for decisive authority; a usage so -discordant and various, that we may justly apply to it the words of -a celebrated critic, - - Bellua multorum es capitum; nam quid sequar, aut quem? - -The question then is, what is reputable usage? On this subject -philologists have been divided. Dr. Campbell appears to me to -decide judiciously, when he says, that the usage, to which we must -appeal, is not that of the court, or of great men, nor even of -authors of profound science, but of those, whose works are esteemed -by the public, and who may, therefore, be denominated _reputable_ -authors. By referring to their practice, he appeals to a standard -less equivocal, than if he had resorted to the authority of good -writers; for, as he justly observes, there may be various opinions -respecting the merits of authors, when there may be no disagreement -concerning the rank which they hold in the estimation of the public; -and, because it is the esteem of the public, and not their intrinsic -merit, (though these go generally hand in hand,) that raises them to -distinction, and stamps a value on their language. Besides, it is to -be observed, that consummate knowledge is not always accompanied with -a talent for communicating it: hence the sentiment may be confessedly -valuable, while the language is regarded as of no authority. - -This usage must be, in the second place, _national_. It must not be -confined to this or that province; it must not be the usage of this -or that district, the peculiarities of which are always ridiculous, -and frequently unintelligible beyond its own limits; but it must -be the general language of the country, intelligible everywhere, -and in no place ridiculous. And, though the variety of dialects may -collectively form a greater number of authorities than national -usage can boast, taken singly they are much fewer. Those, to use -Campbell’s apposite similitude, who deviate from the beaten road, may -be incomparably more numerous than those who travel in it; yet, into -whatever number of by-paths the former may be divided, there may not -be found in any one of these tracks so many as travel in the king’s -highway. - -In the third place, this usage must be _present_. Here it may be -asked, what is meant by present usage? Is it the usage of the -present year, the present age, or the present century? How is it -defined, or by what boundary is it limited? In short, how far may we -revert in search of decisive authority? may we go back, for example, -as far as Chaucer, or must we stop at the age of Addison? - -In determining this matter, the same learned and judicious critic -observes, that regard must be had to the species of composition and -the nature of the subject. Poetry is properly allowed a greater -latitude than prose; and therefore, a word, which in prose we should -reject as a barbarism, may, with strict propriety, be admitted in -verse. Here, also, there are limits which must not be passed; and, -perhaps, any word, which cannot plead the authority of Milton, or of -any contemporary or later poet, may be justly regarded as obsolete. -In prose, no word, unless the subject be art or science, should be -employed, which has been disused for a period greater than the age of -man. This is the judgment of the same critic. Against this answer, -indeed, it is possible to raise a thousand cavils; and, perhaps, we -shall be reminded of the poet’s strictures on the term _ancient_ in -his days[134]. One thing, however, is certain, that, though it be -difficult to fix a precise limit, where the authority of precedent -terminates, and legislative usage commences, or to define with -precision the age of man, it must be acknowledged, that there are -limits, in respect to usage, which we must not overleap, as there is -a certain term, which the life of man cannot surpass. - -As there is a period, beyond which precedent in language ceases to -have authority; so, on the contrary, the usage of the present day -is not implicitly to be adopted. Mankind are fond of novelty; and -there is a fashion in language, as there is in dress. Whim, vanity, -and affectation, delight in creating new words. Of these, the far -greater part soon sink into contempt. They figure for a little, like -ephemeral productions, in tales, novels, and fugitive papers; and -are shortly consigned to degradation and oblivion. Now, to adopt -every new-fangled upstart at its birth, would argue not taste, -nor judgment, but childish fondness for singularity and novelty. -On the contrary, if any of these should maintain its ground, and -receive the sanction of a reputable usage, to reject it, in this -case, would be to resist that authority, to which every critic and -grammarian must bow with submission. The term _mob_, for example, -was, at its introduction, zealously opposed by Dean Swift. His -resistance, however, was ineffectual; and to reject it now would -betray prudish affectation, and fruitless perversity. The word -_inimical_, previously to the American war, could, I believe, plead, -in its favour, only one authority. In some dictionaries, accordingly -it was omitted; and in others stigmatized as a barbarism. It has now -obtained a permanent establishment, and is justly admitted by every -lexicographer. - - “In words, as fashions, the same rule will hold; - Alike fantastic, if too new or old: - Be not the first, by whom the new are tried, - Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.” - _Pope’s Essay on Criticism._ - -In short, in this, as in every other question on this subject, -perspicuity should be our guide. If the subject be art or science, -or if the composition be intended for literary men, then a greater -latitude may be allowed, as the reader is supposed to be master -of the language, in all its varieties. But if the subject be -accommodated to common capacity, and the composition designed for -ordinary readers, the rule now given, not to employ a word, which -has been disused for a period greater than the age of man, will be -deemed, I conceive, rational and necessary. - -The usage, then, which gives law to language, and which is generally -denominated “good usage,” must be _reputable_, _national_, and -_present_. It happens, however, that “good usage” is not always -uniform in her decisions, and that unquestionable authorities are -found for different modes of expression. In such cases, the following -canons, proposed by the same author, will be of considerable service, -in enabling the reader to decide, to which phraseology the preference -is due. These canons I shall give, nearly in the words of the author; -and illustrate them, as I proceed, by a few apposite examples, partly -his, and partly my own. - - -CANON I.--When the usage is divided, as to any particular words -or phrases, and when one of the expressions is susceptible of a -different meaning, while the other admits only one signification, the -expression, which is strictly univocal, should be preferred. - -For this reason, _aught_[135], for “anything,” is better than -_ought_; _scarcely_, as an adverb, better than _scarce_; _by -consequence_ is preferable to _of consequence_, which signifies also -“of importance;” and _exceedingly_, as an adverb, is preferable to -_exceeding_. - -For the same reason, _to purpose_, for “to intend,” is better than -_to propose_, which signifies also “to lay before,” or “submit to -consideration;” and _proposal_, for “a thing offered or proposed,” -is better than “proposition,” which denotes also “a position,” -or the “affirmation of any principle or maxim.” Thus we say, “he -demonstrated Euclid’s _proposition_,” and “he rejected the _proposal_ -of his friend.” - -Agreeably also to this canon, _disposal_, in common language, when a -grant, or giving away is denoted, or when the management of anything -is to be expressed, is preferable to _disposition_, which signifies -also _arrangement_, and likewise _temper of mind_; and _exposure_, -as the verbal noun from _expose_, is better than _exposition_, the -verbal noun of _expound_. We should say, “the exposure of a fault,” -and “the exposition of a text.” The analogous words _composure_, -from _compose_, and _composition_, from _compound_, or _compose_, -have been suffered to retain their distinct significations. -“To speak _contemptuously_ of a person,” is better than “to -speak _contemptibly_;” the latter term meaning generally, “in a -contemptible manner,” or, “in a manner worthy of contempt;” whereas -the former is univocal, and denotes _disrespectfully_, or “in a -manner significant of contempt.” - -For the same reason, _obvious_, for “evident,” is better than -_apparent_, which means also “seeming,” as opposed to “real.” - -The term _primitive_, as equivalent to _original_, is preferable -to _primary_. The latter is synonymous with _principal_, and is -opposed to _secondary_; the former is equivalent to _original_, -and is opposed to _derivative_ or _acquired_. I shall illustrate -this distinction by a few examples. The words _falsehood_ and _lie_ -agree in expressing the same primary idea, namely, “contrariety to -fact;” but they differ in their secondary ideas, the former implying -simply, “inconsistency with physical truth,” the latter being a term -of reproach, expressing “a wilful breach of veracity, or of moral -truth.” _To kill_, and _to murder_, agree also in their primary -ideas, both denoting “the deprivation of life;” but they differ -in their secondary, the former implying no moral turpitude, the -latter denoting an immoral act. From these examples it will appear, -that _primary_ denotes “what is principal or chief,” as opposed to -“secondary,” or “subordinate.” - -_Primitive_ is equivalent to _original_; thus we say, the _primitive_ -meaning of the word _villain_, was “a nearer tenant to the lord of -the manor;” custom has altered its signification, and it now denotes -“a wicked fellow.” Thus the _primary_ and the _primitive_ meaning of -words may be very different; these terms, therefore, ought to be duly -discriminated. - -_Intension_, for “the act of stretching or straining,” is for -the same reason, preferable to _intention_, which signifies also -“purpose,” or “design.” “I am mistaken,” is frequently used to denote -“I misunderstand,” or “I am in error;” but as this expression may -also signify, “I am misunderstood,” it is better to say, “I mistake.” - -This canon I would earnestly recommend to the observance of every -writer, who is solicitous to exclude all unnecessary ambiguity, but -more emphatically to my junior readers, who are peculiarly prone to -the violation of this rule, misled by false notions of elegance and -dignity. There prevails at present a foolish and ridiculous, not to -say absurd, disposition in some writers, to prefer in every instance, -with no discrimination, long to short words. They seem to entertain -an inveterate antipathy to monosyllabic terms; and disdaining -whatever savours of Saxon origin, are incessantly searching after the -_sesquipedalia verba_ of Greek or Latin extraction, with no regard -whatever to precision and perspicuity. Thus many words, which cannot -be dismissed without detriment to the language, are falling into -disuse, and their places supplied by equivocal and less appropriate -terms. - - -CANON II.--In doubtful cases analogy should be regarded. - -For this reason, _contemporary_ is better than _cotemporary_, -_con_ being used before a consonant, and _co_ before a vowel; as, -_concomitant_, _coeval_. - -For the same reason, “_he needs_,” “_he dares_,” “_whether he will -or not_,” are better than “_he need_,” “_he dare_,” “_whether he -will or no_.” The last of the three phraseologies, here recommended, -Priestley thinks exceptionable. To me, as to Campbell, the ellipsis -appears evident; thus, “whether he will, or will not:” hence “will -not” seems the only analogical expression. - - -CANON III.--When expressions are in other respects equal, that should -be preferred, which is most agreeable to the ear. This requires no -illustration. - - -CANON IV.--When none of the preceding rules take place, regard should -be had to simplicity. On this ground, “accept,” “approve,” “admit,” -are preferable to “accept of,” “approve of,” “admit of.” - -I have already observed, that no expression, or mode of speech, -can be justified, which is not sanctioned by usage. The converse, -however, does not follow, that every phraseology, sanctioned by -usage, should be retained; and, in such cases, custom may properly -be checked by criticism, whose province it is, not only to -remonstrate against the introduction of any word or phraseology, -which may be either unnecessary or contrary to analogy, but also -to extrude whatever is reprehensible, though in general use. It is -by this exercise of her prerogative, that languages are gradually -refined and improved; and were this denied, language would soon -become stationary, or more probably would hasten to decline. In -exercising this authority, she cannot pretend to degrade instantly -any phraseology, which she may deem objectionable; but she may, -by repeated remonstrances, gradually effect its dismission. Her -decisions in such cases may be properly regulated by the following -canons, as delivered by the same author. - - -CANON I.--All words and phrases, particularly harsh, and not -absolutely necessary, should be dismissed; as, “shamefacedness,” -“unsuccessfulness,” “wrongheadedness.” - - -CANON II.--When the etymology plainly points to a different -signification from what the word bears, propriety and simplicity -require its dismission. For example, the word “beholden,” taken for -“obliged,” or the verb “to unloose,” for “to loose,” or “untie,” -should be rejected. - - -CANON III.--When words become obsolete, or are never used, but in -particular phrases, they should be repudiated; as they give the style -an air of vulgarity and cant, when their general disuse renders them -obscure. Of these “lief,” “dint,” “whit,” “moot,” “pro and con,” -furnish examples; as, “I had as lief go,” “by dint of argument,” “not -a whit better,” “a moot point,” “it was argued pro and con.” These -phraseologies are vulgar, and savour too much of cant to be admitted -in good writing. - - -CANON IV.--All words and phrases, which, analyzed grammatically, -include a solecism, should be dismissed; as, “I had rather go.” -The expression should be, “I would,” or “I’d rather go:” and from -the latter, the solecism “I had go,” seems by mistake to have -arisen, _I’d_ being erroneously conceived to be contracted for _I -had_, instead of a contraction for _I would_. This is the opinion -of Campbell, and to this opinion I expressed my assent, in the -former edition of this Treatise. I acknowledge, however, that it -now appears to me not strictly correct; and that Webster has not -questioned its accuracy on insufficient grounds. In the phrases -adduced by Campbell, such as “I’d go,” “I’d rather stay,” we can -readily perceive the probability that _I’d_ is a contraction for “I -would.” But in such expressions as “I had like to have been caught,” -which occur not only in colloquial language, but also in authors of -considerable name, it is impossible to admit Campbell’s explanation. -I must observe also, that the phraseology, which he censures, occurs -in some of our earliest writers, and is so frequently found in -Pope and Swift, that one is tempted to infer, notwithstanding its -solecistic appearance, that it is genuine English. It is difficult, -however, nay, perhaps impossible, to reconcile it to analogy. Were I -to offer conjecture on the subject, I should be inclined to say, that -in such phrases as “I had go,” _I had_ is, by a grammatical figure -very common in English, put for _I would have_, or _I would possess_, -and that the simple name of the act or state, by an ellipsis perhaps -of the verbal sign, is subjoined, as the object wished, no regard -being had to the completion of the action; in the same manner as we -say, I would have _gone_, when we wish the action perfected. But -by whatever authority this phraseology may be recommended, and in -whatever way it may be reconciled to the rules of syntax, it has -so much the appearance of solecism, that I decidedly prefer with -Campbell the unexceptional form of expression, _I would_. The phrase -_I had like_ appears to me utterly irreconcilable with any principle -of analogy. - - -CANON V.--All expressions, which, according to the established rules -of the language, either have no meaning, or involve a contradiction, -or, according to the fair construction of the words, convey a meaning -different from the intention of the speaker, should be dismissed. -Thus, when a person says, “he sings a good song,” the words strictly -imply that “the song is good,” whereas the speaker means to say, “he -sings well.” In like manner, when it is said, “this is the best part -he acts,” the sentence, according to the strict interpretation of the -words, expresses an opinion, not of his manner of acting, but of the -part or character which he acts. It should be, “he acts this part -best,” or “this is the part which he acts best.” “He plays a good -fiddle,” for “he plays well on the fiddle,” is, for the same reason, -objectionable. - -Of expressions involving a contradiction, the following will serve as -an example. “There were four ladies in company, every one prettier -than another.” This is impossible. If A was prettier than B, B -must have been less pretty than A; but by the expression every one -was prettier than another, therefore B was also prettier than A. -Such absurdities as this ought surely to be banished from every -language[136]. - -Of those, which have little or no meaning, Campbell has given us -examples, “currying favour,” “having a month’s mind,” “shooting -at rovers.” Such modes of expression, he justly calls trash, the -disgrace of any language. - -These canons I have extracted from “Campbell on Rhetoric,” a book -which I would recommend to the reader’s attentive perusal. - -I proceed to observe, that to write any language with grammatical -purity, implies these three things: - -1st. That the words be all of that language. - -2ndly. That they be construed and arranged, according to the rules of -syntax in that language. - -3rdly. That they be employed in that sense, which usage has annexed -to them. - -Grammatical purity, therefore, may be violated in three ways: - -1st. The words may not be English. This error is called barbarism. - -2ndly. Their construction may be contrary to the English idiom. This -error is termed solecism. - -3rdly. They may be used in a sense different from their established -acceptation. This error is named impropriety[137]. - -The barbarism is an offence against lexicography, by admitting new -words, as, “volupty,” “connexity,” “majestatic;” or by using obsolete -words, as, “uneath,” “erst;” or an offence against etymology, by -improper inflection, as, “teached” for “taught,” “oxes” for “oxen.” - -The solecism is an offence against the rules of syntax, as, “I -reads,” “you was.” - -The impropriety is an offence against lexicography, by mistaking the -meaning of words or phrases. - -A solecism is regarded by grammarians as a much greater offence than -either of the others; because it betrays a greater ignorance of the -principles of the language. Rhetorically considered, it is deemed -a less trespass; for the rhetorician and grammarian estimate the -magnitude of errors by different standards; the former inquiring -only how far any error militates against the great purpose of his -art--persuasion; the latter, how far it betrays an ignorance of -the principles of grammar. Hence with the former, obscurity is the -greatest trespass; with the latter, solecism, and that species of -barbarism which violates the rules of etymology[138]. - - - - -CHAPTER II. - -CRITICAL REMARKS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. - - -Having, in the preceding chapter, explained the nature of that usage -which gives law to language; and having proposed a few rules for the -student’s direction in cases where usage is divided, and also where -her authority may be justly questioned and checked by criticism; I -intend, in the following pages, to present the young reader with a -copious exemplification of the three general species of error against -grammatical purity, arranging the examples in the order of the parts -of speech. - - -SECTION I. - -THE NOUN. - - -BARBARISM. - -“I rode in a one-horse chay.” It ought to be “a one-horse chaise.” -There is no such word as _chay_. - -“That this has been the true and proper acception of this word, I -shall testify by one evidence.”--_Hammond._ _Acception_ is obsolete; -it ought to be _acceptation_. - -“Were the workmen to enter into a contrary combination of the same -kind, not to accept of a certain wage.”--_Wealth of Nations._ _Wage_ -is obsolete; the plural only is used. - -“Their alliance was sealed by the nuptial of Henry, with the daughter -of the Italian prince.”--_Gibbon._ _Nuptial_ has not, I believe, been -used as a substantive since the days of Shakspeare, and may be deemed -obsolete. The plural _nuptials_ is the proper word. - -“He showed that he had a full comprehension of the whole of -the plan, and of the judicious adaption of the parts to the -whole.”--_Sheridan’s Life of Swift._ _Adaption_ is obsolescent, -if not obsolete: _adaptation_ is the proper term. _Adaption_ is -frequently employed by Swift, from whom Sheridan seems to have copied -it. - -... “Which even his brother modernists themselves, like ungrates, -whisper so loud that it reaches up to the very garret I am now -writing in.”--_Swift._ “Ungrate” is a barbarism. “Ingrate” is to be -found in some of our English poets as an adjective, and synonymous -with “ungrateful;” but “ungrate,” as a substantive, is truly -barbarous. Almost equally objectionable is Steele’s use of _stupid_ -as a substantive plural. “Thou art no longer to drudge in raising the -mirth of stupids.”--_Spectator_, No. 468. And also of _ignorant_, -“the ignorants of the lowest order.”--_Ibid._ - -Pope also says, in one of his letters, “We are curious impertinents -in the case of futurity.” This employment of the adjective as a noun -substantive, though never sanctioned by general use, is now properly -avoided by our most reputable writers. It tends to confusion, where -distinction is necessary. - -“The Deity dwelleth between the cherubims.” The Hebrews form the -plural of masculines by adding _im_; “cherubims,” therefore, is a -double plural. “Seraphims,” for the same reason, is faulty. The -singular of these words being “cherub” and “seraph,” the plural is -either “cherubs” and “seraphs,” or “cherubim” and “seraphim.” Milton -has uniformly avoided this mistake, which circumstance Addison, in -his criticisms on that author, has overlooked; nay, he has, even -with Milton’s correct usage before him, committed the error. “The -zeal of the _seraphim_,” says he, “breaks forth in a becoming warmth -of sentiments and expressions, as the character which is given of -_him_,” &c. Here “seraphim,” a plural noun, is used as singular. It -should be, “the zeal of the seraph.” - -“Nothing can be more pleasant than to see virtuosoes about a cabinet -of medals descanting upon the value, the rarity, and authenticalness -of the several pieces.” _Authenticalness_, though used by Addison, -is obsolescent, and may, perhaps, be deemed a barbarism. It may be -properly dismissed, as a harsh and unnecessary term. - -“He broke off with Lady Gifford, one of his oldest acquaintances -in life.”--_Sheridan’s Life of Swift._ _Acquaintances_ is now -deemed a Scotticism, being almost peculiar to the northern -parts of the island. Johnson, however, did not disclaim it. “A -young student from the inns of court, who has often attacked -the curate of his father’s parish, with such arguments as his -acquaintances could furnish.”--_Rambler._ We find it also in Steele; -thus, “she pays everybody their own, and yet makes daily new -acquaintances.”--_Tatler_, No. 109. - -“I am sure that the farmeress at Bevis would feel emotions of -vanity ... if she knew you gave her the character of a reasonable -woman.”--_Lord Peterborough to Pope._ This, I believe, is the only -passage in which _farmeress_ is to be found; but, though it may -therefore be pronounced a barbarism, the author could not have -expressed himself so clearly and so concisely, in any other way. We -every now and then, as Johnson observes, feel the want of a feminine -termination. - -“The bellowses were broken.” The noun, as here inflected, is -barbarous. “Bellows” is a plural word denoting a single instrument, -though consisting of two parts. There is, therefore, no such word as -“bellowses.” - - -SOLECISM[139]. - -“I have read Horace Art of Poetry.” This expression may be deemed -solecistical, being a violation of that rule, by which one -substantive governs another in the genitive. It should be, “Horace’s -Art of Poetry.” “These are ladies ruffles,” “this is the kings -picture,” are errors of the same kind, for “ladies’ ruffles,” “the -king’s picture.” - -“These three great genius’s flourished at the same time.” Here -“genius’s,” the genitive singular, is improperly used for “geniuses,” -the nominative plural. - -“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 -also the genitive singular is improperly used for the objective -case plural. It should be, _whereuntos_, _wherebys_, _thereofs_, -_therewiths_. - -“Both those people, acute and inquisitive to excess, corrupted the -sciences.”--_Adams’s History of England._ - -“Two rival peoples, the Jews and the Samaritans, have preserved -separate exemplars of it.”--_Geddes’ Preface to his Translation of -the Bible._ The former of these passages involves a palpable error, -the word “people,” here equivalent to _nation_, and in the singular -number, being joined with _both_ or “the two,” a term of plurality. -In the latter, this error is avoided, the noun being employed in -the plural number. This usage, however, though sanctioned by the -authority of our translators of the Bible in two passages, seems -now to be obsolete. _States_, _tribes_, _nations_, appear to be -preferable. - -“I bought a scissars,” “I want a tongs,” “it is a tattered colours,” -involve a palpable solecism, the term significant of unity being -joined with a plural word. It should be “a pair of scissars,” “a pair -of tongs,” “a pair of colours.” - -“They tell us, that the fashion of jumbling fifty things together -in a dish was at first introduced, in compliance to a depraved and -debauched appetite.”--_Swift._ - -We say, “comply with;” therefore, by Rule xvii. “in compliance -with” is the analogical form of expression, and has the sanction of -classical usage. - -“The fortitude of a man, who brings his will to the obedience of -his reason.”--_Steele._ Analogy requires “obedience to.” We say, -_obedient to command_: the person obeying is expressed in the -genitive, or with the preposition _of_; and the person or thing -obeyed with the preposition _to_, as, “a servant’s obedience,” or -“the obedience of a servant to the orders of his master.” - -“Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.”--_Bible._ -“Attendance” and “attention” are verbal nouns, derived from “attend.” -When the verb signifies “to regard,” or “to fix the mind upon,” it -is followed by _to_, as, “he attends to his studies,” and the verbal -noun is “attention,” construed, agreeably to Rule xvii. in the same -manner as the verb. Thus, “he gives attention to his studies.” But -when “to attend” signifies “to wait on,” or “be present at,” it is -followed by _on_, _upon_, or _at_, and is sometimes used without the -preposition. - -Thus, “if any minister refused to admit a lecturer recommended to -him, he was required to attend _upon_ the committee.”--_Clarendon._ - -“He attended _at_ the consecration with becoming gravity.”--_Hume._ -In this sense the verbal noun is “attendance,” and construed like the -verb, when it bears this signification. In the sentence, therefore, -last quoted, syntax requires, either “attendance at” or “attention -to.” The latter conveys the meaning of the original. - - -IMPROPRIETY. - -“The observation of the Sabbath is a duty incumbent on every -Christian.” It should be, “the observance.” Both substantives are -derived from the verb “to observe.” When the verb means “to keep,” -or “obey,” the verbal noun is “observance;” when “to remark,” or “to -notice,” the noun is “observation.” - -“They make such acquirements, as fit them for useful -avocations.”--_Staunton’s Embassy to China._ - -The word _avocation_ is frequently, as in the example before us, -confounded with _vocation_. By the latter is clearly signified -“calling,” “trade,” “employment,” “business,” “occupation;” and by -the former is meant whatever withdraws, distracts, or diverts us from -that business. No two words can be more distinct; yet we often see -them confounded. - -“A supplication of twenty days was decreed to his honour.”--_Henry’s -History of Britain._ The term _supplication_ is in our language -confined to what Johnson calls “petitionary worship,” and always -implies request, entreaty, or petition. The Latin term _supplicatio_ -has a more extensive meaning, and likewise _supplicium_, each -denoting not only _prayer_, strictly so called, but also -_thanksgiving_. The latter of these should have been employed by the -author. - -“Our pleasures are purer, when consecrated by nations, and cherished -by the greatest _genii_ among men.”--_Blackwell’s Mythology._ _Genii_ -means spirits. (See p. 18.) It ought to be _geniuses_. - -I have already remarked (see p. 31), that, when the primary idea -implied in the masculine and feminine terms is the chief object -of attention, and when the sex does not enter as a matter of -consideration, the masculine term should be employed, even when the -female is signified. Thus, the Monthly Reviewer, in giving a critique -on the poems of Mrs. Grant, says, in allusion to that lady, “such -is the poet’s request.” This is strictly proper. He considers her -merely as a writer of poetry. But, were we to say, “as a poet she -ought not to choose for her theme the story of Abelard,” we should -be chargeable with error. For this would imply, that the story of -Abelard is not a fit subject for a poem,--a sentiment manifestly -false. There is no incongruity between the subject and poetry, but -between the subject and female delicacy. We ought, therefore, to say, -“as a poetess, she ought not to choose for her theme the story of -Abelard.” - -“It was impossible not to suspect the veracity of this story.” -“Veracity” is applicable to persons only, and properly denotes that -moral quality or property, which consists in speaking truth, being -in its import nearly synonymous with the fashionable, but grossly -perverted term, _honour_: it is, therefore, improperly applied to -things. It should be “_the truth_ of this story.” The former denotes -moral, and the latter physical truth. We therefore say “the truth” -or “verity of the relation or thing told,” and “the veracity of the -relater.” - -Pope has entitled a small dissertation, prefixed to his translation -of the Iliad, “A View of the Epic Poem,” misled, it is probable, by -Bossu’s title of a similar work, “Traité du Poëme Epique.” _Poem_ -denotes the work or thing composed; “the art of making,” which is -here intended, is termed _poesy_. - -An error similar to this occurs in the following passage: “I -apprehend that all the _sophism_ which has been or can be employed, -will not be sufficient to acquit this system at the tribunal of -reason.”--_Bolingbroke._ “Sophism” is properly defined by Johnson, -“a fallacious argument;” sophistry means “fallacious reasoning,” -or “unsound argumentation.” The author should have said “all the -sophistry,” or “all the sophisms.” - -“The Greek is, doubtless, a language much superior in riches, -harmony, and variety to the Latin.”--_Campbell’s Rhet._ As the -properties or qualities of the languages are here particularly -compared, I apprehend, that the abstract “richness” would be a more -apposite term. “Riches” properly denotes “the things possessed,” or -“what constitutes the opulence of the owner;” “richness” denotes the -state, quality, or property of the individual, as possessed of these. -The latter, therefore, appears to me the more appropriate term. - -“He felt himself compelled to acknowledge the justice of my remark.” -The _justness_ would, agreeably to Canon 1st, be the preferable word, -the former term being confined to persons, and the latter to things. - -“The negligence of this leaves us exposed to an uncommon levity in -our usual conversation.”--_Spectator._ It ought to be “the neglect.” -“Negligence” implies a habit; “neglect” expresses an act. - -“For I am of opinion that it is better a language should not be -wholly perfect, than it should be perpetually changing; and we must -give over at one time, or at length infallibly change for the worse; -as the Romans did when they began to quit their simplicity of style -for affected refinements, such as we meet with in Tacitus, and other -authors, which ended, by degrees, in many barbarities.” _Barbarity_, -in this sense, is obsolescent. The univocal term, _barbarism_, is -much preferable. - -Gibbon, speaking of the priest, says, “to obtain the acceptation -of this guide to salvation, you must faithfully pay him tythes.” -_Acceptation_ in this sense is obsolete, or at least nearly out of -use; it should be _favour_ or _acceptance_. - -“She ought to lessen the extravagant power of the duke and -duchess, by taking the disposition of employments into her own -hands.”--_Swift._ _Disposal_, for reasons already assigned[140], is -much better. - -“The conscience of approving one’s self a benefactor to mankind, is -the noblest recompense for being so.” “Conscience” is the faculty -by which we judge our own conduct. It is here improperly used for -“consciousness,” or the perception of what passes within ourselves. - -“If reasons were as plenty as blackberries, I would give no man a -reason on compulsion.”--_Shakspeare._ Here _plenty_, a substantive, -is improperly used for _plentiful_. - -“It had a prodigious _quantity_ of windows.”--_Spence’s Excursions._ -It should be _number_. This error frequently occurs in common -conversation. We hear of “a quantity of people,” of “a quantity of -troops,” “a quantity of boys and girls,” just as if they were to -be measured by the bushel, or weighed in the balance.--“To-morrow -will suit me equally well.” If we enquire here for a nominative to -the verb, we find none, _morrow_ being under the government of the -preposition. This error is so common, that we fear its correction -is hopeless. The translators of the Bible seem carefully to have -avoided this inaccuracy:--“_To_-morrow (_i.e._ ‘on the morrow’) the -Lord shall do this;” “And the Lord did that thing on _the_ morrow.” -Analogy requires, that we should say, “_The_ morrow will suit me -equally well.” - -“I have the Dublin copy of Gibbon’s History.” This is a Scotticism -for _Dublin edition_; and so palpable, that I should not have -mentioned it, were it not found in authors of no contemptible merit. -“I have no right to be forced,” said a citizen to a magistrate, “to -serve as constable.” This perversion of the word _right_, originally, -we believe, a cockneyism, is gradually gaining ground, and is found -in compositions, into which nothing but extreme inattention can -account for its introduction. A _right_ implies a just claim, or -title to some privilege, freedom, property, or distinction, supposed -by the claimant to be conducive to his benefit. We should smile, -if we heard a foreigner, in vindication of his innocence, say, “I -have no right to be imprisoned;” “I have no right to be hanged.” The -perversion here is too palpable to escape our notice. But we hear a -similar, though not so ridiculous, an abuse of the word, in common -conversation without surprise. “I have no right,” says one, “to be -taxed with this indiscretion;” “I have no right,” says another, “to -be subjected to this penalty.” These phraseologies are absurd. They -involve a contradiction; they presume a benefit, while they imply an -injury. The correlative term on one side is _right_, and on the other -_obligation_; a creditor has a right to a just debt, and the debtor -is under an obligation to pay it. Instead of these indefensible -phraseologies we should say, “I am not bound,” or “I am under no -obligation to submit to this penalty;” “I ought not to be taxed with -this indiscretion,” or “you have no right to subject me,” “you have -no right to tax me.” - -Robertson, when speaking of the Mexican form of government (Book -viith), says, “But the description of their policy and laws is so -inaccurate and contradictory, that it is difficult to delineate the -form of their constitution with any precision.” I should here prefer -the appropriate and univocal term _polity_, which denotes merely the -form of government; _policy_ means rather wisdom or prudence, or the -art of governing, which may exist where there is no settled _polity_. - -“A letter relative to certain calumnies and misrepresentations which -have appeared in the Edinburgh Review, with an exposition of the -ignorance of the new critical junto.”--Here, agreeably to Canon I. -(see p. 229), I should prefer _exposure_, as being a word strictly -univocal. It would conduce to perspicuity were we to consider -_exposition_ as the verbal noun of _expound_, and confine it entirely -to _explanation_, and _exposure_ as the verbal noun of _expose_, -signifying the act of setting out, or the state of being set out or -exposed. - - -SECTION II. - -THE ADJECTIVE. - - -BARBARISM. - -“Instead of an able man, you desire to have him an insignificant -wrangler, opiniatre in discourse, and priding himself on -contradicting others.”--_Locke._ _Opiniatre_ is a barbarism; it -should be _opinionative_. - - “And studied lines, and fictious circles draw.”--_Prior._ - -The word _fictious_ is of Prior’s own coining; it is barbarous. - -“The punishment that belongs to that great and criminous guilt is -the forfeiture of his right and claim to all mercies.”--_Hammond._ -_Criminous_ is a barbarism. - -“Which, even in the most overly view, will appear incompatible with -any sort of music.”--_Kames’s Elements._ _Overly_ is a Scotticism; -in England it is now obsolete. The proper term is _cursory_ or -_superficial_. - -“Who should believe, that a man should be a doctor for the cure -of bursten children?”--_Steele._ The participle _bursten_ is now -obsolete. - -“Callisthenes, the philosopher, that followed Alexander’s court, and -hated the king, being asked, how one should become the _famousest_ -man in the world, answered, By taking away him that is.”--_Bacon’s -Apophth._ The superlative is a barbarism; it should be, “most famous.” - - -SOLECISM. - -“I do not like these kind of men.” Here the plural word _these_ is -joined to a noun singular; it should be, “this kind.” “Those sort,” -“these kind of things,” are gross solecisms. - -“Neither do I see it is any crime, farther than ill manners, to -differ in opinion from the majority of either, or both houses; and -that ill manners I have often been guilty of.”--_Swift’s Examiner._ -Here is another egregious solecism. He should have said, “those ill -manners,” or “that species of ill manners.” - -“The landlord was quite unfurnished of every kind of -provision.”--_Sheridan’s Life of Swift._ We say, “to furnish _with_,” -not “to furnish _of_.” _Furnished_ and _unfurnished_ are construed in -the same manner. It should be, “unfurnished _with_.” - -“A child of four years old was thus cruelly deserted by its parents.” -This form of expression frequently occurs, and is an egregious -solecism. It should be, “a child four years old,” or “aged four -years,” not “of four years.” Those who employ this incorrect -phraseology, seem misled by confounding two very different modes -of expression, namely, “a child of four years of age,” or “of the -age of four years,” and “a child four years old.” The preposition -_of_ is requisite in the two first of these forms, but inadmissible -in the third. They would not say, “I am of four years old,” but -“I am four years old;” hence, consistently, they ought to say, “a -child four years old.” “At ten years old, I was put to a grammar -school.”--_Steele._ Grammatically this is, “I old at ten years.” - -“This account is very different _to_ what I told you.” “I found -your affairs had been managed in a different manner _than_ what I -advised.” Both these phraseologies are faulty. It should be in each, -“different _from_.” The verb “to differ” is construed with _from_ -before the second object of disparity; the adjective therefore should -(by Rule xvii.) be construed in the same manner. - -“These words have the same sense of those others.” _Same_ should be -followed with _as_, _with_, or the relatives _who_, _which_, _that_. -It ought, therefore, to be, “as those,” or “with those,” or “have the -sense of those others.” - -“I shall ever depend on your constant friendship, kind memory, and -good offices, though I were never to see or hear the effects of them, -like the trust we have in benevolent spirits, who, though we never -see or hear them, we think are constantly serving and praying for -us.”--_Pope’s Letters to Atterbury._ _Like_ can have no grammatical -reference to any word in the sentence but _I_, and this reference -is absurd. He should have said, “_as_, or _just as_, we trust in -benevolent spirits.” - -“This gentleman rallies the best of any man I know.”--_Addison._ -The superlative must be followed by _of_, the preposition implying -_out of_ a plurality, expressed either by a collective noun, or a -plural number. But here we have a selection denoted by _of_, and -the selection to be made out of one. This is absurd. It should -be, “better than any other”--the best of all men--“I know;” “this -gentleman, of all my acquaintance, rallies the best;” or “of all my -acquaintance, there is no one, who rallies so well as this gentleman.” - -“Besides, those, whose teeth are too rotten to bite, are best, -of all others, qualified to revenge that defect with their -breath.”--_Preface to A Tale of a Tub._ - -“Here,” says Sheridan, “the disjunction of the word _best_ from the -word _qualified_ makes the sentence uncouth, which would run better -thus, ‘are, of all others, best qualified.’” So far Mr. Sheridan -is right; but he has left uncorrected a very common error. The -antecedent subject of comparison is here absurdly referred at once to -the same, and to a different aggregate, the word _of_ referring it to -_others_, to which it is opposed, and to which therefore it cannot, -without a contradiction, be said to belong. The sentence, therefore, -involves an absurdity: either the word _others_ should be expunged, -when the sentence would run thus, “Those, whose teeth are too rotten -to bite, are, of all, best qualified to revenge that defect;” or, -if the word _others_ be retained, the clause should be, “are better -qualified than all others.”[141] - -The phraseology here censured is admissible in those cases only -where a previous comparison has been made. If we say, “To engage a -private tutor for a single pupil is, perhaps, of all others, the -least eligible mode of giving literary instruction,” (_Barrow on -Education_,) without making that previous discrimination, which -the word _others_ implies, we commit an error. But we may say with -propriety, “I prefer the mode of education adopted in our public -schools; and of all _other modes_, to engage a private tutor appears -to me the least eligible.” - - -IMPROPRIETY. - -“They could easier get them by heart, and retain them in -memory.”--_Adams’s History of England._ Here the adjective is -improperly used for the adverb; it ought to be “more easily.” Swift -commits a similar error, when he says, “Ned explained his text so -full and clear,” for “so fully and clearly.” - -“Thus much, I think, is sufficient to serve, by way of address, to -my patrons, the true modern critics, and may very well atone for my -past silence as well as for that, which I am like to observe for the -future.”--_Swift._ _Like_, or _similar_, is here improperly used for -_likely_, a word in signification nearly synonymous with _probable_. -We say, “he is likely to do it,” or “it is probable he will do it.” - -“Charity vaunteth not itself, doth not behave itself unseemly.” Here -the adjective _unseemly_ is improperly used for the adverb, denoting -“in an unseemly manner.” _Unseemlily_ not being in use, the word -_indecently_ should be substituted. - -“The Romans had no other subsistence but the scanty pillage of a -few farms.” _Other_ is redundant; it should be, “no subsistence -but,” or “no other subsistence than.” In the Saxon language, and the -earlier English writers, the word _other_ is not uniformly followed -by _than_, but sometimes with _but_, _before_, _save_, _except_[142], -thus, Mark xii. 32, “thær an God is, and nis other butan him,” thus -rendered in the Bishops’ Translation, “there is one God, and there -is none but he,” and in the common version, “none other but he.” In -the Book of Common Prayer we have, “Thou shalt have no other Gods -but me;” and the same form of expression occurs in Addison, Swift, -and other contemporary writers. Usage, however, seems of late to -have decided almost universally in favour of _than_. This decision -is not only consistent with analogy, if the word _other_ is to be -deemed a comparative, but may also, in some cases, be subservient to -perspicuity. _No other but_, _no other beside_, _no other except_, -are equivalent expressions, and do not perhaps convey precisely the -same idea with _none but_, _no other than_. Thus, if we take an -example similar to Baker’s, and suppose a person to say “A called -on me this morning,” B asks, “No one else?” “No other,” answers A, -“but my stationer.” Here the expression, as Baker remarks, seems -strictly proper, the words _no other_ having a reference to A. But -if the stationer had been the only visitor, he should say, “none -but,” or “no other _than_ the stationer called on me this morning.” -This is the opinion of Baker. The distinction, which he wishes to -establish, is sufficiently evident; but that it is warranted by -strict analysis, I do not mean to affirm. - -“He has eaten no bread, nor drunk no water, these two days.” _No_ is -here improperly used for _any_, two negatives making an affirmative: -it should be, “nor drunk any water.” - -“The servant must have an undeniable character.” _Undeniable_ is -equivalent to _incontrovertible_, or “not admitting dispute.” -An “undeniable character,” therefore, means, a character which -cannot be denied or disputed, whether good or bad: it should be -“unexceptionable.” - -“But you are too wise to propose to yourselves an object inadequate -to your strength.”--_Watson’s History of Philip III._ _Inadequate_ -means “falling short of due proportion,” and is here improperly used -in a sense nearly the reverse. It should be “to which your strength -is inadequate,” or “superior to your strength.” - -“I received a letter to-day from our mutual friend.” I concur with -Baker in considering this expression to be incorrect. A may be a -friend to B, and also to C, and is therefore a friend common to both; -but not their mutual friend: for this implies reciprocity between -two individuals, or two parties. The individuals may be mutually -friends; but one cannot be the mutual friend of the other. Locke -more properly says, “I esteem the memory of our common friend.” This -is, doubtless, the correct expression; but, as the term _common_ may -denote “ordinary,” or “not uncommon,” the word _mutual_, though not -proper, may, perhaps, as Baker observes, be tolerated. - -The superlatives _lowest_ and _lowermost_, _highest_ and _uppermost_, -appear to me to be frequently confounded. Thus we say, “the lowest -house in the street,” when we mean the lowest in respect to -measurement, from the basement to the top, and also the lowest in -regard to position, the inferiority being occasioned by declivity. -Now it appears to me, that when we refer to dimension, we should say, -_lowest_ or _highest_; and when we refer to site or situation, we -ought to say, _lowermost_ or _uppermost_. - -“It was due, perhaps, more to the ignorance of the scholars, than to -the knowledge of the masters.”--_Swift._ It should be rather, “it -was owing,” or “it is ascribable.” The author had previously been -speaking of the first instructors of mankind, and questioning their -claim to the title of sages. To say, then, that their right to this -title, or that the appellation itself, “was due more to ignorance -than to knowledge,” is manifestly improper. Swift, however, was not -singular in using the adjective in this sense. Steele, and some -other contemporary writers, employed it in the same acceptation. -“The calamities of children are due to the negligence of the -parents.”--_Spectator_, No. 431. It is now seldom or never employed -as equivalent to “owing to,” or “occasioned by.” - -“Risible,” “ludicrous,” and “ridiculous,” are frequently confounded. -_Risible_ denotes merely the capacity of laughing, and is applied -to animals having the faculty of laughter, as, “man is a risible -creature.” _Ludicrous_ is applicable to things exciting laughter -simply; _ridiculous_ to things exciting laughter with contempt. The -tricks of a monkey are _ludicrous_, the whimsies of superstition are -_ridiculous_. “The measure of the mid stream for salmon among our -forefathers is not less risible.”--_Kames’s Sketches._ He should have -said “ridiculous.” - -We have already expressed our doubt of the propriety of using the -numeral adjective _one_, as referring to a plurality of individuals, -denoted by a plural noun. (_See_ p. 48.) There is something which is -not only strange to the ear, but also strikes us as ungrammatical, -in saying[143], “The Greeks and the Trojans continued the contest; -the one were favoured by Juno, the other by Venus.” At the same time, -it must be acknowledged, that there seems to be an inconsistency -in questioning this phraseology, and yet retaining some others, -which appear to be analogous to it, and can plead in their defence -reputable usage. We say, “The Romans and the Carthaginians contended -with each other;” and “The English, the Dutch, and the Spaniards -disputed, one with another, the sovereignty of the sea.” Here _each_ -and _one_ clearly refer to a plurality, expressed by a noun plural. -A similar example occurs in the following sentence: “As the greatest -part of mankind are more affected by things, which strike the senses, -than by excellences, that are discovered by reason and thought, they -form very erroneous judgments, when they compare _one_ with the -other.”--_Guardian._ If we inquire, what one? we find the answer to -be “things.” Here is a manifest incongruity, which might have been -prevented, by saying, “one subject with the other,” or “when they -compare them together.” As this construction of _one_, referring to a -noun plural, seems irreconcilable with the notion of unity, and may -be avoided, it becomes a question, whether this phraseology ought to -be imitated. The subject, as far as I know, has not been considered -by any of our grammarians. - -“That this was the cause of the disaster, was apparent to all.” -_Apparent_ is sometimes used in this sense. The word, however, is -equivocal, as it denotes _seeming_, opposed to _real_; and _obvious_, -opposed to _doubtful_ or _obscure_. “I consider the difference -between him and the two authors above mentioned, as more apparent -than real.”--_Campbell._ Here _apparent_ is opposed to _real_; and -to this sense it would be right to confine it, as thus all ambiguity -would be effectually prevented. “But there soon appeared very -apparent reasons for James’s partiality.”--_Goldsmith._ _Obvious_, or -_evident_, would unquestionably be preferable. - -“How seldom, then, does it happen, that the mind does not find itself -in similar circumstances? Very rare indeed.”--_Trusler’s Preface to -Synon._ The adjective _rare_ is here improperly used for the adverb. -As the question, indeed, is adverbially proposed, it is somewhat -surprising that the author should answer _adjectively_: it ought to -be, “very rarely.” - -“No man had ever _less_ friends, and more enemies.” _Less_ refers to -quantity, _fewer_ to number; it should be, “_fewer_ friends.” - -“The mind may insensibly fall off from this relish of virtuous -actions, and by degrees exchange that pleasure, which it takes in the -performance of its duty, for delights of a much more inferior and -unprofitable nature.”--_Addison._ _Inferior_ implies comparison, but -it is grammatically a positive. When one thing is, in any respect, -lower than another, we say, “it is inferior to it;” and if a third -thing were still lower, we should say, “it is still more inferior.” -But the author is comparing only two subjects; he should therefore -have said, “of a much inferior, and more unprofitable nature.” The -expression “more preferable” is for the same reason faulty, unless -when two degrees of excess are implied. - -The adjectives _agreeable_, _suitable_, _conformable_, _independent_, -_consistent_, _relative_, _previous_, _antecedent_, and many others, -are often used, where their several derivative adverbs would be -more properly employed; as, “he lives _agreeable_ to nature,” “he -wrote to me _previous_ to his coming to town,” “_tolerable_ good,” -“he acted _conformable_ to his promise.” It is worthy of remark, -however, that the idiom of our language is not repugnant to some of -these phraseologies; a circumstance which many of our grammarians -have overlooked, if we may judge from the severity with which they -have condemned them. If I say, “he acted according to nature,” the -expression is deemed unobjectionable: but is not _according_ a -participle, or, perhaps, here more properly a _participial_? “He -acted contrary to nature” is also considered as faultless; but is not -_contrary_ an adjective? Were we to reason on abstract principles, or -to adopt what is deemed the preferable phraseology, we should say, -“contrarily” and “accordingly to nature.” This, however, is not the -case. “Contrary to nature,” “according to nature,” and many similar -phraseologies, are admitted as good: why, then, is “conformable to -nature,” an expression perfectly analogous, so severely condemned? -Johnson has, indeed, uselessly enough, in my opinion, called -_according_ a preposition; fearful, however, of error, he adds, it -is properly a participle, for it is followed by _to_. _According_ -is always a participle, as much as _agreeing_, and can be nothing -else. Because _secundum_ in Latin is termed a preposition, hence some -have referred _according_ to the same species of words. With equal -propriety might _in the power of_ be deemed a preposition, because -_penes_ in Latin is so denominated. Now, if “he acted contrary -to nature” and “according to nature” be deemed unexceptionable -expressions, with many others of the same kind, which might be -adduced, it follows that, “he acted agreeable,” “conformable,” -“suitable to nature,” may plead in their favour these analogous -phraseologies. I offer these observations, in order to show that, -misled by abstract reasonings, or by the servile imitation of another -language, we sometimes hastily condemn, as altogether inadmissible, -modes of expression, which are not repugnant to our vernacular idiom. -I would not, however, be understood to mean, that the adverb is -not, in these cases, much to be preferred, when it can be employed -consistently with good usage. For, if we say, “he acts agreeable -to the laws of reason,” the question is, who or what is agreeable? -the answer, according to the strict construction of the sentence, -is _he_; but it is not _he_, but _his mode of acting_, of which the -accordance is predicated; _agreeably_ is, therefore, the preferable -term. - -I observe also, that, wherever the adjective is employed to -modify the meaning of another adjective, it becomes particularly -exceptionable, and can scarcely, indeed, plead aught in its favour, -as, “indifferent good,” “tolerable strong,” instead of “indifferently -good,” and “tolerably strong.” The following phraseology is -extremely inelegant, and is scarcely admissible on any principle -of analogy: “Immediately consequent to the victory, Drogheda was -invested.”--_Belsham’s History._ What was consequent? Grammatically -“Drogheda.” - -“No other person, besides my brother, visited me to-day.” Here the -speaker means to say that no person, besides his brother, visited him -to-day; but his expression implies two exceptions from _none_, the -terms _other_ and _besides_ each implying one, and can, therefore, be -correct on this supposition only, that some one besides his brother -had visited him. It should be rather, “no person besides.” - -“The old man had, some fifty years ago, been no mean performer -on the vielle.”--_Sterne._ This phraseology appears to me very -objectionable; and can be proper in no case, except when the date of -the period is to be expressed as uncertain. The word _some_ should be -cancelled. We may say, “I was absent some days,” because the period -is indefinite; but to say, “I was absent some five days,” either -involves an incongruity, representing a period as at once definite -and indefinite; or denotes “some five days or other,” a meaning -which the expression is rarely intended to signify. - -“Brutus and Aruns killed one another.” It should be, “each other:” -“one another” is applied to more than two. “The one the other” would -be correct, though inelegant. - -“It argued the most extreme vanity.”--_Hume._ _Extreme_ is derived -from a Latin superlative, and denotes “the farthest,” or “greatest -possible:” it cannot, therefore, be compared. - -“Of all vices pride is the most universal.” _Universal_ is here -improperly used for _general_. The meaning of the latter admits -intension and remission, and may, therefore, be compared. The -former is an adjective, whose signification cannot be heightened or -lessened; it therefore rejects all intensive and diminutive words, -as, _so_, _more_, _less_, _least_, _most_. The expression should be, -“Of all vices pride is the most general.” - - “Tho’ learn’d, well-bred; and tho’ well-bred, sincere: - Modestly bold, and humanly severe.”--_Pope._ - -_Human_ and _humane_, as Dr. Campbell observes, are sometimes -confounded. The former properly means “belonging to man;” the latter, -“kind and compassionate:” _humanly_, therefore, is improperly, in the -couplet now quoted, used for _humanely_. - - -SECTION III. - -THE PRONOUN. - - -BARBARISM. - -Pronouns are so few in number, and so simple, that this species -of error, in respect to them, can scarcely occur. To this class, -however, may perhaps be reduced such as, _his’n_, _her’n_, _our’n_, -_your’n_, _their’n_, for _his own_, _her own_, _our own_, &c., or for -_his one_, _her one_, &c. - - -SOLECISM. - -“Who calls?” “’T is me.” This is a violation of that rule, by which -the verb _to be_ has the same case after it that it has before it. It -should be, “It is I.” - -“You were the quarrel,” says Petulant in “The Way of the World.” -Millamant answers, “Me!” For the reason just given it should be “_I_.” - -“Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults.” As the relative -refers to persons, it should be _who_. - -“Nor is mankind so much to blame, in his choice thus determining -him.”--_Swift._ _Mankind_ is a collective noun, and is uniformly -considered as plural; _his_, therefore, is a gross solecism. - -“By this institution, each legion, to whom a certain portion of -auxiliaries was allotted, contained within itself every species of -lighter troops, and of missile weapons.”--_Gibbon._ It ought to be, -_to which_--the pronoun _itself_, which follows, referring to a noun -of the neuter gender. _To whom_ and _itself_ cannot each agree with -one common antecedent. - -“The seeming importance given to every part of female dress, each of -which is committed to the care of a different sylph.”--_Essay on the -Writings of Pope._ This sentence is ungrammatical. _Each_ implying -“one of two,” or “every one singly of more than two,” requires the -correlative to be considered as plural; yet the antecedent _part_, -to which it refers, is singular. It should be “all parts of female -dress.” - -“To be sold, the stock of Mr. Smith, left off business.” This is an -ungrammatical and very offensive vulgarism. The verb _left off_, as -Baker observes, has no subject, to which it can grammatically belong. -It should be, “who has left off,” or “leaving off business” “A. B. -lieutenant, _vice_ C. D. resigned.” Here is a similar error. Is C. D. -resigned? or is it the office which has been resigned? An excessive -love of brevity gives occasion to such solecisms. - -“He was ignorant, the profane historian, of the testimony which he is -compelled to give.”--_Gibbon’s Decline of the Roman Empire._ - -“The youth and inexperience of the prince, he was only fifteen years -of age, declined a perilous encounter.”--_Ib._ - -In the former sentence _the historian_ appears neither as the -nominative, nor the regimen to any verb. If it be intended to agree -with _he_ by apposition, it should have immediately followed the -pronoun. If it be designed emphatically, and ironically, to mark the -character of the historian, it should have been thrown into the form -of a parenthetic exclamation. In the latter sentence a phraseology -occurs, which, notwithstanding its frequency in Gibbon, is extremely -awkward and inelegant. The fault may be corrected either by throwing -the age of the prince into a parenthesis, or, preferably, by the -substitution of _who_ for _he_. - -“Fare thee well” is a phraseology which, though sanctioned by the -authority of a celebrated poet, and also by other writers, involves -a solecism. The verb is intransitive, and its imperative is _fare -thou_. No one would say, “I fare me well,” “we fare us well.” - -“That faction in England, who most powerfully opposed his arbitrary -pretensions.”--_Mrs. Macaulay._ It ought rather to be, “that faction -in England, _which_.” It is justly observed by Priestley, “that a -term, which only implies the idea of persons, and expresses them by -some circumstance or epithet, will hardly authorize the use of _who_.” - -“He was certainly one of the most acute metaphysicians, one of the -deepest philosophers, and one of the best critics, and most learned -divines, which modern times have produced.”--_Keith on the Life and -Writings of Campbell._ - -“Moses was the mildest of all men, which were then on the face of the -earth.”--_Geddes._ - -“Lord Sidney was one of the wisest and most active governors, whom -Ireland had enjoyed for several years.”--_Hume._ - -In the two first of these passages, _which_ is improperly applied -to persons; in the last, the author has avoided this impropriety, -and used _whom_. The pronoun _that_, however, is much preferable to -_who_, or _which_, after a superlative. - -“Such of the Morescoes might remain, who demeaned themselves -as Christians.”--_Watson’s Life of Philip III._ _Such_ is here -improperly followed by _who_ instead of _as_. The correlative terms -are _those who_, and _such as_. - -“It is hard to be conceived, that a set of men could ever be chosen -by their contemporaries, to have divine honours paid to them, -while numerous persons were alive, who knew their imperfections, -and who themselves, or their immediate ancestors, might have as -fair a pretence, and come in competition with them.”--_Prideaux’s -Connexion._ The identity of subject, in the relative clauses of this -sentence, requires the repetition of the same pronoun. It should be, -“who themselves, or whose immediate ancestors.” - -“If you were here, you would find three or four in the parlour, -after dinner, whom you would say past their afternoons very -agreeably.”--_Swift._ The pronoun _whom_ should not be under the -government of the verb _would say_, having no connection with it; but -should be a nominative to the verb _passed_; thus, “who, you would -say, passed their afternoons.” - -“By these means, that religious princess became acquainted with -Athenias, whom she found was the most accomplished woman of her age.” -_Whom_, for the reason already assigned, should be _who_, being the -nominative to the verb _was_. If it were intended to be a regimen to -the verb _found_, the sentence should proceed thus, “whom she found -to be.” - -“Solomon was the wisest man, him only excepted, who was much greater -and wiser than Solomon.” In English the absolute case is the -nominative; it should, therefore, be, “he only excepted.” - -“Who, instead of being useful members of society, they are pests -to mankind.” Here the verb _are_ has two nominatives, _who_ and -_they_, each representing the same subjects of discourse. One of -them is redundant; and by the use of both, the expression becomes -solecistical, there being no verb to which the relative _who_ can be -a nominative. - - “My banks, they are furnish’d with bees,” - -is faulty for the same reason, though here, perhaps, the poetic -licence may be pleaded in excuse. - -“It is against the laws of the realm, which, as they are preserved -and maintained by your majesty’s authority, so we assure ourselves, -you will not suffer them to be violated.” _Which_ is neither a -regimen nor a nominative to any verb; the sentence, therefore, is -ungrammatical--_Them_ is redundant. - -“Whom do men say that I am?” The relative is here in the objective -case, though there be no word in the sentence by which it can be -governed. In such inverted sentences, it is a good rule for those who -are not well acquainted with the language to arrange the words in the -natural order, beginning with the nominative and the verbs, thus, -“men say, that I am who,” a sentence precisely analogous to “men say, -that I am he,” the verb requiring the same case after it, as before -it. Hence it is obvious, that it should be, “Who do men say that I -am?” - -“Who do you speak to?” It ought to be _whom_, the relative being -under the government of the preposition, thus, “To whom do you speak?” - -“Who she knew to be dead.”--_Henry’s Hist. of Britain._ Here also the -relative should be in the objective case, under the government of the -verb, thus, “whom she knew,” or “she knew whom to be dead.” - - “Than whom, Satan except, none higher sat.”--_Milton._ - - “The king of dykes, than whom no sluice of mud, - With deeper sable blots the silver flood.”--_Pope._ - -This phraseology I have already examined. In answer to Mr. Baker’s -reason for condemning the phrase “than whom,” Story’s observations -betray, as I conceive, extreme ignorance, and require correction. -“The English,” says he, “is strictly good; for the relative _whom_ -is not in the same case with _sluice_, (which is the nominative to -the verb _blots_,) but referring to its antecedent, _the king of -dykes_, is very properly in the objective case, even though the -personal pronoun _he_, if substituted in its place, would be in the -nominative.” - -If Mr. Story conceives that the relative must agree with its -antecedent in case, he labours under an egregious mistake. Every page -of English evinces the contrary. Yet, such must be his opinion, or -his argument means nothing; for the only reason, which he offers for -_whom_, is, that its antecedent is in the objective case. Besides, -if _than whom_ be admissible, nay proper, he will have difficulty in -assigning a good reason, why it should not be also _than him_. But -Mr. Story should have known, that, when two nouns are coupled by a -conjunction, the latter term is not governed by the conjunction, but -is either the nominative to the verb, or is governed by it, or by the -preposition understood. The sentence proceeds thus, “no sluice of -mud blots with deeper sable, than _he_ or _who_ blots.” - -“It is no wonder if such a man did not shine at the court of -Queen Elizabeth, who was but another name for prudence and -economy.”--_Hume._ The word _Elizabeth_, as represented in the -latter clause, is here a mere word, _nuda vox_, and not the sign -of a person; for it is said to be another name for _prudence_ and -_economy_. Not the person, but the word, is said to be significant of -this quality. The pronoun, therefore, should be _which_, not _who_. -The sentence, however, even thus corrected, would be inelegant. -Better thus, “Queen Elizabeth, whose name was but another word for -prudence and economy.” - -“Be not diverted from thy duty by any idle reflections the silly -world may make upon you.” Consistency requires either “_your_ duty,” -or “upon _thee_.” _Thy_ and _your_, a singular and a plural pronoun, -each addressed to the same individual, are incongruous. - -A similar error occurs in the following passage: “I pray _you_, tarry -all night, lodge here, that _thy_ heart may be merry.”--_Bible._ - -“It is more good to fall among crows than flatterers, for these only -devour the dead, those the living.” The pronoun _this_ always refers -to the nearer object, _that_ to the more remote. This distinction is -here reversed. It should be, “those (crows) devour the dead; these -(flatterers) the living.” I observe also, in passing, that those -adjectives, whose mode of comparison is irregular, are not compared -by _more_ and _most_. It ought to be, “it is better.” - -“It is surprising, that this people, so happy in invention, have -never penetrated beyond the elements of geometry.” It should be -_has_, _this people_ being in the singular number. We may say, -“people have,” the noun being collective, but not “this people have.” - -“I and you love reading.” This is a Latinism, and not accordant with -our mode of arrangement. Wolsey was right, when he said, “Ego, et rex -meus;” but in English we reverse the order. It should be, “you and -I.” We say also, “he and I,” “they and I.” _You_ always precedes. - -“Each of the sexes should keep within its proper bounds, and -content themselves with the advantages of their particular -districts.”--_Addison._ Here the pronoun does not agree with the -word to which it refers, the word _each_ being singular; whereas -_themselves_ and _their_ are plural. It should be, _itself_ and _its_. - -A similar error occurs in the following sentence: “Some of -our principal public schools have each a grammar of _their_ -own.”--_Barrow on Education._ It ought to be, “each a grammar of -_its_ own.” The expression is elliptical, for “schools have each -(has) a grammar of its own.” Thus we say, “Simeon and Levi took each -man _his sword_,” not _their swords._--_Gen._ xxxiv. 25. - -“Let each esteem other better than themselves.”--_Bible._ For the -reason just given, it ought to be _himself_. - -“So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if -ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their -trespasses.”--_Bible._ Here is a manifest solecism, the pronoun -_their_ referring to “his brother,” a singular subject. - -“I wonder that such a valiant hero as you should trifle away your -time in making war upon women.”--_Essay on the Writings of Pope._ -Here the pronoun disagrees in person with the noun to which it -refers, _hero_ being of the third person, and _your_ of the second. -The connexion is, “I wonder that such a valiant hero should trifle -away _his_ time.” - -“The venison, which I received yesterday, and was a present from -a friend,” &c. _Which_ is here in the objective case, and cannot -properly be understood as the nominative to the verb _was_: better, -therefore, “and which was a present.” The following sentence is -still more faulty: “It was happy for them, that the storm, in which -they were, and was so very severe, lasted but a short time.” This is -ungrammatical, the verb “was” having no nominative. It should be, -“which was.” - -“There is not a sovereign state in Europe, but keeps a body of -regular troops in their pay.” This expression, to say the least of -it, is inelegant and awkward. Better, “its pay.” “Is any nation -sensible of the lowness of their own manners?”--_Kames. Nation_ is -here improperly construed as both singular and plural. It should be -rather “its own.” - -“The treaty he concluded can only be considered as a temporary -submission, and of which he took no care to secure the continuance -of it.”--_Dryden._ The redundancy of the words _of it_, renders the -sentence somewhat ungrammatical. It should run thus, “The treaty he -concluded can only be considered as a temporary submission, of which -he took no care to secure the continuance.” - -An improper reference occurs in the following sentence: “Unless -one be very cautious, he will be liable to be deceived.” _One_ -here answers to the indefinite word _on_ in French, and cannot be -represented by any pronoun. It must, therefore, be repeated, thus, -“Unless one be very cautious, one will be liable to be deceived.” - - -IMPROPRIETY. - -“Give me them books.” Here the substantive pronoun is used -adjectively, instead of the demonstrative _those_ or _these_. -The substantive pronouns, which are, strictly speaking, the -only pronouns, cannot be construed as adjectives agreeing with -substantives. We cannot say, “it book,” “they books,” “them books:” -but “this” or “that book,” “these” or “those books.” The former -phraseology may be deemed solecistical. - -“Great numbers were killed on either side.”--_Watson’s Philip III._ -“The Nile flows down the country above five hundred miles from the -tropic of Cancer, and marks on either side the extent of fertility by -the measure of its inundation.”--_Gibbon._ - -It has been already observed, that the Saxon word _ægther_ signifies -_each_, as Gen. vii. 2. “Clean animals thou shalt take by sevens -of each kind,” _ægthres gecyndes_. The English word _either_ is -sometimes used in the same sense. But as this is the only word in our -language, by which we can express “one of two,” “which of the two you -please,” and as it is generally employed in that sense, perspicuity -requires that it be strictly confined to this signification. For, -if _either_ be used equivocally, it must, in many cases, be utterly -impossible for human ingenuity to ascertain, whether only “one of -two,” or “both,” be intended. In such expressions, for example, -as “take either side,” “the general ordered his troops to march on -either bank,” how is the reader or hearer to divine, whether _both -sides_, _both banks_, or _only one_, be signified? By employing -_each_ to express “both,” taken individually, and _either_ to denote -“one of the two,” all ambiguity is removed. - -“The Bishop of Clogher intends to call on you this morning, as well -as your humble servant, in my return from Chapel Izzard.”--_Addison -to Swift._ After the writer has spoken of himself in the third -person, there is an impropriety in employing the pronoun of the -first. Much better “in his return.” - -“The ends of a divine and human legislator are vastly -different.”--_Warburton._ From this sentence it would seem, that -there is only one subject of discourse, _the ends_ belonging to one -individual, _a divine and human legislator_. The author intended to -express two different subjects, namely, “the objects of a divine,” -and “the objects of a human legislator.” The demonstrative _those_ is -omitted. It should be, “the ends of a divine, and those of a human -legislator, are vastly different.” This error consists in defect, -or an improper ellipsis of the pronoun: in the following sentence -the error is redundancy. “They both met on a trial of skill.” _Both_ -means “they two,” as _ambo_ in Latin is equivalent to “οἱ δύο” It -should therefore be, “both met on a trial of skill.” - -“These two men (A and B) are both equal in strength.” This, says -Baker, is nonsense; for these words signify only, that A is equal -in strength, and B equal in strength, without implying to whom; so -that the word _equal_ has nothing to which it refers. “A and B,” -says he, “are equal in strength,” is sense; this means, that they -are equal to each other. “A and B are both equal in strength to C,” -is likewise sense. It signifies, that A is equal to C, and that B -likewise is equal to C. Thus Mr. Baker. Now, it appears to me, that, -when he admits the expression, “are both equal,” as significant -of the equality of each, he admits a phraseology which does not -strictly convey that idea. For if we say, “A and B are both equal,” -it seems to me to imply, that the two individuals are possessed of -two attributes or qualities, one of which is here expressed; and in -this sense only, as I conceive, is this phraseology correct. Thus we -may say, with strict propriety, “A and B are both equal in strength, -and superior in judgment to their contemporaries.” Or it may denote, -that “they two together, namely, A and B, are equal to C singly.” -In the former case, _both_ is necessarily followed by _and_, which -is in Latin rendered by _et_. Thus, “A and B are the two things, -(both) _equal in strength_, and (add) _superior in judgment_ to their -contemporaries.” In the latter case, it is equivalent to _ambo_, -expressing two collectively, as, “they two _together_ are equal to C, -but not _separately_.” I am aware, that the word _both_ in English, -like _ambo_ in Latin, is an ambiguous term, denoting either “the two -collectively,” or “the two separately,” and that many examples of -the latter usage may be adduced. But that surely cannot be deemed -a correct or appropriate term, which, in its strict signification, -conveys an idea different from that intended by the speaker; or which -leaves the sentiment in obscurity, and the reader in doubt. The word -_each_, substituted for _both_, renders the expression clear and -precise, thus, “A and B are each equal to C, in strength.”[144] - -An error the reverse of this occurs in the following sentence: -“This proves, that the date of each letter must have been nearly -coincident.” Coincident with what? Not surely with itself; nor can -the date of each letter be coincident with each other. It should be, -“that the dates of both letters must have been nearly coincident with -each other.” - -“It’s great cruelty to torture a poor dumb animal.” Better, _’Tis_, -in order to distinguish the contraction from the genitive singular of -the pronoun _it_. - -“Neither Lady Haversham, nor Miss Mildmay, will ever believe but -what I have been entirely to blame.” The pronoun _what_, equivalent -to _that which_, is here improperly used for _that_. This mode of -expression still obtains among the lower orders of the people, and is -not confined to them in the northern parts of the island. It should -be, “_that_ I have been.” The converse of this error occurs in the -following passages: - -“That all our doings may be ordered by thy governance, to do always -that is righteous in thy sight.”--_Book of Common Prayer._ - -“For, if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted, according to -that a man hath.”--_Bible._ - -The pronouns _it_ and _that_ were formerly used as including the -relative. “This submission is it implieth them all.” “This is it men -mean by distributive justice.”--_Hobbes._ “To consider advisedly of -that is moved.”--_Bacon._ This usage is now obsolete. The clauses -should therefore proceed thus, “to do always what,” or “that, which -is righteous.” “According to what,” or “that, which a man hath.” - - -SECTION IV. - -THE VERB. - - -BARBARISM. - -“Thus did the French ambassadors, with great show of their king’s -affection, and many sugared words, seek to _addulce_ all matters -between the two kings.”--_Bacon._ The verb “to addulce” is obsolete. - - “Do villany, do; since you profess to - Like workmen, I’ll example you with thievery.” - _Shakspeare._ - -The verb “to example,” as equivalent to the phrase “to set an -example,” is obsolete; and when used for “to exemplify,” may be -deemed obsolescent. “The proof whereof,” says Spencer in his _State -of Ireland_, “I saw sufficiently exampled;” better “exemplified.” - -“I called at noon at Mrs. Masham’s, who desired me not to let the -prophecy be published, for fear of angering the queen.”--_Swift._ The -verb “to anger” is almost obsolete. In Scotland, and in the northern -part of England, it is still colloquially used; but in written -language, of respectable authority, it now rarely occurs. I have met -with it once or twice in Swift or Pope; since their time it appears -to have been gradually falling into disuse. - -“Shall we once more go to fight against our brethren, or shall we -surcease?”--_Geddes’s Transl._ The verb to “surcease” is obsolete. - -“And they and he, upon this incorporation and institution, and onyng -of themself into a realme, ordaynyd,” &c.--_Fortescue._ Here we have -the participle of the verb “to one,” now obsolete, for “to unite.” - -“For it is no power to may alien, and put away; but it is a power -to may have, and kepe to himself. So it is no power to may syne, -and to do ill, or to may be syke, or wex old, or that a man may -hurt himself; for all thees powers comyne of impotencye.”--_Ib._ It -has been already observed, that the verb _may_ is derived from the -Saxon mægan, _posse_.--_See_ p. 97. From the passage before us it -appears, that in the time of Fortescue (anno 1440) the infinitive “to -may,” for “to be able,” was in use. It has now been long obsolete. -In the following passage, it forms what is called a compound -tense with the word _shall_, the sign of the infinitive being -suppressed. “Wherthorough the parlements schall may do more good in -a moneth.”--_Ib._ That is, “shall be able to do.” - -“Wherefor al, that he dothe _owith_ to be referryed to his -kingdom.”--_Ib._ The verb to _owe_, as expressive of duty, is now -obsolete. It has been supplanted by _ought_, formerly its preterite -tense, and now used as a present. We should now say, “ought to be -referred.” - -“Both these articles were unquestionably true, and could easily -have been proven.”--_Henry’s History of Britain._ “Admitting the -charges against the delinquents to be fully proven.”--_Belsham’s -History._ _Proven_ is now obsolete, having given place to the regular -participle. It is still, however, used in Scotland, and is therefore -deemed a Scotticism. - -“Methoughts I returned to the great hall, where I had been the -morning before.” _Methoughts_ is barbarous, and also violates -analogy, the third person being _thought_, and not _thoughts_. - - -SOLECISM. - -“You was busy, when I called.” Here a pronoun plural is joined with -a verb in the singular number. It should be, “you were.” - -“The keeping good company, even the best, is but a less shameful -art of losing time. What we here call science and study are little -better.” _What_ is equivalent to _that which_. It should be _is_, and -not _are_; thus, “that, which we call ... is little better.” - -“Three times three _is_ nine,” and “three times three are nine,” are -modes of expression in common use; and it has become a question, -which is the more correct. The Romans admitted both phraseologies. -“Quinquies et vicies duceni quadrageni singuli _fiunt_ sex millia -et viginti quinque.”--_Colum._ Here the distributive numerals -are the nominatives to the verb. “Ubi _est_ septies millies -sestertium.”--_Cic._ Here the adverbial numerals make the nominative, -and the verb is singular. Plurality being evidently implied, the -plural verb seems more consonant with our natural conception of -numbers, as well as with the idiom of our language. - -“This is one of those highwaymen, that was condemned last sessions.” -According to the grammatical construction of this sentence, “one of -those highwaymen” is the predicate; for the syntactical arrangement -is, “This (highwayman), that was condemned last sessions, is one of -those highwaymen.” But this is not the meaning which this sentence -is in general intended to convey: for it is usually employed to -denote, that several highwaymen were condemned, and that this is one -of them. The sentence, therefore, thus understood, is ungrammatical; -for the antecedent is, in this case, not _one_, but _highwaymen_. The -relative, therefore, being plural, should be joined with a plural -verb, thus, “This is one of those highwaymen, that _were_ condemned -last sessions.” - -“I had went to Lisbon, before you knew that I had arrived in -England.” This is an egregious solecism, the auxiliary verb _had_, -which requires the perfect participle, being here joined with the -preterite tense. It should be, “I had gone.” - -“He would not fall the trees this season.” The verb “to fall” is -intransitive, and cannot therefore be followed by an objective case, -denoting a thing acted upon. It should be, “he would not fell.” - -“Let him know, that I shall be over in spring, and that by all means -he sells the horses.”--_Swift._ Here we have in the latter clause a -thing expressed as done or doing, for a thing commanded. It should -be, “that he should sell;” or elliptically, “that he sell.” - -“It is very probable that neither of these are the meaning of the -text.” Neither, means, “not the one, nor the other,” denoting the -exclusion of each of two things. It should, therefore, be, “neither -_is_ the meaning of the text.” - -“He was a man, whose vices were very great, and had the art to -conceal them from the eyes of the public.” According to the -grammatical construction of this sentence, _vices_ understood is the -nominative to the verb _had_; thus, “whose vices were very great, and -whose vices had the art to conceal them.” It should be, “and who had -the art to conceal them.” - -“At the foot of this hill was soon built such a number of houses, -that amounted to a considerable city.” Here the verb _amounted_ has -no nominative. To render the sentence grammatical, it should be, -“that they amounted,” or “as amounted to a considerable city.” - -“It requires more logic than you possess, to make a man to believe -that prodigality is not a vice.” After the verb “to make,” the sign -of the infinitive should be omitted. _See_ Rule xv. note 3. - -“He dare not,” “he need not,” may be justly pronounced solecisms, for -“he dares,” “he needs.” - -“How do your pulse beat?” _Pulse_ is a noun singular, and is here -ungrammatically joined with a verb plural. It should be, “how _does_ -your pulse beat?” - -“The river had overflown its banks.” _Overflown_ is the participle of -the verb _to fly_, compounded with _over_. It should be “overflowed,” -the participle of “overflow.” - -“They that sin rebuke before all.” The pronoun, which should be the -regimen of the verb _rebuke_, is here put in the nominative case. It -should, therefore, be _them_. The natural order is, “rebuke them, -that sin.” - -“There are principles innate in man, which ever have, and ever will -incline him to this offence.” If the ellipsis be supplied, the -sentence will be found to be ungrammatical; thus “which ever have -incline, and ever will incline.” It should be, “which ever have -inclined, and ever will incline.” - -“Nor is it easy to conceive that in substituting the manners of -Persia to those of Rome, he was actuated by vanity.”--_Gibbon._ -“Substitute _to_,” is a Latinism. It should be, “substitute _for_.” - -“I had rather live in forty Irelands, than under the frequent -disquiets of hearing, that you are out of order.”--_Swift’s Letters._ -“You had better return home without delay.” In both these examples -_would_ is far preferable, thus, “I would rather live,” “you would -better return,” or “you would do better to return.” - -“That he had much rather be no king at all, than have heretics for -his subjects.”--_Watson’s Philip III._ Here is involved the same -error. It should be, “he would.” - -“The nobility of England consisted only of one duke, four earls, one -viscount, and twenty-nine barons, all the nobles of the Lancastrian -party having been either killed in battles, or on scaffolds, or -had fled into foreign parts.”--_Henry’s History._ This sentence is -ungrammatical. The word _nobles_ joined to the participle _having_ -must be regarded as put absolutely, and therefore to the verb -_had_ there is strictly no nominative. But, even were a nominative -introduced, the structure of the sentence would be still highly -objectionable, the two last clauses, “having been killed,” and “they -had fled,” being utterly discordant one with the other. The primary -idea to be expressed is the _fewness of the nobility_; this forms -the subject of the principal clause. There are two reasons to be -assigned for this fewness, _their destruction_ and _their flight_; -these form the subjects of the two subordinate clauses. Between these -two, therefore, there should be the strictest congruity; and in this -respect the sentence is faulty. It ought to proceed either thus, -“The nobility of England consisted only of one duke, four earls, -one viscount, and twenty-nine barons; for all the nobles of the -Lancastrian party had either been killed in battles, or on scaffolds, -or had fled into foreign parts;” or thus, “all the nobles having been -killed, or having fled.” The latter is the preferable form. - -“He neglected to profit of this occurrence.” This phraseology occurs -frequently in Hume. “To profit of,” is a Gallicism; it ought to be, -“to profit _by_ this occurrence.” - -“The people of England may congratulate _to_ themselves, that -the nature of our government and the clemency of our king, secure -us.”--_Dryden._ “Congratulate to,” is a Latinism. The person -congratulated should be in the objective case governed by the verb; -the subject is preceded by the preposition _on_, as, “I congratulate -you _on_ your arrival.” - -“You will arrive to London before the coach.” - -“A priest newly arrived to the north-west parts of -Ireland.”--_Swift’s Sacr. Test._ - -In these examples the verb “to arrive,” is followed by _to_, instead -of _at_, an error which should be carefully avoided. Good writers -never construe it with the preposition significant of motion or -progression concluded, but with those prepositions which denote -propinquity or inclusion, namely, _at_ or _in_. Hence also to join -this verb with adverbs, expressive of motion to, or towards a place, -is improper. We should say, “he arrived _here_, _there_, _where_,” -not--“_hither_, _thither_, _whither_.” - -“Elizabeth was not unconcerned; she remonstrated to -James.”--_Andrew’s Continuation of Henry’s History._ This is -incorrect. We remonstrate _with_ and not _to_ a person, and _against_ -a thing. - -“I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the -heavens alone, that spreadeth the earth abroad by myself.” According -to the structure of the second and third clauses of this sentence, -_the Lord_ is the antecedent to _that_, which is, therefore, properly -joined with the third person of the verbs following, “maketh,” -“spreadeth;” but the pronoun of the first person, _myself_, in the -last clause, does not accord with this structure; for as we cannot -say, “he spreadeth the earth by myself,” there being only one agent -implied, and where _he_ and _myself_ are supposed to allude to -one person, so we cannot say, “that (Lord) spreadeth the earth by -myself,” but “by himself,” an identity of person being indispensably -requisite. The sentence, therefore, should conclude thus, “that -spreadeth abroad the earth by himself.” If _myself_ be retained, the -pronoun _I_ must be considered as the antecedent, and the sentence -will then run thus: “I am the Lord, that make all things, that -stretch forth the heavens alone, that spread abroad the earth by -_myself_.” - - “Thou great First Cause, least understood, - Who all my sense confin’d - To know but this, that thou art good, - And that myself am blind.”--_Pope._ - -The antecedent to the pronoun _who_ is the pronoun of the second -person singular. The relative, therefore, being of the same person, -should be joined to the second person singular of the verb, namely, -“confinedst.” - -“The executive directory, to prove that they will not reject any -means of reconciliation, declares,” &c.--_Belsham’s Hist._ The -nominative is here joined to a verb singular, and at the same time -represented by a pronoun plural. The error may be corrected either -by the substitution of _it_ for _they_, or _declare_ instead of -_declares_. - -“These friendly admonitions of Swift, though they might sometimes -produce good effects, in particular cases, when properly timed, yet -could they do but little towards eradicating faults.”--_Sheridan._ -The nominative _admonitions_ is connected with no verb, the pronoun -_they_ being the nominative to the verb _could_. The sentence, -therefore, is ungrammatical; nor can the figure _hyperbaton_ be -here pleaded in excuse, as the simplicity and shortness of the -sentence render it unnecessary. _They_ in the third clause should be -suppressed. - -“This dedication may serve for almost any book, that has, is, or -shall be published.”--_Bolingbroke._ _Has_ being merely a part of -a compound tense, conveys no precise meaning without the rest of -the tense. When joined, then, to the participle, here belonging to -the three auxiliaries, the sentence proceeds thus, “This dedication -may serve for almost any book, that _has_ published.” It ought to -be “has been, is, or shall be published.” The following sentence is -chargeable with an error of the same kind. - -“This part of knowledge has been always growing, and will do so, -till the subject be exhausted.” Do what? The auxiliary cannot refer -to _been_, for the substantive verb, or verb of existence, does not -imply action, nor can we say, “do growing.” It ought to be, “has been -growing, and will still be so.” - -“All that can be now urged, is the reason of the thing, and this I -shall do.”--_Warburton._ Here is a similar incongruity. He should -have said, “and this shall be done.” - -Some of the preceding errors, with those which follow under this -head, may be denominated rather inaccuracies, than solecisms. - -“’T was twenty years and more, that I have known him,” says Pope to -Gay, speaking of Congreve’s death. It ought to be, “It is twenty -years and more,” the period concluding with the present time, or the -time then present. He might have said, “It is now twenty years,” -where the adverb _now_, being obviously admissible, points to present -time, and necessarily excludes the preterite tense. Pope says, “’T -was twenty years.” When? not surely in some part of the past time, -but at the time of writing. - -“It _were_ well for the insurgents, and fortunate for the king, if -the blood, that was now shed, had been thought a sufficient expiation -for the offence.”--_Goldsmith._ “It were,” which is equivalent to “it -would be,” is evidently incongruous with the following tense, “had -been thought.” It ought to be, as he was speaking of past time, “it -would have been,” or, “it had been, well for the insurgents.” - -“Was man like his Creator in wisdom and goodness, I should be for -allowing this great model.”--_Addison._ This form of expression -cannot be pronounced entirely repugnant to analogy, the preterite -of the auxiliary “to have” being used in a similar sense. But -the verb “to be” having a mood appropriate to the expression of -conditionality, the author should have said, “Were man like his -Creator.” - -“If you please to employ your thoughts on that subject, you -would easily conceive the miserable condition many of us are -in.”--_Steele._ Here there is obviously an incongruity of tense. It -should be either, “if you please to employ, you _will_ conceive,” or -“if it pleased you to employ, you _would_ conceive.” - -“James used to compare him to a cat, who always fell upon her -legs.”--_Adam’s Hist. of England._ Here the latter clause, which is -intended to predicate an attribute of the species, expresses simply a -particular fact; in other words, what is intended to be signified as -equally true of all, is here limited to one of the kind. It should -be, “always _falls_ upon her legs.” - -“This is the last time I shall ever go to London.” This mode of -expression, though very common, is certainly improper after the -person is gone, and can be proper only before he sets out. The French -speak correctly when they say, “la dernière fois que je vais,” _i.e._ -the last time of my going. We ought to say, “this is the last time I -shall be in London.” - -“He accordingly draws out his forces, and offers battle to Hiero, -who immediately accepted it.” Consistency requires, that the last -verb be in the same tense with the preceding verbs. The actions are -described as present; the language is graphical, and that which has -been properly enough denominated the “historical tense” should not be -employed. It ought to be, “who immediately accepts it.” - -“I have lost this game, though I thought I should _have won_ it.” It -ought to be, “though I thought I should _win_ it.” This is an error -of the same kind, as, “I expected to have seen you,” “I intended -to have written.” The preterite time is expressed by the tenses -“expected,” “intended;” and, how far back soever that expectation or -intention may be referred, the seeing or writing must be considered -as contemporary, or as soon to follow; but cannot, without absurdity, -be considered as anterior. It should be, “I expected to see,” “I -intended to write.” Priestley, in defending the other phraseology, -appears to me to have greatly erred, the expression implying a -manifest impossibility. The action, represented as the object of -an expectation or intention, and therefore, in respect to these, -necessarily future, cannot surely, without gross absurdity, be -exhibited as past, or antecedent to these. In the following passage -the error seems altogether indefensible. “The most uncultivated -Asiatics discover that sensibility, which, from their situation on -the globe, we should expect them to have felt.”--_Robertson’s History -of America._ The author expresses himself, as if he referred to a -past sensation, while the introductory verb shows that he alludes -to a general fact. The incongruity is obvious. He should have said, -“expect them to feel.” - - “Fierce as he moved, his silver shafts resound.”--_Pope._ - -Much better, “Fierce as he moves.” Congruity of tense is thus -preserved; and there is, besides, a peculiar beauty in employing the -present,--a beauty, of which the preterite is wholly incapable. The -former imparts vivacity to the expression; it presents the action, -with graphical effect, to the mind of the reader; and thus, by -rendering him a spectator of the scene, impresses the imagination, -and rouses the feelings with greater energy. Compared to the latter, -it is like the pencil of the artist to the pen of the historian. - -“Jesus answering said unto him, What wilt thou, that I should do unto -thee?” The blind man said unto him: “Lord, that I might receive my -sight.” It ought to be, “that I may receive my sight,” _I will_ being -understood; thus, “I will, that I may receive my sight,” where the -present wish, and the attainment of it, are properly represented as -contemporary. - -“These things have I spoken unto you, that your joy might be full.” -Better, “that your joy may be full.” - -“If an atheist would peruse the volume of nature, he would confess, -that there was a God.” Universal, or abstract truths, require the -present tense; it should be, “that there _is_ a God.” - -“ ... impresses us with a feeling, as if refinement was nothing, -as if faculties were nothing, as if virtue was nothing, as if all -that was sweetest, and all that was highest in human nature was -an idle show.”--_Godwin’s Life of Chaucer._ This sentence errs -at once against elegance and accuracy. The former offence may be -partly corrected, by substituting the conditional for the indicative -tense, in the hypothetical clauses. But the author’s principal error -consists in converting a general proposition into a particular fact, -by representing that as past which is always present and immutable. -The sentence should proceed thus: “Impresses us with a feeling, as -if refinement _were_ nothing, as if faculties _were_ nothing, as if -virtue _were_ nothing, as if all that _is_ sweetest, and all that -_is_ highest in human nature, _were_ an idle show.” - -A similar error occurs in this passage: “He proceeded to demonstrate, -that death _was_ not an evil;” and also in this, “I have frequently -been assured by great ministers, that politics _were_ nothing, but -common sense.” - -“Tom has wit enough to make him a pleasant companion, _was_ it -polished by good manners.” As the latter clause is intended to be -purely hypothetical, the verb should not be in the indicative mood. -“_Were_ it polished,” is the proper expression. - -“He understood the language of Balnibarbi, although it were different -from that of this island.”--_Swift’s Voyage to Laputa._ From the -phraseology here employed, the reader might naturally infer, that -the language of the island, and that of Balnibarbi, were identical; -for a concessive term, as I have already said, when joined to what -is called the conjunctive form of the verb, implies pure hypothesis, -as contrary to fact; or, in other words, implies a negation of the -attribute expressed. The author’s intention was to signify, that -the languages _were not_ the same. He should, therefore, have said, -“although it _was_ different.” - -“The circumstances were as follows.” Several grammarians and critics -have approved this phraseology; I am inclined, however, to concur -with those, who prefer “as follow.” To justify the former mode of -expression, the verb must be considered as impersonal. This, I own, -appears to me a very questionable solution of the difficulty; for -I am convinced, that we have no impersonal verbs in English, but -such as are uniformly preceded by _it_. We frequently, indeed, meet -with sentences, where verbs occur without a nominative, and in the -singular number. These are, by some, considered as impersonal verbs, -to which the nominative _it_ is understood. I apprehend, however, -that, on strict inquiry, some one or other of the preceding words, -which are now considered as conjunctions, adverbs, or particles, was -originally the nominative; and that it is only since the primitive -and real character of these words has been obliterated and lost, that -we have found it necessary to inquire for another nominative. Thus, -if the word _as_ be equivalent to _it_, _that_, or _which_[145], -then it is obvious, that, when we say, “the circumstances were _as -follows_,” there is no real ellipsis of the nominative involved, nor, -therefore, any ground for asserting the impersonality of the verb, -in order to explain the syntax, or construction of the phrase; for -the word _as_, equivalent to _it_, _that_, or _which_, is the true -nominative. It is evident, then, that this solution of the difficulty -must be rejected as false; and that the argument in favour of “as -follows,” resting on the supposed impersonality of the verb, and the -suppression of the pronoun, is entirely unfounded. - -If _as_ then be the nominative to the verb, and be synonymous with -_it_, _that_, or _which_, it is of importance to determine, whether -_as_ be a singular, or a plural word; or whether it be either the -one, or the other. That it is construed as singular, there can be -no doubt. We say, “his insensibility is such, _as excites_ our -detestation.” That it is also joined to a verb plural is equally -certain, thus, “his manners are such, _as are_ universally pleasing.” -In the former example, _such as_ is equivalent to _that which_, and -in the latter to _those which_. If _as_, then, be either singular -or plural, and synonymous with _it_, _that_, or _which_, I conceive -that, when it refers to a plural antecedent, it must, like _which_, -be considered as plural, and joined to a plural verb. Now, it is -surely more consonant with analogy to say, “the circumstances were, -which follow,” than _it follows_, or _that follows_. Besides, when -the demonstrative _such_ precedes, and is joined to a plural noun, it -is universally admitted, that _as_ must then be followed by a plural -verb. If so, the construction of the word _as_ cannot, I apprehend, -be in the least degree affected by the ellipsis of the correlative -term. Let us now hear those who adopt the contrary opinion. - -Baker prefers the verb singular, and remarks “that there are -instances in our language of verbs in the third person without a -nominative case, as, ‘he censures her, so far as regards.’” In -answer to this it may be observed, that, if the word _as_ is to be -considered in no other light, than as a conjunctive particle, it is -certainly true, that the verb _regards_ has no nominative. But I am -persuaded, no person who has examined the theory of Mr. Tooke can -entertain a doubt respecting the original and real character of this -word. Nay, if we investigate the true and primitive import of the -correspondent Latin terms _ut_ and _uti_, we shall find, that these, -which are termed adverbs, are, in fact, the pronouns ὅτι, ὁτ’, and -that _quod_ (anciently written _quodde_) is nothing else than καὶ -ὅττι, which, like our word _that_, is sometimes called a conjunction, -and sometimes a pronoun. Why the original character and real import -of the word _as_ have been completely merged in the name of adverb, -while the word _that_ has been assigned the double character of -pronoun and conjunction, it would be easy to show, if the discussion -were essential to the question before us. But in answer to Baker’s -remark, it is sufficient to observe, that _as_ means properly _it_, -_that_, or _which_. - -Campbell adopts the opinion of Baker. “When a verb,” says he, “is -used impersonally, it ought undoubtedly to be in the singular -number, whether the neuter pronoun be expressed or understood.” But -a question naturally arises, whence has the author learned that the -verb is impersonal? There appears to me to be no more impersonality -in the verb, when we say, “it is as follows,” than when we say, “it -is such, as follows,” or, “they are such, as follow.” If _as_ be -admitted as the nominative in two of these examples, I can perceive -no reason for rejecting it in the third. But here lies, as will -presently appear, the author’s great error. Unacquainted with the -true meaning of the word _as_, he conceived it as incapable of -becoming a nominative to a verb, as _ut_ or _uti_ is deemed in Latin; -and he therefore immediately recurs to _ellipsis_. - -“For this reason” (that is, because the verb is impersonal), he -proceeds to observe, “analogy as well as usage favour this mode of -expression, _The conditions of the agreement were as follows_, and -not _as follow_.” - -How analogy favours this mode of expression, I am utterly at a loss -to conceive. The general rule surely is, that to every verb there -shall be a nominative, and that this nominative shall be expressed, -unless its presence in some preceding clause shall render the -repetition of it unnecessary. But how is it consonant with analogy, -that no nominative shall appear; or that the supposed nominative -shall not be found in any part of the sentence? This surely is -repugnant to analogy. - -“A few late writers,” he observes, “have inconsiderately adopted -this last form (as follow) through a mistake of the construction.” -But, if the verb be not impersonal, the error is his, not theirs. -I must observe, likewise, that from the manner in which the author -expresses himself, one would naturally infer, that a few writers, -either contemporary, or immediately preceding his own time, had -inconsiderately introduced a solecism into our language. When he -offered this observation, he surely was not aware that Steele -and Addison, nearly seventy years before the publication of “The -Philosophy of Rhetoric,” used the plural form. “The most eminent -of the kennel,” says Steele, “are blood-hounds, which lead the -van, and are _as follow_.”--_Tatler_, No. 62. “The words were _as -follow_.”--_Ibid._ No. 104. “The words are _as follow_.”--_Addison_, -_Spectator_, No. 513. - -“For the same reason,” continues he, still presuming the verb to -be impersonal, “we ought to say, _I shall consider his censures so -far only, as concerns my friend’s conduct_, not _concern_. It is -manifest,” he observes, “that the word _conditions_ in the first -case, and _censures_ in the second, cannot serve as nominatives.” -This observation demonstrates that the author’s argument is founded -in his ignorance of the real character of the word _as_. The most -extraordinary part of his reasoning follows. “But,” says he, “if we -give either sentence another turn, and instead of _as_, say _such -as_, the verb is no longer impersonal. The pronoun _such_ is the -nominative, whose number is determined by its antecedent. Thus we -must say, _they were such as follow_; _such of his censures only as -concern my friend_.” This is truly an extraordinary assertion. The -antecedent correlative term _such_ can have no connexion whatever -with the subsequent verb, but must agree with the principal subject -of discourse. Not only does analogy require this, but the usage of -every language with which I am acquainted. If we say, _Perseverantia -fuit tanta, quantus erat furor._ _Is est, quem dicimus._ _Talis est, -qualem esse creditis._ _Illæ erant conditiones, quæ sequuntur_,--the -antecedent correlative terms _tanta_, _is_, _talis_, _illæ_,--have no -connexion whatever with the verbs in the subsequent clause, _erat_, -_dicimus_, _creditis_, _sequuntur_. The truth of this observation -must be sufficiently obvious to every classical scholar. - -But to illustrate the extreme inaccuracy of the learned author’s -opinion, let us change the correlative terms, and say, “I will -consider those censures only, which concern my friend.” In this -sentence it will not be questioned that _those_ and _censures_ are in -the objective case, under the government of the verb. And can it be -doubted, if we say, “I will consider such censures,” that _censures_ -with its concordant adjective are in the same case? It is impossible, -I conceive, to make this plainer; but we shall suppose, for the sake -of illustration, if this should yet be deemed necessary, the example -in question to be thus rendered in Latin, _eas tantum reprehensiones -perpendam, quæ ad amicum meum attinent_. Now, what should we think -of his classical attainments who should contend that _eas_ or -_reprehensiones_ is the nominative to the verb? If we revert, then, -to the original terms, and say, “I will consider such of his censures -as concern my friend,” by what rule of grammar, by what principle of -analysis, can we suppose _such_ to be the nominative to the verb? For -let me ask, what is he to consider? Is it not _such censures_? And -are we, contrary to every principle of English grammar, to represent -the object or subject after an active verb, as in the nominative -case? The absurdity is too monstrous for a moment’s consideration. -The very argument, therefore, by which the author defends his -doctrine is founded in error, and involves an absurdity. Murray, as -usual, adopts the opinion of Campbell. - -If it should be inquired how _as_, an adverb or a conjunctive -particle, can be the nominative to a verb, it may be answered, that -to whatever order of words we reduce this term, it was evidently at -first what we denominate a pronoun; and that it still so far retains -its primitive character as to supply the place of a nominative. -It is of little moment by what designation it be called, if its -character and real import are well understood, any more than it can -be of consequence whether we call _that_ a conjunction or a pronoun, -provided we know, that it is truly and essentially the same word in -the same meaning wherever it occurs. I would observe, also, though -my limits will not permit me to illustrate the principle, that those, -who disapprove the verb singular in the examples in question, may -notwithstanding admit it in such expressions as _so far as_, _so long -as_, and all similar phraseologies. - -“To illustrate, and often to correct him, I have meditated Tacitus, -examined Suetonius, and consulted the following moderns.”--_Gibbon._ -_To meditate_, when a regimen is assigned to it, as here, means _to -plot_, _to contrive_, as, “he meditated designs against the state.” -When it signifies _to ponder_, or _to reflect seriously_, it should -be followed by the preposition _on_, as, “he meditates _on_ the law -of God day and night.” - - -IMPROPRIETY. - -“They form a procession to proceed the palanquin of the -ambassador.”--_Anderson’s Embassy to China._ Here the verb _to -proceed_, or _go forward_, is improperly used for _to precede_, or -_to go before_. - -“He waved the subject of his greatness.”--_Dryden._ “To wave” is -properly “to move loosely,” and should be distinguished from “to -waive,” _i.e._ “to leave” or “to turn from.”--_See_ _Skinner’s Etym._ - -“It lays on the table; it laid on the table.” This error is very -common, and should be carefully avoided. The verb _to lay_ is an -active verb; _to lie_ is a neuter verb. When the subject of discourse -is active, the former is to be used; when the subject is neither -active nor passive, the latter ought to be employed. Thus, “he -lays down the book,” “he laid down the book,” where the nominative -expresses an agent, or a person acting. “The book lies there,” “the -book lay there,” where the nominative expresses something, neither -active, nor passive. When we hear such expressions as these, “he lays -in bed,” “he laid in bed,” a question naturally occurs, what does -he lay? what did he lay? This question demonstrates the impropriety -of the expressions. The error has originated, partly in an affected -delicacy, rejecting the verb “to lie,” as being synonymous with the -verb “to tell a falsehood wilfully,” and partly from the identity of -the one verb in the present with the other in the preterite sense; -thus, “_lay_,” “laid,” “laid;” “lie,” “_lay_,” “lain.” - -“The child was overlain.” The participle, for the reason now given, -should be _overlaid_. - -“It has been my brother you saw in the theatre, and not my cousin.” -This use of the preterite definite is, I believe, confined to -Scotland, where, in colloquial language, it is very common. The Scots -employ it in those cases, in which an Englishman uses either the -preterite indefinite, or the verb signifying necessity. Thus, in the -preceding instance, an Englishman would say, “it _must have been_ my -brother, you saw in the theatre.” - -“Without having attended to this, we will be at a loss in -understanding several passages in the classics.”--_Blair’s Lectures._ -“In the Latin language, there are no two words we would more readily -take to be synonymous, than _amare_ and _diligere_.”--_Ib._ This -error occurs frequently in Blair. In the former example it should be -_shall_, and in the latter _should_. (See p. 98.) - -An error, the reverse of this, occurs in the following passage. -“There is not a girl in town, but let her have her will, in going -to a mask, and she shall dress like a shepherdess.”--_Spectator_, -No. 9. It should be, _she will_. The author intended to signify mere -futurity; instead of which he has expressed a command. - -“He _rose_ the price of bread last week.” Here _rose_, the preterite -of the neuter verb _to rise_, and, therefore, unsusceptible of a -regimen, is ungrammatically joined with an objective case, instead of -_raised_, the preterite of the active verb _to raise_. This error, -therefore, involves a solecism, as well as an impropriety. - -“Does the price of bread raise this week?” This error is the converse -of the former, the active verb being here used instead of the neuter. -The question, What does it raise? shows the impropriety of the -expression. It ought to be, “Does the price of bread rise this week?” -These verbs, like the verb _to lay_ and _to lie_, are very often -confounded in vulgar use. - -“It would be injurious to the character of Prince Maurice, to -suppose, that he would demean himself so far, as to be concerned in -those anonymous pamphlets.”--_Watson’s Philip III._ Here the verb -_to demean_, which signifies “to behave,” is used as equivalent to -the verb _to debase_, or “to degrade.” This impropriety is now, I -believe, almost entirely confined to Scotland; it has, therefore, -been ranked in the number of Scotticisms. “I demean myself” is -equivalent to “I behave myself;” and in this sense the author last -quoted has, in another passage, very properly used it. “Such of the -Morescoes might remain, who, for any considerable time, demeaned -themselves as Christians.”--_Ibid._ - -“Considerable arrears being now resting to the soldiers.”--_Ibid._ -“Resting,” which is equivalent to “being quiet,” or “remaining,” is, -in the sense in which it is here employed, a rank Scotticism: it -should be, “due,” or “owing.” - -“The reason will be accounted for hereafter.”--_Warburton._ -_Accounted for_ is here improperly used for _assigned_. “To account -for a reason,” is “to account for an account.” - -“But no evidence is admitted in the house of lords, this being a -distinct jurisdiction, which differs it considerably from these -instances.”--_Blackstone._ The verb _to differ_ is a neuter verb, -and cannot admit a regimen. The author has improperly used it in -an active sense, for “to make to differ.” It should be, “by which -it differs,” or “which makes it differ considerably from these -instances.”[146] - -“In order to have this project reduced to practice, there seems to -want nothing more, than to put those in mind,” &c.--_Swift._ Here, -“to want,” that is, “to need,” “to require,” is improperly used -for “to be wanting,” “to be required,” “to be wanted.” It should -be, “there seems to be nothing wanting.” The verb _to want_ was -frequently employed by Pope and Swift in the sense in which we here -find it. Johnson, likewise, in one or two passages, has adopted -the same usage, thus, “there had never wanted writers to talk -occasionally of Arcadia and Strephon.”--_Life of Phillips._ But in -this sense it may now be deemed obsolescent, if not entirely obsolete. - -The reader will here permit me to observe, that there is an idiom -in our language, respecting the use of active for passive verbs, -which seems worthy of attention, and which I do not recollect to -have seen remarked by any of our grammarians. In the languages of -antiquity, the distinction between active and passive was strictly -observed; but in English the active is frequently employed for the -passive voice. Of this remarkable idiom numberless examples might -be produced; but the few following will suffice. Thus we say, “the -sentence _reads_ ill,” “the wine _drinks_ harsh,” “the grass _cuts_ -easily,” “the apples _eat_ hard,” “the drum _beats_ to arms,” “the -metal _works_ well.” In these examples, the subject clearly is -acted upon; the verb, therefore, must be considered as having a -passive signification. It is almost unnecessary to observe, that -this phraseology should be avoided, whenever it is likely to create -ambiguity. - -“Lead me forth in thy truth, and learn me.”--_Book of Common Prayer_, -Psal. xxv. The verb _to learn_ formerly denoted, either “to teach,” -or “to acquire knowledge.” In the former sense it is now obsolete. It -should therefore be, “lead me forth in thy truth, and _teach_ me.” - -“Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings by thy most gracious -favour.”--_Book of Common Prayer._ “He had prevented the hour, -because we might have the whole day before us.”--_Bacon._ The verb -_to prevent_, as signifying “to go before,” or “come before,” is now -obsolete. - -“There was no longer any doubt, that the king was determined to wreck -his resentment on all concerned.”--_Watson’s Philip II._ - -“They not only wrecked their vengeance on the living, but on the -ashes of the dead heretics.”--_Henry’s Britain._ - -Here the verb _to wreck_, or “to destroy, by dashing on rocks,” -is improperly used for “to wreak,” or “to discharge.” In the last -example the adverbs _not only_ are improperly placed. It should be, -“they wreaked their vengeance not only,” &c. - -“We outrun our present income, not doubting to disburse ourselves out -of the profits of some future plan.”--_Addison._ “To disburse,” or -“to expend money,” is here improperly used for “to reimburse,” or “to -repay.” - -“And wrought a great miracle conform to that of the -apostles.”--_Bacon._ - -“The last is the most simple, and the most perfect, as being conform -to the nature of knowledge.”--_Hutton’s Investigation_, vol. i. p. -643. _Conform_, here used for _conformable_, is, in this sense, -deemed a Scotticism. - - -SECTION V. - -THE ADVERB. - - -BARBARISM. - -“Friendship, a rare thing in princes, more rare between princes, -that so holily was observed to the last, of those two excellent -men.”--_Sidney on Government._ _Holily_ is obsolete. - -“Enquire, what be the stones, that do easiliest melt.”--_Bacon._ -The adverb _easily_ is not compared,--see p. 70. _Easiliest_ is, -therefore, a barbarism. - -“Their wonder, that any man so near Jerusalem should be a stranger -to what had passed there, their acknowledgment to one they met -accidently, that they believed in this prophet,” &c.--_Guardian._ -Steele has here used _accidently_, for _accidentally_. The former is -a barbarism, and its derivation is repugnant to analogy. - - “Uneath may she endure the flinty street, - To tread them with her tender feeling feet.”--_Shakspeare._ - -_Uneath_ is now obsolete, and may therefore be deemed a barbarism. - - “In northern clime, a val’rous knight - Did whilom kill his bear in fight, - And wound a fiddler.”--_Hudibras._ - -_Whilom_ is now entirely disused. The adverbs _whilere_, _erst_, and -perhaps also _anon_, may be ranked in the class of barbarisms. - -“And this attention gives ease to the person, because the clothes -appear unstudily graceful.”--_Wollstonecraft’s Original Stories._ The -word _unstudily_ is barbarous, and its mode of derivation contrary to -analogy. - - -SOLECISM. - -“Use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thine often -infirmities.” _Often_, an adverb, is here improperly used as an -adjective, in accordance with the substantive “infirmities.” It ought -to be “thy frequent infirmities.” - -“We may cast in such seeds and principles, as we judge most likely to -take soonest and deepest root.” Here, as in the preceding example, -the adverb “soonest” is used as an adjective; for the connexion is, -“_soonest_ root,” and “_deepest_ root.” Now, we cannot say “soon -root,” the former term being incapable of qualifying the latter; -nor can we, therefore, say, “_soonest_ root.” It ought to be, “the -earliest and the deepest root.” - -“After these wars, of which they hope for a soon and prosperous -issue.” _Soon issue_ is another example of the same error. - -“His lordship inveighed, with severity, against the conduct of the -then ministry.” Here _then_, 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. “The ministry of that time,” would be -correct. - -“He tells them, that the time should come, that the temple should be -graced with the presence of the Messias.” Here _that_ is incorrectly -used for _when_, _i.e._ “at which time the temple should be graced.” - - -IMPROPRIETY. - -“By letters, dated the third of May, we learn that the West India -fleet arrived safely.” Here _safely_ is improperly used for _safe_. -The adverb is equivalent to “in a safe manner;” and when it is said, -“that the fleet arrived _safely_,” it signifies that the manner of -the arrival, rather than the fleet itself, was safe or free from -accident. If I say, “he carried the parcel as safely as possible,” -it implies merely his great attention to the manner of carrying it; -but this does not infallibly exclude accident; for I may add, “but -he unluckily fell,” or, “he was unfortunately thrown down, and the -glass was broken.” But if I say, “he carried it as safe as possible,” -or, “he carried it safe,” it implies that it came safe, or escaped -all accidents. We should, therefore, say “that the West India fleet -arrived safe.” In disapproving the expression, “he arrived _safely_,” -I concur with Baker; but the judicious reader will perceive, that my -reason for reprehending it, does not entirely coincide with his. The -author’s words are these: “If a man says, that he arrived safely, or -in a safe manner, he seems to suppose, that there is danger of some -mischance in arriving. But what danger is there to be apprehended in -the circumstance of arriving? The danger is only during the journey, -or voyage; in the arrival there is none at all. The proper way of -speaking is, therefore, ‘I arrived safe,’ that is, ‘having escaped -all the dangers of the passage.’” - -“The poor woman carried them to the person to whom they were -directed; and when Lady Cathcart recovered her liberty, she received -her diamonds safely.” It should be, “she received her diamonds safe.” - -Errors like the one on which I have now animadverted, frequently -arise from a desire to avoid the opposite mistake; I mean the -improper use of the adjective for the adverb.--_See_ _Syntax, Rule -V. Note_ 16. Hence many, when they employ such phraseologies as I -have here exemplified, conceive that they express themselves with the -strictest accuracy, thus verifying the poet’s observation, - - “In vitium ducit culpæ fuga, si caret arte.” - -In order to avoid this error, it should be remembered, that many -English verbs, while they affirm some action, passion, or state of -the subject, frequently serve as a copula, connecting the subject -with another predicate. This is one of those idioms, in the grammar -of our language, which demand the particular attention of the -classical scholar. For, though an acquaintance with the learned -languages will not seduce him into an improper use of an adjective -for the adverb, it may, as in the example now before us, betray -him into the converse error. And I am inclined to think, that -from a propensity almost irresistible in the classical scholar to -assimilate our language with the Latin tongue, our lexicographers -have designated many of our words as adverbs, which are strictly -adjectives. When it is said, for example, “it goes hard,” Johnson -considers _hard_ as an adverb. Yet when we say, “it goes contrary,” -he considers _contrary_ as an adjective. There appears to me to be -more of caprice than of reason, more of prejudice than of truth, in -this classification. Both words, I am persuaded, belong to one and -the same species. Nay, I might venture to assert, that no person, -who had studied the principles of the English language, and of that -only, would pronounce the one to be an adverb, and the other an -adjective. It is to be observed, likewise, that we have the regular -adverb _hardly_ to express the manner. When we say, “he reasoned -concerning the rule,” “we argued respecting the fact,” “he lives -according to nature,” is there not something extremely arbitrary and -unphilosophical, in calling _concerning_ a preposition, _according_ -a preposition, followed by _to_, but properly a participle, and -_respecting_ a participle? Are not all the three participles? Yet -Johnson has classed them, as I have now mentioned. But the farther -illustration of this subject would lead us into a field much too -large for the limits of the present treatise. We must therefore -revert to our primary observation, in which we cautioned the reader -against the improper use of the adjective for the adverb. It should -be remembered that, when it is intended to predicate something -of the subject, beside the attribute of the verb, the adjective -should be employed; but, when it is intended to express merely some -modification of the attribute of the verb, we should then use the -adverb. The difference may be illustrated by the following examples. -When Gustavus says to his troops, “your limbs tread vigorous and your -breasts beat high,” he predicates with the act of treading their -physical strength; but had he said, “your limbs tread vigorously,” -it would merely modify their treading, and express an act, not a -constitutional habit. The same distinction may be made between saying -with Arnoldus in the same play, “the tear rolls graceful down his -visage,” and “the tear rolls gracefully.” The former predicates grace -of the tear itself, the latter merely of its rolling. When we say, -“he looks sly,” we mean he has the look or the appearance of being -a sly man; when it is said, “he looks slyly,” we signify that he -assumes a sly look. When we say, “it tastes good,” we affirm that -the subject is of a good quality, whether the taste be pleasant or -unpleasant; if we say, “it tastes well,” we affirm the taste of it to -be pleasant. - -“The manner of it is thus.” The adverb _thus_ means “in this manner.” -The expression, therefore, amounts to “the manner of it is in this -manner.” It should be, “the manner of it is this,” or, “this is the -manner of it.” “This much is certain.” Better, “thus much,” or “so -much.” - -“It is a long time since I have been devoted to your interest.” -_Since_ properly means “from the time when,” and not “during which -time.” The expression might be construed into a meaning the reverse -of that which is intended, implying, that the attachment had ceased -for a long time. It should be, “it is a long time since I became -devoted,” or, “it is a long time, that I have been devoted to your -interest.” - -“It is equally the same.” _Equally_ is here redundant; it ought to -be, “it is the same.” - -“Whenever I call on him, he always inquires for you.” _Whenever_ -means “at what time soever,” “always when,” or “as often as;” -_always_, therefore, is redundant. - -“They will not listen to the voice of the charmer, charm he never -so wisely.” _Never_ is here improperly used for _ever_. It ought to -be, “charm he ever so wisely;” that is, “_however wisely_,” or “_how -wisely soever_, he may charm.” - -“And even in those characteristical portraits, on which he has -lavished all the decorations of his style, he is seldom or ever -misled.”--_Stewart’s Life of Robertson._ This error is the converse -of the former. It ought to be, “seldom or never;” that is, “seldom, -or at no time.” “Seldom or ever” is equivalent to “seldom or always,” -or to “seldom or at any time;” expressions evidently improper. - -“Whether thou be my son or not.”--_Bible._ “Whether you will keep -his commandments, or no.” Both these phraseologies are in use; but I -am inclined to agree with those grammarians, who prefer the former, -as more consistent with the ellipsis--“Whether thou be, or be not.” -“Whether you will keep his commandments, or will not keep.” - -“Some years after being released from prison, by reason of his -consummate knowledge of civil law, and military affairs, he was soon -exalted to the supreme power.” The first clause of this sentence is -ambiguous; for the sentence may imply, either that he gained the -supremacy, some years after he was released from prison, that period -being left indeterminate; or that some years after a time previously -mentioned, he was released from prison, and attained the chief -power. The latter being the author’s meaning, it ought to be, “some -years _afterwards_ being released from prison.” Another ambiguity is -here involved by improper arrangement; for, as the sentence stands, -it is somewhat doubtful, whether his consummate knowledge was the -cause of his releasement, or the cause of his elevation. This error, -however, belongs more to the rhetorician, than the grammarian. The -French term this ambiguity, “construction louche,” or a _squinting -construction_. - -The following error consists in wrong collocation: “The Celtiberi in -Spain borrowed that name from the Celtæ and Iberi, from whom they -were jointly descended.” Jointly, with whom? It should be, “from whom -(the Celtæ and Iberi) jointly they were descended.” - -“And the Quakers seem to approach nearly the only regular body of -Deists in the universe, the literati, or the disciples of Confucius -in China.”--_Hume’s Essays._ The adverb _nearly_, which is synonymous -with _almost_, is here improperly used for _near_[147]. It should be, -_approach near_. - -“This is the Leviathan, from whence the terrible wits of our age are -said to borrow their weapons.”--_Swift._ _From_ is here redundant; -_whence_, denoting “from which place.” - -“An ancient author prophecies from hence.”--_Dryden._ Here a similar -impropriety is involved. It should be, _hence_. - - “E’er we can offer our complaints, - Behold him present with his aid.” - -_E’er_, a contraction for _ever_, which is synonymous with _always_, -and also _at any time_, is here improperly used for _ere_ or _before_. - -In the two following passages, there appears to me to be a similar -error: “Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl -be broken.”--_Bible._ “I was set up from everlasting, from the -beginning, or ever the earth was.”--_Ibid._ - -“And, as there is now never a woman in England, I hope, I may talk of -women without offence.”--_Steele._ - -“He spake never a word.”--_Bible._ - -This usage of the word “never,” is now, I believe, entirely confined -to the vulgar. - -“As for conflagrations and great droughts, they do not merely -dispeople and destroy.”--_Bacon._ _Merely_ is here used, as it -is uniformly by Bacon, and very frequently by Shakspeare, for -_entirely_. In this sense, it is obsolete; and it now signifies -_purely_, _simply_, _only_, _nothing more than_. From inattention -to this, the passage, now quoted, has been corrupted in several -editions. They have it, “do not merely dispeople, but destroy,” -conveying a sentiment very different from what the author intended. - - -SECTION VI. - -THE PREPOSITION. - - -SOLECISM. - -“Who do you speak to?” Here the preposition is joined with the -nominative, instead of the objective case. It should be, “whom do you -speak to?” or “to whom do you speak?” _To who_ is a solecism. - -“He talked to you and I, of this matter, some days ago.” It should -be, “to _you_ and _me_;” that is, “to you and to me.” - - “Now Margaret’s curse is fallen upon our heads, - When she exclaim’d on Hastings you and I.” - _Shakspeare._ - -It ought to be, “on Hastings _you_ and _me_,” the pronouns being -under the government of the preposition understood. - -“Neither do I think, that anything could be more entertaining, than -the story of it exactly told, with such observations, and in such a -spirit, style, and manner, as you alone are capable of performing -it.” This sentence is extremely faulty. “To perform a story” is not -English; and the relative clause is ungrammatical, the preposition -being omitted. It should be, “performing it in,” which would be -grammatically correct, but inelegant, as well as improper. It would -be better expressed thus, “in that spirit, style, and manner, in -which you alone are capable of narrating it.” - -“Notwithstanding of the numerous panegyrics on the ancient English -liberty.”--_Hume’s Essays._ The error here in the use of the -preposition after _notwithstanding_, is, I believe, peculiar to -Scotland. _Notwithstanding_ is a compound word of the same import as -_not preventing_. The grammatical construction therefore is, “the -numerous panegyrics notwithstanding,” that is, “not hindering,” the -noun and the participle being in the absolute case. _Of_ renders the -expression solecistical. - - -IMPROPRIETY. - -“If policy can prevail upon force.”--_Addison._ Here _upon_ is -improperly used for _over_. _To prevail on_, is “to persuade;” _to -prevail over_, is “to overcome.” - -“I have set down the names of several gentlemen, who have been robbed -in Dublin streets, for these three years past.”--_Swift._ It should -be, “within these three years past.” Swift’s expression implies, as -Baker observes, that these gentlemen had been robbed during the whole -three years. - -“Ye blind guides, who strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” In this -sentence, the preposition _at_ is very improperly used for _out_. It -should be, “strain out a gnat;” that is, exclude it from the liquor -by straining. - -“Oliver Proudfute, a freeman and burgess, was slain upon the streets -of the city.”--_Scott._ This form of expression is almost universal -in Scotland. An Englishman says, “in the streets.” - -“I have several times inquired of you without any -satisfaction.”--_Pope._ We say, “inquire of,” when we ask a -question; and “inquire for,” or “after,” when we desire to know the -circumstances, in which any object is placed. He should have employed -the latter expression. - -“The greatest masters of critical learning differ among one -another.”--_Spectator._ If the ellipsis be supplied, the sentence -proceeds thus: “The greatest masters of critical learning differ, one -differs among another.” Here the preposition _among_, which implies -a number, or a plurality, is joined to a term significant of unity. -It ought to be, “from one another;” that is “one from another,” or -“differ among themselves.” - -“I intended to wait _of_ you this morning.” The preposition _of_ is -here improperly used for _on_. We say, _to wait on_, not _to wait of_. - -“He knows nothing _on_ it.” This is a vile vulgarism for “he knows -nothing _of_ it.” - -“He is now much altered to the better.” _To_ is here improperly used -instead of _for_. “Altered to the better,” may, I believe, be deemed -a Scotticism. It ought to be, “he is altered for the better.” - -Ambiguity is sometimes produced by putting the preposition in an -improper place. “A clergyman is, by the militia act, exempted from -both serving and contributing.” This, though intended to express a -different meaning, strictly implies, that he is not obliged both to -serve and to contribute, but does not exclude his liability to do the -one, or the other. If we say, “he is exempted both from serving and -contributing,” we express an exemption from both. - -“Such of my readers, as have a taste of fine writing.”--_Addison’s -Spect._ “To have a taste of a thing,” is “to feel how it affects the -sensitive or perceptive faculty;” “to have a taste for a thing,” is -“to relish its agreeable qualities;” “to have a taste in a thing,” -which is the expression used by Addison in the same paper, is “to -have a discriminative judgment in examining the object.” The first -expression is incorrect, as not conveying his meaning. - -Swift, speaking of Marlborough’s dismission from the queen’s -ministry, as a bad requital of his public services, says, “If a -stranger should hear these furious outcries of ingratitude against -our general, he would be apt to inquire,” &c. One would naturally -conclude from the author’s expression, that Marlborough, and not -the nation, was charged with ingratitude. He should have said, -“ingratitude towards our general.” - -“I received the sword in a present from my brother.” This is a very -common colloquial Scotticism, and occurs occasionally in written -language. The sword was not received _in_, but _as_ a present. - -In the use of prepositions, a distinction is properly made between -their literal and figurative meaning. “Wit,” says Shakspeare, -“depends _on_ dilatory time.” Here the verb is employed -figuratively, and the idea involved in the primitive meaning is -dismissed. - - “From gilded roofs depending lamps display.”--_Dryden._ - -Here the verb is used in its literal acceptation, denoting “to hang,” -and is followed, therefore, by _from_. - -To the same purpose it has been remarked by Campbell, that the -verb “to found,” used literally, is followed by _on_ preferably to -_in_, as, “the house was founded _on_ a rock;” but, when employed -metaphorically, is better followed by _in_, as, “dominion is founded -in grace.” - -“There is no need _for_ your assistance.” It should be, “_of_ your -assistance.” We say, “occasion _for_,” and “need _of_.” _Need -for_ may likewise be pronounced a Scotticism, as, I believe, this -phraseology is seldom or never used by English writers. - -“For, what chiefly deters the sons of science and philosophy -from reading the Bible, and profiting of that lecture, but the -stumbling-block of absolute inspiration?”--_Geddes._ “To profit of” -is a Gallicism; it should be, “profiting by.” - - -SECTION VII. - -THE CONJUNCTION. - - -SOLECISM. - -“A system of theology, involving such absurdities, can be maintained, -I think, by no rational man, much less by so learned a man as him.” -Conjunctions having no government, the word _as_ ought not to be -joined with an objective case. It should be, “so learned a man as -_he_,” the verb _is_ being understood. - -“Tell the cardinal, that I understand poetry better than -him.”--_Smollett._ According to the grammatical construction of -the latter clause, it means, “I understand poetry better than I -understand him.” This, however, is not the sentiment which the writer -intended to convey. The clause should proceed thus, “I understand -poetry better than _he_;” that is, “than _he_ understands it.” Those -who contend for the use of _than_ as a preposition, and justify the -phraseology which is here censured, must at least admit, that to -construe _than_ as a preposition, creates ambiguity. Thus, when it -is said, “you think him handsomer than _me_,” it would be impossible -to determine whether the meaning is, “you think him handsomer than I -think him,” or “you think him handsomer than you think me.” - -“There is nothing more pleases mankind, as to have others to admire -and praise their performances, though they are never so trivial.” -Here there are two errors. The comparative _more_ is followed by -_as_, instead of _than_; and the adverb _never_ is improperly used -for _ever_. “How trivial so ever.” It should be, “There is nothing -that pleases mankind more, than,” &c. - -Conjunctions having no government, the scholar, desirous to avoid -error, should carefully observe, whether the predicate be applicable -to the two subjects, connected by the conjunction, or, to speak -more generally, whether the two nouns be dependent on the same verb -or preposition, expressed or understood. “The lover got a woman of -greater fortune than her he had missed.”--_Addison_, _Guardian_. -This sentence, if not acknowledged to be ungrammatical, is at least -inelegant. The pronoun should have been introduced. If _than_ be -considered as having the power of a preposition, the charge of -solecism is precluded; but if _than_ be a conjunction, he should have -said, “than she, whom he had missed.” For, as Lowth observes, there -is no ellipsis of the verb _got_, so that the pronoun _her_ cannot -be under its government. The meaning is not, “The lover got a woman -of greater fortune, than he got her, whom he missed,” for this would -be a contradiction, but, “of greater fortune, than she was.” In like -manner, in the following passage: - - “Nor hope to be myself less miserable, - By what I seek, but _others_ to make - Such _as I_.”--_Milton._ - -Bentley says, that it should be _me_. We concur with Dr. Lowth in -rejecting this correction, and approving the expression of Milton. -There is no ellipsis of the verb _make_; _others_ and _I_ are not -under the government of the same word. The meaning is not, “to make -others such, as to make me,” but, “such as I _am_” the substantive -verb being understood. - -In the following passage, on the contrary, the ellipsis seems -evident: “I found none so fit as _him_ to be set in opposition to the -father of the renowned city of Rome.” It has been contended, that the -author should have said, “as he,” and not “as him:” but it appears -to me, that the verb _found_ is understood in the secondary clause, -and that the expression is correct, the sense being, “I found none so -fit, as I found him.” - -In the following passage the two subjects belong to the same verb: - - “The sun, upon the calmest sea, - Appears not half so bright as thee.”--_Prior._ - -It ought to be, “as thou;” that is, “as thou appearest.” - -“So as,” and “as, as,” though frequently, have not always the same -import. “These things,” said Thales to Solon, who was lamenting -the supposed death of his son, “which strike down _so firm a man -as you_, have deterred me from marriage.” The expression clearly -refers to Solon; but, if he had said “as firm a man as you,” it might -have referred to a different person from Solon, but a man of equal -fortitude. - - “For ever in this humble cell, - Let thee and I, my fair one, dwell.” - -The second line of the couplet is ungrammatical, the conjunction -connecting an objective with a nominative case, or, to speak more -correctly, the pronoun of the first person, which should be a regimen -to the verb understood, being here in the nominative case. Thus, “let -thee,” and, “let I, my fair one, dwell,” instead of “let _thee_, and -let _me_.” - -“Let us make a covenant, I and thou.”--_Bible._ The error here, -though similar, does not come under precisely the same predicament -with the former. The pronoun _us_ is very properly in the objective -case, after the verb _let_; _I_ and _thou_ should therefore be in -the same case, according to Rule vii. of Syntax. The expression is -in fact elliptical, and when completed proceeds thus, “Let us make -a covenant: let me and thee make.” - -“Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which -he suffered.” The first clause is intended to express a fact, not a -hypothesis; the verb, therefore, should be in the indicative mood. -Conjunctions have no government, either of cases or moods. - - -IMPROPRIETY. - -“If in case he come, all will be well.” _If_ and _in case_ are -synonymous, the one meaning “suppose,” and the other, “on the -supposition.” One of them, therefore, is redundant. - -“The reason of my desiring to see you was, because I wanted to talk -with you.” _Because_ means “by reason;” the expression, therefore, is -chargeable with redundancy. It should be, “that I wanted to talk with -you.” - -“No sooner was the cry of the infant heard, but the old gentleman -rushed into the room.”--_Martinus Scrib._ The comparative is here -improperly followed by _but_, instead of _than_. - -“Scarce had the Spirit of Laws made its appearance, than it was -attacked.” _Than_ is employed after comparatives only, and the word -_other_. It ought to be “scarce,” or, for reasons formerly given, -“scarcely had the Spirit of Laws made its appearance, _when_ it was -attacked,” or “no sooner--than.” - -“The resolution was not the less fixed, that the secret was as yet -communicated to very few, either in the French or English court.” -This passage from Hume I have not been able to find. Priestley -observes, that it involves a Gallicism, the word _that_ being used -instead of _as_. If the meaning intended be, that some circumstances, -previously mentioned, had not shaken the resolution, because the -secret was as yet known to few, then Priestley’s observation was -correct, and the word _as_ should be substituted for _that_, to -express the cause of the firmness. But, if the author intended to -say, that the very partial discovery of the secret had not shaken -the resolution, the clause is then perfectly correct. According -to the former phraseology, the circumstance subjoined operated as -a cause, preventing the resolution from being shaken: according -to the latter, it had no effect, or produced no change of the -previous determination. In other words, “the less fixed that,” -implies that the subject of the following clause did not affect that -of the preceding; “the less fixed _as_” denotes, that the latter -circumstance contributed to the production of the former. As it is -obvious, that, in such examples, the definite article may refer -either to the antecedent or the subsequent clause, the distinction, -here specified, should, for the sake of perspicuity, be carefully -observed[148]. - -“His donation was the more acceptable, that it was given without -solicitation.” That the word _that_ is frequently used for _because_ -cannot be questioned; thus, “I am glad _that_ you have returned -safe,” that is, “_because_ you have returned safe.” - - “’T is not _that_ I love you less - Than when before your feet I lay.”--_Waller._ - -Here _that_ is equivalent to _because_. English writers, however, -after a comparative, employ _as_ or _because_, to denote that the -circumstance subjoined was the cause of the preceding one. The use -of _that_ in such examples is accounted a Scotticism; it should, -therefore, be, “his donation was the more acceptable, _as_” or -“_because_ it was given without solicitation.” - -“His arguments on this occasion had, it may be presumed, the greater -weight, that he had never himself entered within the walls of a -playhouse.”--_Stewart’s Life of Robertson._ - -“A mortification, the more severe, that the joint authority -of the archduke and the infanta governed the Austrian -Netherlands.”--_Thomson’s Continuation of Watson’s History._ - -These sentences are chargeable with the same error; and, it is not a -little remarkable, though the impropriety has been pointed out again -and again, that there is scarcely a Scotch writer, not even among -those of the highest name, who is not chargeable with the frequent -commission of this error. - -“On the east and west sides, it (America) is washed by the Atlantic -and Pacific oceans.”--_Robertson._ This mode of expression is -incorrect; and, though to the geographer intelligible, it strictly -conveys a conception not intended by the author. The copulative joins -the two sides, which ought to be separated; and combines the two -seas, instead of the two facts, implying, that both sides are washed -by the same two oceans. It should be rather, “On the east side it is -washed by the Atlantic, and on the west (is washed) by the Pacific -ocean.” - -“Will it be believed, that the four Gospels are as old, or even older -than tradition?”--_Bolingbroke._ Here there is a faulty omission of -the particle corresponding to _as_; for the positive and comparative -cannot be followed by the same conjunction. It ought to be, “as old -_as_, or even older _than_ tradition;” or, perhaps, better, “as old -as tradition, or even older.” - -“The books were to have been sold as this day.” This is a most -offensive vulgarism. The conjunction _as_ can have no regimen; nor -can it be properly used as equivalent to _on_. It ought to be, “sold -this day,” or “on this day.” - -“It is supposed, that he must have arrived at Paris as yesterday.” -This sentence is chargeable with the same error. Construed strictly, -it is, “he must have arrived at Paris _as_, or _in like manner as_, -he arrived yesterday.” - -“The duke had not behaved with that loyalty, as he ought to have -done.” Propriety of correspondence here requires _with that_ to be -followed by _with which_, instead of _as_. The sentence, even thus -corrected, would be still inelegant and clumsy. “The duke had not -behaved with becoming loyalty,” would be much better. - -“In _the_ order _as_ they lie in his preface.” This involves a -similar impropriety. It should be, “in order as,” or “in the order, -in which they lie in his preface.” - -“No; this is not always the case neither.”--_Beattie._ - -“Men come not to the knowledge of ideas which are thought innate, -till they come to the use of reason; nor then neither.”--_Locke._ - -In old English two negatives denied; hence, perhaps, this phraseology -originated. Johnson remarks, that the use of _neither_, after a -negative, and at the end of a sentence, though not grammatical, -renders the expression more emphatic. Analogy, however, is decidedly -in favour of the affirmative term; I, therefore, prefer the word -“either.” Were Johnson’s argument admitted, such expressions as -these, “I forbade you _not_ to go;” “I won’t suffer no such thing;” -“He would not have none of my assistance,” might, I apprehend, be -justified on the same principle. Those who employ them, doubtless, -believe them to be more emphatic, than if they included a single -negative. - -“This I am the rather disposed to do, that it will serve to -illustrate the principles above laid down.”--_Campbell on -Rhetoric._ This sentence involves an error, on which I have already -animadverted. “_The rather_” should be followed by _as_, not _that_. - -“This is another use, that in my opinion contributes rather to make -a man learned than wise: and is neither capable of pleasing the -understanding, or imagination.” Lowth justly observes, that _or_ -is here improperly used for _nor_, the correlative words being -_neither_, _nor_. In addition to this observation, I remark, that -the word _neither_ is erroneously placed. To render this collocation -of the conjunction correct, there should be another attributive -opposed to the word “capable,” as, “neither capable of pleasing the -understanding, nor calculated to gratify the imagination.” But, -as the author intended to exclude two subjects, these should have -been contrasted by the exclusive conjunctions, thus, “is capable of -pleasing neither the understanding, nor the imagination.” - -A similar error occurs in the following sentence: “Adversity both -taught you to think and reason.”--_Steele._ The conjunction, which -is, in truth, the adjective _both_, is improperly placed. It should -be, “taught you both,” _i.e._ the two things, “to think and reason.” - -It has been already observed, that the conjunction _or_ is used -disjunctively, and subdisjunctively, sometimes denoting a diversity -of things, and sometimes merely a difference of names. Hence often -arises ambiguity, where the utmost precision of expression is -necessary[149]. When Ruddiman delivers it as a rule, that “verbal -adjectives, _or_ such as signify an affection of the mind, require -the genitive,” I have known the scholar at a loss to understand, -whether there be two distinct classes of adjectives, here intended, -or one class under two designations. The ambiguity might here be -avoided, by using _and_ or _with_ instead of _or_. It may also be -prevented in many cases, by more forcibly marking the distinction -by the use of _either_. Thus, if we say, “whosoever shall cause, or -occasion a disturbance,” it may be doubtful, whether the latter of -the two verbs be not designed as explanatory of the former, they, -though their meanings be distinct, being often used as synonymous -terms. If we say, “shall either cause or occasion,” all doubt -is removed. Sometimes ambiguity may be precluded either by the -insertion, or the omission, of the article. Thus, if we say, “a -peer, or lord of parliament,”[150] meaning to designate only one -individual, or one order, the expression is correct. But if it be -intended to signify two individuals, every peer not being a lord of -parliament, and every lord of parliament not being a peer, we should -say, “a peer, or a lord of parliament,” or “either a peer, or lord of -parliament.” - -Having now endeavoured to explain and illustrate the etymology and -syntax of the English language, I cannot dismiss the subject without -earnestly recommending to the classical student to cultivate a -critical acquaintance with his native tongue. It is an egregious, -but common error, to imagine, that a perfect knowledge of Greek and -Latin precludes the necessity of studying the principles of English -grammar. The structure of the ancient, and that of modern languages, -are very dissimilar. Nay, the peculiar idioms of any language, -how like soever in its general principles to any other, must be -learned by study, and an attentive perusal of the best writers in -that language. Nor can any imputation be more reproachful to the -proficient in classical literature, than, with a critical knowledge -of Greek and Latin, which are now dead languages, to be superficially -acquainted with his native tongue, in which he must think, and speak, -and write. - -The superiority of Greek and Latin over the English language in -respect of harmony, graceful dignity, conciseness, and fluency, -will be readily admitted. Our language is, comparatively, harsh -and abrupt. It possesses strength, indeed; but unaccompanied with -softness, with elegance, or with majesty. It must be granted also, -that the Greek is, perhaps, a more copious, and is certainly a more -ductile[151] and tractable language. But though, in these respects, -the English be inferior to the languages of Greece and Rome, yet -in preciseness of expression, diversity of sound, facility of -communication, and variety of phrase, it may claim the pre-eminence. -It would be easy to evince the truth of this assertion, did the -limits, which I have prescribed to myself permit. The fact is, that -analogous languages almost necessarily possess a superiority in these -respects over those, which are transpositive. - -It is to be remembered, also, that our language is susceptible of -high improvement; and though its abrupt and rugged nature cannot -be entirely changed, much may be done to smooth its asperities and -soften its harshness. - -As a further inducement to the study of the English language, I -would assure the young reader, that a due attention to accuracy of -diction is highly conducive to correctness of thought. For, as it -is generally true, that he, whose conceptions are clear, and who -is master of his subject, delivers his sentiments with ease and -perspicuity[152]; so it is equally certain, that, as language is not -only the vehicle of thought, but also an instrument of invention, -if we desire to attain a habit of conceiving clearly and thinking -correctly, we must learn to speak and write with accuracy and -precision. - -It must, at the same time, be remembered, that to give our chief -attention to mere phraseology, or to be more solicitous about the -accuracy of the diction than the value of the sentiment, is a sure -indication of a nerveless and vacant mind. As we estimate a man, -not by his garb, but by his intellectual and moral worth, so it is -the sentiment itself, not the dress in which it is exhibited, that -determines its character, and our opinion of its author. - - “True expression, like th’ unchanging sun, - Clears and improves whate’er it shines upon; - It gilds all objects, _but it alters none_.”--_Pope._ - -In short, the precept of Quintilian should be studiously observed: -“curam ergo verborum, rerum volo esse solicitudinem.”--_Inst. Orat._ -lib. viii. - - -THE END. - - - G. Woodfall and Son, Printers, Angel Court, Skinner Street, London. - - - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] Beattie seems to think that the antediluvians had an alphabet, -and that hieroglyphical was posterior to alphabetical writing. “The -wisdom and simple manners of the first men,” says he, “would incline -me to think, that they must have had an alphabet; for hieroglyphic -characters imply quaintness and witticism.” In this reasoning I -cannot concur. Alphabetic writing is indeed simple, when known; so -also are most inventions. But, simple and easy as it appears to us, -we have only to examine the art itself, to be fully convinced, that -science, genius, and industry, must have been combined in inventing -it. Nay, the learned author himself acknowledges, “that though of -easy acquisition to us, it is in itself neither easy nor obvious.” He -even admits, “that alphabetical writing must be so remote from the -conceptions of those who never heard of it, that without divine aid -it would seem to be unsearchable and impossible.” I observe also that -in passing from picture-writing to hieroglyphical expression, and -in transferring the signs of physical to intellectual and invisible -objects, fanciful conceits would naturally take place. It is true -also that the manners of the antediluvians were simple; but it is -not from prudence nor simplicity of manners, but from human genius, -gradually improved, that we are to expect inventions, which require -the greatest efforts of the human mind. - -[2] Cicero regards the invention of alphabetic writing as an evidence -of the celestial character of the soul; and many have ascribed its -origin to the inspiration of the Deity. To resort to supernatural -causes, to account for the production of any rare or striking event, -is repugnant to the principles of true philosophy. And how wonderful -soever the art of alphabetical writing may appear, there can be no -necessity for referring its introduction to divine inspiration, if -the inventive powers of man be not demonstrably unequal to the task. -Picture-writing is generally believed to have been the earliest -mode of recording events, or communicating information by permanent -signs. This was probably succeeded by hieroglyphical characters. -How these pictures and hieroglyphical devices would, either through -negligence or a desire to abbreviate, gradually vary their form, and -lose their resemblance to the objects which they represented, may -be easily conceived. Hence that association, which existed between -the sign and the thing signified, being founded in resemblance, -would in process of time be entirely dissolved. This having taken -place, hieroglyphical characters would naturally be converted -into a mere verbal denotation, representative of words and not of -things. Hence, as Goguet, in his work, “De l’Origine des Loix,” &c., -reasonably conjectures, would arise by a partial and easy analysis, -a syllabic mode of denotation, which would naturally introduce a -literal alphabet. This conjecture must seem highly probable, when it -is considered, that both a verbal and syllabic mode of notation are -still practised by some Eastern nations. - -[3] I am aware, that in considering the letters _y_ and _w_ to be -the same with _i_ and _u_ (_oo_), I maintain an opinion, the truth -of which has been disputed. The reasons, however, which have been -assigned for rejecting it do not appear to me satisfactory. - -[4] The mouth is not the proper organ for producing sound; but merely -the organ for modulating and articulating the specific sounds. - -[5] The sound of _th_ in _thin_, is usually marked with a stroke -through the _h_, to distinguish it from its other sound; thus, -_tħick_. This distinction is by some writers reversed. - -[6] Hutton’s Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge, vol. ii. -p. 688. - -[7] Plato and Aristotle, when they treat of prepositions, considered -the noun and the verb as the only essential parts of speech; these, -without the aid of any other word, being capable of forming a -sentence. Hence they were called τὰ ἐμψυχότατα μέρη τοῦ λόγου, “the -most animated parts of speech.” The latter of these philosophers, in -his Poetics, admits four, adding to the noun and the verb the article -and the conjunction. The elder Stoics made five, dividing the noun -into proper and appellative. - -[8] - - Noun, Nomen de quo loquimur. - - Verb, Verbum seu quod loquimur.--_Quint._ _lib._ i. 4. - -Horace has been thought by some to countenance this doctrine when he -says, - - “Donec verba, quibus voces sensusque notarent, - Nominaque invenere.”--_Lib._ i. _Sat._ 3. - -[9] The plural number, and the genitive singular, seem to have been -originally formed by adding _er_ to the nominative singular, as -_you, you-er, your_; _they, they-er, their_; _we, we-er, our_. This -termination was afterwards changed into _en_, and then into _es_ -or _s_. Thus we have still in provincial usage, though now almost -entirely obsolete, _childer_ for the plural of _child_, and the -double plural in _child-er-en, children_, with the double genitive in -_west-er-en, western_. - -[10] _Brethren_, in Scripture, is used for _brothers_. - -[11] The obsolete plural occurs in the Bible. “These men were bound -in their hosen and hats.”--_Dan._ iii. 21. - -[12] Baker inclines also to this usage in preference to the other; -but does not affirm it to be a plural noun. - -[13] _Much_ is sometimes joined with collective nouns; but these -denote number in the aggregate; thus, _much company_. - -[14] The gender of _mors_, _virtus_, _sol_, θάνατος, ἀρετή, ἥλιος, -was unalterably fixed. - -[15] It seems, however, to be more applicable to the English language -than to any other with which I am acquainted. - -[16] These observations will sufficiently explain the reason why -we cannot concur with Dr. Johnson in thinking that there is “an -impropriety in the termination,” when we say of a woman, “She is -a philosoph_er_.” The female termination in such examples is not -wanted; it would be pleonastic and improper. The meaning is, “She is -a person given to the study of nature.” If we had been speaking of a -lady devoted to philosophy, and had occasion afterwards to mention -her by an appellative, we should feel the want of the appropriate -termination; and instead of saying “the philosopher,” we should -wish, for the sake of discrimination, to be able to say, “the -philosophress,” or to employ some equally distinctive term. In the -example adduced by the learned lexicographer, the female termination -is superfluous; and would intimate a distinction of philosophic -character, instead of a distinction of sex, the latter being denoted -by the female pronoun. - -[17] We remark, in some instances, a similar phraseology in Greek -and Latin. Θεὸς and θεὰ, _deus_ and _dea_, are contradistinguished -as in English, _god_ and _goddess_; the former of each pair strictly -denoting the male, and the latter the female. But the former, we -find, has a generical meaning, expressing “a deity,” whether male -or female; and is frequently used when the female is designed, if -divinity in the abstract be the primary idea without regard to the -sex, thus, - - ... “τὸν δ’ ἐξήρπαξ’ Ἀφροδίτη, - Ῥεῖα μάλ’ ὥστε θεός.”--_Hom. Il._ iii. 380. - -Here the term θεός is applied to Venus, the character of divinity, -and not the distinction of sex, being the chief object of the poet’s -attention. Θεός is, therefore, to be considered as either masculine -or feminine. - - “Ἀλλά μ’ ἁ Διός γ’ ἀλκίμα θεός.”--_Soph. Aj._ 401. - - “Μήτε τις οὖν θήλεια θεός.”--_Hom. Il._ Θ. 7. - - “Descendo, ac ducente deo, flammam inter et hostes - Expedior.”--_Virg. Æn._ ii. 632. - -Here, also, _deo_ is applied to Venus, as likewise in the following -passage, “_deum_ esse indignam credidi.”--_Plaut. Pœn._ 2, l. 10. - -[18] Πτῶσις γενική: general case. It has been supposed by some that -the Latins, mistaking the import of the Greek term, called this the -genitive case. See _Ency. Brit., Art. Grammar_. - -[19] _Amor Dei_ denotes either _amor quo Deus amat_, or _quo Deus -amatur_. _Reformatio Lutheri_, either _qua reformavit_, or _qua -reformatus est_. _Injuria patris, desiderium amici_, with many other -examples which might be produced, have either an active or passive -sense. ἡ ἀγαπὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, אהבת יהוה, l’amore de Dio, l’amour de Dieu, -severally involve the same ambiguity with “the love of God.” - -[20] Of the six declensions, to one or other of which the learned -Dr. Hickes conceives the inflexion of almost all the Saxon nouns may -be reduced, three form their genitive in _es_, as, _word, wordes_; -_smith, smithes_. In the Mœsogothic, a kindred language, the genitive -ends in _s_, some nouns having _is_, some _ns_, and others _as_, as, -_fan, fanins_; _faukagagja, faukagagjis_. - -[21] It must be obvious, that the terms general and universal belong -not to real existences, but are merely denominations, the result of -intellect, generalising a number of individuals under one head. - -[22] Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere -curandum.--_Inst._ _lib._ viii. _cap._ 4. - -I am inclined to think that our language possesses a superiority in -this respect over the Greek itself. Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος -παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ may signify either “man in the species, or an -individual, was sent from God.” The author of the article Grammar, -in the Encyc. Brit., observes, “that the word ἄνθρωπος is here -restricted to an individual by its concord with the verb and the -participle.” If he mean by this that the term must be significant -of only one individual, (and I can annex no other interpretation -to his words,) because a singular verb and participle singular are -joined with it, he errs egregiously. Numberless examples might be -produced to evince the contrary. Job. v. 7. ἄνθρωπος γεννᾶται κόπῳ -“man (mankind) is born unto trouble;” where the subject is joined to -a verb singular. Psal. xlix. 12. ἄνθρωπος ἐν τιμῇ ὢν οὐ συνῆκε, “man -being in honour abideth not.” Here also _man_ for _mankind_ is joined -with a participle and verb singular. And here it may be pertinently -asked, would not the term _one_ for _a_ in the first example somewhat -alter the meaning, and convey an idea different from that intended by -the evangelist? - -[23] They are the Saxon words _this_ or _thes_, “hic, hæc, hoc,” -_that_ or _thæt_, “ille, illa, illud,” which were frequently used -by the Saxons for what we term the definite article, as, _send us -on thas swyn_, “send us into the swine.” Mark v. 21, _tha eodon tha -unclænan gastas on tha swyn_, “then the unclean spirits entered into -the swine.” - -The Saxon definites are _se_, _seo_, _thæt_, for the three genders -severally; and _tha_ in the plural, expressing _the_ or _those_, as, -_thæt goed sæd_, the good seed. _Thæt_ is also joined to masculine -and feminine nouns, as, _thæt wif_, the woman; _thæt folc_, the -people. _Thæ_ (pronounced _they_) still obtains in Scotland, as, “thæ -men” for “these men.” - -[24] ארץ הארץ. - -[25] אשרי האיש. - -[26] Horne Tooke appears to me to have erred in deriving _odd_ -from _ow’d_. His words are these: “_Odd_ is the participle _ow’d_. -Thus, when we are counting by couples or pairs, we say, ‘one pair,’ -‘two pairs,’ &c., and ‘one ow’d,’ ‘two ow’d,’ to make up another -pair. It has the same meaning when we say, ‘an odd man,’ ‘an odd -action,’ it still relates to pairing; and we mean ‘without a -fellow,’ ‘unmatched.’” Now, I must own, this appears to me a very -odd explanation; for, in my apprehension, it leads to a conclusion -the very reverse of that which the author intends. The term _odd_ is -applied to the one which stands by itself, and not to that which is -absent, or ow’d, to complete the pair. If I say, “there are three -pairs, and an odd one,” the word _odd_ refers to the single one, -over and above the three pairs, and not to the one which is wanting; -yet Mr. Tooke refers it to the latter. His explanation seems at -once unnatural and absurd. Had he substituted, according to his own -etymology, _add_ for _and_, saying, “three pairs, add an ow’d one,” -he must, I think, have perceived its inaccuracy. It is the _odd_ and -_present one_, of which the singularity is predicated, and not the -_absent_ or _ow’d one_. - -[27] “_Quivis_ seu _quilibet_ affirmat; _quisquam_, _quispiam_, -_ullus_, aut negat aut interrogat,” are the words of an ancient -grammarian. It is observable also, that in Latin, _ullus_, any, is a -diminutive from _unus_, one; as _any_ in English is from _ane_, the -name of unity, as formerly used. - -[28] In Anglo-Saxon _ic_, in German _ich_, in Greek ἐγὼ, in Latin -_ego_. Mr. Webb delivered it as his opinion, that the pronoun of the -first person was derived from the Hebrew ech or ach, _one_, used by -_apocope_ for _achad_ or _ahad_, he added, “oned,” or “united.” It is -doubtless true, that _ech_ occurs in one or two passages for _one_: -see Ezek. xviii. 10, and Ps. xlix. 8; in which latter passage it is -rendered in our translation, _brother_, and by R. Jonah, _one_; but -we apprehend that this fact will by no means justify his conclusion. -And as he considered that the pronoun of the first person radically -denoted _one_, he imagined that the pronoun of the second person came -from the numeral _duo_, _du_, _tu_, _thu_. Now, it must be granted -that there is an obvious resemblance between _ic_ and _ech_, and also -between _duo_, _tu_, and _thu_; but were we to draw any conclusion -from this similarity, it would be the reverse of that which the -author has deduced. It seems quite preposterous to suppose, that -the necessity for expressing a number would present itself, before -that of discriminating between the person speaking and the person -addressed. The rude savage could not converse with his fellow without -some sign of this distinction; and if visible signs (as is probable) -would be first adopted, we may reasonably presume, on several -grounds, that these would soon give place to audible expressions. - -The pronoun _ic_ is in Saxon declined thus: - - _Sing. Nom._ Ic _Gen._ Min _Dat._ Me _Acc._ Me - _Plur. Nom._ We _Gen._ Ure _Dat._ Us _Acc._ Us. - -[29] The pronoun of the second person is thus declined: - - _Sing. Nom._ Thu _Gen._ Thin _Dat._ The _Acc._ The - _Plur. Nom._ Ge (hard) _Gen._ Eower _Dat._ and _Acc._ Eow. - -[30] The Anglo-Saxon he is declined thus: - - _Sing. Nom._ He _Gen._ His _Dat._ and _Acc._ Him. - -[31] - - _Sing. Nom._ Heo _Gen._ Hire _Dat._ Hire. _Acc._ Hi. - -[32] This pronoun is from the Anglo-Saxon _hyt_ or _hit_, “i” _or_ -“that.” - -[33] In Anglo-Saxon _hi_, in Teutonic _die_. - -[34] In Anglo-Saxon, hwa, hua; _Gen._ hwæs; _Dat._ hwam; _Acc._ -hwæne, hwone. Also _hwilc_, whence, says Hickes, proceeded _which_, -the letter _l_ being elided. - -[35] Mr. Tooke contends, that this part of speech is properly termed -adjective noun, and “that it is altogether as much the name of a -thing, as the noun substantive.” Names and designations necessarily -influence our conceptions of the things which they represent. It -is therefore desirable, that in every art or science, not only -should no term be employed which may convey to the reader or hearer -an incorrect conception of the thing signified, but that every -term should assist him in forming a just idea of the object which -it expresses. Now, I concur with Mr. Tooke in thinking, that the -adjective is by no means a necessary part of speech. I agree with -him also in opinion, that, in a certain sense, all words are nouns -or names. But, as this latter doctrine seems directly repugnant to -the concurrent theories of critics and grammarians, it is necessary -to explain in what sense the opinion of Mr. Tooke requires to be -understood; and in presenting the reader with this explanation, -I shall briefly state the objections which will naturally offer -themselves against the justness of this theory. “_Gold_, and -_brass_, and _silk_, is each of them,” says Mr. Tooke, “the name of -a thing, and denotes a substance. If, then, I say, _a gold-ring_, -a brass-tube, a silk-string; here are the substantives _adjectivè -posita_, yet names of things, and denoting substances.” It may be -contended, however, that these are not substantives, but adjectives, -and are the same as _golden_, _brazen_, _silken_. He proceeds: “If -again I say, _a golden ring_, _a brazen tube_, _a silken string_; do -_gold_, and _brass_, and _silk_, cease to be the names of things, and -cease to denote substances, because instead of coupling them with -_ring_, _tube_, and _string_, by a hyphen thus (-), I couple them to -the same words, by adding the termination _en_?” It may be answered, -they do not cease to imply the substances, but they are no longer -names of those substances. _Hard_ implies hardness, but it is not -the name of that quality. _Atheniensis_ implies _Athenæ_, but it is -not the name of the city, any more than _belonging to Athens_ can be -called its name. He observes: “If it were true, that adjectives were -not the names of things, there could be no attribution by adjectives; -for you cannot attribute nothing.” This conclusion may be disputed. -An adjective may imply a substance, quality, or property, though it -is not the name of it. _Cereus_, “waxen,” implies _cera_, “wax;” but -it is the latter only which is strictly the name of the substance. -_Pertaining to wax, made of wax_, are not surely names of the thing -itself. Every attributive, whether verb or adjective, must imply -an attribute; but it is not therefore the name of that attribute. -_Juvenescit_, “he waxes young,” expresses an attribute; but we should -not call _juvenescit_ the name of the attribute. - -It may be asked, what is the difference between _caput hominis_, -“a man’s head,” and _caput humanum_, “a human head?” If _hominis_, -“man’s,” be deemed a noun, why should not _humanum_, “human,” be -deemed a noun also? It may be answered, that _hominis_ does, in -fact, perform the office of an adjective, expressing not only the -individual, but conjunction also; and that Mr. Wallis assigns to the -English genitive the name of adjective. Besides, does not Mr. Tooke -himself maintain, “that case, gender, and number, are no parts of -the noun”? and does it not hence follow, that the real nouns are not -_hominis_, but _homo_,--not _man’s_, but _man_? for such certainly -is their form when divested of those circumstances which, according -to Mr. Tooke, make no part of them. If the doctrine, therefore, of -the learned author be correct, and if the real noun exclude gender, -case, and number, as any part of it, neither _hominis_ nor _humanum_, -_man’s_ nor _human_, can with consistency be called nouns. - -But let Mr. Tooke’s argument be applied to the verb, the τὸ ῥῆμα, -which he justly considers as an essential part of speech. “If verbs -were not the names of things, there could be no attribution by verbs, -for we cannot attribute nothing.” Are we then to call _sapit_, -_vivit_, _legit_, names? If so, we have nothing but names; and to -this conclusion Mr. Tooke fairly brings the discussion; for he says, -that all words are names. - -Having thus submitted to the reader the doctrine of this sagacious -critic, with the objections which naturally present themselves, I -proceed to observe, that the controversy appears to me to be, in a -great degree, a mere verbal dispute. It is agreed on both sides, -that the adjective expresses a substance, quality, or property; but, -while it is affirmed by some critics, it is denied by others, that -it is the name of the thing signified. The metaphysician considers -words merely as signs of thought, while the grammarian regards -chiefly their changes by inflexion: and hence arises that perplexity -in which the classification of words has been, and still continues -to be, involved. Now, it is evident that every word must be the -sign of some sensation, idea, or perception. It must express some -substance or some attribute: and in this sense all words may be -regarded as names. Sometimes we have the name of the thing simply, -as _person_. Sometimes we have an accessary idea combined with -the simple sign, as “possession,” “conjunction,” “action,” and so -forth, as _personal_, _personally_, _personify_. This accessary -circumstance, we have reason to believe, was originally denoted by a -distinct word, significant of the idea intended; and that this word -was, in the progress of language, abbreviated and incorporated with -the primary term, in the form of what we now term an affix or prefix. -Thus _frigus_, _frigidus_, _friget_, all denote the same primary -idea, involving the name of that quality, or of that sensation, -which we term _cold_. _Frigus_ is the name of the thing simply; -_frigidus_ expresses the quality _in concreto_, or conjunction. -Considering, therefore, all words as names, it may be regarded as a -complex name, expressing two distinct ideas,--that of the quality, -and that of conjunction. _Friget_ (the subject being understood) -may be regarded as a name still more complex; involving, first, the -name of the quality; secondly, the name of conjunction; thirdly, the -sign of affirmation, as either expressed by an appropriate name, -or constructively implied, equivalent to the three words, _est cum -frigore_. According, then, to this metaphysical view of the subject, -we have first _nomen simplex_, the simple name; secondly, _nomen -adjectivum_ or _nomen duplex_, the name of the thing, with that of -conjunction; thirdly, _nomen affirmativum_, the name of the thing -affirmed to be conjoined. - -The simple question now is, whether all words, not even the verb -excepted, should be called nouns; or whether we shall assign them -such appellations as may indicate the leading circumstances by which -they are distinguished. The latter appears to me to be the only mode -which the grammarian, as the teacher of an art, can successfully -adopt. Considering the subject in this light, I am inclined to say -with Mr. Harris, that the adjective, as implying some substance or -attribute, not _per se_, but _in conjunction_, or _as pertaining_, -is more nearly allied to the verb than to the noun; and that though -the verb and the adjective may, in common with the noun, denote the -thing, they cannot strictly be called its name. To say that _foolish_ -and _folly_ are each names of the same quality, would, I apprehend, -lead to nothing but perplexity and error. - -It is true, if we are to confine the term noun to the simple name -of the subject, we shall exclude the genitive singular from all -right to this appellation; for it denotes, not the subject simply, -but the subject _in conjunction_--the inflexion being equivalent -to “belonging to.” This indeed is an inconsistency which can in -no way be removed, unless by adopting the opinion of Wallis, who -assigns no cases to English nouns, and considers _man’s_, _king’s_, -&c., to be adjectives. And were we to adopt Mr. Tooke’s definition -of our adjective, and say, “It is the _name of a thing_ which is -directed to be joined to another _name of a thing_,” it will follow, -that _king’s_, _man’s_, are adjectives. In short, if the question -be confined to the English language, we must, in order to remove -all inconsistency, either deny the appellation of _noun_ to the -adjective, and, with Wallis, call the genitive case an adjective; or -we must first call _man’s_, _king’s_, &c., adjectives; secondly, we -must term _happy_, _extravagant_, _mercenary_, &c., nouns, though -they are not names; and thirdly, we must assign the appellation of -noun to the verb itself. - -From this view of the subject the reader will perceive that the -whole controversy depends on the meaning which we annex to the term -_noun_. If by this term we denote simply the thing itself, without -any accessary circumstance, then nothing can be called a noun but -the name in its simple form. If to the term noun we assign a more -extensive signification, as implying not only the thing itself simply -and absolutely, but also any accessary idea, as conjunction, action, -passion, and so forth, then it follows, that all words may be termed -names. - -[36] The Saxons formed their comparative by _er_ or _ere_, _ar_ -or _ære_, _er_, _or_, _ur_, _yr_, and their superlative by _ast_, -_aste_, _est_, _ist_, _ost_, _ust_, _yst_. Now _ar_ means _before_; -hence the English words _ere_ and _erst_. Thus, in Saxon, _riht -wisere_ means “righteous _before_,” “just _before_,” or “_more -than_.” The suffix is equivalent to the Latin _præ_, and the Hebrew -preposition _min_, signifying also _before_; the only difference -being this, that what is a suffix to the Saxon adjective is in Hebrew -a prefix to the consequent subject of comparison, and that in Latin -the preposition following the positive stands alone. - -Mr. Bosworth, in his “Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar,” a work -displaying sound philological principles, has remarked, that the -Gothic superlative in _itsa_ bears an obvious resemblance to some of -the Greek superlatives, as, ἄριστος, κάλλιστος, βράδιστος. - -[37] _Up_ and _in_ are now used as adverbs and prepositions. - -[38] This phraseology is Hebraistic--“more than all his children” -is the literal translation of the original, מְּכל־בניו præ omnibus -filiis, seu, magis omnibus filiis suis. - -[39] See a valuable little volume on English Grammar, by Mr. Grant. -The “Institutes of Latin Grammar,” by the same author, we would -recommend to the attention of every classical student. - -[40] _I, hi, hie_, “to go,” he considers to be from Ἰ-έναι, the Greek -verb; and hence to be derived the Latin verb _I-re_, “to go,” “to -hie.” - -[41] Intransitive verbs sometimes are used transitively, as, when we -say, “to walk the horse,” “to dance the child.” They also admit a -noun of their own signification, as, “to run a race.” - -[42] Conformably to general opinion I here consider the English -language as having a passive voice. How far this opinion is well -founded shall be the subject of future inquiry. - -[43] Mr. Bosworth seems to think, that the word _tense_ is derived -from the Latin _tensus_, “used to denote that extension or inflexion -of the word, by which difference in time is implied, or difference in -action is signified.” I am rather inclined to consider it as derived -from the French _tems_ or _temps_, and that from _tempus_. - -[44] “Some,” says Dr. Beattie, “will not allow anything to be a -tense, but what, in one inflected word, expresses an affirmation -with time; for, that those parts of the verb are not properly called -tenses, which assume that appearance, by means of auxiliary words. At -this rate, in English, we should have two tenses only, the present -and the past in the active verb, and in the passive no tenses at -all. But this is a needless nicety; and, if adopted, would introduce -confusion into the grammatical art. If _amaveram_ be a tense, why -should not _amatus fueram_? If _I heard_ be a tense, _I did hear_, -_I have heard_, and _I shall hear_, must be equally entitled to that -appellation.” - -How simplicity can introduce confusion I am unable to comprehend, -unless we are to affirm that the introduction of Greek and Latin -names, to express nonentities in our language, is necessary to -illustrate the grammar, and simplify the study of the language to -the English scholar. But the author’s theory seems at variance -with itself. He admits, that “we have no cases in English, except -the addition of _s_ in the genitive;” whence we may infer, that -he considers inflexion as essential to a case. Now, if those -only be cases, which are formed by inflexion, those only should, -grammatically, be deemed tenses, which are formed in the same manner. -When he asks, therefore, if _amaveram_ be a tense, why should not -_amatus fueram_ be a tense also? the answer on his own principles is -sufficiently obvious, namely, because the one is formed by inflexion, -the other by combination. And, I would ask, if _king’s_ be a genitive -case, why, according to this theory, is not of _a king_ entitled -to the same appellation? I apprehend the answer he must give, -consistently with his opinion respecting cases, will sufficiently -explain why _amaveram_, and _I heard_, are tenses, while _amatus -fueram_, and _I had heard_, are not. - -Nay, further, if it be needless nicety to admit those only as -tenses, which are formed by inflexion, is it not equally a needless -nicety to admit those cases only, which are formed by varying the -termination? And if confusion be introduced by denying _I had heard_ -to be a tense, why does not the learned author simplify the doctrine -of English nouns, by giving them six cases, _a king_, _of a king_, -_to_ or _for a king_, _a king_, _O king_, _with, from, in_, or _by a -king_? This surely would be to perplex, not to simplify. In short, -the inconsistency of those grammarians, who deny that to be a case, -which is not formed by inflexion, yet would load us with moods and -tenses, not formed by change of termination, is so palpable, as to -require neither illustration nor argument to expose it. If these -authors would admit, that we have as many cases in English, as there -exists relations expressed by prepositions, then, indeed, though they -might overwhelm us with the number, we should at least acknowledge -the consistency of their theory. But to adopt the principle of -inflexion in one case, and reject it in another, precisely parallel, -involves an inconsistency which must excite amazement. _Nil fuit -sic unquam impar sibi._ Why do not these gentlemen favour us with a -dual number, with a middle voice, and with an optative mood? Nay, -as they are so fond of tenses, as to lament that we rob them of all -but two, why do they not enrich us with a first and second aorist, -and a paulo post future? and, if this should not suffice, they will -find in Hebrew a rich supply of verbal forms. We should then have -kal and niphal, pihhel and pyhhal, hiphhil and hophhal, hithpahhel -and hothpahhel, and numerous other species and designations. What a -wonderful acquisition this would be to our stock of moods, tenses, -and voices! - -One of these grammarians, indeed, reverencing the old maxim _est -modus in rebus_, observes, that “it is necessary to set bounds to -this business, so as not to occasion obscurity and perplexity, -when we mean to be simple and perspicuous.” This is so far good; -because, though it vindicates the impropriety, it modestly would -confine it within decent bounds. But surely it cannot be necessary -to remind this writer, that when the boundary between right and -wrong, propriety and impropriety, is once passed, it is extremely -difficult to prescribe limits to the transgression; and that -arbitrary distinctions, resting on no other foundation than prejudice -or fashion, must ever be vague, questionable, and capricious. These -are truths of which, I am persuaded, the author to whom I allude -needs not to be reminded. But it may be necessary to impress on his -attention another truth equally incontestable, that no authority, -how respectable soever, can sanction inconsistency; and that great -names, though they may be honoured by ignorance and credulity with -the most obsequious homage, will never pass with the intelligent -reader, either for demonstration or for argument. This author, in -defence of his theory of cases and tenses, observes, “that the proper -form of a tense, in the Greek and Latin languages, is certainly that -which it has in the grammars of these languages.” On what evidence -is this assumption founded? Here is exhibited a _petitio principii_, -too palpable to escape the detection of the most inattentive reader. -He proceeds: “But in the Greek and Latin grammars we uniformly find -that some of the tenses are formed by variations of the principal -verb, and others by the addition of helping verbs.” It is answered -that the admission of these forms in Greek and Latin grammars is a -question of mere expediency, and nowise affects the doctrine for -which we contend, any more than the admission of six cases in all the -Latin declensions affects the doctrine of cases; though in no one -declension have all the cases dissimilar terminations. This position -it would be easy to demonstrate: it would be easy likewise to show -why, notwithstanding this occasional identity of termination, six -cases are admitted in all the declensions; but the subject is foreign -to our present purpose. It is important, however, to observe, what -has escaped the notice of the author, that the principle, on which -the admission just mentioned may be expedient in a Latin grammar, has -no existence whatever in the English language. - -“It is, therefore,” he continues, “indisputable, that the principal, -or the participle, and an auxiliary, constitute a regular tense -in the Greek and Latin languages.” This, as I have remarked, is a -palpable _petitio principii_. It is to say, that because _amatus -fueram_ is a tense, therefore “I had been loved” is a tense also. -The author forgets that the premises must be true, to render the -conclusion legitimate. He forgets, that a circular argument is a -mere sophism, because it assumes as true what it is intended to -prove. Whether _amatus fueram_ be or be not a tense, is the very -point in question; and so far am I from admitting the affirmative -as unquestionable, that I contend, it has no more claim to the -designation of tense, than ἔσομαι τετυφώς--no more claim than -_amandum est mihi_, _amari oportet_, or _amandus sum_, have to be -called moods. Here I must request the reader to bear in mind the -necessary distinction between the grammar of a language and its -capacity of expression. - -In answer to the objection of inconsistency, in admitting tenses -where there is no inflexion, yet rejecting cases where there is -no change of termination, the author says, “that such a mode of -declension cannot apply to our language.” But why can it not apply? -Why not give as English cases, _to a king_, _of a king_, _from a -king_, _with a king_, _by a king_, _at a king_, _about a king_, -&c. &c.? The mode is certainly applicable, whatever may be the -consequences of that application. A case surely is as easily formed -by a noun and preposition, as a tense by a participle and auxiliary. -But the author observes, “the English language would then have a much -greater number of cases than the Greek and Latin languages.” And why -not? Is the number of cases in English, or any other language, to -be limited by the number in Greek or Latin? or does the author mean -to say, that there is any peculiar propriety in the number five or -six? The author, to be consistent with himself, ought to acknowledge -as many cases as there are prepositions to be found in the English -language. This, it may be said, would encumber our grammar, and -embarrass the learner. This is, indeed, an argument against the -expediency of the application, but not against the practicability -of the principle in question. Besides, it may be asked, why does -the author confine his love of simplification to cases? Why not -extend it to tenses also? Why maintain, that inflexion only makes a -case, and that a tense is formed without inflexion? Why dismiss one -encumbrance, and admit another? - -The author observes, that “from grammarians, who form their ideas -and _make_ their decisions respecting this part of grammar, on the -principles and construction of languages, which in these points do -not suit the peculiar nature of our own, but differ considerably from -it, we may naturally expect grammatical schemes that are neither -perspicuous nor consistent, and which will tend more to perplex -than inform the learner.” Had I been reprehending the author’s own -practice, I should have employed nearly the same language. How these -observations, certainly judicious and correct, can be reconciled -with the doctrine of the writer himself, I am utterly at a loss -to conceive. His ideas of consistency and simplicity are to me -incomprehensible. He rejects _prepositional_ cases for the sake of -simplicity, and he admits various moods and tenses, equally foreign -to the genius of our language, in order to avoid perplexity. Surely -this is not a “consistent scheme.” Nay, he tells us, “that on the -principle of imitating other languages in names and forms (I beseech -the reader to mark the words), without a correspondence in nature and -idiom, we might adopt a number of declensions, as well as a variety -of cases, for English substantives: but,” he adds, “this variety does -not at all correspond with the idiom of our language.” After this -observation, argument surely becomes unnecessary. - -I have here, the reader will perceive, assailed the author’s doctrine -merely on the ground of inconsistency. It is liable, however, to -objections of a more serious nature; and were I not apprehensive -that I have already exhausted the patience of the reader, I should -now proceed to state these objections. There is one observation, -however, which I feel it necessary to make. The author remarks, that -to take the tenses as they are commonly received, and endeavour to -ascertain their nature and their differences, “is a much more useful -exercise, as well as a more proper, for a work of this kind, than to -raise, as might be easily raised, new theories on the subject.” If -the author by this intends to insinuate that our doctrine is new, -he errs egregiously. For Wallis, one of the oldest, and certainly -one of the best of our English grammarians, duly attentive to -the simplicity of that language whose grammar he was exhibiting, -assigned only two tenses to the English verb. He says, _Nos duo -tantum habemus tempora Præsens et Præteritum_; and on this simple -principle his explanation of the verb proceeds. In the preface to -his grammar, he censures his few predecessors for violating the -simplicity of the English language, by the introduction of names and -rules foreign to the English idiom. _Cur hujusmodi casuum, generum, -modorum, temporumque fictam et ineptam plane congeriem introducamus -citra omnem necessitatem, aut in ipsa lingua fundamentum, nulla -ratio suadet._ And so little was he aware that the introduction of -technical names for things which have no existence, facilitates the -acquisition of any art or science, that he affirms it in regard -to the subject before us to be the cause of great confusion and -perplexity. _Quæ (inutilia præcepta) a lingua nostra sunt prorsus -aliena, adeoque confusionem potius et obscuritatem pariunt, quam -explicationi inserviunt._ - -[45] Mr. Gilchrist, in his “Philosophic Etymology,” represents -the terminations _ath_, _eth_, _ad_, _ed_, _et_, _en_, _an_, as -conjunctives, equivalent to the sign +, denoting _add_, or _join_ -(see p. 162). In another part of the same work, he considers _did_ -to be _do_ doubled, as _dedi_ from the Latin _do_, which he believes -to be the very same word with our _do_. Repetition, he observes, is -a mode of expressing complete action. Hence we have _do_, _do-ed_, -_dede_, _did_, in English. This explanation is ingenious, and -furnishes a probable account of the origin of the word _did_, which -he remarks was formerly spelled _dede_. - -[46] - - I be Thou beest He, she, or it be - We be Ye or you be They be, - from the Saxon - Ic beo Thu beest He beeth, - -are obsolete, unless followed by a concessive term. Thus, instead -of saying, “Many there _be_ that go in thereat,” we should now -say, “Many there _are_.” For “to whom all hearts _be_ open,” we -should now write, “to whom all hearts _are_ open.” We find them, -however, used with the conjunctions _if_ and _though_; thus, “If -this be my notion of a great part of that high science, divinity, -you will be so civil as to imagine, I lay no mighty stress upon the -rest.”--_Pope._ That this was his notion the author had previously -declared; the introductory clause, therefore, is clearly affirmative, -and is the same as if he had said, “As this is my notion.” “Although -she _be_ abundantly grateful to all her protectors, yet I observe -your name most often in her mouth.”--_Swift._ “The paper, although -it _be_ written with spirit, yet would have scarce cleared a -shilling.”--_Swift._ In the two last sentences the meaning is -affirmative; nothing conditional or contingent being implied. - -In the following examples, it expresses doubt or contingency. “If -thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:” _i.e._ “shouldst be.” “If -I be in difficulty, I will ask your aid;” _i.e._ “If I should be.” - -[47] Though the authority of Milton, Dryden, Pope, and Swift, can -be pleaded in favour of _wert_, as the second person singular of -this tense, I am inclined to agree with Lowth, that in conformity -to analogy, as well as the practice of the best ancient writers, it -would be better to confine _wert_ to the imperfect conditional. - -[48] If the expression of time with an attribute “be sufficient to -make a verb, the participle must be a verb too, because it signifies -time also. But the essence of a verb consisting in predication, which -is peculiar to it, and incommunicable to all other parts of speech, -and these infinitives never predicating, they cannot be verbs. -Again, the essence of a noun consisting in its so subsisting in the -understanding, as that it may be the subject of predication, and -these infinitives being all capable of so subsisting, they must of -necessity be nouns.”--_R. Johnson’s Gram. Comment._ - -[49] The variety of form which this verb assumes, clearly shows that -it has proceeded from different sources. - -_Am_ is from the Anglo-Saxon _eom_, and _is_ from the Anglo-Saxon -_ys_ or _is_; and these have been supposed to have come from the -Greek εἰμὶ, εἶς. - -The derivation of _are_ is doubtful. It may, perhaps, have proceeded -directly from _er_ or _erum_ of the Icelandic verb, denoting “to -be.” By Mr. Gilchrist it is considered as “the same with the -infinitive termination _are, ere, ire_.” Mr. Webb conjectured, that -it might have some relation to the Greek ἔαρ, _spring_. Both these -explanations appear to us somewhat fanciful. - -_Art_ is from the Anglo-Saxon _eart_. “Thou eart,” _thou art_. - -_Was_ is evidently the Anglo-Saxon _wæs_; and _wast_, _wert_, -probably from the Franco-Theatisc, _warst_; and _were_ from the -Anglo-Saxon _wære_, _wæron_. - -_Be_ is from the Anglo-Saxon _Ic beo_, _I am_, which, with the Gaelic -verb _bi_, _to be_, Mr. Webb considered to be derived from βίος, -_life_, as the Latin _fui_, from φύω, _to grow_. This conjecture -he supports by several pertinent quotations. See Mr. Bosworth’s -“Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar,” p. 164. - -[50] The words _did_, _hast_, _hath_, _has_, _had_, _shall_, _wilt_, -are evidently, as Wallis observes, contracted for _doed_, _haveth_, -_haves_, _haved_, _shall’st_, _will’st_. - -[51] This verb is derived from the Saxon magan, _posse_, the present -of which is _Ic mæg_, and the preterite _Ic miht_. Hence also _Ic -mot_. - - “For as the fisshe, if it be drie, - Mote in defaute of water die.”--_Gower._ - -[52] This verb is derived from cunnan, _scire_, _posse_, _sapere_. -Hence is derived the verb “to ken,” or “to know;” or more probably, -indeed, they were one and the same word: hence also the word -_cunning_. “To ken” is still used in Scotland; and in the expression -of Shakspeare, “I ken them from afar,” is erroneously considered by -some critics to mean, “I see them.” - -[53] This verb is, unquestionably, a derivative from the Saxon ꞅceal, -_I owe_ or _I ought_, and was originally of the same import. _I -shall_ denoted “it is my duty,” and was precisely synonymous with -_debeo_ in Latin. Chaucer says, “The faith I shall to God;” that is, -“the faith I owe to God.” “Thou shalt not kill,” or “thou oughtest -not to kill.” In this sense _shall_ is a present tense, and denoted -present duty or obligation. But, as all duties and all commands, -though present in respect to their obligation and authority, must -be future in regard to their execution; so by a natural transition, -observable in most languages, this word, significant of present duty, -came to be a note of future time. I have considered it, however, as -a present tense; 1st, because it originally denoted present time; -2dly, because it still retains the form of a present, preserving -thus the same analogy to _should_ that _can_ does to _could_, _may_ -to _might_, _will_ to _would_; and 3dly, because it is no singular -thing to have a verb in the present tense, expressive of future time, -commencing from the present moment; for such precisely is the Greek -verb μέλλω, _futurus sum_. Nay, the verb _will_ denotes present -inclination, yet in some of its persons, like _shall_, expresses -futurition. I have considered, therefore, the verb _shall_ as a -present tense, of which _should_ is the preterperfect. - -Johnson’s explanation of the meaning of this verb is so perspicuous, -that, as foreigners are apt to mistake its use, I shall here -transcribe his words. _I shall love_: “it will be so that I must -love,” “I am resolved to love.” _Shall I love?_ “will it be permitted -me to love?” “will it be that I must love?” _Thou shalt love_: “I -command thee to love;” “it is permitted thee to love;” “it will be, -that thou must love.” _Shalt thou love?_ “will it be, that thou must -love?” “will it be permitted thee to love?” _He shall love_: “it will -be, that he must love;” “it is commanded that he love.” _Shall he -love?_ “is it permitted him to love?” The plural persons follow the -signification of the singular. - -I transcribe also the same author’s explanation of the verb _I will_. -_I will come_: “I am willing to come,” “I am determined to come.” -_Thou wilt come_: “it must be, that thou must come,” importing -necessity; or “it shall be, that thou shalt come,” importing choice. -_Wilt thou come?_ “hast thou determined to come?” importing choice. -_He will come_: “he is resolved to come;” or “it must be, that he -must come,” importing choice or necessity. - -Brightland’s short rule may be of some service in assisting -foreigners to distinguish the use of these two verbs. It is this: - - “In the first person simply _shall_ foretels: - In _will_ a threat, or else a promise, dwells; - _Shall_ in the second and the third does threat; - _Will_ simply then foretels the future feat.” - -In addition to these directions for the use of _shall_ and _will_, -it is to be observed, that, when the second and third persons are -represented as the subjects of their own expressions, or their own -thoughts, _shall_ foretels, as in the first person, thus, “he says -he shall be a loser by this bargain:” “do you suppose you shall go?” -“He hoped he should recover,” and “he hoped he would recover,” are -expressions of different import. In the former, the two pronouns -necessarily refer to the same person; in the latter, they do not. - -[54] This verb is derived from the Saxon verb willan, _velle_, the -preterite of which is Ic wold. - -[55] The preterite _would_ is frequently employed, like the Latin -preterimperfect tense, to denote what is usual or customary. Thus, - - Quintilio si quid recitares, corrige, sodes, - Hoc, aiebat, et hoc; melius te posse negares, - Bis terque expertum frustra; delere jubebat, - Et malè tornatos incudi reddere versus: - Si defendere delictum quàm vertere, malles, - Nullum ultra verbum, aut operam insumebat inanem. - _Horace._ - -where the verbs aiebat, jubebat, insumebat, may be translated, “he -would say,” “he would desire,” “he would spend.” Thus also in English, - - Pleas’d with my admiration, and the fire - His speech struck from me, the old man _would_ shake - His years away, and act his young encounters: - Then having show’d his wounds, _he’d_ sit him down. - -[56] In Latin the imperfect potential is frequently employed in the -same manner to denote present time; thus, _irem si vellem_, expresses -present liberty and inclination. And the same analogy obtains in -Latin; for we say, either, _tu, si hic sis, aliter sentias_, or _tu, -si hic esses, aliter sentires_. In such examples, it is intended -to signify either the coexistence of two circumstances, or the one -as the immediate consequence of the other. An identity of tense, -therefore, best expresses contemporary events. - -[57] If it should be said, that the participle may properly be -considered as a verb, since it implies an attribute with time, -I would ask, whether _affirmation_, the most important of all -circumstances, and without which no communication could take place, -should be overlooked in our classification of words agreeably to -their import, or the offices which they perform. If the verb and -participle be referred to one class, the principal part of speech -which has been pre-eminently distinguished by the name of verb, -or _the word_, is degraded from its rank, and confounded with a -species of words which are not even necessary to the communication of -thought. Surely, if any circumstance can entitle any sort of words to -a distinct reference, it is that of _affirmation_. - -If it should be objected that the participle, like the verb, governs -a case, I would ask, because _lectio_, _tactio_, and many other -substantives, are found sometimes joined with an accusative case, -were they ever on this account considered as verbs? Besides, if the -government of a case be urged as an argument, what becomes of those -participles which govern no case? Nay, if the government of a case be -deemed the criterion of a verb, what name shall we assign to those -verbs which have no regimen at all? If any species of words is to be -distinguished from another, the characteristic difference must surely -belong, not to part only, but to the whole. - -[58] The termination _ing_ is from the Anglo-Saxon _ande_, _ænde_, -_ende_, _ind_, _onde_, _unde_, _ynde_, and corresponds to the -termination of the Latin gerunds in _andum_ and _endum_, expressing -continuation, _Amandum_, _Lufiande_, _Loving_. - -[59] Here I would be understood to reason on their own principles; -for the truth is, that each of these tenses admits a definitive. - -[60] See the _Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy_, vol. iii. - -[61] Dr. Beattie observes, “that the fundamental error of those -philosophers who deny the existence of present time is, that they -suppose the present instant to have, like a geometrical point, -neither parts nor magnitude. But as nothing is, in respect of our -senses, a geometrical point, (for whatever we see or touch must of -necessity have magnitude,) so neither is the present, or any other -instant, wholly unextended.” His argument amounts to this, that as -a mathematical point is not an object of sense, nor has any real -existence, so neither has a metaphysical instant. It is granted. -They are each ideal. But does this prove the author’s position, that -philosophers have erred in asserting their similarity? or does it -evince that no analogy subsists between them? Quite the reverse. -The truth is, a geometrical point is purely ideal; it is necessary -to the truth of mathematical demonstration, that it be conceived -to have no parts. Finding it convenient to represent it to sense, -we therefore give it magnitude. A metaphysical instant, or present -time, is in like manner ideal; but we find it convenient to assume as -present an extended space. The doctor observes, that sense perceives -nothing but what is present. It is true; but it should be remembered -that not time, but objects which exist in time, are perceived by -the senses. It may enable a person to form a correct idea of this -matter, if he will ask himself, what he means by present time. If it -be the present hour, is it not obvious that part of it is past, and -part of it future? If it be the present minute, it is equally clear, -that the whole of it cannot be present at once. Nay, if it be the -present vibration of the pendulum, is it not obvious that part of -it is performed, and part of it remains to be performed? Nor is it -possible to stop in this investigation, till present time, strictly -speaking, be proved to have no existence. Did it exist, it must be -extended; and if extended, it cannot be present, for past and future -must necessarily be included in it. If it should be answered, that -this proves time, like matter, infinitely divisible, and that the -most tedious process will still leave something capable of division, -I reply, that as whatever may be left in the one case must be figure, -and not a point, so the remainder, in the other, must be a portion of -extended time, how minute soever, and not an instant. The process, -therefore, must be continued, till we arrive in idea at a point and -an instant, incapable of division, being not made up of parts. - -[62] When we say, _God is good_, I would ask Dr. Browne whether the -verb be definite or indefinite, whether it denote perfection or -imperfection, or have no reference to either. It appears to me that -neither of the terms is in his sense applicable; for that the verb -denotes simple affirmation with time; or, if applicable, that the -tense is, contrary to his opinion, indefinite, the idea of completion -or imperfection being entirely excluded. - -[63] These phraseologies, as the author last quoted justly observes, -are harsh to the ear, and appear exceedingly awkward; but a little -attention will suffice to show that they correctly exhibit the ideas -implied by the tense which we have at present under consideration. - -[64] See Encyc. Brit., Art. Grammar. - -[65] I consider that no language, grammatically examined, has more -cases, tenses, or moods, than are formed by inflexion. But if any -person be inclined to call these forms of expression by the name of -imperative mood, I have no objection. Only let him be consistent, -and call “Dost thou love?” an interrogative mood, adopting also -the precative, the requisitive, the optative, the hortative, &c., -together with the various cases in nouns, and tenses in verbs, -which are formed by prepositions and auxiliary verbs: I should only -apprehend, that language would fail him to assign them names. - -If it should be asked, “Agreeably to your doctrine of the verb, -as implying affirmation, what part of speech would you make the -verbs in the following sentences, _Depart instantly_, _improve -your time_, _forgive us our sins_? Will it be said that the verbs -in these phrases are assertions?” I should answer that all moods, -metaphysically considered, are, in my apprehension, equally -indicative. Every possible form of speech can do nothing but express -the sentiment of the speaker, his desire, his wish, his sensation, -his perception, his belief, &c. Whatever form, therefore, the -expression may assume, it must be resolvable into assertion; and -must be considered as expressing, in the person of the speaker, -what he desires, wishes, feels, thinks, and so forth. No one surely -will deny, that “thou oughtest not to kill,” “thou shalt not kill,” -“thou art forbidden to kill,” are affirmations. And are not these -expressions so nearly equivalent to “do not kill,” that in Greek -and Latin they are rendered indifferently either by οὐ φονεύσεις, -or, μὴ φόνευε; _non occides_, or _ne occidito_? If then we say, -“kill thou,” will it be contended that, though the prohibition -implies an affirmation of the speaker, the command does not? The -expression I conceive to be strictly equivalent to “thou shalt kill,” -“thou art ordered to kill.” Hence _ave_ and _jubeo te avere_, are -deemed expressions of the same import. If the question be examined -grammatically, or as a subject of pure grammar, I am inclined to -think that where there is no variety of termination, there cannot be -established a diversity of mood. - -[66] This verb is derived from the Saxon verb Ic most, _ego debeo_. - -[67] It belongs not to my province to inquire, how _amarem_ came to -signify _I might_ or _could love_, or whether it be strictly in the -potential or the subjunctive mood. I here take it for granted that -_amarem_ does, without an ellipsis, signify, _I might, could, would_, -or _should love_, implying _licet_, _possum_, _volo_, _debeo_.--See -_Johnson’s Comment_. - -[68] Why this verb forms an exception, it would be easy to explain. - -[69] See Webster’s Dissertations, p. 263. - -[70] A similar phraseology in the use of the pluperfect indicative -for the same tense subjunctive, obtains in Latin, as - - “Impulerat ferro Argolicas fœdare latebras.”--_Virgil._ - -[71] The Latins used _si_ in both cases: and though their poets -did not attend to this distinction, their prose writers generally -observed it, by joining _si_ for _quoniam_ with the indicative mood. - -[72] Where R is added, the verb follows also the general rule. - -[73] Some have excluded _bore_ as the preterite of this verb. We have -sufficient authority, however, for admitting it; thus, - - “By marrying her who bore me.”--_Dryden._ - -[74] _Beholden_ is obsolescent in this sense. - -[75] “So kept the diamond, and the rogue was bit.”--_Pope._ - -“There was lately a young gentleman bit to the bone.”--_Tatler._ - -[76] _Brake_ seems now obsolescent. - -[77] Though Johnson has not admitted the regular form of the -participle in this verb, I think there is sufficient authority for -concurring with Lowth in receiving _builded_ as the participle as -well as _built_, though it be not in such general use. - -[78] _Chode_, which occurs twice in the Bible, is now obsolete. - -[79] Lowth has given _clomb_ as the preterite of climb. I can find, -however, no authority later than Spenser, and am inclined to think it -is now obsolete. - -[80] The irregular preterite _clad_ is obsolescent. - -[81] I know no example in which the preterite, which analogically -would be _forwent_, is to be found. It may be here remarked that this -verb, in violation of analogy, is generally spelled _forego_, as if -it meant “to go before.” This is equally improper as it would be to -write _forebid, foresake, foreswear_, for _forbid, forsake, forswear_. - -[82] _Fraught_ is more properly an adjective than participle. - -[83] This verb, Lowth says, when employed as an active verb, “may -perhaps, most properly be used in the regular form.” Here the learned -author appears to me, if he be not chargeable with error, to have -expressed his meaning incorrectly; for it cannot be disputed that the -irregular form of this verb is frequently, and with unquestionable -propriety, used in an active sense. Thus we say, “the servant hung -the scales in the cellar;” and passively, “the scales were hung by -the servant.” I should, therefore, rather say that, when this verb -denotes suspension, for the purpose of destroying life, the regular -form is far preferable. Thus, “the man was hanged,” not “hung.” - -[84] The irregular preterite and participle of this verb are employed -in sea language; but the latter rarely. - -[85] Lowth has given _holpen_ as the participle; it is now -obsolescent, if not obsolete. It belonged to the verb _to holp_, -which has been long out of use. - -[86] Several grammarians have rejected _hid_ as a participle. -It rests, however, on unquestionable authority; but _hidden_ is -preferable. - -[87] _Holden_, which was some years ago obsolescent, is now returning -into more general use. - -[88] _Laden_, like _fraught_, may be deemed an adjective. - -[89] Priestley, I apprehend, has erred in giving _lain_ as the -participle of this verb. - -[90] _Lien_, though not so generally used as _lain_, is not destitute -of unexceptionable authority. I have, therefore, with Johnson and -Lowth, given it as the participle. Murray has omitted it. - -[91] Some grammarians have rejected _lit_. It can plead, however, -colloquial usage in its favour, and even other authority. “I lit my -pipe with the paper.”--_Addison._ - -[92] With Priestley and Lowth, I have given this verb a regular -participle; for which, I believe, there is sufficient authority, -without adducing the example of Shakspeare. Most other grammarians -have rejected it. - -[93] _Quitted_ is far more generally used as the preterite than -_quit_. - -[94] Priestley has rejected _rid_, and Murray _ridden_, as the -participle, while Johnson makes _rid_ the preterite of _ride_. -As _rid_ is the present and preterite of another verb, it would, -perhaps, be better to dismiss it entirely from the verb _to ride_, -and conjugate, with Priestley, _ride, rode, ridden_. - -[95] Our translators of the Bible have used _roast_ as the perfect -participle. In this sense it is almost obsolete. _Roast beef_ retains -its ground. - -[96] Story, in his Grammar, has most unwarrantably asserted, that the -participle of this verb should be _shaked_. This word is certainly -obsolete, and, I apprehend, was never in general use. I have been -able to find only one example of _shaked_ as the participle, “A sly -and constant knave, not to be _shaked_.”--_Shakspeare._ And two as -the preterite, “They shaked their heads.”--_Psal._ cxi. 55. “I shaked -my head.”--_Steele_, _Spectator_, No. iv. - -[97] Of these preterites, the latter is now more generally used. Our -translators of the Bible used the former. - -[98] 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_. - -[99] _Sitten_, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable -attempts, however, have been made to restore it. “To have _sitten_ on -the heads of the apostles.”--_Middleton._ - -“Soon after the termination of this business, the parliament, which -had now _sitten_ three years,” &c.--_Belsham’s Hist._ - -“And he would gladly, for the sake of dispatch, have called together -the same parliament, which had _sitten_ under his father.”--_Hume_, -vol. vi. p. 199. - -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. - -[100] Pope has used the regular form of the preterite: - - “In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease, - Sprung the rank weed, and thrived with large increase.” - _Essay on Crit._ - -Horsley, with one or two other writers, have employed the regular -participle. - -[101] _Washen_ seems obsolescent, if not obsolete. The compound -_unwashen_ occurs in our translation of the Bible. - -[102] Pope, and our translators of the Bible, have used _winded_ as -the preterite. The other form, however, is in far more general use. - -[103] _Wrote_, as the participle, is generally disused, and likewise -_writ_. The latter was used as a preterite by Pope, Swift, and other -writers of the same period. - -[104] _Wit_ is now confined to the phrase _to wit_, or _namely_. It -is an abbreviation from the Anglo-Saxon verb þiꞇan, to know. - -[105] This verb, as an auxiliary, is inflexible; thus we say, “he -will go,” and “_he wills to go_.” - -[106] This verb, which signifies “to think,” or “to imagine,” is now -obsolete. - -[107] This verb is now used as significant of present duty. It was -originally the preterite, and the perfect participle of the verb _to -owe_; and is corruptedly used in Scotland still to express a past -debt. “Apprehending the occasion, I will add a continuance to that -happy motion, and besides give you some tribute of the love and duty -I long have ought you.”--_Spelman._ - - “This blood, which men by treason sought, - That followed, sir, which to myself I ought.”--_Dryden._ - -It is now used in the present tense only; and, when past duty or -obligation is to be signified, we note, as I formerly mentioned, the -past time by the preterite sense of the subsequent verb; thus, “I -ought to read,” “I ought to have read.” The classical scholar knows -that the reverse takes place in Latin. _Debeo legere, debui legere_. -Cicero, however, though very rarely indeed, uses the preterite of the -infinitive after the preterite tense of this verb. - -Murray has told us, that _must_ and _ought_ have both a present and -past signification, and, in proof of this, he adduces the following -examples:--“I must own, that I am to blame.” “He must have been -mistaken.” “Speaking things which they ought not.” “These ought ye -to have done.” This is truly a strange, and, I verily believe, a -singular opinion. Its inaccuracy is so manifest, that every reader of -discernment must intuitively perceive it. The opinion itself, indeed, -is not more surprising, than the ground on which it is maintained by -the author. It surely requires but a moderate portion of sagacity -to perceive, that the past time, in the second and fourth examples, -is not denoted by _must_ and _ought_, but by the expressions “have -been” and “have done.” In Latin, as I have just observed, _necessity_ -and _duty_ are expressed as either present, past, or future, the -verbs denoting these having the three correspondent tenses; and the -object of the necessity or duty is expressed as contemporary, or -relatively present. In English, on the contrary, the two verbs _must_ -and _ought_ having only the present tense, we are obliged to note -the past time by employing the preterite tense of the subsequent -verb. Thus, _Me ire oportet_, “I ought to go,” “I must go.” _Me -ire oportuit_, “I ought to have gone,” “I must have gone.” As well -may it be affirmed, that the past time is denoted by _ire_ and not -_oportuit_, as that it is signified by _must_ and not by “have gone.” - -In the time of Wallis, the term _must_, as a preterite tense, was -almost obsolete. “_Aliquando_,” he remarks, “_sed rarius in præterito -dicitur_.” And when it was employed as a preterite, it was followed -by the present tense. This verb in German has, I understand, a -preterite tense. - -[108] _Firstly_, is used by some writers. - -[109] Denominativa terminantur in _lic_ vel _lice_, ut þeꞃlic -virilis, ælic legitimus, ꞃælic marinus, þiꝼlic muliebris, &c. Hanc -terminationem hodie mutavimus in _like_ vel _ly_, ut in _godlike_ vel -_godly_. Hickesii Thes. - -The correctness of this explanation has been controverted by Mr. -Gilchrist, who contends that, though it may answer in some cases, -it will fail “in nine times out of ten.” In the expressions “weekly -wages,” “daily labour,” “yearly income,” he observes, that the -meaning cannot be, “wages like a week,” “labour like a day,” “income -like a year.” He rejects, therefore, this explanation, and considers -the termination _lic_ to be the same with _lig_ in the Latin verb -_ligo_, “to tie,” or “join,” and to have the same effect as other -conjunctive particles, as “a friendly part,” “a friend’s part,” -“yearly produce,” “year’s produce.” Though a copious induction of -examples justifies us in refusing our assent to Mr. Gilchrist’s -exaggerated statement, that the derivation proposed by Hickes will -fail in nine cases out of ten; we candidly acknowledge, that in many -instances it is inadmissible; and that Mr. Gilchrist’s suggestion -is ingenious, though it will be found, we apprehend, opposed by the -same objection as he urges against Hickes’s explanation. Nor does it -appear to us, that Mr. Gilchrist’s argument subverts the doctrine -generally received. The termination may have been originally what -Hickes supposed, and the principle of analogy may, in time, have -introduced similar compositions, when this meaning of the termination -ceased to be regarded. Thus the term _candidly_, which we have just -now used, was probably introduced, in conformity to _analogy_, with -no reference whatever to the meaning of the termination. It may be -here also observed, that the import of this term seems inexplicable -on the hypothesis that _ly_ is a mere term of conjunction. - -[110] These three adverbs, denoting motion or rest in a place, are -frequently employed by us, in imitation of the French, to denote -motion to a place in the same sense with the three following adverbs. -It would be better, however, were the distinction observed. The -French use _ici_ for _here_ and _hither_, _là_ for _there_ and -_thither_, _où_ for _where_ and _whither_. - -[111] - - “For blithesome Sir John Barleycorn - Had sae allur’d them i’ the morn, - That, what wi’ drams, and mony a horn, - And reaming bicker, - The ferly is, _withouten_ scorn, - They wauk’d sae sicker.” - _Mayne’s Siller Gun._ - -This animated little poem will be read with no common pleasure by -every admirer of the Scottish muse. In felicity of description the -author is not inferior to Burns, while in delicacy of humour he may -claim the superiority. - -This preposition is supposed by Mr. Gilchrist to be derived from -_forth_, or rather to be a different form of that word. See his -“Philosophic Etymology,” a work exhibiting considerable ingenuity -and philological knowledge, combined with many fanciful and -unphilosophical opinions. - -[112] It is possible that the Greek ἀπό, and the Latin _ab_ derived -from it, had their origin in אב _pater principium_, “author,” or -“principle of existence.” - -[113] The verb, “to twin,” is still used in Scotland for “to part,” -or “separate.” - -[114] That the Saxon word _ægther_ signified _each_, is sufficiently -evident from a variety of examples; and the adjective _either_ has -continued to be used in that sense by reputable writers. Lowth, who, -I apprehend, did not advert to its primitive signification, condemns -the use of it as equivalent to _each_; and notwithstanding its -original import, I agree with him in thinking, that it is much better -to confine its meaning to “one of two.” The reason will be assigned -hereafter. - -[115] _Bot_ ser that Virgil standis _but_ compare.--_Gawin Douglass._ - -[116] _An_ occurs frequently for _if_ in the earliest English -writers. Bacon frequently uses it in this sense. “Fortune is to be -honoured and respected, _an_ it be but for her daughters, Confidence -and Reputation.” “And certainly it is the nature of extreme -self-lovers, as they will set their house on fire, _an_ it were, but -to roast their eggs.”--_Bacon’s Essays, Civ. and Mor._ In the folio -edition, printed in 1740, it is improperly spelled _and_. _An_ for -_if_ is still retained in our address to royalty, _An ’t please your -majesty_: and in Scotland is in general use. - -[117] The correctness of most of these, and several other of -Tooke’s etymologies, has been disputed, in a learned and ingenious -article in the Quarterly Review (No. 108). In many of the critic’s -animadversions it is impossible not to concur; but we do not agree -with him, when he rejects the derivation of _if_ from the Anglo-Saxon -verb _gifan_, “to give;” nor do we consider that Jamieson’s argument, -to which he refers, is such as to justify the critic’s conclusion. -The distinction between _bot_ and _but_ he confidently pronounces -to be “a mere chimera,” and maintains that _but_ is in every -instance _be utan_, “be out,” without corresponding to the Latin -words _sed_, _vero_, _autem_, _sine_. It must be acknowledged that -Tooke’s derivation is erroneous, there being no such Anglo-Saxon -verb as “botan,” of which _bot_ could be the imperative. But we -agree with Dr. Jamieson in thinking, whatever may be the etymology, -that _but_ and _bot_ are originally distinct words. Indeed, it -appears to us, that the reasoning of the critic is neither correct, -nor quite consistent with itself. We do not consider _but_ for -_bot_ to be discriminative; nor can we allow, that, if _but_ be -equivalent to _sed_, _se_, _sine_, implying separation, it can also -be equivalent to _autem_, “moreover,” to which _bot_ corresponds, -implying adjection, or subjunction. Nor can we admit, that the -synonymous words _mais_ (French), _maar_ (Dutch), _ma_ (Italian), -imply preference, as the critic affirms, but something to be added, -corresponding with what has been previously said. - -[118] The critic to whom we have alluded in the preceding note -contends, that _except_ cannot be an imperative, “because it has -no subject; and that a verb could not be employed, in any language -that distinguishes the different persons, without a gross violation -of idiom.” He considers the word to be an abbreviated participle. -The correctness of this opinion I am disposed to question. In our -Anglo-Saxon translation, the term _except_ is rendered by _buton_, -which is no participle; moreover, to place the participle perfect -before the noun, the clause being absolute, is irreconcilable with -the idiom of our language. “‘All were involved in this affair, -except one;’ that is,” says Webster, who seems divided between the -imperative and the participle, “‘one excepted.’” Now “one excepted,” -and “excepting one,” are perfectly consonant with analogy; but -“excepted one” is sanctioned by no authority. I am inclined to think -that our translators, without regarding the Latin or the Icelandic -idiom, to which the reviewer refers, used the word _except_ as an -imperative, without a subject. He denies, however, that it can be so -employed. He surely will not deny, that usage warrants us in saying, -“His arguments, take them as here exhibited, amount to nothing.” The -use of the imperative, infinitive, and participles, in an absolute -sense, or without a subject, is a common idiom in our language, and -recommends itself, as shall be afterwards shown, by some peculiar -advantages. - -[119] This phraseology has been censured by Buchanan and the author -of the British Grammar; but, as I apprehend, without the shadow of -authority. To ask a question with a principal verb, as _burns he_, -the latter affirms to be a barbarism. To disprove the assertion, I -shall only, in addition to the one quoted from Macbeth, produce these -examples. “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?”--_Bible._ “Died he -not in bed?”--_Shakspeare._ “Or flies the javelin swifter to its -mark?”--_Ib._ “And live there men who slight immortal fame?”--_Pope._ - -[120] Our translators, as the judicious critic last quoted observes, -have totally enervated the strength of the original, which runs thus, -ἔπεσε, ἔπεσε, Βαβυλὼν ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη, and which they have rendered, -“Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city.” - -[121] The ellipsis of the copulative, in such examples, was -termed by the ancients _asyndeton_; and this deviation from the -established rules of syntax they referred to a grammatical figure -termed _syllepsis indirecta_, or “indirect comprehension of several -singulars under one plural,” opposed to the _syllepsis directa_, or -that expressed by a copulative. - -[122] It is sometimes used for _every_, and applied to more than two. - -[123] In the vulgar translation of the Bible, this mode of expression -frequently occurs, thus, “I am thy exceeding great reward.” “I will -make thee exceeding fruitful.” - -Wallis’s admission of this phraseology proves it to have been good -English when he wrote, or that, in his opinion at least, it was -unobjectionable. His translation of _vir summe sapiens_, is “a man -exceeding wise.” This, and similar modes of expression, appear to -have been in his time very common, thus, - -“Although he was exceeding wealthy.”--_Peers._ - -“He was moreover extraordinary courteous.”--_Ibid._ - -“The Athenians were extreme apprehensive of his growing -power.”--_Tully._ - -And in our version of the Bible we find a few such expressions as the -following: “The house I am to build, shall be _wonderful_ great.” - -Addison likewise often uses the phrase “exceeding great;” and Swift, -less pardonably, writes “extreme unwilling,” “extreme good.” - -[124] We say, indeed, “Messrs. Thomson;” but we seldom or never say, -“the two Messrs. Thomson,” but “the two Mr. Thomsons.” - -[125] Horne Tooke observes, that Lowth has rejected much good -English: and it is to be apprehended, that the classical scholar is -too prone to condemn in his own language whatever accords not with -the Latin idiom. - -[126] See Johnson’s Comm. p. 351, and Seyer on the Latin Verb, p. -174. To the arguments there offered, many others might be added. - -[127] The propriety of this collocation of the _negative_ will be -more evident, if we attend to the two very different meanings of the -word _but_. According to the former construction of the sentence, -_but_ is the imperative of _beutan_, “to be out,” and is synonymous -with _unless_ or _except_; thus, “but with the approbation,” or -_except_ with the approbation. According to the latter construction, -it is properly _bot_, the imperative of _botan_, “to add.” Thus, “he -was honoured not with (_i.e._ exclude or except) this reward, but -(add) with the approbation of the people.” - -[128] It is to be observed that a different collocation is sometimes -admissible without any risk of ambiguity, especially when the clause -is negative. Thus we may say, “His thoughts were entertained with not -only,” _i.e._ “with not one thing,” viz. “the joys” with which he was -surrounded; or, “not only with the joys; but (_bot_ or _add_) a noble -gratitude and divine pleasure.” - -Usage in common conversation, and in familiar language, inclines to -this arrangement, and many of our best writers frequently adopt it. - -[129] The omission of the auxiliary in such examples tends much to -produce ambiguity: for, as the adverb, when placed between the noun -and the attributive, may qualify either the former or the latter, -perspicuity requires the insertion of the auxiliary. - -[130] Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non -intelligere, curandum. - -[131] In this and similar examples, the word _only_ has been -generally considered as an adjective, equivalent to _solus_. Thus, if -we say, _ille solum erat dives_, it means, “he was only rich,” or “he -was nothing but rich.” If we say, _ille solus erat dives_, it means, -“he only,” or “he alone was rich.” In the latter example, the word -_only_ has been termed an adjective. It is from the equivalence of -the words _only_ and _alone_, in such examples as the latter, that -several writers have employed them, as if, in all cases, synonymous. -They are by no means, however, of the same import. Thus, if we say, -“virtue alone is true nobility,” it means “virtue singly, or by -itself, is true nobility;” if we say, “virtue only is true nobility,” -it implies that nothing but virtue is true nobility. The expressions, -therefore, are not equivalent. Both sentiments are conveyed in the -following passage: - - ... “Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus.”--_Juvenal_, Sat. viii. - -The same observations are applicable to the collocation of the -numeral term _first_, as equivalent either to _primus_ or _primum_; -and also to the position of many other words, which are used -adjectively and adverbially. The classical scholar needs not to -be informed, that _Annibal primus_, and _Annibal primum--Alpes -transiit_, are not expressions mutually convertible. - -[132] Addison, Pope, Swift, Steele, and Johnson, very generally place -the adverb before the attributive, to which it refers, and very often -also, before the substantive. “What he said, was only to commend my -prudence.”--_Addison._ “He did not pretend to extirpate French music, -but only to cultivate and civilise it.”--_Addison._ “I was only -scribbling.”--_Johnson._ “Not only the thought, but the language is -majestic.”--_Addison._ “Known only to those, who enjoy.”--_Johnson._ -“Lay the blame only on themselves.”--_Johnson._ “Witty only by the -help of speech.”--_Steele._ - -Our translators of the Bible have almost uniformly observed the -same collocation in respect to the predicate; but have, with few -or no deviations, preferred a different arrangement in regard to -the subject, placing the adverb after, and not before it. It is in -conformity to their practice, that we have recommended the rule here -given. From the following examples, to which many more might be -added, it will appear that when the adverb referred to a sentence, -they made it the introductory word; when it affected an attributive, -they placed the adverb before it; and when it referred to a -substantive, or the name of a subject, they put the adverb after it. -“Only take heed to thyself.” “Only he shall not go in unto the vail.” -“Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi.” ... “The thoughts of -his heart are only evil.” “Thou shalt be only oppressed.” “They might -only touch the hem of his garment.” ... “None followed David, but -Judah only.” “He only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave.” “Against -thee only have I sinned.” “Take nothing for your journey, but a staff -only.” “David did that only which was right.” “They only shall be -delivered.” “This only have I found.” “If in this life only we have -hope.” - -[133] In colloquial language, but chiefly among the vulgar, -prepositions are prefixed to verbs indicative. - -[134] - - “Est vetus, atque probus, centum qui perficit annos. - Quid? qui deperiit minor uno mense, vel anno; - Inter quos referendus erit? veteresne poetas, - An quos et præsens et postera respuet ætas? - Iste quidem veteres inter ponetur honestè, - Qui vel mense brevi, vel toto est junior anno. - Utor permisso, caudæque pilos ut equinæ - Paulatim vello; et demo unum, demo etiam unum; - Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi, - Qui redit ad fastos.” - _Horace_, Ep. I. Lib. 2. - -[135] The Saxon word is _awiht_, contracted _auht_, _aliquid_. - -[136] We have remarked the same violation of common sense, as -occurring in Cicero, oftener than once. “Alium alio nequiorem.”--_Ep. -Fam._ “Aliam alia jucundiorem.”--_Att._ - -[137] Deprehendat, quæ barbara, quæ impropria, quæ contra legem -loquendi composita.--_Quintil._ lib. i. cap. 5. - -[138] In conformity to the example of most of our grammarians, I -have employed the term _etymology_ in the title of this work, and -wherever else it occurs, as denoting that part of grammar, which -teaches the inflection of words. In its primitive acceptation, it -means an exposition of their derivation, and is still employed in -that sense, as well as in the signification in which it is here -used. Some writers have preferred the term _analogy_ to express the -doctrine of inflection. If the principle of analogy or similitude -were confined to inflection, the designation might be proper; but, -as this principle extends to the concord, the government, and the -collocation, generally termed the _syntax_ of words, it cannot be -considered an appropriate name for that part of grammar, which -teaches merely inflection or verbal termination. Analogy is the -leading principle, on which every grammatical rule is founded; and -those, who have employed the term for etymology, it would be easy to -show, have not been observant of strict consistency. - -[139] The reader is requested to observe, that under “solecism,” I -have included several phraseologies, which, though not consistent -with syntactical propriety, may be justly called by the softer name -of “inaccuracies.” - -[140] See Canon I., p. 229. - -[141] We perceive intuitively the error of Milton, when he calls -Adam “the comeliest of men since born,” Eve also “the fairest of -her daughters,” and we laugh, perhaps, when the Cork almanack-maker -gravely tells us, “that the principal republics in Europe, are -Venice, Holland, and America;” yet the error here reprehended is -precisely of the same species, though it passes frequently unnoticed. -See p. 74. - -[142] It has been already offered as the opinion of the writer, (see -p. 47,) that the English word _other_ is the Saxon oðeꞃ, and that -this word with the Arabic _ahd_, the Hebrew _had_ or _ahad_, the -Saxon oððe, the Teutonic _odo_, the Swedish _udda_, and probably -the Latin _aut_, have all sprung from the same source, or that one -of these is the parent of the rest, denoting _unus_ or _singulus_, -“one,” or “one by itself.” Of the origin of the Saxon _other_, Lye -has hazarded no opinion. It appears to me to be a comparative from -oððe. To those who have carefully examined, and have approved the -theory of Mr. Tooke, it will furnish no valid objection against this -opinion, that the word oððe is uniformly found in Saxon, signifying -_aut_. Such can have little or no difficulty in perceiving, not only -from the similarity of the elements, but from the affinity in point -of sense, that _had_, _ahd_, _aut_, oððe, oðeꞃ, _other_, _or_, are -all members of one and the same family. - -[143] In French the article and the adjectives admitting a plural -termination, the expression “les uns et les autres” joined to a -plural verb is in perfect consistence with analogy. So also, in -Latin, are _utrique_ and _alteri_, referring to a plurality. But -_unus_ was never in this sense used as a plural. - -[144] “Utrumque fecisse, dicimus, si et hic et ille fecerit -divisim; ambos fecisse dicimus, si duo conjunctim aliquid -fecerint.”--_Stephan._ This distinction, however, as the learned -critic acknowledges, is not uniformly observed. - -[145] “The truth is, that _as_ is also an article; and however -and whenever used in English, means the same as _it_, or _that_, -or _which_. In the German, where it still evidently retains its -original signification and use, (as _so_ also does,) it is written -_es_.”--_Tooke’s Diversions._ - -[146] The error here involved suggests a few observations, which -it may be useful to offer, concerning the distinctive character of -active and neuter verbs. A neuter verb has been defined to be that, -which denotes neither doing nor suffering. An active verb, as its -name imports, denotes, that the subject is doing something. Johnson, -however, in his Dictionary, gives every active verb the designation -of _neuter_, unless followed by an objective case, that is, unless -the object or subject of the action be expressed. In the following -instances, for example, he considers the verbs as neuter. “’T is -sure, that Henry _reads_;” “so I _drank_; and she made the camels -_drink_ also;” “if you _plant_ where savages are;” “the priests -_teach_ for hire;” “nor feel him where he _struck_;” “they that _sow_ -in tears, shall _reap_ in joy.” These are a few out of numberless -examples, which might be produced. Indeed, Johnson’s idea seems to -be, as has been just now observed, that the verb must be regarded as -neuter, unless followed by an objective case. This is certainly a -great inaccuracy, and tends to introduce perplexity and confusion. -The verb surely does not the less denote action, because it expresses -it absolutely, or because the subject acted upon is not particularly -specified. In the examples now quoted, can it be questioned, when we -say _he struck_, that _he_ was active; or when we say, _they that sow -shall reap_, will it be affirmed that _they_ are not active? This -would be to confound distinctions not merely acknowledged in theory, -and adopted in definition, but also founded in the very nature of -things. This matter, I conceive, may be shortly explained, and very -easily understood. It is admitted by every grammarian, that an active -verb denotes, that the subject is acting, and that a neuter verb -signifies that the subject is neither doing nor suffering. Now, of -active verbs there are two kinds, transitive and intransitive. The -latter is that which denotes immanent action, or that which does -not pass from the agent to anything else, as, _I walk_, _I run_. -Transitive verbs are such as denote that the action passes from -the agent to something acted upon, as, “Hector wounded him,” “Cain -slew his brother.” But the subject to which the energy passes, may -not always be expressed; the verb, however, is not the less active. -Whether we say, “the drummer beats his drum,” or “the drummer beats -every day,” it surely will not be contended, that there is less of -action implied in the one case than in the other. The reader, then, -is requested to observe, that it is not necessary to the active -transitive verb, that the subject acted upon should be expressed. -The active verb may predicate of its subject merely the action -generally and absolutely, as, “he reads in the morning, and writes -in the evening;” or with the action may be expressed the subject or -object, as, “he reads Homer in the morning, and writes letters in the -evening;” or the object or subject may be implied, and not expressed, -as, “the drummer beats at night,” namely, his drum. But in all these -cases the verb is equally active. - -[147] In justice to this respectable sect, it is incumbent on me to -observe, that the Quakers are not Deists, nor does their religious -creed approach to Deism. - -[148] A similar ambiguity sometimes occurs in Latin by the -indiscriminate use of _quod_. This may be prevented by employing -_quoniam_ when the succeeding member of the sentence expresses the -cause of the preceding subject. Thus, “Nec consilium eo minus erat -firmum, quoniam secretum cum perpaucis adhuc erat communicatum,” -where the _eo_ refers to a preceding circumstance. “Nec consilium -eo minus erat firmum, quod” where the _eo_ refers to the subsequent -clause. The former phraseology affirms, the latter denies, the -influence of the circumstance subjoined. - -[149] In our penal statutes, which should be precisely worded, -because they are literally interpreted, much ambiguity frequently -arises from the loose and incorrect manner in which this conjunction -is used. - -[150] The issue of a question, respecting a contested election at -Rochester in 1820, depended on the construction of this designation, -“a peer, or lord of parliament.” - -[151] The superior ductility of the Greek, above every other -language, must appear from its singular aptitude to form new words -by composition or derivation, so as immediately to communicate -any new idea. Hence the names of most of our modern discoveries -and inventions are of Greek extraction. Thus we have the terms -“microscope,” “telegraph,” “panorama,” “odometer,” and many others. - -[152] - - “Cui lecta potenter erit res, - Nec facundia deseret hunc, nec lucidus ordo. - - Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur.” - _Hor. de Art. Poet._ - - - - - TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE - - Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been - corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within - the text and consultation of external sources. - - Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, - and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. - - Pg 44: ‘primary preception’ replaced by ‘primary perception’. - Pg 46: ‘hartez, illa’ replaced by ‘ha’aretz, illa’. - Pg 46 Footnote [24]: ‘ארצ’ replaced by ‘ארץ’. - Pg 46 Footnote [24]: ‘הארצ’ replaced by ‘הארץ’. - Pg 87 Footnote [45]: ‘eo-ed, dede’ replaced by ‘do-ed, dede’. - Pg 102: missing subheading ‘OF THE PARTICIPLE.’ added. - Pg 115: ‘I written’ replaced by ‘I have written’. - Pg 150: ‘siginifies against’ replaced by ‘signifies against’. - Pg 155: ‘I did confess”...’ replaced by ‘I did confess...”’. - Pg 173 Footnote [123]: ‘Athough he was’ replaced by ‘Although he was’. - Pg 191: ‘the arrrangement is’ replaced by ‘the arrangement is’. - Pg 209: ‘The bridegrooms its’ replaced by ‘The bridegroom sits’. - Pg 246: ‘I know.” Addison.’ replaced by ‘I know.”--Addison.’. - Pg 249: ‘being accasioned’ replaced by ‘being occasioned’. - Pg 262: ‘οἱ duo’ replaced by ‘οἱ δύο’. - Pg 297: ‘before you feet’ replaced by ‘before your feet’. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX OF THE -ENGLISH LANGUAGE *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/64554-0.zip b/old/64554-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index d159ed7..0000000 --- a/old/64554-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/64554-h.zip b/old/64554-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index f58d9db..0000000 --- a/old/64554-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/64554-h/64554-h.htm b/old/64554-h/64554-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 36d1a8b..0000000 --- a/old/64554-h/64554-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,17993 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The Etymology and Syntax of the English Language Explained and Illustrated, by The Rev. Alex. Crombie—A Project Gutenberg eBook - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1,h2,h3,h4,h5 { - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; - margin-top: 1em; - margin-bottom: .5em; - word-spacing: 0.2em; - letter-spacing: 0.1em; - line-height: 2em; - font-weight: normal; -} - -h1 {font-size: 130%; line-height: 2.5em;} -h2 {font-size: 150%;} -h4 {margin-top: .5em; margin-bottom: 0em;} -h5 {font-size: 60%; margin-top: .5em; margin-bottom: 0em;} - -p { - margin-top: .51em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .49em; - text-indent: 1em; -} - -.p1 {margin-top: 1em;} -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p3 {margin-top: 3em;} -.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} -.p6 {margin-top: 6em;} -.p10 {margin-top: 10em;} - -.noindent {text-indent: 0em;} -.pg-brk {page-break-before: always;} - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} -h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} - -.pfs150 {font-size: 150%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} -.pfs120 {font-size: 120%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} -.pfs90 {font-size: 90%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} -.pfs80 {font-size: 80%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} -.pfs70 {font-size: 70%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} -.pfs60 {font-size: 60%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} - -.fs60 {font-size: 60%; font-style: normal;} -.fs70 {font-size: 70%; font-style: normal;} -.fs80 {font-size: 80%; font-style: normal;} -.fs90 {font-size: 90%; font-style: normal;} -.fs110 {font-size: 110%; font-style: normal;} -.fs120 {font-size: 120%; font-style: normal;} -.fs135 {font-size: 135%; font-style: normal;} -.fs180 {font-size: 180%; font-style: normal;} - - -/* for making 2 column text */ -div.textcol {display: inline-block; vertical-align: top; width: 45%; - margin-bottom: 1em; font-size: 90%;} -div.textcol p {margin-top: .3em; margin-bottom: .3em; - padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -2em;} - - -/* for horizontal lines */ -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 1.5em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; -} - -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} -hr.full {width: 95%; margin-left: 2.5%; margin-right: 2.5%; - margin-top: 4em; margin-bottom: 0.1em;} - -hr.r5a {width: 5%; margin-left: 47.5%; margin-right: 47.5%; - margin-top: 0em; margin-bottom: 0em;} -hr.r20 {width: 20%; margin-left: 40%; margin-right: 40%;} - -.x-ebookmaker hr.chap {width: 0%; display: none;} - - -/* for inserting info from TN changes */ -.corr { - text-decoration: none; - border-bottom: thin dotted gray; -} - -.x-ebookmaker .corr { - text-decoration: none; - border-bottom: none; - } - - -/* for different code on screen versus handhelds */ -.screenonly { display: block; } - -.x-ebookmaker .screenonly { display: none; } - - -/* for tables */ -table {margin: 1.5em auto 1.5em auto;} - -table.autotable { border-collapse: collapse; } -table.autotable td {} - -td {padding: .18em .3em 0 .3em;} - -.tdh {line-height: .5em;} -.tdhh {line-height: 1.5em;} - -.tdl {text-align: left; padding-left: 1.5em; text-indent: -1em;} -.tdr {text-align: right;} -.tdc {text-align: center;} - -.tdlx {text-align: left; padding-left: 0em; text-indent: 0em;} -.tdcb {text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; border-top: solid thin; border-left: solid thin; } - -.bb {vertical-align: middle; border-bottom: solid thin;} -.br {vertical-align: middle; border-right: solid thin;} - -.wd30 {width: 30%;} -.wd35 {width: 35%;} - - -/* for spacing */ -.pad2 {padding-left: 2em;} -.pad3 {padding-left: 3em;} -.pad4 {padding-left: 4em;} - -.pad10pc {padding-left: 10%;} -.pad20pc {padding-left: 20%;} - -.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - color: #A9A9A9; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; - text-indent: .5em; -} - - -/* blockquote (/# #/) */ -.blockquot { margin: 1em 5% 1em 10%; font-size: 80%; } - -.blockquotx { margin: 1em 5% 1em 5%; font-size: 90%;} -.blockquotx p {padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em;} - - -/* general placement and presentation */ -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} -.allsmcap {font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;} - -.lsp {letter-spacing: 0.1em;} -.lsp2 {letter-spacing: 0.25em;} - - -/* Footnotes */ -.footnotes {border: dashed 1px; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 3em; - padding-bottom: 1em;} - -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 90%;} -.footnote p {text-indent: 0em;} -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: none; -} - - -/* Poetry */ -.poetry-container {text-align: center;} -.poetry {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%;} -.poetry {display: inline-block; font-size: 80%} -.poetry .stanza {margin: 1em auto;} -.poetry .verse {text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em;} -.poetry .indentq {text-indent: -3.5em;} - -/* large inline blocks don't split well on paged devices */ -.x-ebookmaker .poetry {display: block; margin-left: 4.5em;} - - -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; } - -.transnote p {text-indent: 0em;} - - -/* custom cover (cover.jpg) */ -.customcover {visibility: hidden; display: none;} -.x-ebookmaker .customcover {visibility: visible; display: block;} - -/* Poetry indents */ -.poetry .indent0 {text-indent: -3em;} -.poetry .indent15 {text-indent: 4.5em;} -.poetry .indent19 {text-indent: 6.5em;} -.poetry .indent2 {text-indent: -2em;} -.poetry .indent4 {text-indent: -1em;} -.poetry .indent20 {text-indent: 7em;} -.poetry .indent22 {text-indent: 8em;} -.poetry .indent24 {text-indent: 9em;} -.poetry .indent25 {text-indent: 9.5em;} -.poetry .indent26 {text-indent: 10em;} -.poetry .indent29 {text-indent: 11.5em;} -.poetry .indent33 {text-indent: 13.5em;} -.poetry .indent36 {text-indent: 15em;} -.poetry .indent38 {text-indent: 16em;} -.poetry .indent6 {text-indent: 0em;} -.poetry .indent40 {text-indent: 17em;} -.poetry .indent8 {text-indent: 1em;} -.poetry .indent10 {text-indent: 2em;} - - - </style> - </head> - -<body> - -<div style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Etymology and Syntax of the English Language, by Alexander Crombie</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online -at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> - -<table style='min-width:0; padding:0; margin-left:0; border-collapse:collapse'> - <tr><td>Title:</td><td>The Etymology and Syntax of the English Language</td></tr> - <tr><td></td><td>Explained and Illustrated</td></tr> -</table> - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: Alexander Crombie</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: February 14, 2021 [eBook #64554]</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>Character set encoding: UTF-8</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Produced by: Turgut Dincer, John Campbell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)</div> - -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ***</div> - -<div class="transnote"> -<p><strong>TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE</strong></p> - -<p>Footnote anchors are denoted by <span class="fnanchor">[number]</span>, -and the footnotes have been placed at the end of the book.</p> - -<p>Contractions such as ’tis are displayed as in the original text, -so they sometimes have a space (’t is).</p> - -<p>Several letters from Old English (Anglo-Saxon) and the Insular Script -are used. These will display on this device as:</p> - -<p> -<span class="pad2">ð eth</span><br /> -<span class="pad2">þ thorn</span><br /> -<span class="pad2">ħ h with stroke</span><br /> -<span class="pad2">ꝼ insular f</span><br /> -<span class="pad2">ꞃ insular r</span><br /> -<span class="pad2">ꞅ insular s</span><br /> -<span class="pad2">ꞇ insular t</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>There are several words and phrases in Greek and Hebrew. These may -display imperfectly on some devices.</p> - -<p class="customcover">The cover image was created by the transcriber -and is placed in the public domain.</p> - -<p>Some minor changes to the text are noted at the <a href="#TN">end of the book.</a></p> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> - -<h1> -<span class="fs60">THE</span><br /> - -ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX<br /> - -<span class="fs60">OF THE</span><br /> - -<span class="fs135 lsp2">ENGLISH LANGUAGE</span> -</h1> - -<p class="p2 pfs70">EXPLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED.</p> - -<p class="p2 pfs120">BY THE REV. ALEX. CROMBIE,</p> -<p class="pfs60">LL.D. F.R.S. M.R.S.L. AND F.Z.S.</p> - -<p class="p4 pfs80">SEVENTH EDITION.</p> - -<p class="p4 pfs90 lsp2">LONDON:<br /> -SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO.,</p> -<p class="pfs70">STATIONERS’ HALL COURT.</p> - -<hr class="r5a" /> - -<p class="pfs80">1853.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> - -<p class="p10 pfs70">LONDON:</p> - -<p class="pfs80">GEORGE WOODFALL AND SON,</p> - -<p class="pfs70">ANGEL COURT, SKINNER STREET.</p> - - -<hr class="p6 chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p4 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_iii"></a>[Pg iii]</span><br /></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="PREFACE2"> -<span class="lsp2">PREFACE</span><br /> -<br /> -<span class="fs70">TO THE SECOND EDITION.</span></h2> -</div> - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<p class="noindent">The success with which the principles of any art or science -are investigated, is generally proportioned to the number of -those, whose labours are directed to its cultivation and improvement. -Inquiry is necessarily the parent of knowledge; -error itself, proceeding from discussion, leads ultimately to -the establishment of truth.</p> - -<p>Were we to estimate our progress in the knowledge of -English grammar from the number of works already published -on the subject, we should perhaps be prompted to infer, -that in afield so circumscribed, and at the same time so often -and so ably explored, no object worthy of notice could have -escaped attention. And yet in this, as in every other art or -science, strict examination will convince us, that, though -much may have been accomplished, still much remains, to -stimulate the industry, and exercise the ingenuity, of future -inquirers. The author indeed is fully persuaded, that it is -impossible to examine the English language with any degree -of critical accuracy, and not perceive, that its syntactical -principles especially are yet but imperfectly illustrated, and -that there are many of its idioms, which have entirely eluded -the attention of our grammarians. That these defects are all -supplied by the present work, the author is far from having -the vanity to believe. That he has examined a few peculiarities, -and elucidated some principles, which have escaped -the observation of other grammarians, he trusts the intelligent -reader will remark.</p> - -<p>The Treatise, the second edition of which now solicits the -notice of the public, is intended chiefly for the improvement<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_iv"></a>[iv]</span> -of those, who have made some advancement in classic literature. -That an acquaintance with Greek and Latin facilitates -the acquisition of every other language, and that by a knowledge -of these the classical scholar is therefore materially -assisted in attaining a critical acquaintance with his native -tongue, it would argue extreme perversity to deny. But -that an extensive knowledge of Greek and Latin is often associated -with an imperfect and superficial acquaintance with -the principles of the English language, is a fact, which experience -demonstrates, and it would not be difficult to explain. -To make any tolerable progress in a classical course, -without acquiring a general knowledge of English grammar, -is indeed impossible; yet to finish that course, without any -correct acquaintance with the mechanism of the English -language, or any critical knowledge of its principles, is an -occurrence neither singular nor surprising. No language -whatever can be critically learned, but by careful study of -its general structure, and peculiar principles. To assist the -classical scholar in attaining a correct acquaintance with -English grammar, is the chief, though not the sole, end for -which the present Treatise was composed. That it is, in -some degree, calculated to answer this purpose, the author, -from its reception, is willing to believe.</p> - -<p>His obligations to his predecessors in the same department -of literature, he feels it his duty to acknowledge. He -trusts, at the same time, that the intelligent reader will perceive, -that he has neither copied with servility nor implicitly -adopted the opinions of others; but has, in every question, -exercised his own judgment, in observance of that respect, -which all men owe to truth, and consistently, he hopes, with -that deference, which is confessedly due to transcendent -talents.</p> - -<p>The Treatise, he believes, contains some original observations. -That all of these deserve to be honoured with a -favourable verdict in the court of Criticism, he has neither -the presumption to insinuate, nor the vanity to suppose. If -they be found subservient to the elucidation of any controverted -point, be the ultimate decision what it may, the author -will attain his aim.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_v"></a>[v]</span></p> - -<p>The work having been composed amidst the solicitudes -and distractions of a laborious profession, the author has -reason to apprehend, that some verbal inaccuracies may have -escaped his attention. But, in whatever other respects the -diction may be faulty, he trusts at least, that it is not chargeable -with obscurity; and that he may be able to say, in the -humble language of the poet,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent4">... “Ergo, fungar vice cotis, acutum</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Reddere quæ ferrum valet, exsors ipsa secandi.”</div> - <div class="verse indent33"><cite>Hor. Art. Poet.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="fs80">Greenwich.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p4 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_vi"></a>[vi]</span><br /></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="PREFACE3"> -<span class="lsp2">PREFACE</span><br /> -<br /> -<span class="fs70">TO THE THIRD EDITION.</span></h2> -</div> - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<p class="noindent">The following work, which has been for some time out of -print, having been favoured with the gratifying approbation -of the Rev. Professor Dale, and selected by that learned and -worthy preceptor, as one of the text books for the class of -English literature in the University of London, a new edition -has become necessary. The author’s time and attention -having been recently devoted to another publication, which -was not completed until it became indispensable that this -volume should be sent to press, the only additions here introduced -are such as occurred to the author while the work -was proceeding through the hands of the printer. They -will be found, however, to be in number not inconsiderable; -and it is hoped, that in quality they will be thought not unworthy -of the student’s attention. They consist chiefly of -examples of solecism and impropriety, accompanied with -such critical remarks as these errors have suggested, and -such illustrations as they seemed to require. This mode of -enlargement the author has preferred, persuaded of the truth -of Dr. Lowth’s observation, that one of the most successful -methods of conveying instruction is, “to teach what is right, -by showing what is wrong.”</p> - -<p class="fs80">York Terrace, Regent’s Park.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p4 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_vii"></a>[vii]</span><br /></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak lsp" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS.</h2> -</div> - -<hr class="p2 r20" /> - -<table class="autotable tdhh" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc wd30">INTRODUCTION.</td> -<td class="tdr wd35"></td> -</tr> -<tr class="tdh"> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc"></td> -<td class="tdr fs70">PAGE</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl" colspan="2">Of Language in general, and the English Alphabet</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc">———</td> -</tr> -<tr class="tdh"><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc fs120">PART I.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl smcap">Of Etymology</td> -<td class="tdc"></td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_12">12</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER I.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Of the Noun</td> -<td class="tdc"></td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_16">16</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER II.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Of the Article</td> -<td class="tdc"></td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_38">38</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER III.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Of the Pronoun</td> -<td class="tdc"></td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_50">50</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER IV.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Of the Adjective</td> -<td class="tdc"></td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_64">64</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER V.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Of the Verb</td> -<td class="tdc"></td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_77">77</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER VI.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Of the Participle</td> -<td class="tdc"></td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_102">102</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER VII.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Of Adverbs</td> -<td class="tdc"></td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_142">142</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_viii"></a>[viii]</span></td> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER VIII.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Of Prepositions</td> -<td class="tdc"></td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_145">145</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER IX.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Of Conjunctions</td> -<td class="tdc"></td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_153">153</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER X.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Of Interjections</td> -<td class="tdc"></td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_160">160</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc">———</td> -</tr> -<tr class="tdh"><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc fs120">PART II.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl smcap">Of Syntax</td> -<td class="tdc"></td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_161">161</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc">———</td> -</tr> -<tr class="tdh"><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc fs120">PART III.</td> -</tr> -<tr class="tdh"><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER I.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl smcap" colspan="2">Canons of Criticism</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_224">224</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER II.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl" colspan="2">Critical Remarks and Illustrations.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad3" colspan="2">Sect. I.—The Noun</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#CRI_I">236</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad3" colspan="2">Sect. II.—The Adjective</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#CRI_II">244</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad3" colspan="2">Sect. III.—The Pronoun</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#CRI_III">254</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad3" colspan="2">Sect. IV.—The Verb</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#CRI_IV">264</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad3" colspan="2">Sect. V.—The Adverb</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#CRI_V">284</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad3" colspan="2">Sect. VI.—The Preposition</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#CRI_VI">290</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad3" colspan="2">Sect. VII.—The Conjunction</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#CRI_VII">293</a></td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_1"></a>[Pg 1]</span><br /></p> - -<p class="pfs120">ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX</p> - -<p class="p2 pfs70">OF</p> - -<p class="p1 pfs150">THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.</p> -</div> - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<h2 class="p2 nobreak fs120" id="INTRODUCTION">INTRODUCTION.</h2> - - -<p class="noindent">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 sounds, or -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.</p> - -<p>Man, like every other animal, has a natural language intelligible -to all of his own species. This language, however, -is extremely defective, being confined entirely to the general -expression of joy, grief, fear, and the other passions or emotions -of the mind; it is, therefore, wholly inadequate to the -purposes of rational intercourse, and the infinitely-diversified -ideas of an intelligent being. Hence arises the necessity of -an artificial or articulate language; a necessity coeval with -the existence of man in his rudest state, increasing also with -the enlargement of his ideas, and the improvement of his -mind. Man, therefore, was formed capable of speech. Nature -has furnished him with the necessary organs, and with -ingenuity to render them subservient to his purposes. And<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_2"></a>[2]</span> -though at first his vocabulary was doubtless scanty, as his -wants were simple, and his exigencies few, his language and -his intellect would naturally keep pace. As the latter improved, -the former would be enlarged.</p> - -<p>Oral language, we have reason to suppose, continued long -to be the only medium by which knowledge could be imparted, -or social intercourse maintained. But, in the progress -of science, various methods were devised for attaining a -more permanent and more extensive vehicle of thought. Of -these, the earliest were, as some think, picture-writing and -hieroglyphics. Visible objects and external events were delineated -by pictures, while immaterial things were emblematically -expressed by figures representative of such physical -objects as bore some conceived analogy or resemblance to -the thing to be expressed. These figures or devices were -termed hieroglyphics<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>. It is obvious, however, that this -medium of communication must not only have embarrassed -by its obscurity, but must have also been extremely deficient -in variety of expression.</p> - -<p>At length oral language, by an effort of ingenuity which -must ever command admiration, was resolved into its simple<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_3"></a>[3]</span> -or elementary sounds, and these were characterized by appropriate -symbols<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>. Words, the signs of thought, came -thus to be represented by letters, or characters arbitrarily -formed, to signify the different sounds of which the words -were severally composed. The simplest elementary part of -written language is, therefore, a letter: and the elements or -letters into which the words of any language may be analyzed, -form the necessary alphabet of that language.</p> - -<p>In the English alphabet are twenty-six letters.</p> - -<div class="fs80 pad2"> -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.<br /> -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.<br /> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Of these there are six vowels, or letters which by themselves -make every one a perfect sound. The remaining twenty are -called consonants, or letters which cannot be sounded without -a vowel.</p> - -<p>This alphabet is both redundant and defective. It is redundant; -for of the vowels, the letters <em>i</em> and <em>y</em> are in sound -the same: one of them therefore is unnecessary. Of the consonants,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_4"></a>[4]</span> -the articulator <em>c</em> having sometimes the sound of <em>k</em>, -and sometimes of <em>s</em>, one of these must be unnecessary. <em>Q</em>, -having in all cases the sound of <em>k</em>, may likewise be deemed -superfluous. <em>W</em> appears to me in every respect the same -with the vowel <em>u</em> (<em>oo</em>), and is therefore supernumerary<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a>. -The double consonant <em>x</em> might be denoted by the combination -of its component letters, <em>gs</em> or <em>ks</em>.</p> - -<p>It is to be observed also, that <em>g</em>, when it has the soft sound, -is a double consonant, and performs the same office as the -letter <em>j</em>; each having a sound compounded of the sounds of -<em>d</em> and the French <em>j</em>. Thus, <em>g</em> in <em>general</em> has the same sound -as <em>j</em> in <em>join</em>. <em>J</em>, however, is not, as some have supposed, resolvable -into two letters, for we have no character to express -the simple sound of the French <em>j</em>, of which, with the consonant -<em>d</em>, the sound of the English <em>j</em> is compounded. To resolve -it into <em>dg</em>, as some have done, is therefore an error; as -the soft <em>g</em>, without the aid of the other consonant, is precisely -identical, in respect to sound, with the consonant <em>j</em>. The -letter <em>h</em> is no consonant; it is merely the note of aspiration.</p> - -<p>Our alphabet is likewise defective. There are nine simple -vowel sounds, for which we have only six characters, two of -which, as it has been already observed, perform the same -office. The simple vowel sounds are heard in these words,</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Hall, hat, hate, met, mete, fin, hop, hope, but, full.</p> -</div> - -<p>Some of these characters occasionally perform the office -of diphthongs. Thus, in the word <em>fine</em>, the vowel <em>i</em> has the -diphthongal sound of the letters <em>â è</em>, as these are pronounced -in French; and the vowel <em>u</em> frequently represents the diphthong -<em>eu</em> (e-oo), as fume (fe-oom).</p> - -<p>There are, besides, four different consonants for which we -have no proper letters; namely, the initial consonant in the -word <em>thin</em>, the initial consonant in <em>then</em>, the sibilating sound -of <em>sh</em>, and the final consonant (marked <em>ng</em>), as in the word -<em>sing</em>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_5"></a>[5]</span></p> - -<p>Consonants are generally divided into mutes and semi-vowels. -The mutes are those which entirely, and at once, -obstruct the sound of the vowel, and prevent its continuation. -These are called perfect mutes. Those which do not suddenly -obstruct it are called imperfect mutes.</p> - -<p>Semi-vowels are those consonants which do not entirely -obstruct the voice: but whose sounds may be continued at -pleasure, thus partaking of the nature of vowels.</p> - -<p>The nature of these consonants I proceed briefly to explain.</p> - -<p>A vowel sound may be continued at pleasure, or it may be -terminated, either by discontinuing the vocal effort, in which -case it is not articulated by any consonant, as in pronouncing -the vowel <em>o</em>; or by changing the conformation of the -mouth, or relative position of the organs of speech, so that -the vowel sound is lost by articulation, as in pronouncing the -syllable <em>or</em>. It is to be observed, also, that a vowel may be -articulated, not only by being terminated by a consonant, as -in the example now given, but likewise by introducing the -sound with that position of the organs, by which it had, in -the former case, been terminated, as in pronouncing the -syllable <em>ro</em>.</p> - -<p>In pronouncing the consonants, there are five distinguishable -positions of the organs<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a>. The first is the application -of the lips to each other, so as to close the mouth. Thus -are formed the consonants <em>p</em>, <em>b</em>, and <em>m</em>.</p> - -<p>In the second position, the under lip is applied to the fore -teeth of the upper jaw; and in this manner we pronounce -the consonants <em>f</em> and <em>v</em>.</p> - -<p>The third position is, when the tongue is applied to the -fore teeth; and thus we pronounce <em>th</em>.</p> - -<p>In the fourth position we apply the fore part of the tongue -to the fore part of the palate, and by this application we pronounce -the letters <em>t</em>, <em>d</em>, <em>s</em>, <em>z</em>, <em>r</em>, <em>l</em>, <em>n</em>.</p> - -<p>The fifth position is, when the middle part of the tongue -is applied to the palate, and thus we pronounce <em>k</em>, the hard -sound of <em>g</em> (as in <em>ga</em>), <em>sh</em>, <em>j</em>, and <em>ng</em>.</p> - -<p>In the first position we have three letters, of which the -most simple, and indeed the only articulator, being absolutely<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_6"></a>[6]</span> -mute, is <em>p</em>. In the formation of this letter, nothing is -required but the sudden closing of the mouth, and stopping -the vowel sound; or the sound may be articulated by the -sudden opening of the lips, in order to emit the compressed -sound of the vowel.</p> - -<p>Now, if instead of simply expressing the vowel sound by -opening the lips, in saying for example <em>pa</em>, we shall begin to -form a guttural sound, the position being still preserved; then, -on opening the lips, we shall pronounce the syllable <em>ba</em>. The -guttural sound is produced by a compression of the larynx, -or windpipe; and is that kind of murmur, as Bishop Wilkins -expresses it, which is heard in the throat, before the breath -is emitted with the vocal sound. <em>B</em>, therefore, though justly -considered as a mute, is not a perfect mute.</p> - -<p>The mouth being kept in the same position, and the breath -being emitted through the nostrils, the letter <em>m</em> is produced.</p> - -<p>In the first position, therefore, we have a perfect mute <em>p</em>, -having no audible sound; a labial and liquid consonant <em>m</em>, -capable of a continued sound; and between these two extremes -we have the letter <em>b</em>, somewhat audible, though different -from any vocal sound.</p> - -<p>Here, then, are three things to be distinguished. 1st, The -perfect mute, having no sound of any kind: 2dly, The perfect -consonant, having not only a proper, but continued -sound: and 3dly, Between these extremes we find the letter -<em>b</em>, having a proper sound, but so limited, that, in respect to -the perfect consonant, it may be termed a mute, and in relation -to the perfect mute may be properly termed imperfect.</p> - -<p>In the second position, we have the letters <em>f</em> and <em>v</em>, neither -of which are perfect mutes. The letter <em>f</em> is formed by having -the aspiration not altogether interrupted, but emitted forcibly -between the fore teeth and under lip. This is the simple -articulation in this position. If to this we join the guttural -sound, we shall have the letter <em>v</em>, a letter standing in nearly -the same relation to <em>f</em>, as <em>b</em> and <em>m</em>, in the first position, stand -to <em>p</em>. The only difference between <em>f</em> and <em>v</em> is, that, in the -former, the compression of the teeth and under lip is not so -strong as in the latter; and that the former is produced by the -breath only, and the latter by the voice and breath combined.</p> - -<p>The consonant <em>f</em>, therefore, though not a mute like <em>p</em>, in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_7"></a>[7]</span> -having the breath absolutely confined, may notwithstanding -be considered as such, consistently with that principle, by -which a mute is understood to be an aspiration without guttural -sound.</p> - -<p>Agreeably to the distinction already made, <em>v</em> may be termed -a perfect consonant, and <em>f</em> an imperfect one, having no proper -sound, though audible. Thus we have four distinctions in -our consonantal alphabet; namely, of perfect and imperfect -consonants; perfect and imperfect mutes: thus,</p> - -<p><em>p</em> is a perfect mute, having no sound.</p> - -<p><em>b</em> an imperfect mute, having proper sound, but limited.</p> - -<p><em>m</em> a perfect consonant, having sound, and continued.</p> - -<p><em>f</em> an imperfect consonant, having no sound, but audible.</p> - -<p>In the third position we have <em>th</em> as heard in the words -<em>then</em> and <em>thin</em>, formed by placing the tip of the tongue between -the teeth, and pressing it against the upper teeth. -The only difference between these articulations is, that like -<em>f</em> and <em>v</em>, the one is formed by the breath only, and the other -by the breath and voice together<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a>.</p> - -<p>Here also may be distinguished the perfect and the imperfect -consonant; for the <em>th</em> in <em>thin</em> has no sound, but is -audible, whereas the <em>th</em> in <em>this</em>, <em>there</em>, has a sound, and that -continued<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a>.</p> - -<p>In the fourth position there are several consonants formed.</p> - -<p>1st, If the breath be stopped, by applying the fore part of -the tongue forcibly to that part of the palate, which is contiguous -to the fore teeth, we produce the perfect mute <em>t</em>, -having neither aspiration nor guttural sound. By accompanying -this operation of the tongue and palate with the guttural -sound, we shall pronounce the letter <em>d</em>, which, like <em>b</em>, of -the first position, may be considered as a mute, though not -perfect. For in pronouncing <em>ed</em>, the tongue at first gently -touches the gum, and is gradually pressed closer, till the sound -is obstructed; whereas in pronouncing <em>et</em>, the tongue is at -once pressed so close, that the sound is instantly intercepted.</p> - -<p>2dly, If the tip of the tongue be turned up towards the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_8"></a>[8]</span> -upper gum, so as not to touch it, and thus the breath be cut -by the sharp point of the tongue passing through the narrow -chink left between that and the gum, we pronounce the sibilating -sound of <em>s</em>. If we accompany this operation with a -guttural sound, as in <em>b</em>, <em>v</em>, and <em>th</em> in <em>then</em>, we shall pronounce -the letter <em>z</em>; the same difference subsisting between <em>s</em> and <em>z</em> -as between <em>f</em> and <em>v</em>, <em>p</em> and <em>b</em>, <em>tħ</em> and <em>th</em>.</p> - -<p>3dly, If we make the tip of the tongue vibrate rapidly between -the upper and lower jaw, so as not to touch the latter, -and the former but gently, we shall pronounce the letter <em>r</em>. -The more closely and forcibly the tongue vibrates against the -upper jaw, the stronger will the sound be rendered. It is -formed about the same distance from the teeth as the letter -<em>d</em>, or rather somewhat behind it.</p> - -<p>4thly, If the end of the tongue be gently applied to the -fore part of the palate, a little behind the seat of the letter <em>d</em>, -and somewhat before the place of <em>r</em>, and the voice be suffered -to glide gently over the sides of the tongue, we shall -pronounce the letter <em>l</em>. Here the breadth of the tongue is -contracted, and a space left for the breath to pass from the -upper to the under part of the tongue, in forming this the -most vocal of all the consonants.</p> - -<p>5thly, If the aspirating passage, in the formation of the -preceding consonant, be stopped, by extending the tongue -to its natural breadth, so as to intercept the voice, and prevent -its exit by the mouth, the breath emitted through the -nose will give the letter <em>n</em>.</p> - -<p>In the fifth position, namely, when we apply the middle or -back part of the tongue to the palate, we have the consonants -<em>k</em>, <em>g</em>, <em>sh</em>, <em>j</em>, and <em>ng</em>.</p> - -<p>If the middle of the tongue be raised, so as to press closely -against the roof of the mouth, and intercept the voice at -once, we pronounce the letter <em>k</em> (<em>ek</em>). If the tongue be not -so closely applied at first, and the sound be allowed to continue -a little, we have the letter <em>g</em> (<em>eg</em>). Thus <em>ek</em> and <em>eg</em> bear -the same analogy to each other, as <em>et</em> and <em>ed</em> of the fourth -position. If the tongue be protruded towards the teeth, so as -not to touch them, and be kept in a position somewhat flatter -than in pronouncing the letter <em>s</em>, the voice and breath passing -over it through a wider chink, we shall have the sound of <em>esh</em>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_9"></a>[9]</span></p> - -<p>If we apply the tongue to the palate as in pronouncing <em>sh</em>, -but a little more forcibly, and accompanying it with the -guttural sound, we shall have the sound of the French <em>j</em>. -Thus <em>j</em> is in this position analogous to the letters <em>b</em>, <em>v</em>, <em>th</em>, in -the first, second, and third positions, and is a simple consonant: -<em>j</em> in English is a double consonant, compounded of -<em>d</em> and the French <em>j</em>, as in <em>join</em>.</p> - -<p>If we raise the middle of the tongue to the palate gently, -so as to permit part of the voice to issue through the mouth, -forcing the remainder back through the nose, keeping at the -same time the tongue in the same position as in pronouncing -<em>eg</em>, we shall have the articulating sound of <em>ing</em>, for which we -have no simple character.</p> - -<p>The only remaining letter <em>h</em> is the note of aspiration, formed -in various positions, according to the vowel with which it is -combined.</p> - -<p>The characters of the several letters may be seen in the -following table:</p> - -<table class="p1 autotable" width="70%" summary=""> -<tr class="fs80"> -<td class="tdcb">Perfect<br />Mutes.</td> -<td class="tdcb">Sounded, or<br />Imperfect.</td> -<td class="tdcb">Imperfect<br />Consonants.</td> -<td class="tdcb br">Perfect.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcb">P</td> -<td class="tdcb">B</td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb br"></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb br">M</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb">F</td> -<td class="tdcb br">V</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb">tħ</td> -<td class="tdcb br">th the</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcb">T</td> -<td class="tdcb">D</td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb br"></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb">S</td> -<td class="tdcb br">Z</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb br">R</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb br">L</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb br">N</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcb">K</td> -<td class="tdcb">G</td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb br"></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb"></td> -<td class="tdcb">Sh</td> -<td class="tdcb br">J French</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcb bb"></td> -<td class="tdcb bb"></td> -<td class="tdcb bb"></td> -<td class="tdcb bb br">ng</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_10"></a>[10]</span></p> - -<p class="p2">What effect the compression of the larynx has in articulation -may be seen by comparing these pairs of consonants:</p> - - -<table class="autotable" width="70%" summary=""> -<tr class="fs80"> -<td class="tdc">With compression.</td> -<td class="tdc">Without compression.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">B</td> -<td class="tdc">P</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">G</td> -<td class="tdc">K</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">D</td> -<td class="tdc">T</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">Z</td> -<td class="tdc">S</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">Th</td> -<td class="tdc">Tħ</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">V</td> -<td class="tdc">F</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">J</td> -<td class="tdc">Sh</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>These, as Mr. Tooke observes, differ, each from its -partner, by a certain unnoticed and almost imperceptible -motion or compression of or near the larynx. This compression, -he remarks, the Welsh never use. For instead of</p> - -<p class="fs80 pad4"> -I vow by God, that Jenkin is a wizard;</p> - -<p class="noindent">they say,</p> - -<p class="fs80 pad4"> -I fow by Cot, that Shenkin iss a wisart.</p> - -<p>The consonants have been distributed into different -classes, according to the organs chiefly employed in their -formation.</p> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">The Labial are </td> -<td class="tdl">eb, ep, ef, ev.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">Dental</td> -<td class="tdl">ed, et, etħ, eth.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">Palatal</td> -<td class="tdl">eg, ek, el, er, ess, esh, ez, ej.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">Nasal</td> -<td class="tdl">em, en, ing.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<p>The association of two vowels, whether the sound of each -be heard or not, is called a diphthong, and the concurrence of -three is called a triphthong.</p> - -<p>Of diphthongs there are twenty, viz. <em>ai</em>, <em>au</em>, <em>ea</em>, <em>ee</em>, <em>ei</em>, <em>eo</em>, -<em>eu</em>, <em>ie</em>, <em>oa</em>, <em>oo</em>, <em>ui</em>, <em>ay</em>, <em>ey</em>, <em>uy</em>, <em>oi</em>, <em>oy</em>, <em>ou</em>, <em>aw</em>, <em>ew</em>, <em>ow</em>. Of the -diphthongs seventeen have a sound purely monophthongal; -hence they have been called improper diphthongs. It would -be idle to dispute the propriety of a term almost universally -adopted; but to call that a diphthong whose sound is monophthongal<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_11"></a>[11]</span> -is an abuse of language, and creates confusion. -The only proper diphthongs in our language are <em>eu</em>, <em>oi</em>, <em>ou</em>, -in which each vowel is distinctly heard, forming together -one syllable. The triphthongs are three, <em>eau</em>, <em>ieu</em>, <em>iew</em>. Of -these, the first <em>eau</em> is sometimes pronounced <em>eu</em>, as in <em>beauty</em>; -sometimes <em>o</em>, as in <em>beau</em>: the other two have the diphthongal -sound of <em>eu</em>.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_12"></a>[12]</span><br /></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="PART_I">PART I.<br /> - -<span class="fs110">ETYMOLOGY.</span></h2> -</div> - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<p class="p3 pfs70">OF WORDS IN GENERAL, AND THE PARTS OF SPEECH.</p> - - -<p class="noindent">A word, in oral language, is either a significant simple -sound, or a significant combination of sounds. In written -language, it may be defined to be a simple character, or combination -of characters, expressive of significant sounds, simple -or compound.</p> - -<p>A word of one syllable is called a monosyllable; of two -syllables, a dissyllable; a word of three syllables, a trisyllable; -and a word of more than three syllables is called a polysyllable. -The last term, however, is frequently applied to -words exceeding two syllables.</p> - -<p>Words are either derivative or primitive.</p> - -<p>A primitive is that which is formed from no other word, -being itself a root, whence others spring, as <em>angel</em>, <em>spirit</em>, -<em>school</em>.</p> - -<p>A derivative is that which is derived from some other word, -as <em>angelic</em>, <em>spiritual</em>, <em>scholar</em>.</p> - -<p>A compound is a word made up of two or more words, as -<em>archangel</em>, <em>spiritless</em>, <em>schoolman</em>.</p> - -<p>In examining the character of words as significant of -ideas, we find them reducible into classes, or denominations, -according to the offices which they severally perform. These -classes are generally called parts of speech; and how many -of these belong to language has long been a question among -philosophers and grammarians. Some have reckoned two,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_13"></a>[13]</span> -some three, and others four; while the generality have -affirmed, that there are not fewer than eight, nine, or ten<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a>. -This strange diversity of opinion has partly arisen from a -propensity to judge of the character of words more from -their form, which is a most fallacious criterion, than from -their import or signification. One thing appears certain, -how much soever the subject may have been obscured by -scholastic refinements, that to assign names to objects of -thought, and to express their properties and qualities, are the -only indispensable requisites in language. If this be admitted, -it follows, that the noun and the verb are the only -parts of speech which are essentially necessary; the former -being the name of the thing of which we speak, and the -latter, verb, (or <em>the word</em>, by way of eminence,) expressing -what we think of it<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a>. All other sorts of words must be -regarded as subsidiaries, convenient perhaps for the more -easy communication of thought, but by no means indispensably -requisite.</p> - -<p>Had we a distinct name for every individual object of -sensation or thought, language would then be composed -purely of proper names, and thus become too great a load -for any memory to retain. Language, therefore, must be -composed of general signs, that it may be remembered; and -as all our sensations and perceptions are of single objects, -it must also be capable of denoting individuals. Now, -whatever mode be adopted to render general terms significant -of individual objects, or whatever auxiliaries be employed<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_14"></a>[14]</span> -for this purpose, the general term, with its individuating -word, must be regarded as a substitute for the -proper name. Thus <em>man</em> is a general term to denote the -whole of a species; if I say, <em>the man</em>, <em>this man</em>, <em>that man</em>, it -is obvious that the words <em>the</em>, <em>this</em>, and <em>that</em>, termed definitives, -serve, with the general term, as a substitute for the proper -name of the individual.</p> - -<p>Hence it is evident, that those words which are termed -definitives, how useful soever, cannot be regarded as indispensable.</p> - -<p>The pronoun is clearly a substitute for the noun: it cannot -therefore be deemed essential. The adjective expressing -merely the property or quality <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">in concreto</i>, without affirmation, -may be dispensed with; the connexion of a substance -with a quality or property being expressible by the noun -and the verb. Thus, “a good man” is equivalent to “a -man <em>of</em>, <em>with</em>, or <em>having</em>, goodness.” Adverbs, which have -been termed attributes of the second order, are nothing but -abbreviations, as, <em>here</em>, for <em>in this place</em>, <em>bravely</em>, for <em>brave -like</em>. These, therefore, cannot be considered as essentials -in language. In the same manner it might be shown, that -all parts of speech, noun and verb excepted, are either -substitutes or abbreviations, convenient indeed, but not indispensably -requisite. But, as there will be occasion to -illustrate this theory, when the generally received parts of -speech are severally examined, it is unnecessary to enlarge -on the subject at present.</p> - -<p>Though the essential parts of speech in every language -are only two, the noun and the verb; yet, as there is in all -languages a number of words not strictly reducible to either -of these primary divisions, it has been usual with grammarians -to arrange words into a variety of different classes. -This distribution is partly arbitrary, there being no definite -or universally-received principle, by which to determine -what discriminative circumstances are sufficient to entitle -any species of words to the distinction of a separate order. -Hence grammarians are not agreed concerning the number -of these subordinate classes. But, into whatever number of -denominations they may be distributed, it should be always<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_15"></a>[15]</span> -remembered, that the only necessary parts of speech are -noun and verb; every other species of words being admitted -solely for despatch or ornament. The parts of speech in -English may be reckoned ten: Noun, Article, Pronoun, -Adjective, Verb, Participle, Adverb, Preposition, Conjunction, -Interjection.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_16"></a>[16]</span><br /></p> - -<h3 id="CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I.<br /> - -<span class="fs60">OF THE NOUN.</span></h3> -</div> - - -<h4>SECTION I.</h4> - -<p class="noindent">Noun (Nomen) is that part of speech which expresses the -subject of discourse, or which is the name of the thing spoken -of, as, <em>table</em>, <em>house</em>, <em>river</em>.</p> - -<p>Of nouns there are two kinds, proper and appellative.</p> - -<p>A proper noun, or name, is the name of an individual, as -<em>Alexander</em>, <em>London</em>, <em>Vesuvius</em>.</p> - -<p>An appellative, or common noun, expresses a genus, or -class of things, and is common or applicable to every individual -of that class.</p> - -<p>Nouns or Substantives (for these terms are equivalent) -have also been divided into natural, artificial, and abstract. -Of the first class, <em>man</em>, <em>horse</em>, <em>tree</em>, are examples. The names -of things of our own formation are termed artificial substantives, -as, <em>watch</em>, <em>house</em>, <em>ship</em>. The names of qualities or properties, -conceived as existing by themselves, or separated -from the substances to which they belong, are called abstract -nouns; while Adjectives, expressing these qualities as conjoined -with their subjects, are called concretes. <em>Hard</em>, for -example, is termed the concrete, <em>hardness</em> the abstract.</p> - -<p>Nouns have also been considered as denoting genera, -species, and individuals. Thus <em>man</em> is a generic term, <em>an -Englishman</em> a special term, and <em>George</em> an individual. Appellative -nouns being employed to denote genera or species, -and these orders comprising each many individuals, hence -arises that accident of a common noun, called Number, by -which we signify, whether one or more individuals of any -genus or species be intended.</p> - -<p>In English there are two numbers, the singular and the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_17"></a>[17]</span> -plural. The singular, expressing only one of a class or genus, -is the noun in its simple form, as, <em>river</em>; the plural, denoting -more than one, is generally formed by adding the letter s to -the singular, as, <em>rivers</em><a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a>. To this rule, however, there are -many exceptions.</p> - -<p>Nouns ending in <em>ch</em>, <em>sh</em>, <em>ss</em>, or <em>x</em>, form their plural by adding -the syllable <em>es</em> to the singular number, as, <em>church, churches</em>. -Dr. Whately, (Archbishop of Dublin,) in violation of -this universal rule, writes <em>premiss</em> in the singular number, -and <em>premises</em> in the plural. (See his Logic, pp. 25, 26.) -<em>Premise</em>, like <em>promise</em>, is the proper term, and makes <em>premises</em> -in the plural. <em>Premiss</em> and <em>premises</em> are repugnant to -all analogy.—<em>Ch</em> hard takes <em>s</em> for the plural termination, and -not <em>es</em>, as <em>patriarch, patriarchs</em>; <em>distich, distichs</em>.</p> - -<p>Nouns ending in <em>f</em> or <em>fe</em>, make their plural by changing -<em>f</em> or <em>fe</em> into <em>ves</em>, as, <em>calf, calves</em>; <em>knife, knives</em>. Except -<em>hoof</em>, <em>roof</em>, <em>grief</em>, <em>dwarf</em>, <em>mischief</em>, <em>handkerchief</em>, <em>relief</em>, <em>muff</em>, -<em>ruff</em>, <em>cuff</em>, <em>snuff</em>, <em>stuff</em>, <em>puff</em>, <em>cliff</em>, <em>skiff</em>, with a few others, -which in the formation of their plurals follow the general -rule.</p> - -<p>Nouns in <em>o</em> impure form their plural by adding <em>es</em>, as, <em>hero, -heroes</em>; <em>echo, echoes</em>: those which end in <em>o</em> pure, by adding <em>s</em>, -as, <em>folio, folios</em>.</p> - -<p>Some nouns have their plural in <em>en</em>, thus following the -Teutonic termination, as, <em>ox, oxen</em>; <em>man, men</em>.</p> - -<p>Some are entirely anomalous, as, <em>die, dice</em>; <em>penny, pence</em>; -<em>goose, geese</em>; <em>sow, swine</em>; and <em>brother</em> makes <em>brethren</em><a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a>, -when denoting persons of the same society or profession. -<em>Die</em>, a stamp for coining, makes <em>dies</em> in the plural.</p> - -<p><em>Index</em> makes in the plural <em>indexes</em>, when it expresses a -table of contents, and <em>indices</em>, when it denotes the exponent -of an algebraic quantity.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_18"></a>[18]</span></p> - -<p>Some are used alike in both numbers, as, <em>hose</em><a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a>, <em>deer</em>, <em>sheep</em>, -these being either singular or plural.</p> - -<p>Nouns expressive of whatever nature or art has made -double or plural have no singular, as, <em>bowels</em>, <em>lungs</em>, <em>scissors</em>, -<em>ashes</em>, <em>bellows</em>.</p> - -<p>Nouns ending in <em>y</em> impure form their plural by changing <em>y</em> -into <em>ies</em>, as <em>quality, qualities</em>.</p> - -<p>Nouns purely Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, &c., retain -their original plurals.</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="70%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl pad2"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad2"><em>Pl.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Lat.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Arcanum</td> -<td class="tdl">Arcana</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Fr.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Beau</td> -<td class="tdl">Beaux</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Lat.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Erratum</td> -<td class="tdl">Errata</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Fr.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Monsieur</td> -<td class="tdl">Messieurs, Messrs.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Heb.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Cherub</td> -<td class="tdl">Cherubim</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Heb.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Seraph</td> -<td class="tdl">Seraphim</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Lat.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Magus</td> -<td class="tdl">Magi</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gr.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Phenomenon</td> -<td class="tdl">Phenomena</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Lat.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Stratum</td> -<td class="tdl">Strata</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gr.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Automaton</td> -<td class="tdl">Automata</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Lat.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Vortex</td> -<td class="tdl">Vortices</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Lat.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Radius</td> -<td class="tdl">Radii</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Lat.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Genus</td> -<td class="tdl">Genera</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gr.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Crisis</td> -<td class="tdl">Crises</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gr.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Emphasis</td> -<td class="tdl">Emphases</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gr.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Hypothesis</td> -<td class="tdl">Hypotheses</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Lat.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Genius</td> -<td class="tdl">Genii,</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<p class="noindent">when denoting aërial spirits; but when signifying <em>men of -genius</em>, or employed to express the plural of that combination -of mental qualities which constitutes genius, it follows -the general rule.</p> - -<p>A proper name has a plural number when it becomes the -name of more individuals than one, as, <em>the two Scipios</em>; <em>the -twelve Cæsars</em>. It is to be observed, however, that it ceases -then to be, strictly speaking, a proper name.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_19"></a>[19]</span></p> - -<p>Some nouns have no plural. 1st. Those which denote -things measured or weighed, unless when they express -varieties, as, <em>sugar, sugars</em>; <em>wheat, wheats</em>; <em>oil, oils</em>; <em>wine, -wines</em>. Here, not numbers of individuals, but different -species or classes, are signified. In this sense the nouns are -used plurally.</p> - -<p>2d. Names of abstract, and also of moral qualities, as, -<em>hardness</em>, <em>softness</em>, <em>prudence</em>, <em>envy</em>, <em>benevolence</em>, have no plural. -It is to be observed, however, that several nouns of this class -ending in <em>y</em>, when they do not express the quality or property -in the abstract, but either its varieties or its manifestations, -are used plurally. Thus we say, <em>levities</em>, <em>affinities</em>, <em>gravities</em>, -&c. There may be different degrees and different exhibitions -of the quality, but not a plurality.</p> - -<p>Where displays of the mental quality are to be expressed, -it is better in all cases to employ a periphrasis. Thus, instead -of using with Hume (vol. vii. p. 411) the plural <em>insolences</em>, -the expression <em>acts of insolence</em>, would be preferable.</p> - -<p>Some of those words which have no singular termination -are names of sciences, as, <em>mathematics</em>, <em>metaphysics</em>, <em>politics</em>, -<em>ethics</em>, <em>pneumatics</em>, &c.</p> - -<p>Of these, the term <em>ethics</em> is, I believe, considered as either -singular or plural.</p> - -<p><em>Mathematics</em> is generally construed as plural; sometimes, -however, we find it as singular. “It is a great pity,” says -Locke, (vol. iii. p. 427, 8vo. 1794,) “Aristotle had not understood -mathematics, as well as Mr. Newton, and made use of -<em>it</em> in natural philosophy.”</p> - -<p>“But when mathematics,” says Mr. Harris, “instead of -being applied to this excellent purpose, <em>are</em> used not to exemplify -logic, but to supply its place, no wonder if logic pass -into contempt.”</p> - -<p>Bacon improperly uses the word as singular and plural in -the same sentence. “If a child,” says he, “be bird-witted, -that is, hath not the faculty of attention, the mathematics -<em>giveth</em> a remedy thereunto; for in <em>them</em>, if the wit be caught -away but a moment, one is new to begin.” He likewise frequently -gives to some names of sciences a singular termination;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_20"></a>[20]</span> -and Beattie, with a few others, have, in some instances, -followed his example.</p> - -<p>“Thus far we have argued for the sake of argument, and -opposed <em>metaphysic</em> to metaphysic.”—<cite>Essay on Truth.</cite></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“See physic beg the Stagyrite’s defence,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">See metaphysic call for aid on sense.”—<cite>Pope.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>This usage, however, is not general.</p> - -<p><em>Metaphysics</em> is used both as a singular and plural noun.</p> - -<p>“Metaphysics <em>has</em> been defined, by a writer deeply read -in the ancient philosophy, ‘The science of the principles -and causes of all things existing.’”—<cite>Encyc. Brit.</cite> Here -the word is used as singular; as likewise in the following -example:</p> - -<p>“Metaphysics <em>has</em> been represented by painters and sculptors -as a woman crowned and blindfolded, holding a sceptre -in her hand, and having at her feet an hour-glass and a globe.”</p> - -<p>“Metaphysics <em>is</em> that science, in which are understood the -principles of other sciences.”—<cite>Hutton.</cite></p> - -<p>In the following examples it is construed as a plural noun.</p> - -<p>“Metaphysics <em>tend</em> only to benight the understanding in a -cloud of its own making.”—<cite>Knox.</cite></p> - -<p>“Here, indeed, lies the justest and most plausible objection -against a considerable part of metaphysics, that <em>they</em> are -not properly a science.”—<cite>Hume.</cite></p> - -<p>The latter of these usages is the more common, and more -agreeable to analogy. The same observation is applicable to -the terms <em>politics</em>, <em>optics</em>, <em>pneumatics</em>, and other similar names -of sciences.</p> - -<p>“But in order to prove more fully that politics <em>admit</em> of -general truths.”—<cite>Hume.</cite></p> - -<p>Here the term is used as plural.</p> - -<p><em>Folk</em> and <em>folks</em> are used indiscriminately; but the plural -termination is here superfluous, the word <em>folk</em> implying plurality.</p> - -<p><em>Means</em> is used both as a singular and plural noun. Lowth -recommends the latter usage only, and admits mean as the -singular of means. But notwithstanding the authority of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_21"></a>[21]</span> -Hooker, Sidney, and Shakspeare, for the expressions <em>this -mean</em>, <em>that mean</em>, &c., and the recommendation they receive -from analogy, custom has so long decided in favour of <em>means</em>, -repudiating the singular termination, that it may seem, perhaps, -idle, as well as fastidious, to propose its dismission.</p> - -<p>It is likewise observable, that the singular form of this noun -is not to be found in our version of the Bible; a circumstance -which clearly shows, that the translators preferred the plural -termination.</p> - -<p>That the noun <em>means</em> has been used as a substantive singular -by some of our best writers, it would be easy to prove -by numberless examples. Let a few suffice.</p> - -<p>“By <em>this</em> means it became every man’s interest, as well -as his duty, to prevent all crimes.”—<cite>Temple</cite>, vol. iii. p. 133.</p> - -<p>“And by <em>this</em> means I should not doubt.”—<cite>Wilkins’s real -Character.</cite></p> - -<p>“He by <em>that</em> means preserves his superiority.”—<cite>Addison.</cite></p> - -<p>“By <em>this</em> means alone the greatest obstacles will vanish.”—<cite>Pope.</cite></p> - -<p>“By <em>this</em> means there was nothing left to the parliament -of Ireland.”—<cite>Blackstone</cite>, vol. i. p. 102.</p> - -<p>“Faith is not only <em>a</em> means of obeying, but a principal act -of obedience.”—<cite>Young.</cite></p> - -<p>“<em>Every</em> means was lawful for the public safety.”—<cite>Gibbon.</cite></p> - -<p>That this word is also used as plural, the most inattentive -English reader must have frequently observed.</p> - -<p>“He was careful to observe what means <em>were</em> employed by -his adversaries to counteract his schemes.”</p> - -<p>While we offer these examples to show that the term is -used either as a singular or as a plural noun, we would at the -same time remark, that though the expression “a mean” is -at present generally confined to denote “a middle, or medium, -between two extremes,” we are inclined to concur with the -learned Dr. Lowth, and to recommend a more extended use -of the noun singular. This usage was common in the days of -Shakspeare.</p> - -<p>“I’ll devise a <em>mean</em> to draw the Moor out of the way.”—<cite>Othello.</cite></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_22"></a>[22]</span></p> - -<p>“Pamela’s noble heart would needs gratefully make known -the valiant <em>mean</em> of her safety.”—<cite>Sidney.</cite></p> - -<p>“Their virtuous conversation was a <em>mean</em> to work the -Heathen’s conversion unto Christ.”—<cite>Hooker.</cite></p> - -<p>Melmoth, Beattie, and several other writers, distinguished -by their elegance and accuracy of diction, have adopted this -usage. <em>A means</em>, indeed, is a form of expression which, -though not wholly unsupported by analogy, is yet so repugnant -to the general idiom of our language, and seems so -ill adapted to denote the operation of a single cause, that we -should be pleased to see it dismissed from use. If we say, -“This was <em>one of the means</em> which he employed to effect his -purpose,” analogy and metaphysical propriety concur in recommending -<em>a mean</em>, or <em>one mean</em>, as preferable to <em>a means</em>. -<em>News</em>, <em>alms</em>, <em>riches</em>, <em>pains</em>, have been used as either singular -or plural; but we never say, “one of the news,” “one of the -alms,” “one of the riches,” “one of the pains,” as we say -“one of the means;” we may, therefore, be justified, notwithstanding -the authority of general usage, in pronouncing -“a means” a palpable anomaly.</p> - -<p><em>News</em> is likewise construed sometimes as a singular, and -sometimes as a plural noun. The former usage, however, is -far the more general.</p> - -<p>“A general joy at <em>this</em> glad news appeared.”—<cite>Cowley.</cite></p> - -<p>“No news so bad as <em>this</em> at home.”—<cite>Shakspeare</cite>, <cite>Richard -III.</cite></p> - -<p>“The amazing news of Charles at once <em>was</em> spread.”—<cite>Dryden.</cite></p> - -<p>“The king was employed in his usual exercise of besieging -castles, when the news <em>was</em> brought of Henry’s arrival.”—<cite>Swift.</cite></p> - -<p>“The only news you can expect from me <em>is</em> news from -heaven.”—<cite>Gay.</cite></p> - -<p>“<em>This</em> is all the news talked of.”—<cite>Pope.</cite></p> - -<p>Swift, Pope, Gay, with most other classic writers of that -age, seem to have uniformly used it as singular.</p> - -<p>A few examples occur of a plural usage.</p> - -<p>“When Rhea heard <em>these</em> news.”—<cite>Raleigh</cite>, <cite>Hist. World</cite>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_23"></a>[23]</span></p> - -<p>“<em>Are</em> there any news of his intimate friend?”—<cite>Smollett.</cite></p> - -<p>“News <em>were</em> brought to the queen.”—<cite>Hume.</cite></p> - -<p>The same rule as that just now recommended in regard to -the noun <em>means</em> might perhaps be useful here also, namely, -to consider the word as singular when only one article of intelligence -is communicated, and as plural when several new -things are reported.</p> - -<p><em>Pains</em> is considered as either singular or plural, some of -our best writers using it in either way. This word is evidently -of French extraction, being the same with <em>peine</em>, -pains or trouble, and was originally used in a singular form -thus, “Which may it please your highness to take the <em>payne</em> -for to write.”—<cite>Wolsey’s Letter to Henry VIII.</cite> It seems -probable, that this word, after it assumed a plural form, was -more frequently used as a singular than as a plural noun. -Modern usage, however, seems to incline the other way. A -celebrated grammarian indeed, has pronounced this noun to -be in all cases plural; but this assertion might be proved -erroneous by numberless examples<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a>.</p> - -<p>“The pains they had taken <em>was</em> very great.”—<cite>Clarendon.</cite></p> - -<p>“Great pains <em>has</em> been taken.”—<cite>Pope.</cite></p> - -<p>“No pains <em>is</em> taken.”—<cite>Pope.</cite></p> - -<p>In addition to these authorities in favour of a singular -usage, it may be observed, that the word <em>much</em>, a term of -quantity, not of number, is frequently joined with it, as,</p> - -<p>“I found much art and pains employed.”—<cite>Middleton.</cite></p> - -<p>“He will assemble materials with much pains.”—<cite>Bolingbroke -on History.</cite></p> - -<p>The word <em>much</em> is never joined to a plural noun; <em>much -labours</em>, <em>much papers</em>, would be insufferable<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a>.</p> - -<p><em>Riches</em> is generally now considered as a plural noun; -though it was formerly used either as singular or plural. -This substantive seems to have been nothing but the French -word <em>richesse</em>; and therefore no more a plural than<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_24"></a>[24]</span> -<em>gentlenesse, distresse</em>, and many others of the same kind. In this -form we find it in Chaucer:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“But for ye spoken of swiche gentlenesse,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">As is descended out of old richesse.</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And he that ones to love doeth his homage,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Full often times dere bought is the richesse.”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>Accordingly he gives it a plural termination, and uses it -as a plural word.</p> - -<p>“Thou hast dronke so much hony of swete temporal -richesses, and delices, and honours of this world.”</p> - -<p>It seems evident, then, that this word was originally construed -as a substantive singular, and even admitted a plural -form. The orthography varying, and the noun singular -assuming a plural termination, it came in time to be considered -by some as a noun plural.</p> - -<p>In our translation of the Bible, it is construed sometimes -as a singular, but generally as a plural noun.</p> - -<p>“In one hour is so great riches come to nought.”—<cite>Bible.</cite></p> - -<p>“Riches take to themselves wings, and fly away.”—<em>Ibid.</em></p> - -<p>Modern usage, in like manner, inclines to the plural construction; -there are a few authorities, however, on the other -side, as,</p> - -<p>“<em>Was</em> ever riches gotten by your golden mediocrities?”—<cite>Cowley.</cite></p> - -<p>“The envy and jealousy which great riches <em>is</em> always attended -with.”—<cite>Moyle.</cite></p> - -<p><em>Alms</em> was also originally a noun singular, being a contraction -of the old Norman French <i lang="xno" xml:lang="xno">almesse</i>, the plural of -which was <i lang="xno" xml:lang="xno">almesses</i>.</p> - -<p>“This almesse shouldst thou do of thy proper things.”—<cite>Chaucer.</cite></p> - -<p>“These ben generally the almesses and workes of charity.”—<em>Ibid.</em></p> - -<p>Johnson says this word has no singular. It was, in truth, -a first a noun singular, and afterwards, by contraction, receiving -a plural form, it came to be considered by some as a -noun plural. Johnson would have had equal, nay, perhaps, -better authority for saying that this word has no plural.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_25"></a>[25]</span> -Our translators of the Bible seem to have considered it as -singular. “To ask <em>an</em> alms,” “to give <em>much</em> alms,” and -other similar phraseologies, occur in Scripture. Nay, -Johnson himself has cited two authorities, in which the indefinite -article is prefixed to it.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent10">... “My arm’d knees,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Which bow’d but in my stirrup, bend like his</div> - <div class="verse indent0">That hath received <em>an</em> alms.”—<cite>Shakspeare.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>“The poor beggar hath a just demand of <em>an</em> alms from -the rich man.”—<cite>Swift.</cite></p> - -<p>Lowth objected to the phraseology <em>a means</em>, for this -reason, that <em>means</em>, being a plural noun, cannot admit the -indefinite article, or name of unity. The objection would -be conclusive, if the expressions <em>this means, that means</em>, did -not oppose the learned author’s opinion, that <em>means</em> is a -noun plural. To the substantive <em>alms</em>, as represented by -Johnson to have no singular, the objection is applicable.</p> - -<p><em>Thanks</em> is considered to be a plural noun, though denoting -only one expression of gratitude. It occurs in Scripture as -a substantive singular. “What thank have ye?”</p> - -<p>It has been observed, that many of those words which -have no singular denote things consisting of two parts, and -therefore have a plural termination. Hence the word <em>pair</em> is -used with many of them, as, “<em>a pair of bellows</em>, <em>a pair of -scissors</em>, <em>a pair of colours</em>, <em>a pair of drawers</em>.”</p> - - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h4 class="nobreak">SECTION II.<br /> - -<span class="fs90"><em>Of Genders.</em></span></h4> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">We not only observe a plurality of substances, or of things -of the same sort, whence arises the distinction of number; -but we distinguish also another character of some substances, -which we call sex. Every substance is either male or female, -or neither the one nor the other. In English, all male<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_26"></a>[26]</span> -animals are considered as masculine; all female animals as -feminine; and all things inanimate, or destitute of sex, are -termed neuter, as belonging neither to the male nor the -female sex. In this distribution we follow the order of -nature; and our language is, in this respect, both simple and -animated.</p> - -<p>The difference of sex is, in some cases, expressed by different -words, as,</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="60%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Masc.</em></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Fem.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Boy</td> -<td class="tdl">Girl</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Buck</td> -<td class="tdl">Doe</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bull</td> -<td class="tdl">Cow</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bullock</td> -<td class="tdl">Heifer</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Boar</td> -<td class="tdl">Sow</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Drake</td> -<td class="tdl">Duck</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Friar</td> -<td class="tdl">Nun</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Gaffer</td> -<td class="tdl">Gammer</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Gander</td> -<td class="tdl">Goose</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Gelding }</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">Mare</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Horse }</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Milter</td> -<td class="tdl">Spawner</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Nephew</td> -<td class="tdl">Niece</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Ram</td> -<td class="tdl">Ewe</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sloven</td> -<td class="tdl">Slut</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Stag</td> -<td class="tdl">Hind</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Widower</td> -<td class="tdl">Widow</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Wizard</td> -<td class="tdl">Witch</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>Sometimes the female is distinguished by the termination -<em>ess</em> or <em>ix</em>.</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="60%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Masc.</em></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Fem.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Abbot</td> -<td class="tdl">Abbess</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Actor</td> -<td class="tdl">Actress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Adulterer</td> -<td class="tdl">Adulteress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Ambassador</td> -<td class="tdl">Ambassadress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Arbiter</td> -<td class="tdl">Arbitress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Author<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_27"></a>[27]</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Authoress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Baron</td> -<td class="tdl">Baroness</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Chanter</td> -<td class="tdl">Chantress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Count</td> -<td class="tdl">Countess</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Deacon</td> -<td class="tdl">Deaconess</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Duke</td> -<td class="tdl">Duchess</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Elector</td> -<td class="tdl">Electress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Emperor</td> -<td class="tdl">Empress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Governor</td> -<td class="tdl">Governess</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Heir</td> -<td class="tdl">Heiress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Hunter</td> -<td class="tdl">Huntress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Jew</td> -<td class="tdl">Jewess</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Lion</td> -<td class="tdl">Lioness</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Marquis</td> -<td class="tdl">Marchioness</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Master</td> -<td class="tdl">Mistress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Patron</td> -<td class="tdl">Patroness</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Prince</td> -<td class="tdl">Princess</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Peer</td> -<td class="tdl">Peeress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Prior</td> -<td class="tdl">Prioress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Poet</td> -<td class="tdl">Poetess</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Prophet</td> -<td class="tdl">Prophetess</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shepherd</td> -<td class="tdl">Shepherdess</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sorcerer</td> -<td class="tdl">Sorceress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Traitor</td> -<td class="tdl">Traitress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Tutor</td> -<td class="tdl">Tutress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Tiger</td> -<td class="tdl">Tigress</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Viscount</td> -<td class="tdl">Viscountess</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>There are a few whose feminine ends in <em>ix</em>, viz.</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="60%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad2"><em>Masc.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad2"><em>Fem.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Administrator</td> -<td class="tdl">Administratrix</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Executor</td> -<td class="tdl">Executrix</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Testator</td> -<td class="tdl">Testatrix</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Director</td> -<td class="tdl">Directrix</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>Where there is but one word to express both sexes, we<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_28"></a>[28]</span> -add another word to distinguish the sex; as, <em>he-goat, she-goat</em>; -<em>man-servant, maid-servant</em>; <em>cock-sparrow, hen-sparrow</em>.</p> - -<p>It has been already observed, that all things destitute of -sex are in English considered as of the neuter gender; and, -when we speak with logical accuracy, we follow this rule. -Sometimes, however, by a figure in rhetoric, called personification, -we assign sex to things inanimate. Thus, instead of -“virtue is <em>its</em> own reward,” we sometimes say, “virtue is <em>her</em> -own reward;” instead of “<em>it</em> (the sun) rises,” we say, “he -rises;” instead of “<em>it</em> (death) advances with hasty steps,” -we say, “<em>he</em> advances.”</p> - -<p>This figurative mode of expression, by which we give life -and sex to things inanimate, and embody abstract qualities, -forms a singular and striking beauty in our language, rendering -it in this respect superior to the languages of Greece -and Rome, neither of which admitted this animated phraseology<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a>.</p> - -<p>When we say,</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p>“The sun <em>his</em> orient beams had shed,”</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">the expression possesses infinitely more vivacity than</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p>“The sun <em>its</em> orient beams had shed.”</p> -</div> - -<p>In assigning sex to things inanimate, it has been supposed -that we have been guided by certain characters or qualities -in the inanimate objects, as bearing some resemblance to the -distinctive or characteristic qualities of male and female -animals. Thus, it has been said, that those inanimate substances, -or abstract qualities, which are characterized by the -attributes of giving or imparting, or which convey an idea of -great strength, firmness, or energy, are masculine; and that -those, on the contrary, which are distinguished by the properties -of receiving, containing, and producing, or which -convey an idea of weakness or timidity, having more of a -passive than active nature, are feminine. Hence it has been -observed, that the <em>sun</em>, <em>death</em>, <em>time</em>, the names also of great<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_29"></a>[29]</span> -rivers and mountains, are considered as masculine; and that -the <em>moon</em>, a <em>ship</em>, the <em>sea</em>, <em>virtue</em>, in all its species, are considered -as feminine. Of these and such speculations it may -be truly said, as the learned author of them remarks himself, -that they are at best but ingenious conjectures. They certainly -will not bear to be rigorously examined; for there are not -any two languages which harmonize in this respect, assigning -the same sex to the same inanimate objects, nor any one language -in which this theory is supported by fact<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a>. Hence it -is evident, that neither reason nor nature has any share in -the regulation of this matter; and that, in assigning sex to -inanimate things, the determination is purely fanciful. In -Greek, <em>death</em> is masculine: in Latin, feminine. In those -languages the <em>sun</em> is masculine; in the Gothic, German, -Anglo-Saxon, and some other northern languages, it is feminine; -in Russian it is neuter. In several of the languages -of Asia, the <em>sun</em> is feminine. According to our northern -mythology, the sun was the wife of Tuisco. The Romans -considered the winds as masculine; the Hebrews, says Caramuel, -represented them as nymphs. In the Hebrew language, -however, they were of the masculine gender, as were -also the <em>sun</em> and <em>death</em>. In short, we know not any two languages -which accord in this respect, or any one language in -which sex is assigned to things inanimate according to any -consistent or determinate rule.</p> - -<p>In speaking of animals whose sex is not known to us, or -not regarded, we assign to them gender either masculine or -feminine, according, as it would appear, to the characteristic -properties of the animal himself. In speaking, for example, -of the horse, a creature distinguished by usefulness and a -certain generosity of nature, unless we be acquainted with -the sex and wish to discriminate, we always speak of this -quadruped as of the male sex; thus,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“While winter’s shivering snow affects the horse</div> - <div class="verse indent0">With frost, and makes <em>him</em> an uneasy course.”—<cite>Creech.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>In speaking of a hare, an animal noted for timidity, we<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_30"></a>[30]</span> -assign to it, if we give it sex, the feminine gender; thus, -“the hare is so timorous a creature, that <em>she</em> continually -listens after every noise, and will run a long way on the least -suspicion of danger: so that <em>she</em> always eats in terror.”</p> - -<p>The elephant is generally considered as of the masculine -gender, an animal distinguished not only by great strength -and superiority of size, but also by sagacity, docility, and -fortitude.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“The elephant has joints, but not for courtesy;</div> - <div class="verse indent0"><em>His</em> legs are for necessity, not flexure.”—<cite>Shakspeare.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>To a cat we almost always assign the female sex; to a dog, -on the contrary, or one of the canine species, we attribute the -masculine gender.</p> - -<p>“A cat, as <em>she</em> beholds the light, draws the ball of <em>her</em> eye -small and long.”—<cite>Peacham on Drawing.</cite></p> - -<p>“The dog is a domestic animal remarkably various in <em>his</em> -species.”</p> - -<p>It would be easy to illustrate, by more examples, this -ascription of either male or female sex to animals, when we -speak of them in the species, or are not acquainted with the -sex of the individual; but these now adduced will, I presume, -be sufficient.</p> - -<p>By what principle this phraseology is dictated, or whether -it be merely casual or arbitrary in its origin, it would be of -no utility at present to inquire. It may be necessary, however, -to remark that, when speaking of animals, particularly -those of inferior size, we frequently consider them as devoid of -sex. “<em>It</em> is a bold and daring creature,” says a certain writer, -speaking of a cat, “and also cruel to <em>its</em> enemy; and never -gives over, till <em>it</em> has destroyed it, if possible. <em>It</em> is also -watchful, dexterous, swift, and pliable.”</p> - -<p>Before I dismiss this subject, I would request the reader’s -attention to an idiom which seems to have escaped the notice -of our grammarians. It frequently happens, as I have already -observed, that our language furnishes two distinct terms for -the male and the female, as <em>shepherd, shepherdess</em>. It is to -be observed, however, that the masculine term has a general -meaning, expressing both male and female, and is always<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_31"></a>[31]</span> -employed, when the office, occupation, profession, &c., and -not the sex of the individual is chiefly to be expressed; and -that the feminine term is used in those cases only, when -discrimination of sex is indispensably necessary. This -may be illustrated by the following examples. If I say, -“The poets of this age are distinguished more by correctness -of taste, than sublimity of conception,” I clearly include in -the term <em>poet</em>, both male and female writers of poetry. If I -say, “She is the best poetess in this country,” I assign her -the superiority over those only of her own sex. If I say, -“She is the best poet in this country,” I pronounce her -superior to all other writers of poetry, both male and female. -“Spinning,” says Lord Kames in his Sketches, “is a female -occupation, and must have had a female inventor.” If he -had said “a female inventress,” the expression would have -been pleonastic. If he had said “must have had an inventress,” -he would not have sufficiently contrasted the male -and the female; he would have merely predicated the necessity -of an inventress. He, therefore, properly adopts the -term <em>inventor</em> as applicable to each of the sexes, limiting -it to the female by the appropriate term<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a>. When distinction -of sex is necessary for the sake of perspicuity, or where the -sex, rather than the general idea implied by the term, is the -primary object, the feminine noun must be employed to express -the female; thus, “I hear that some <em>authoresses</em> are<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_32"></a>[32]</span> -engaged in this work.”—<cite>Political Register.</cite> Here the -feminine term is indispensable<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a>. This subject will be resumed -in “the Critical Remarks and Illustrations.”</p> - - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h4 class="nobreak">SECTION III.<br /> - -<span class="fs90"><em>Of Cases.</em></span></h4> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">The third accident of a noun is case, (<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">casus</i>, or fall,) so -called because ancient grammarians, it is said, represented -the cases as declining or falling from the nominative, which -was represented by a perpendicular, and thence called <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Casus -rectus</i>, or upright case, while the others were named <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Casus -obliqui</i>, or oblique cases. The cases, in the languages of -Greece and Rome, were formed by varying the termination; -and were intended to express a few of the most obvious and -common relations.</p> - -<p>In English there are only three cases, nominative, genitive, -and objective, or accusative case. In substantives the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_33"></a>[33]</span> -nominative case and the objective, have, like neuter nouns in -Greek and Latin, the same form, being distinguishable from -each other by nothing but their place; thus,</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" summary=""> -<tr class="fs80"> -<td class="tdc">Nom.</td> -<td class="tdc">Obj.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="2"><em>Achilles slew Hector</em>,</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="2"><em>Hector slew Achilles</em>,</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p class="noindent">where the meaning is reversed by the interchange of the -nouns, the nominative or agent being known by its being -placed before the verb; and the subject of the action by its -following it. Pronouns have three cases, that is, two inflexions -from the nominative, as, <em>I, mine, me</em>; <em>thou, thine, -thee</em>.</p> - -<p>The genitive in English, by some called the possessive -case, is formed by adding to the nominative the letter s, -with an apostrophe before it, as <em>king, king’s</em>. It expresses -a variety of relations, and was hence called by the Greeks -the general case<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a>. The relation which it most commonly -denotes is that of property or possession, as, <em>the king’s -crown</em>; and is, in general, the same with that which is denoted -by the word <em>of</em>, as, <em>the crown of the king</em>, <em>the rage of -the tyrant</em>, <em>the death of the prince</em>, equivalent to <em>the king’s -crown</em>, <em>the tyrant’s rage</em>, <em>the prince’s death</em>.</p> - -<p>The nature of the relation which the genitive expresses -must, in some instances, be collected from the scope of the -context; for, in English, as in most other languages, this -case frequently involves an ambiguity. When I say, -“neither life nor death shall separate us from the love of -God,” it may mean, either from the love which we owe to -God, or the love which he bears to us; for “God’s love” -may denote either the relation which the affection bears -to its subject, or that which it bears to its object. If the -latter be the meaning intended, the ambiguity may be prevented -by saying, “love to God.”</p> - -<p>An ambiguity likewise arises from it, as expressing either -the relation of the effect to its cause, or that of the accident<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_34"></a>[34]</span> -to its subject. “A little after the reformation of Luther,” -says Swift. This may import either the change produced by -Luther, or a change produced in him. The latter indeed -is properly the meaning, though not that which was intended -by the author. He should have said, “the reformation by -Luther.” It is clear, therefore, that the relation expressed -by the genitive is not uniformly the same, that the phrase -may be interpreted either in an active or passive sense<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a>, and -that the real import must be collected not from the expression, -but the context.</p> - -<p>Mr. Harris has said, that the genitive is formed to express -all relations commencing from itself, and offers the analysis -of this case in all modern languages as a proof. That it expresses -more than this, both in English and Latin, and that -it denotes relations, not only commencing from itself, but -likewise directed to itself, the examples already quoted are -sufficient to prove. Nay, were it necessary, it would be easy -to demonstrate, that this ambiguity in the use of the genitive -is not confined to these two languages, but is found in Greek, -Hebrew, Italian, and, I believe, in all the modern languages -of Europe.</p> - -<p>Concerning the origin of the English genitive, grammarians -and critics are not agreed. That the cases, or nominal -inflexions, in all languages were originally formed by annexing -to the noun in its simple form a word significant of the -relation intended, is a doctrine which, I conceive, is not only -approved by reason, but also attested by fact. That any -people, indeed, in framing their language, should affix to -their nouns insignificant terminations, for the purpose of -expressing any relation, is a theory extremely improbable. -Numerous as the inflexions are in the Greek and Latin languages, -I am persuaded that, were we sufficiently acquainted<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_35"></a>[35]</span> -with their original structure, we should find that all these -terminations were at first words significant, subjoined to the -<em>radix</em>, and afterwards abbreviated. This opinion is corroborated -by the structure of the Hebrew, and some other -oriental languages, whose affixes and prefixes, in the formation -of their cases and conjugation of their verbs, we can -still ascertain.</p> - -<p>Now the English genitive being formed by annexing to -the nominative the letter <em>s</em>, with an apostrophe, several -critics, among whom is Mr. Addison, deliver it as their -opinion, that this termination is a contraction for the possessive -pronoun <em>his</em>. This opinion appears to be countenanced -by the examples which occur in the Bible, and Book of -Common Prayer, in which, instead of the English genitive, -we find the nominative with the possessive pronoun masculine -of the third person; thus, “for Christ his sake,” “Asa his -heart was perfect.” Dr. Lowth considers these expressions -as errors either of the printers or the authors. That they are -not typographical mistakes I am fully persuaded. They occur -in the books now mentioned, and also in the works of -Bacon, Donne, and many other writers, much too frequently -to admit this supposition. If errors, therefore, they are errors -not of the printers, but of the authors themselves.</p> - -<p>To evince the incorrectness of this phraseology, and to -show that Addison’s opinion is erroneous, Dr. Lowth observes -that, though we can resolve “the king’s crown” into “the king -his crown,” we cannot resolve “the queen’s crown” into -“the queen her crown,” or “the children’s bread” into “the -children their bread.” This fact, he observes, ought to have -demonstrated to Mr. Addison the incorrectness of his opinion. -Lowth, therefore, refers the English to the Saxon genitive -for its real origin, and observes, that its derivation from that -genitive decides the question<a id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a>. Hickes, in his <cite>Thesaurus</cite>,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_36"></a>[36]</span> -had previously delivered the same opinion. Speaking of the -Anglo-Saxon genitive in <em>es</em>, he observes, “Inde in nostratium -sermone nominum substantivorum, genitivus singularis, et -nominativus pluralis, exeunt in es, vel <em>s</em>.” From the introduction -of the Saxons into this island, to the Norman conquest, -the Saxon genitive was in universal use. From the -latter period to the time of Henry II. (1170), though the -English language underwent some alterations, we still find -the Saxon genitive. Thus, in a poem, entitled “The Life of -St. Margaret,” in the Normanno-Saxon dialect, we find the -following among other examples, “chrisꞇes angles,” and the -pronoun hyꞅ (his) spelled <em>is</em>; thus, “Theodosius was <em>is</em> -name.”—See <cite>Hickes</cite>, <cite>Thes.</cite> vol. i. p. 226.</p> - -<p>Webster has asserted that, in the age of Edward the Confessor -(1050), he does not find the Saxon genitive; and as a -proof that the pronoun <em>his</em> was used instead of the Saxon -termination, he quotes a passage from a charter of Edward -the Confessor, where the words, “bissop his land” occur, -which he conceives to be equivalent to “bishop’s land.” -Now, had he read but a small part of that charter, he would -have found the Saxon genitive; and what he imagines to be -equivalent to the English genitive is neither that case, nor -synonymous with it. The passage runs thus: “And ich ke -þe eu þat Alfred havet iseld Gise bissop his land at Llyton;” -the meaning of which is, “Know that Alfred hath sold to -Bishop Gise his land at Lutton.” In the time of Richard -II. (1385) we find Trevisa and Chaucer using the Saxon -genitive. Thus, in Trevisa’s translation of the Athanasian -creed, we find among other examples, “Godes sight.”</p> - -<p>In Gavin Douglas, who lived in the beginning of the -sixteenth century, we find <em>is</em> instead of <em>es</em>, thus, <em>faderis hands</em>.</p> - -<p>In the time of Henry the Eighth we find, in the works of -Sir T. More, both the Saxon and the English genitive; and in -a letter, written in 1559, by Maitland of Lethington, the English -genitive frequently occurs. Had this genitive, then, -been an abbreviation for the noun and the pronoun <em>his</em>, the -use of the words separately would have preceded their abbreviated -form in composition. This, however, was not the -case.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_37"></a>[37]</span></p> - -<p>To form the genitive plural, we annex the apostrophe -without the letter <em>s</em>, as <em>eagles’ wings</em>, that is, <em>the wings of -eagles</em>. The genitive singular of nouns terminating in <em>s</em>, is -formed in the same manner, as, <em>righteousness’ sake</em>, or <em>the -sake of righteousness</em>.</p> - -<p>I finish this article with observing, that there are in English -a few diminutive nouns, so called from their expressing -a small one of the kind. Some of these end in <em>kin</em>, from a -Dutch and Teutonic word signifying a <em>child</em>, as <em>manikin</em>, a -little man, <em>lambkin</em>, <em>pipkin</em>, <em>thomkin</em>. Proper names ending -in <em>kin</em> belonged originally to this class of diminutives, as, <em>Wilkin</em>, -Willielmulus; <em>Halkin, Hawkin</em>, Henriculus; <em>Tomkin</em>, -Thomulus; <em>Simkin</em>, <em>Peterkin</em>, &c.</p> - -<p>Some diminutives end in <em>ock</em>, as, <em>hill, hillock</em>; <em>bull, bullock</em>; -some in <em>el</em>, as <em>pike, pickrel</em>; <em>cock, cockrel</em>; <em>sack, satchel</em>; -some in <em>ing</em>, as <em>goose, gosling</em>. These seem to be the only -legitimate ones, as properly belonging to our language. The -rest are derived from Latin, French, Italian, and have various -terminations.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_38"></a>[38]</span><br /></p> - -<h3 id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II.<br /> - -<span class="fs60">OF THE ARTICLE.</span></h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent">Language is chiefly composed of general terms, most substantives -being the names of <em>genera</em> or species. When we -find a number of substances resembling one another in their -principal and most obvious qualities, we refer them to one -species, to which we assign a name common to every individual -of that species. In like manner, when we find -several of these species resembling one another in their chief -properties, we refer them to a higher order, to which also we -assign a common and more general name than that which -was affixed to the inferior class. Thus we assign the general -name <em>man</em> to the human species, as possessing a common -form, and distinguished by the common attributes of life, -reason, and speech. If we consider man as possessed of life -only, we perceive a resemblance in this respect between him -and other beings. To this higher class or genus, the characteristic -attribute of which is vitality, we affix the more -generic name of animal<a id="FNanchor_21" href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a>. Hence, when we use an appellative -or common noun, it denotes the genus or class collectively, -of which it is the name, as,</p> - -<p>“The proper study of mankind is man,” <em>i.e.</em> not one man, -not many men, but all men.</p> - -<p>Not only, however, has this rule its limitations, though -these seem governed by no fixed principle, but we frequently -find the articles admitted when the whole genus or species is -evidently implied. Thus we may say,</p> - -<p>“Metal is specifically heavier than water;” <em>i.e.</em> not this -or that metal, but all metals. But we cannot say, “Vegetable<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_39"></a>[39]</span> -is specifically lighter than water;” or, “Mineral is -specifically heavier than water.” Again; we say, “Man is -born unto trouble;” but we cannot say, “Tiger is ferocious,” -or, “Fox is cunning;” but, “The tiger, or a tiger, is ferocious;” -“The fox, or a fox, is cunning;” the expressions -being applicable to the whole species. It would appear, indeed, -that when proper names assume the office of appellatives, -the reverse of the rule takes place. Thus we say, -“A Douglas braves the pointed steel;” the meaning being -“every Douglas.” Suppress the indefinite article, and the -general proposition becomes individual.</p> - -<p>But, though our words are general, all our perceptions are -individual, having single existences for their objects. It is -often necessary, however, to express two, three, or more of -these individual existences; and hence arises the use of that -species of words which have been called numerals, that is, -words denoting number. To signify unity or one of a class, -our forefathers employed <em>ae</em> or <em>ane</em>, as <em>ae man</em>, <em>ane ox</em>. -When unity, or the number one, as opposed to two or more, -was to be expressed, the emphasis would naturally be laid -on the word significant of unity; and when unity was not -so much the object as the species or kind, the term expressive -of unity would naturally be unemphatical; and hence -<em>ae</em>, by celerity of pronunciation, would become <em>a</em>, and <em>ane</em> -be shortened into <em>an</em>. These words <em>a</em> and <em>an</em> are now termed -indefinite articles; it is clear, however, that they are truly -numerals, belonging to the same class with two, three, four, -&c.; or, perhaps, more properly, these numerals may be considered -as abbreviations for the repeated expression of the -term <em>one</em>. By whatever name these terms, <em>a</em>, <em>an</em>, may be designed, -it seems evident that they were originally synonymous -with the name of unity, or rather themselves names of unity, -emphasis only distinguishing whether unity or the species -were chiefly intended. Hence <em>a</em> and <em>an</em> cannot be joined -with a plural noun.</p> - -<p>Some grammarians, indeed, have asserted that in every -example where <em>a</em> or <em>an</em> occurs, the term <em>one</em> may be substituted -in its stead, without in the least degree injuring the -sense. As far as the primary idea denoted by these words<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_40"></a>[40]</span> -is concerned, this opinion is doubtless incontrovertible, for -they each express unity; but with regard to the secondary -or implied ideas which these terms convey, the difference is -obvious. An example will illustrate this: If I say, “Will -one man be able to carry this burden so far?” I evidently -oppose one to more: and the answer might be, “No; but -two men will.” Let us substitute the term <em>a</em>, and say, -“Will a man be able to carry this burden?” Is the idea -nowise changed by this alteration? I apprehend it is; for -the answer might naturally be, “No; but a horse will.” I -have here substituted <em>a</em>, for <em>one</em>; the converse will equally -show that the terms are by no means mutually convertible, -or strictly synonymous. If, instead of saying, “A horse, a -horse, a kingdom for a horse,” I should say, “One horse, one -horse, one kingdom for one horse,” the sentiment, I conceive, -would not be strictly the same. In both expressions the -species is named, and in both one of that species is demanded; -but with this difference, that in the former the -name of the species is the emphatic word, and it opposes -that species to every other; in the latter, unity of object -seems the leading idea, “one kingdom for one horse.” In -this respect, our language appears to me to have a decided -superiority over those languages where one word performs the -office of what we term an article, and at the same time denotes -the idea of unity. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Donnez-moi un livre</i> means either -“give me one book,” <em>i.e.</em> not two or more books; or “give -me a book,” that is, “a book, not something else; a book, not -a pen,” for example.</p> - -<p>I acknowledge that, in oral language, emphasis may serve -to discriminate the sentiments, and prevent ambiguity. But -emphasis is addressed to the ear only, not to the eye; it can, -therefore, be of no service in written language. It is true -also, that by attending to the context, error may often be -avoided; but let it be remembered, as Quintilian observes<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a>,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_41"></a>[41]</span> -that language should be, not such as the reader may understand -if he will take the trouble to examine it carefully, but -such as he cannot even without effort fail to comprehend. -When it is asserted, therefore, that <em>one</em> may in every case be -substituted for <em>a</em>, without in the least degree injuring the expression, -the position appears to me erroneous and false. -Whatever creates ambiguity, whether with respect to the -primary or secondary ideas annexed to words, in some degree, -without question, violates the sense. Be it observed also, -that, though <em>a</em>, <em>an</em>, <em>ae</em>, <em>ane</em>, <em>one</em>, may have been all etymologically -the same, it does not follow, nor is it practically true, -as has been now shown, that they are all precisely equivalent -words. In Scotland, the distinction between <em>a</em> and <em>ae</em> is well -known. “Give me <em>a</em> book,” means any book, in contradistinction -to any other object, as “a chair,” “a pen,” “a knife;” -“give me <em>ae</em> book,” is in contradistinction to one or more. -Such also is the difference between <em>a</em> and <em>one</em>.</p> - -<p>It seems, therefore, undeniable that the word <em>a</em>, termed the -indefinite article, was originally identical with the name of -unity, expressing either one of any species, as opposed to -more of that species, or one of this kind, as opposed to one -of that. Whether the distinction of its noting one or unity, -with less emphasis than the appropriate name of unity, -should entitle it to be referred to a different class of words -from the numeral <em>one</em>, and called an article, it is unimportant -to inquire. To me, however, I must acknowledge the distinctive<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_42"></a>[42]</span> -name of article assigned to this word appears to be -useless. Were emphasis to be admitted as the principle of -classification, (and I see no other distinction between <em>a</em> and -<em>one</em>,) the parts of speech might be multiplied beyond number.</p> - -<p>Besides the words <em>a</em> and <em>an</em>, termed indefinite articles, as -not defining which of the species is signified, we have also -another word, <em>the</em>, named the definite article, because it is -said to point out the individual object. This word, I doubt -not, proceeded from the word <em>this</em> or <em>that</em>, much in the same -manner as <em>a</em> and <em>an</em> from <em>ae</em> and <em>ane</em>. To what class of -words <em>this</em> and <em>that</em> should be referred has been a subject of -controversy<a id="FNanchor_23" href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a>. That they are not pronouns, as some have -asserted, seems abundantly evident; for they never represent -a noun. By some they have been called definitives; and, -though this designation be not strictly consonant with their -import, it is perhaps the least exceptionable. When opposed -to each other, they appear to be reducible to that species of -words termed adjectives of order; the only difference between -them and ordinary numerals being this, that the former express -the arrangement in relation to two objects, the latter in -relation to a series. <em>This</em> means “the nearer,” “the latter,” -or “the second;” <em>that</em>, “the more remote,” “the former,” or -“the first.” Their office, in general, seems to be emphatically -to individuate some particular object whose character -was either previously known, or is then described; hence -they have also been named demonstratives. Under which of -the generally received parts of speech they should be comprehended -it may be difficult to determine. As, like simple -attributives they accord with nouns, frequently denoting the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_43"></a>[43]</span> -accident of place, they may be grammatically referred to the -class of adjectives. Their import will appear from a few examples.</p> - -<p>“That kind Being who is a father to the fatherless, will -recompense thee for this.”</p> - -<p>Here a species is referred to, distinguished by benevolence. -Of this species one individual is emphatically particularized: -“That kind being.” Who? his distinctive character follows, -“is a father to the fatherless.” The concluding word <em>this</em>, -points to something previously described.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent6">“—— ’T was idly done</div> - <div class="verse indent0">To tell him of another world; for wits</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Knew better; and the only good on earth</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Was pleasure; not to follow <em>that</em> was sin.”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>Here the word <em>that</em> refers with emphasis to a thing previously -specified, namely, pleasure.</p> - -<p>“It is no uncommon thing to find a man who laughs at -everything sacred, yet is a slave to superstitious fears. I -would not be that man, were a crown to tempt me.” Here -one indefinitely of a species is mentioned, <em>a man</em>. The subject -is afterwards limited by description to one of a certain -character, “who laughs at things sacred, and is a slave to -superstitious fears.” The word <em>that</em> selects and demonstrates -the person thus described. The word <em>the</em> has nearly the -same import; but is less emphatical. It seems to bear the -same analogy to <em>that</em>, which <em>a</em> does to <em>one</em>. Hence in many -cases they may be used indifferently.</p> - -<p>“Happy the man whose cautious feet shun the broad way -that sinners go.”</p> - -<p>Here, “happy that man” would express the same idea. -The Latins accordingly employed the demonstrative word -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ille</i>; <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">beatus ille</i>, “happy the man.”</p> - -<p>What, then, is the difference between <em>the</em> and <em>that</em>? To -ascertain this, let us inquire, in what cases <em>the</em> is employed, -and whether <em>that</em> can be substituted in its stead.</p> - -<p>The word <em>the</em> is employed,</p> - -<p>1st, When we express an object of eminence or notoriety, -or the only one of a kind in which we are interested, as,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_44"></a>[44]</span> -“the king,” when we mean “the king of England.” “He -was concerned in bringing about the revolution,” when we -mean the revolution in this country. “Virgil copied the -Grecian bard,” or “Homer.” “I am going to the city,” -when I mean “London.” In none of these cases can we -substitute <em>that</em> for <em>the</em>, without laying a particular emphasis -on the subject, and implying that its character is there described -in contradistinction to some other of the same -species. Thus, “he was concerned in that revolution, which -was accomplished by the English barons.” “He copied -that Grecian bard, who disputes the claim of antiquity with -Homer.”</p> - -<p>2dly, We employ it in expressing objects of repeated perception, -or subjects of previous conversation. I borrow an -example from Harris. If I see, for the first time, a man with -a long beard, I say, “there goes a man with a long beard.” -If I see him again, I say, “there goes the man with the -long beard.” Were the word <em>that</em> substituted for <em>the</em>, the -same observation would be applicable as in the preceding -examples.</p> - -<p>3dly, Mr. Harris has said, that the article <em>a</em> is used to express -objects of <ins class="corr" id="tn-44" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'primary preception'"> -primary perception</ins>, and <em>the</em> employed to -denote those only of secondary perception. This opinion is -controverted by the author of the article Grammar in the -Encyclopedia Britannica, Ed. 3d. who gives the following -example to disprove its truth. “I am in company, and finding -the room warm, I say to the servant, Request <em>the</em> gentleman -in the window seat (to whom I am an entire stranger) -to draw down the sash.” The example is apposite, and is -sufficient to overturn the hypothesis of Mr. Harris. There -can be no question but <em>the</em> is frequently employed to denote -objects of primary perception; and merely particularizes, by -some discriminating circumstance, an individual whose -character, person, or distinctive qualities, were previously -unknown. In the example now quoted, <em>that</em> may be substituted -for <em>the</em>, if we say, “who is in the window seat.”</p> - -<p>4thly, The definite article is used to distinguish the explicative -from the determinative sense. In the former case -it is rarely employed: in the latter it should never be omitted,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_45"></a>[45]</span> -unless when something still more definite supplies its place. -“Man, who is born of a woman, is of few days, and full of -trouble.” Here the relative clause is explicative, and not -restrictive; all men being “born of a woman;” the definite -article therefore is not employed. “The man” would imply -that all men are not thus born; and would confine the predicating -clause to those who are. In the latter sense, <em>that</em> -may, without any alteration in the phraseology, be substituted -for the article; for <em>the man</em>, and <em>that man</em>, are in this -instance equivalent.</p> - -<p>5thly, The definite article is often used to denote the -measure of excess. “The more you study, the more learned -you will become;” that is, “by how much the more you -study, by so much the more learned you will become.” -“The wiser, the better;” “that (by that) wiser, that (by that) -better.” There also <em>that</em> and <em>the</em> may be considered as -equivalent; and the Latins accordingly said “eo melior.”</p> - -<p>From the preceding examples and observations it must -appear, that the definite article, and the word <em>that</em>, though -not strictly synonymous, are words nearly of the same import.</p> - -<p>Their difference seems to be,</p> - -<p>1st, That the article <em>the</em>, like <em>a</em>, must have a substantive -conjoined with it; whereas <em>that</em>, like <em>one</em>, may have it understood. -Speaking of books, I may select one and say, “give -me <em>that</em>,” but not “give me <em>the</em>;” “give me <em>one</em>,” but not -“give me <em>a</em>.” Here the analogy holds between <em>a</em> and <em>one</em>, -<em>the</em> and <em>that</em>.</p> - -<p>2dly, As the difference between <em>a</em> and <em>one</em> seems to be, -that <em>one</em> denotes unity in contradistinction to more, with -greater emphasis than <em>a</em>, so the distinction in general between -<em>the</em> and <em>that</em> is, that the latter marks the object more emphatically -than the former, being indirectly opposed to <em>this</em>. -I cannot say, “there goes that man with that long beard,” -without implying a contrast with “this man with this long -beard,” the word <em>that</em> being always emphatical and discriminative.</p> - -<p>The opinion here offered, respecting these words, receives -some corroboration from the following circumstances.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_46"></a>[46]</span></p> - -<p>In Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ille</i> frequently supplies the place of our definite -article. “Thou art the man.” <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Tu es ille (iste) homo.</i></p> - -<p>The <em>le</em> in French is clearly a derivative from <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ille</i>, of which -the former syllable <em>il</em> expresses <em>he</em>, and the latter denotes -<em>that</em> unemphatically, serving as the definite article. From -the same source also proceed the Italian articles <em>il</em>, <em>lo</em>, <em>la</em>.</p> - -<p>In Hebrew, in like manner, our definite article is expressed -by the prefix of the pronoun <em>ille</em>; thus, <em>aretz</em>, <em>terra</em>, “earth;”<a id="FNanchor_24" href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> -<ins class="corr" id="tn-46" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'hartez, illa'"> -<em>ha’aretz</em>, <em>illa</em></ins> seu <em>hæc terra</em>, “the earth,” the letter <em>he</em> abbreviated -from <em>hou</em>, <em>ille</em>, expressing <em>the</em>;—<em>ashri</em>, <em>haish</em><a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a>, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">beatus ille vir</i>, “happy the man,” or “that man,” the <em>he</em> in -like manner signifying <em>the</em> or <em>that</em>.</p> - -<p>It appears to me, then, that as <em>ae</em>, <em>ane</em>, when not opposed -to <em>more</em>, and therefore unemphatical, by celerity of pronunciation -were changed into <em>a</em>, <em>an</em>; so <em>that</em>, when not opposed to -<em>this</em>, or when it was unemphatical, was shortened to <em>the</em>. -Hence, the words termed articles seem to be the name of -unity, and the demonstrative word <em>that</em> abbreviated.</p> - -<p>Besides the words <em>a</em>, <em>an</em>, <em>the</em>, there are others which may -be considered as reducible to the same class with these; such -as <em>this</em>, <em>that</em>, <em>any</em>, <em>other</em>, <em>same</em>, <em>all</em>, <em>one</em>, <em>none</em>. <em>This</em> and <em>that</em> -I have already considered. That they are not pronouns is -evident, for they are never used as the representatives of a -noun, and always require to be associated with a substantive. -If ever they appear without this accompaniment, it will invariably -be found that the expression is elliptical, some substantive -or other being necessarily understood. If I say, -“This was a noble action.” This what? “This action.” -“This is true virtue.” This what? “This practice,” “this -habit,” “this temper.” To what class of words I conceive -them to belong has been already mentioned.</p> - -<p><em>One</em> is a word significant of unity, and cannot, without -manifest impropriety, be called a pronominal adjective; -unless, by an abuse of all language, we be disposed to name -<em>two</em>, <em>three</em>, <em>four</em>, pronominal adjectives.</p> - -<p><em>Some</em> is reducible to the same class, denoting an indefinite, -but, comparatively to <em>many</em>, a small number.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_47"></a>[47]</span></p> -<p><em>Many</em>, <em>few</em>, <em>several</em>, are words of the same order, significant -of number indefinitely.</p> - -<p><em>None</em>, or <em>not one</em>, implies the negation of all number, exclusive -even of unity itself.</p> - -<p><em>Other</em>, which is improperly considered by some as a pronoun, -is the Saxon <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">oðer</span> coming from <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">oððe</span>. The Arabic -<em>ahd</em>, the Hebrew <em>had</em>, or <em>ahad</em>, the Saxon <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">oððe</span>, the Teutonic -<em>odo</em>, and the Swedish <em>udda</em>, with our English word <em>odd</em>, -seem all to have sprung from the same origin, the etymon expressing -“one separately,” or “one by itself,” answering -nearly to the Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">singulus</i>. The English word <em>odd</em> plainly -indicates its affinity to these words. We say, “He is an odd -character,” or “singular character.” “He had some odd -ones,” that is, “some separate from the rest,” not paired, or -connected with them, “single.”<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“As he in soueraine dignity is odde,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">So will he in loue no parting fellowes have.”</div> - <div class="verse indent24"><cite>Sir T. More’s Works.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>The same idea of singularity and separation is expressed -by <em>other</em>; which is now generally used as a comparative, and -followed by <em>than</em>.</p> - -<p><em>Other</em> is sometimes used substantively, and has then a<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_48"></a>[48]</span> -plural number, as, “Let others serve whom they will; as for -me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” The word <em>one</em> has -a plural number when an assemblage of units is expressed, not -in the aggregate, but individually; and then it is used as a -substantive, as, “I saw a great many fine ones.” It is also -used indefinitely, in the same sense with the French <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">on</i>, as, -“One would imagine these to be expressions of a man -blessed with ease.”—<cite>Atterbury.</cite> And, in using it in this -sense, it may be observed, in passing, that an error is often -committed by employing the personal pronouns as referring -to <em>one</em>; thus, “One is apt to exaggerate his own injuries,” -instead of “one’s own injuries.” It is sometimes, though -rarely, used as referring to a plural noun. “The Romans -and the Carthaginians now took the field; the one ambitious -of conquest, and the others in self-defence.” This mode of -expression is objectionable. We should rather say, “the -former,” and “the latter.”</p> - -<p><em>Any</em>, <em>an</em>, <em>a</em>, <em>one</em>, seem all to be nearly equivalent words, -and derived from one origin, I mean from <em>ane</em>, the name of -unity. Hence <em>a</em>, or <em>an</em>, and <em>any</em>, are frequently synonymous. -“A considerate man would have acted differently;” that is, -“any considerate man.” Hence also, like <em>one</em>, it is opposed -to <em>none</em>, as, “Have you a book (any book) which you can -lend me?” “None; my books are in the country; nor, if -they were here, have I any (or one) which would suit you.” -From expressing <em>one</em> indefinitely, like <em>a</em> or <em>an</em>, it came, by -an easy and natural transition, to denote “<em>whatever it be</em>,” -“<em>what you please</em>.” “Give me one (ane), any, no matter -which.” In this sense it corresponds to the Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quivis</i> or -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quilibet</i><a id="FNanchor_27" href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> in affirmative sentences; whereas, in interrogative -or negative sentences, it corresponds to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quisquam</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quispiam</i>, -or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ullus</i>. The preceding observations it may be useful to -recapitulate.</p> - -<p>Nouns are names of genera, and not of individuals; our -perceptions are, on the contrary, all individual, not general.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_49"></a>[49]</span> -Hence, to denote one or more individuals of a species, numerals, -or words significant of number, were invented. Some -express a precise number, as <em>one</em>, <em>two</em>, <em>three</em>; others number -indefinitely, as <em>some</em>, <em>few</em>, <em>many</em>, <em>several</em>. Our perceptions -being all individual, and one being the basis of all number, -the term significant of unity must frequently recur in expressing -our sentiments. To denote this idea our forefathers -employed <em>ae</em>, <em>ane</em>. In the progress of language, where unity -was not to be expressed, as opposed to two or more, the -terms, thus becoming unemphatical, would naturally be abbreviated -into <em>a</em>, <em>an</em>. These latter, therefore, are the offspring -of the names of unity, and belong to the class of -words named cardinal numerals. To what part of speech -these are reducible (if they can be reduced to any) it is difficult -to determine. In some languages they have the form of -adjectives; but, if their meaning be considered, it is clear -that they have no claim to this appellation, as they express -no accident, quality, or property whatever. In fact, they -appear to be a species of words totally different in character -from any of the parts of speech generally received; all of -them, except the first of the series, being abbreviations for -the name of unity repeated.</p> - -<p>It being necessary not only to express an individual indefinitely -of any species, but also to specify and select some -particular one, which at first would probably be done by -pointing to the object, if in sight, the words <em>this</em> and <em>that</em>, -hence called demonstratives, were employed; the one to express -the nearer, the other the more distant object. From -one of these proceeded the word <em>the</em>, having the same relation -to its original as <em>a</em> or <em>an</em> has to the name of unity. -Hence the words synonymous with <em>this</em> and <em>that</em>, in those -languages which have no definite article, are frequently employed -to supply its place.</p> - -<p>The use of these terms being to express any individual -whatever of a class, and likewise some certain or particular -object; we have also the words <em>few</em>, <em>some</em>, <em>many</em>, <em>several</em>, to -denote a number indefinitely, and the cardinal numerals <em>two</em>, -<em>three</em>, <em>four</em>, &c., a precise number of individuals.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_50"></a>[50]</span><br /></p> - -<h3 id="CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III.<br /> - -<span class="fs60">OF PRONOUNS.</span></h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent">Whether we speak of things present, or of things absent, -of ourselves, or of others, and to whomsoever we address our -discourse, the repetition of the names of those persons or -things would not only be tiresome, but also sometimes productive -of ambiguity. Besides, the name of the person addressed -may be unknown to the speaker, and the name of -the speaker may be unknown to the person addressed. -Hence appears the utility of pronouns, words, as the etymology -of the term denotes, supplying the place of nouns. -They have therefore been denominated by some grammarians, -nouns of the second order.</p> - -<p>When the person who addresses speaks of himself, the -pronoun <em>I</em>, called the pronoun of the first person, is employed -instead of the name of the speaker, as, “The Lord -said to Moses, <em>I</em> (the Lord) am the God of Abraham.”</p> - -<p>When the person addressed is the subject of discourse, -the pronoun <em>thou</em>, called the pronoun of the second person, -is used instead of his name, as, “Nathan said unto David, -<em>Thou</em> (David) art the man.”</p> - -<p>When neither the person who speaks, nor the person addressed, -but some other person or thing, is the subject of -discourse, we employ the pronouns of the third person, -namely, <em>he</em>, <em>she</em>, <em>it</em>; as, “When Jesus saw the multitude, <em>he</em> -(Jesus) had compassion on them.”</p> - -<p>I have said that pronouns are employed to prevent the -tiresome repetition of names. It is not, however, to be -hence inferred, that even the repetition of the name would, in -all cases, answer the same purpose, or denote the subject -with the same precision as the pronoun. For, as there is<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_51"></a>[51]</span> -hardly any name, strictly speaking, proper or peculiar to one -individual, the employment of a name, belonging to more -persons than one, would not so clearly specify or individuate -the object as the appropriate pronoun. Hence it would -often be necessary to subjoin to the name some distinctive -circumstances, to discriminate the person intended from -others of that name; or the speaker would be obliged to -point to the individual if he happened to be present. Nay, -though the person or subject designed might be thus sufficiently -ascertained, it is easy to see that the phraseology -would have nothing of that simplicity and energy which accompany -the pronoun. If, in the first example, instead of -saying, “I am the God,” we should say, “The Lord is the -God;” or in the second, instead of “Thou art the man,” -“David is the man,” the energy of the expression would be -entirely destroyed. If any person, speaking of himself, -should distinguish himself from others of the same name, by -subjoining the necessary discriminating circumstances, so as -to leave no doubt in the mind of the hearer, it is obvious -that this phraseology would not only be inelegant, but also -feeble and unimpressive. To be convinced of the truth of -this observation, it is only necessary to compare the exanimate, -stiff, and frequently obscure diction of a common card, -with the freedom, perspicuity, and vivacity of a letter.</p> - -<p>Pronouns may be divided into substantive and adjective, -personal and impersonal, relative and interrogative. The -personal substantive pronouns are <em>I</em>, <em>thou</em>, <em>he</em>, <em>she</em>. The -impersonal substantive pronoun is <em>it</em>.</p> - -<p>The personal substantive pronouns have three cases, and -are thus declined:</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90 pg-brk" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="3"><em>First Person, Masc. and Fem.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Nom.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I<a id="FNanchor_28" href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">We</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gen.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Mine</td> -<td class="tdl">Ours</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Obj.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Me</td> -<td class="tdl">Us.</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="3"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_52"></a>[52]</span> - <em>Second Person, Masc. and Fem.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Nom.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Thou<a id="FNanchor_29" href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gen.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Thine</td> -<td class="tdl">Yours</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Obj.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Thee</td> -<td class="tdl">You.</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="3"><em>Third Person.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="3"><em>Masc.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Nom.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">He<a id="FNanchor_30" href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">They</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gen.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">His</td> -<td class="tdl">Theirs</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Obj.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Him</td> -<td class="tdl">Them.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="3"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_53"></a>[53]</span> - <em>Fem.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Nom.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">She<a id="FNanchor_31" href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">They</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gen.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Hers</td> -<td class="tdl">Theirs</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Obj.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Her</td> -<td class="tdl">Them.</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="3"><em>Third Person.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="3"><em>Neuter.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="3"><em>Impersonal.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Nom.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">It<a id="FNanchor_32" href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">They<a id="FNanchor_33" href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gen.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Its</td> -<td class="tdl">Theirs</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Obj.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">It</td> -<td class="tdl">Them.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<p><em>My</em>, <em>thy</em>, <em>our</em>, <em>your</em>, <em>their</em>, being the representatives of -nouns, have the essential character of pronouns. Thus, -when Decius says to Cato, “Cæsar is well acquainted with -your virtues,” the pronoun is employed as a substitute for -<em>Cato’s</em>. As they express not only the subject, but also the -relation of property or possession, they are by some grammarians -considered to be the genitives of their respective -substantive pronouns. In usage, however, they are distinguished -from the English genitive by their incapacity to -stand alone. Thus we say, “It is the king’s,” “It is -yours;” but we cannot say, “It is your,” the presence of a -noun being necessary to the last expression. They are, -therefore, more correctly named pronominal adjectives. For -the purpose of denoting emphatically the relation of possession -or property, the word <em>own</em> is frequently joined to them, -as, <em>my own</em>, <em>thy own</em>, <em>our own</em>. And to mark the person -with emphasis, they are compounded with the word <em>self</em>; in -Saxon, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">sylf</i>; from the Gothic <em>silba</em>, <em>ipse</em>: thus, <em>myself, thyself</em>; -<em>ourselves, yourselves</em>. <em>Theirselves</em> is now obsolete, -<em>themselves</em> being used in its stead.</p> - -<p>The pronouns of the first and second persons are either<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_54"></a>[54]</span> -masculine or feminine. The reason is, says Mr. Harris, because -the sex of the speaker and of the person addressed is -generally obvious. This explanation, which has been adopted -by most grammarians, appears to me unsatisfactory and -erroneous. Others have said that the pronouns of the first -and second persons have no distinction of sex, because all -distinction of this kind is foreign to the intention of the -speaker, who, when he uses the pronoun <em>I</em>, means the person -who speaks, be it man or woman; and when he employs -the pronoun <em>thou</em>, means the person addressed, without any -regard to the sex of the individual. This matter seems sufficiently -plain. Language, to be useful, must be perspicuous -and intelligible, exhibiting the subject and its attributes with -clearness and precision. If it should be asked why the pronoun -of the third person has three varieties, Mr. Harris -would answer, “to mark the sex.” If it were inquired -whence arises the necessity of marking the sex, he would -answer, and very justly, “in order to ascertain the subject of -discourse.” It is obvious, therefore, that to note the sex is -not the primary object, and that the principal aim of the -speaker is to discriminate and mark the subject. The pronouns -of the first and second persons have no variety of form -significant of sex, because the speaker and the person addressed -are evident without it. Mr. Harris, therefore, should have said -that the pronouns in question have no distinction of gender, -not because the <em>sex</em> of the speaker and of the person addressed, -but because the <em>persons</em> themselves, are in general obvious, -without the aid of sexual designation. The intention of the -speaker is not to denote the sex, but the person spoken of, -whether male or female; to ascertain which person, if absent, -the discrimination of sex is generally necessary. The sex, -therefore, enters not as an essential, but as an explanatory -circumstance; not as the subject of discourse, but to distinguish -the subject. Where the person is present, and is -either the speaker or the person addressed, discrimination of -sex becomes unnecessary, the pronoun itself marking the individuals. -When the person or subject of discourse is absent, -the distinction of sex serves frequently to determine the subject. -Hence the pronoun of the third person has three<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_55"></a>[55]</span> -varieties, <em>he</em> for the masculine, <em>she</em> for the feminine, and <em>it</em> for -the neuter.</p> - -<p>The four personal pronouns, <em>I</em>, <em>thou</em>, <em>he</em>, and <em>she</em>, have three -cases, viz., the nominative or leading case, expressing the -principal subject, and preceding the verb; the genitive case, -whose form and office have been already defined; and the -objective, accusative, or following case, (for it has obtained -these three names,) expressing the object to which the energy -is directed, or the subject acted upon. This case follows the -verb.</p> - -<p><em>Mine</em>, <em>thine</em>, <em>hers</em>, <em>theirs</em>, <em>his</em>, <em>yours</em>, <em>ours</em>, are truly pronouns -in the possessive or genitive case. Johnson has indeed -said that <em>my</em> and <em>mine</em> are words precisely synonymous, -<em>my</em>, according to him, being used before a consonant, and -<em>mine</em> before a vowel; as, <em>my sword</em>, <em>mine arm</em>. It is doubtless -true that <em>mine</em> and <em>thine</em> are sometimes used as <em>my</em> and -<em>thy</em>, which are not substantive pronouns, but pronominal adjectives; -but that they are not precisely synonymous or -mutually convertible, is obvious; for <em>my</em> and <em>thy</em> cannot be -used for <em>mine</em> and <em>thine</em>, though <em>mine</em> and <em>thine</em>, as has been -observed, may be used for <em>my</em> and <em>thy</em>. Example: “Whose -book is this?” I cannot answer, “it is my,” but “it is mine.” -We may indeed say “it is my book;” but the addition of the -substantive is necessary.</p> - -<p>As <em>my</em> and <em>mine</em>, <em>thy</em> and <em>thine</em>, <em>our</em> and <em>ours</em>, <em>your</em> and -<em>yours</em>, <em>their</em> and <em>theirs</em>, are not mutually convertible, they -cannot be regarded as synonymous each with its fellow.</p> - -<p><em>This</em> and <em>that</em>, which have improperly been referred by -some to the class of pronouns, have been considered already. -The former makes in the plural <em>these</em>, the latter <em>those</em>.</p> - -<p>The relative pronouns, so called because they directly relate -or refer to a substantive preceding, which is therefore -termed <em>the antecedent</em>, are <em>who</em>, <em>which</em>, <em>that</em>.</p> - -<p>The pronoun <em>who</em> is of the masculine or feminine gender, -referring to persons, male or female. The pronoun <em>which</em> is -neuter. <em>That</em> is common to the three genders.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_56"></a>[56]</span></p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing. and Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing. and Plur.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Nom.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad3">Who<a id="FNanchor_34" href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a></td> -<td class="tdl pad3">Which</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gen.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad3">Whose</td> -<td class="tdl pad3">Whose</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Obj.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad3">Whom</td> -<td class="tdl pad3">Which.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>Lowth and several other grammarians have asserted that -the pronoun <em>which</em> admits no variation. Numberless examples, -however, from the best authors might be cited to disprove -this assertion. Shakspeare occasionally uses <em>whose</em> as -the genitive of <em>which</em>; and, since his time, writers of the -highest eminence have employed it in the same manner.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Of that forbidden tree, <em>whose</em> mortal taste.”—<cite>Milton.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<div class="p1 poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“The lights and shades, <em>whose</em> well-accorded strife</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Gives all the strength and colour of our life.”—<cite>Pope.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>“A true critic is like a dog at a feast, <em>whose</em> thoughts and -stomach are wholly set on what the guests fling away.”—<cite>Swift.</cite></p> - -<p>This usage is favourable to conciseness, and can very -seldom create ambiguity. Where obscurity indeed is apprehended, -the periphrasis, <em>of which</em>, should be adopted. I -have, therefore, given <em>whose</em> as the genitive of <em>which</em>; not -only because this usage is sanctioned by classical authority, -but likewise, because the other form, <em>of which</em>, is frequently -awkward and inelegant.</p> - -<p><em>Who</em> is applied to persons, that is, to animals distinguished -by rationality, or represented as possessing it.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“The man <em>who</em> has no music in himself.”—<cite>Shakspeare.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>The antecedent <em>man</em>, being a person, is followed by <em>who</em>.</p> - -<p>“A stag, <em>who</em> came to drink at a river, seeing his own -image in the clear stream, said thus to himself.”</p> - -<p>Here the stag is represented as possessing reason and -speech, and therefore the pronoun <em>who</em> is employed. In -mythological writings in general, such as the Fables of Æsop,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_57"></a>[57]</span> -inferior animals are very properly denoted by the personal -relative.</p> - -<p><em>Which</em> is applied to things inanimate, and creatures either -devoid of all indications of rationality, or represented as such. -“The city, <em>which</em> Romulus built, was called Rome.” Here -<em>which</em> is used, the word <em>city</em> being the antecedent, to which -it refers.</p> - -<p>“The sloth, <em>which</em> is a creature remarkable for inactivity, -lives on leaves and the flowers of trees.” Here the sloth, an -animal hardly possessing sensation or life, is expressed by -<em>which</em>.</p> - -<p>The rule here given for the use of these pronouns is not -uniformly observed, several good writers occasionally applying -them indifferently to inferior animals, without any determinate -principle of discrimination. It would be better, however, -were this rule universally followed; and if such modes -of expression as “frequented by that fowl, <em>whom</em> nature has -taught,” were entirely repudiated.</p> - -<p>Priestley, whose doctrine on this subject seems nearly to -coincide with ours, has even objected to the application of -the pronoun <em>who</em> to children, because this pronoun conveys -an idea of persons possessing reason and reflection, of which -mere children are incapable. He, therefore, disapproves of -Cadogan’s phraseology, when he says, “a child who.”</p> - -<p><em>That</em> is applied indiscriminately to things animate and inanimate, -and admits no variation.</p> - -<p>The pronouns <em>who</em>, <em>which</em>, and <em>that</em>, are sometimes resolvable -into <em>and he</em>, <em>and she</em>, <em>and it</em>. Mr. Harris, indeed, -has said, that the pronoun <em>qui</em> (who) may be always resolved -into <em>et ille</em>, <em>a</em>, <em>ud</em> (<em>and he</em>, <em>and she</em>, <em>and it</em>). This opinion, -however, is not perfectly correct; for it is thus resolvable in -those examples only in which the relative clause does not -limit or modify the meaning of the antecedent. If I say, -“Man who is born of a woman, is of few days, and full of -trouble,” the relative clause is not restrictive; I may, therefore, -resolve the pronoun, and say, “Man is of few days, and -he is born of woman.” “Light is a body which moves with -great velocity,” is resolvable into “Light is a body, and it -moves with great velocity.” But when the relative clause<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_58"></a>[58]</span> -limits the meaning of the antecedent, the relative is clearly -not thus resolvable. “Virgil was the only epic poet, among -the Romans, who can be compared to Homer.” The signification -of the antecedent is here restricted by the relative -clause: we cannot, therefore, by resolution, say, “Virgil -was the only epic poet among the Romans, and he can be -compared to Homer;” for the former of these propositions -is not true, nor is the sentiment, which it conveys, accordant -with the meaning of the author.</p> - -<p>The pronoun <em>what</em>, if not employed interrogatively, is -equivalent to <em>that which</em>; and is applicable to inanimate -things only, as, “I believe what I see,” or “that which I -see.”</p> - -<p><em>What</em> admits no variation.</p> - -<p>The relative pronouns <em>who</em>, <em>which</em>, are often used interrogatively, -and are, therefore, in such cases considered as interrogatives. -When thus employed, it is the opinion of the -author of the British Grammar, that they still retain their -relative character. “The only difference,” says he, “is this, -that the relative refers to an antecedent and definite subject, -and the interrogative to something subsequent and unknown.” -The example which he adduces in support of his -opinion is the following: “Who first seduced them to that -foul revolt?” “The very question,” says he, “supposes a -seducer, to which, though unknown, the pronoun <em>who</em> has a -reference.” Answer, “The infernal serpent.” He continues, -“Here, in the answer, we have the subject, which was indefinite, -ascertained; so that the <em>who</em> in the interrogation is -as much a relative as if it had been said originally, without -any interrogation at all. It was the infernal serpent who -seduced them.” Others adopt an opinion diametrically opposite, -contending that <em>who</em> and <em>which</em> are properly interrogatives, -and that even, when used as relatives, they still retain -their interrogative character. This theory a few examples -will sufficiently illustrate.</p> - -<p>“The man who?” (which man?) his character follows, -“has no music in himself.”</p> - -<p>“The city which? (what city?) Romulus built was called -Rome.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_59"></a>[59]</span></p> - -<p>“Happy the man whose cautious feet.”</p> - -<p>“Happy that man who? his (whose) cautious feet.”</p> - -<p>“Light is a body which? (body) moves with great -velocity.”</p> - -<p>Of these two theories I have no hesitation in adopting the -former. My reasons are these. The intention of language -is to communicate our sentiments; to express what we think, -feel, perceive, or desire. Hence its general character is indicative -or assertive. “I believe,” “I wish,” “I see,” are -affirmative sentences; and whatever variety of forms the -phraseology may assume, they are all strictly significant of -assertion, and all resolvable into the language of affirmation. -“Go,” “teach,” “read,” are equivalent to, “I desire you to -go,” “to teach,” “to read.” “Have you finished your task?” -means, when the sentiment is fully expressed, “I desire to -know, whether you have finished your task.” Ellipses of -this kind are natural. They spring from an eagerness to impart -to the vehicle of our thoughts a degree of celerity, -suited to the promptitude with which the mind conceives -them. Vehemence or passion, impatient of delay, uniformly -resorts to them. The assertive form of expression I therefore -conceive to be the parent whence every other is derived, -and to which it is reducible. If this be the case, no interrogative, -conceived purely as such, can claim so early an origin -as definite or affirmative terms. Hence we may conclude, -that <em>who</em>, <em>which</em>, <em>when</em>, <em>where</em>, were at first used as relatives, -and came afterwards, by implication, to denote interrogations.</p> - -<p>Again, we know that the meaning of an expression is frequently -collected, not so much from the strict import of the -terms, as from the tone or manner in which it is delivered. -If I say, “he did it,” the sentence is affirmative; yet, by -the tone of voice or manner of the speaker, this affirmative -sentence may denote an interrogation. Thus, “he did it?” -by an elevation of the voice, or the mode of notation, maybe -rendered equivalent to “did he do it?” “Who did it” is in -like manner an affirmative clause; but it is obvious that this -form of expression, like the other now adduced, may be likewise -employed to note an interrogation, thus, “Who did<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_60"></a>[60]</span> -it?” And it is evident, that, if the ellipsis be supplied, the -sentence would read thus, “I want to know who did it.” -The preceding clause, however, is sufficiently supplied by -the manner of the speaker. An ellipsis of this kind seems -to be involved in every interrogation. If I say, “did he do -it?” it is equivalent to “tell me, if he did it.” Accordingly, -we find that the Latins, in such interrogations, employed -only the latter clause; for <em>an</em> (whether), which is -termed an interrogative, is, in fact, nothing but the Greek <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">ἂν</span>, -synonymous with <em>si</em> (if) among the Latins. “<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">An fecit</i>,” did -he do it? is therefore strictly equivalent to “<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">si fecit</i>” if he -did it, the former clause “tell me,” being understood, and its -import supplied by the manner of the speaker, or the mode -of notation.</p> - -<p>Besides, let any person ask himself what idea he annexes -to the word <em>who</em>, considered as an interrogative, and I am -persuaded he will be sensible that he cannot form any distinct -conception of its import.</p> - -<p>I am inclined therefore to think that interrogatives are -strictly relatives: and that these relatives, by the aid of voice, -gesture, or some explanatory circumstance, answer the purpose -of interrogation.</p> - -<p>In using these pronouns interrogatively, it is to be observed, -that <em>who</em> and <em>which</em> are each applied to persons, -which is not the case when they are employed as relatives. -This difference, however, is to be observed, that when the -pronoun <em>which</em> is used interrogatively, and applied to persons, -it is generally, if not always, understood that the character -of the individual, who is the object of inquiry, is in presence -of the inquirer, or is in some degree known. <em>Who</em> is more indefinite. -If I say, “which is the man?” I mean “who <em>of -those now before me</em>?” or of those who have been described? -Agreeably to this notion, we say, “which of <em>the</em> two,” not -“who of the two,” was guilty of this crime?</p> - -<p>If I say, “Who is the man that will dare to affirm?” it -implies that I am entirely a stranger to him, and that I even -doubt his existence. “Which is the man?” not only implies -his existence, but also that the aggregate of individuals, -whence the selection is made, is known to me.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_61"></a>[61]</span></p> - -<p><em>What</em> is also used interrogatively, and is employed in introducing -questions, whether the subject be persons or -things, as, “What man is that?” “What book is this?” -When no substantive is subjoined, it is then wholly indefinite, -as, “What is man that thou art mindful of him?” -When we inquire, therefore, into the character of any person, -and not for the individual himself, it is to be remembered -that we employ this pronoun, and not <em>who</em> or <em>which</em>.</p> - -<p>There seems to be the same difference between <em>who</em> and -<em>what</em> definite, as between <em>who</em> and <em>which</em>. If I say, “What -man will dare to affirm this?” and “Which man will dare?” -&c., it is obvious that the former interrogatory is more indefinite -than the latter; the one implying a total ignorance of -the individual, and some doubt of his existence; the other, -that he is one of a number in some degree known to the inquirer.</p> - -<p>When any defining clause is subjoined, either may be used, -as, “What, or which, man among you, having a hundred -sheep, and losing one, would not leave the ninety and -nine?”</p> - -<p>The pronoun <em>whether</em> is equivalent to “which of the -two.” It is the Teutonic word <em>wether</em>, bearing the same relation -to <em>wer</em>, “who” or “which,” as <em>either</em> does to <em>ein</em>, -“one,” and <em>neither, newether</em>, to <em>nie</em> or <em>nehein</em>, “none.”</p> - -<p>This word, though now generally employed or considered -as a conjunction, is in truth reducible to the class of words -which we are now examining, and is precisely synonymous -with <em>uter</em>, <em>tra</em>, <em>trum</em>, of the Latins. “Whether is it easier to -say?”—<cite>Bible.</cite></p> - -<p>Here <em>whether</em> is truly a pronoun, and is the nominative to -the following verb.</p> - -<p>“Whether is greater, the gold or the temple?”—<em>Ibid.</em></p> - -<p>In these examples, <em>whether</em> is precisely the same with -“which of the two.” It seems now to be giving place to -the word <em>which</em>, as the comparative, when two things are -compared, is often supplanted by the superlative. Thus we -often say, when speaking of two, “which is the best,” instead -of “whether is better.” The Latins almost uniformly observed<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_62"></a>[62]</span> -the distinction:—“Uter dignior, quis dignissimus?”—<cite>Quint.</cite></p> - -<p>The pronoun <em>it</em> is used indefinitely, and applied to persons -or things.</p> - -<p>Dr. Johnson has objected to the use of this pronoun in -those examples wherein the pronouns of the first or second -persons are employed; and Dr. Lowth has censured it -when referring to a plural number, as in the following -example:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“’T is these, that give the great Atrides spoils.”—<cite>Pope.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>I concur, however, with the learned author of the Philosophy -of Rhetoric, who regards the objections of these critics -as, in this instance, of no weight. For when a question is -asked, the subject of which is totally unknown, there must -be some indefinite word employed to denote the subject of -the interrogation. The word which we use for this purpose -is <em>it</em>, as, “Who is it?” “What is it?” This phraseology -is established by universal usage, and is therefore unexceptionable. -This being the case, there can be no impropriety -in repeating in the answer the indefinite term employed -in the question. We may therefore reply, “It is I,” “It is -he,” “It is she.”</p> - -<p>Now, if the term be admitted in questions and answers -where the subject may be either male or female, and of the -first, second, or third person, it surely is admissible in those -cases also where the subject is in the plural number. Nay, to -use in the answer any other word to express the subject than -that by which it is signified in the question, would be in all -cases, if not productive of ambiguity, at least less precise. -“Who is it?” says a master to his servant, hearing a voice -in the hall. “It is the gentlemen who called yesterday,” -replies the servant. Who sees not that “they are the gentlemen,” -would be an answer less accordant with the terms of -the question, and would less clearly show that “the gentlemen,” -and “the subject of inquiry,” both being denoted by -one term, are one and the same? Had the master known -that it was the voice of a gentleman, and that there were -more than one, and had he accordingly said, “Who are<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_63"></a>[63]</span> -they?” the answer would have properly been “They are the -gentlemen.” But when the question is “Who is it?” I apprehend -the only apposite answer is, “It is the gentlemen,” -the identity of the terms (<em>it</em> being repeated) clearly evincing -an identity of subject in the question and in the answer; in -other words, that the subject of the inquiry, and the subject -of the answer, are one and the same.</p> - -<p>I conclude with observing, that, though I have here considered -the word <em>that</em> as a pronoun, there can be no question -that in its import it is precisely the same with the demonstrative -<em>that</em>, which has been already explained. “The house -that you built is burned,” is resolvable thus, “The house is -burned, you built that.”</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_64"></a>[64]</span><br /></p> - -<h3 id="CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV.<br /> - -<span class="fs60">OF THE ADJECTIVE.</span></h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent">An adjective has been defined by most grammarians to be -“that part of speech which signifies an accident, quality, or -property of a thing.” This definition appears to me to be -somewhat defective and incorrect: for the adjective does not -express the quality simply, but the quality or property, as -conjoined with a substance; or, as grammarians have -termed it, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">in concreto</i>. Thus, when we say “good man,” -<em>goodness</em> is the name of the quality, and <em>good</em> is the adjective -expressing that quality, as conjoined with the subject <em>man</em>. -Accordingly, every adjective is resolvable into the name of -the thing implied, and any term of reference or conjunction, -as <em>of</em>, <em>with</em>. Thus “a prudent man” is equivalent to “a man -with” or “having prudence” or to “a man of prudence.” An -adjective, therefore, is that part of speech which denotes -any substance or attribute, not by itself, but as conjoined -with a subject, or pertaining to its character. This conjunction -is generally marked by changing the termination of -the simple name of the substantive or attribute, as <em>fool</em>, <em>foolish</em>, -<em>wax</em>, <em>waxen</em>. Sometimes no change is made; and the -simple name of the substance, or attribute, is prefixed to the -name of the subject, as <em>sea fowl</em>, <em>race horse</em>, <em>corn field</em>. In -writing these, and similar expressions, the conjunction is -sometimes marked by a hyphen, as <em>sea-fowl</em>, <em>river-fish</em>, <em>wine-vessel</em>.</p> - -<p>As every appellative denotes the whole of a genus or -species, the intention and effect of the adjective is, by limiting -the generic meaning of the substantive, to specify what part -of the genus or species is the subject of discourse. If I say -“man,” the term is universal: it embraces the species. If I -say “a man,” the expression is indefinite, being applicable<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_65"></a>[65]</span> -to any individual of the kind. If I say “a good man,” I -confine the term to an individual distinguished by goodness. -Here <em>man</em> expresses the substance; and <em>good</em> the quality -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">in concreto</i>. Sometimes, on the contrary, the substantive -is the general name of the quality or property; and the adjective -modifies or determines its degree, as, <em>wisdom</em>, <em>little -wisdom</em>. Let us take another example. The word <em>stone</em> is -applicable to a whole species of substances. If I say <em>round -stone</em>, I confine the meaning of the substantive to that part -of the genus which is distinguished by roundness. Here the -substantive denotes the matter, or substance, in general, and -the adjective limits its signification, by expressing the form. -Sometimes the converse takes place, as <em>golden globe</em>. Here -the substantive is the generic name of a certain figure; and -the adjective, by expressing the matter, confines that figure -to the substance of gold.</p> - -<p>Some grammarians have denominated this part of speech -by the name of adjective noun; to others this designation -appears inadmissible. The latter observe, that neither is the -adjective the name of anything, nor is it in English variable, -like the substantive. They allow, that in Greek and Latin, -the designation in question is, in some degree, justifiable, -because, though the noun and adjective differ essentially in -office, in these languages, they agree in form; but in our language -they deem it a singular impropriety<a id="FNanchor_35" href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_66"></a>[66]</span></p> - -<p>I have said that the adjective denotes a substance, quality, -or property, “as pertaining,” or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">in concreto</i>. Now, it is to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_67"></a>[67]</span> -be observed, that substances do not admit degrees of <em>more</em> -or <em>less</em>, in regard to their essential character. “A wooden<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_68"></a>[68]</span> -table” cannot be more or less wooden. “An iron bar” cannot -be more or less such. In these cases, the adjective, as I -have already remarked, by expressing the matter, limits the -form to one species of substance. The same observation is -applicable to the converse circumstance, in which the form -strictly limits the matter, as “triangular board.” Here it is -obvious, that the substance limited to one form by the term -<em>triangular</em>, cannot be more or less triangular. But this is -not the case with qualities or properties, which may exist in -different substances in different degrees. And, as it is sometimes -necessary to express the existence of a quality, as<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_69"></a>[69]</span> -greater or less in one substance than another, hence arises -the utility of some form of expression to denote these relative -degrees of its existence. It is in this case only, that the termination -of the adjective admits variation; and then it is -said to be in a state of comparison.</p> - -<p>In all qualities susceptible of intension or remission, the -number of degrees, from the lowest to the highest, may be -accounted infinite. Hardness, for example, gravity, magnitude, -genius, wisdom, folly, are severally diversified by an -infinitude of gradations, which it would elude the capacity -of any language to discriminate. To denote these degrees, -is, therefore, utterly impracticable, as it is wholly unnecessary.</p> - -<p>In English, as in most other languages, we employ two -variations: the one to denote simple excess, or a greater degree -of the quality than that which is expressed by the adjective -itself; and the other to denote the greatest excess. -Thus, if I compare wood with stone, as possessing the -quality of hardness, I say, “wood is hard,” “stone is harder.” -If I compare these with iron, I say, “wood is hard,” “stone -harder,” “iron the hardest.” Thus, in truth, there are only -two degrees of comparison, viz. the comparative and the -superlative, the positive expressing the quality simply and -absolutely.</p> - -<p>The comparative is formed by adding <em>er</em> to the positive, if -it end with a consonant; or the letter <em>r</em>, if it end with -a vowel; as, <em>soft, softer</em>; <em>safe, safer</em>.</p> - -<p>The superlative is formed by adding <em>est</em>, or <em>st</em>, as, <em>soft, -softest</em>; <em>safe, safest</em><a id="FNanchor_36" href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_70"></a>[70]</span></p> - -<p>Some adjectives are compared irregularly, as,</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad2"><em>Pos.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad2"><em>Comp.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad2"><em>Super.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Good</td> -<td class="tdl">Better</td> -<td class="tdl">Best</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bad or Evil</td> -<td class="tdl">Worse</td> -<td class="tdl">Worst</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Little</td> -<td class="tdl">Less</td> -<td class="tdl">Least</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Much</td> -<td class="tdl">More</td> -<td class="tdl">Most</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Many</td> -<td class="tdl">More</td> -<td class="tdl">Most</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Near</td> -<td class="tdl">Nearer</td> -<td class="tdl">Nearest or next</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Late</td> -<td class="tdl">Later</td> -<td class="tdl">Latest or last.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>The comparative degree is frequently expressed by the -word <em>more</em>, and the superlative by <em>most</em>, as,</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad2"><em>Pos.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad2 wd35"><em>Comp.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad2 wd35"><em>Super.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Hard</td> -<td class="tdl">More hard</td> -<td class="tdl">Most hard.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>Monosyllabic adjectives are generally compared by annexing -<em>r</em> or <em>er</em>, <em>st</em> or <em>est</em>; adjectives of two or more syllables by -<em>more</em> and <em>most</em>, as, <em>strong, stronger, strongest</em>; <em>certain, more -certain, most certain</em>.</p> - -<p>Dissyllabic adjectives in <em>y</em> form an exception to this rule, -as <em>happy, happier, happiest</em>.</p> - -<p>Adjectives of two syllables ending in <em>le</em>, after a mute, are -also excepted, as, <em>able, abler, ablest</em>.</p> - -<p>Euphony seems here to be generally consulted, and the ear -may be allowed perhaps to furnish the best rule.</p> - -<p>Some form their superlative by adding <em>most</em> to the comparative, -as, <em>nether, nethermost</em>; <em>lower, lowermost</em>; <em>under, -undermost</em>: others by adding <em>most</em> either to the positive or -comparative, as, <em>hind, hindmost</em>, or <em>hindermost</em>; <em>up, upmost</em> -or <em>uppermost</em>. From <em>in</em>, we have <em>inmost</em> and <em>innermost</em><a id="FNanchor_37" href="#Footnote_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a>.</p> - -<p>Besides this definite and direct kind of comparison, there -is another, which may be termed indefinite or indirect, expressed -by the intensive words <em>too</em>, <em>very</em>, <em>exceedingly</em>, &c., as, -<em>too good</em>, <em>very hard</em>, <em>exceedingly great</em>.</p> - -<p>When the word <em>very</em>, or any other of the same import, is -put before the positive, it is called by some writers the superlative<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_71"></a>[71]</span> -of eminence, to distinguish it from the other superlative, -which has been already mentioned, and is called the -superlative of comparison. Thus, <em>very hard</em> is termed the -superlative of eminence; <em>most hard</em>, or <em>hardest</em>, the superlative -of comparison.</p> - -<p>I have said that the comparative denotes simple excess, -and the superlative the greatest. It is not, however, to be -hence inferred, that the comparative may not be employed -in expressing the same pre-eminence or inferiority with the -superlative. If I say, “Of all acquirements virtue is the -most valuable,” I may also convey the same sentiment by -saying, “Virtue is more valuable than every other acquirement.” -If it be asked, what then is the difference between -the comparative and superlative? I answer,</p> - -<p>1st. That the superlative expresses the absolutely highest -or lowest degree of the quality, as when we say, “O God -most high;” or the greatest or least degree, in relation merely -to the subjects of comparison, thus expressing a superiority -of excess above the comparative, as when I say, “In estimating -the worth of these human attainments, learning, -prudence, and virtue, it cannot be denied that learning is -valuable, that prudence is more valuable, but that virtue is -the most valuable.” The comparative expresses merely simple -excess, but never the highest or lowest degree of the quality. -This distinction is, perhaps, the most precise, and the most -worthy of attention.</p> - -<p>I observe, however, that the sentiment in the last example -may be expressed by the comparative, but not simply, or by -itself; thus, “Learning is valuable, prudence more valuable, -and virtue more valuable still,” the word <em>still</em> implying a continued -gradation. Were this word suppressed, the sentence -would imply that prudence and virtue are each more valuable -than learning, but would assert no superiority of virtue to -prudence. The same sentiment may likewise be expressed -by combining the two first, and marking simply the excess -of the third, thus, “virtue is better than both.”</p> - -<p>2dly. When we express the superiority or inferiority of one -of two things, or of two aggregates, we almost always use -the comparative. Thus, speaking of Cæsar and Cato, I say,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_72"></a>[72]</span> -“Cato was the more virtuous, Cæsar the more eloquent;” or -of two brothers, we say, “John was the elder.”</p> - -<p>In such cases the superlative is sometimes employed, as, -“the best of the two,” instead of “the better of the two.” -The former phraseology, however, is more consonant to -established usage, and is in every case to be preferred. -“Whether is it easier to say, ‘take up thy bed and walk,’ or -to say, ‘thy sins are forgiven thee?’” that is, which of the -two is “easier,” not “easiest,” the simple excess of one -thing above another being here denoted.</p> - -<p>3dly. When we use the superlative, we always compare -one thing, or an aggregate number of things, with the class -to which they belong, or to which we refer them; whereas, -when we use the comparative, except in the case just mentioned, -the things compared either belong, or are conceived -as belonging, to different classes, being placed in opposition -to each other. Thus, in comparing Socrates, who was an -Athenian, with the other Athenians, we say, “Socrates was -the wisest of the Athenians;” that is, “of,” “out of,” or “of -the class of Athenians.” Hence in Latin the superlative -often takes the preposition <em>ex</em> (out of) to denote that the -object compared belongs to the order of things with which it -is compared; the comparative very rarely.</p> - -<p>Now the same sentiment may be expressed by the comparative; -but then the <em>Athenians</em> and <em>Socrates</em>, though belonging -to one species, are conceived as mutually opposed, -and referred to different places, whereas the superlative refers -them to one common aggregate. Thus, if we employ the -comparative, we say, “Socrates was wiser than any other -Athenian.”</p> - -<p>Agreeably to the observation now made, we cannot say, -“Cicero was more eloquent than the Romans,” or “than any -Roman;” because Cicero was himself a Roman, one of the -class with which he is compared, and could not therefore be -more eloquent than himself. As the objects compared belong, -therefore, to one class, and are not two individuals, nor -two aggregates, the comparative cannot be employed, unless -by placing them in opposition, or referring them to different -places, as, “Cicero was more eloquent than any other Roman.”<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_73"></a>[73]</span> -Here the word <em>other</em> denotes that opposition, that diversity -of place or species, which, in all cases but the one already -mentioned, is essentially implied in the use of the comparative.</p> - -<p>I have observed already, that when the superlative is employed, -the things compared are referred to one aggregate; -and that when the comparative is used, they are contradistinguished -by a different reference. This distinction obtains -uniformly, unless when we compare only two individuals, or -two classes, both referred to one aggregate, as “the elder of -the Catos,” “of these two nations (speaking of the Greeks -and Romans), the latter were the more warlike.” In such examples -as these, the comparative, while it retains its own -distinctive character, denoting simple excess, partakes also -of the nature of the superlative, the objects compared being -referred by the preposition to one and the same aggregate. -But as the superlative is always followed by <em>of</em>, and the -comparative, in every case except the one now mentioned, -followed by <em>than</em>, some writers say, “the eldest of the two,” -“the latter were the most warlike.” This phraseology, however -conformable to the generally distinguished usage of the -comparative and superlative, is repugnant to the characteristic -power of these degrees, by which one denotes simple -excess, while the other heightens or lessens the quality to its -highest or lowest degree.</p> - -<p>From the preceding remarks will appear the impropriety -of saying, “Jacob loved Joseph more than all his children.”<a id="FNanchor_38" href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> -Joseph being one of his children, the sentiment expressed -involves an absurdity: it should be “more than all his other -children.” “In the beginning of the 16th century, Spain is -said to have possessed a thousand merchant ships, a number -probably far superior to that of any nation in Europe in -that age.” (Robertson’s America.) It should be, “that of -any other nation in Europe:” for, Spain being one of the -European nations, she could not possess a number superior<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_74"></a>[74]</span> -to her own. The comparative required the terms to be contrasted -by the word <em>other</em>.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent20">“Adam</div> - <div class="verse indent0">The comeliest of men since born</div> - <div class="verse indent0">His sons. The fairest of her daughters Eve.”—<cite>Milton.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">“Adam,” the antecedent subject of comparison, is here improperly -referred to the aggregate of “men since born.” To -this aggregate he cannot be said to belong, not having been -“born,” nor being reducible to the class of “his own sons.” -Eve also is referred to a species of which she was no part. -In neither of these comparisons can the second term include -the first; yet the preposition refers them to one class. Such -phraseologies as these, though not ungrammatical, involve -an absurdity, and should therefore be dismissed.</p> - -<p>Adjectives, whose signification does not admit intension or -remission, cannot be compared. Among these are to be -reckoned, 1st, All words expressive of figure, as <em>circular</em>, -<em>square</em>, <em>triangular</em>, <em>perpendicular</em>, <em>straight</em>; for it is obvious, -that if a body or figure be triangular, or square, or -circular, it cannot be more or less so. It is either circular, or -not circular; triangular, or not triangular; straight, or not -straight. If the affirmative be the case, gradation from more -or less, or conversely, is impossible; if the negative be true, -then the attributes denoted by these adjectives do not belong -to it; and therefore the epithets <em>circular</em>, <em>triangular</em>, <em>straight</em>, -&c., are inapplicable. Hence such expressions as these, -“place the staff more erect,” “make the field more triangular,” -are highly improper. We should say, “set the -staff erect,” “make the field triangular.”</p> - -<p>2dly. All adjectives whose signification, in their simple -form, implies the highest or lowest possible degree, admit not -comparison, as, <em>chief</em>, <em>supreme</em>, <em>universal</em>, <em>perfect</em>, <em>extreme</em>, -&c. Hume, speaking of enthusiasm, says (Essays, vol. i. -p. 72), “it begets the most extreme resolutions.” <em>Extreme</em> -implies the farthest, or the greatest possible, and cannot -admit intension.</p> - -<p>I am aware that usage may be pleaded in favour of “<em>more</em> -and <em>most universal</em>, <em>more</em> and <em>most perfect</em>.” This usage,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_75"></a>[75]</span> -however, is not such as will sanction the former of these -phraseologies; for good writers generally avoid it. Besides, -there is no necessity for resorting to this mode of expression, -as we have an attributive appropriate to the idea intended: -thus, instead of saying, “Literature is more universal in -England than America,” we should say, “Literature is more -general.” It is almost unnecessary to observe, that literature -in England is either universal, or it is not; if the former be -true, it cannot be more than universal; if the latter, the term -is inapplicable. The word <em>general</em> does not comprise the -whole; it admits intension and remission: the adjective -<em>universal</em> implies totality. A general rule admits exceptions; -a universal rule embraces every particular.</p> - -<p>The expression “<em>more perfect</em>” is, in strictness of speech, -equally exceptionable; usage, however, has given it a -sanction which we dare hardly controvert. It has been proposed, -indeed, to avoid this and similar improprieties, by -giving the phraseology a negative, or indirect form. Thus, -instead of saying, “A time-keeper is a more perfect machine -than a watch,” it has been proposed to say, “A time-keeper -is a less imperfect machine than a watch.” This phraseology -is logically correct, perfection being predicable of neither the -one thing nor the other; it might likewise, in many cases, be -adopted with propriety. In the language of passion, however, -and in the colourings of imagination, such expressions would -be exanimate and intolerable. A lover, expatiating with -rapture on the beauty and perfection of his mistress, would -hardly call her, “the <em>least imperfect of her sex</em>.”</p> - -<p>In all languages, indeed, examples are to be found of adjectives -being compared whose signification admits neither -intension nor remission. It would be easy to assign several -reasons for this, did the discussion belong to the province of -the grammarian<a id="FNanchor_39" href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a>. Suffice it to say, that such phraseologies -should never be admitted where the language will furnish -correct, and equally apposite, expressions.</p> - -<p>I observe also, that as those adjectives whose signification<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_76"></a>[76]</span> -cannot be heightened or lessened admit not comparison, so, -for the same reason, they exclude all intensive words. The -expressions, <em>so universal</em>, <em>so extreme</em>, and such like, are -therefore improper. The former is indeed common enough; -but it is easy to see, as it has been already remarked, that -whatever is universal cannot be increased or diminished; and -that what is less than universal, cannot be characterized by -that epithet. The phrase <em>so universal</em> implies a gradation -in universality, and that something is less so than an another; -which is evidently impossible.</p> - -<p>It has been questioned, whether <em>prior</em>, <em>superior</em>, <em>ulterior</em>, -<em>exterior</em>, and several others, which have the form of the -Latin comparative, should be deemed comparatives. I am -inclined to think, they ought not, for these reasons; 1st, -They have not the form of the English comparative; 2dly, -They are never followed by <em>than</em>, which uniformly accompanies -the English comparative, when the subjects are -opposed to each other, or referred to different classes; 3dly, -It is not to be conceived, that every adjective, which implies -comparison, is therefore a comparative or superlative, otherwise -<em>preferable</em> (better than), <em>previous</em> (prior to), might be -deemed comparatives; 4thly, Many of these have truly a -positive meaning, not implying an excess of the quality, but -merely the quality, as opposed to its contrary. The <em>interior</em> -means simply the <em>inside</em>, as opposed to the <em>exterior</em> or <em>outside</em>; -the <em>anterior</em>, “the one before,” opposed to <em>posterior</em>, -“the one behind.”</p> - -<p>I dismiss this article with observing, that the signification -of the positive is sometimes lessened by the termination <em>ish</em>; -as, <em>white, whitish</em>; <em>black, blackish</em>. Johnson remarks, that -the adjective in this form may be considered as in a state of -comparison; it may properly be called a diminutive.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_77"></a>[77]</span><br /></p> - -<h3 id="CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V.<br /> - -<span class="fs60">OF THE VERB.</span></h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent">A verb has been defined to be “that part of speech which -signifies to be, to do, or to suffer;” or more correctly, “that -part of speech which predicates some action, passion, or -state of its subject,” as “I strike,” “I am wounded,” “I -stand.” Its essence consists in affirmation, and by this -property it is distinguished from every other part of speech. -The adjective expresses an accident, quality, or property of -a thing <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">in concreto</i>; that is, when joined to the name of a -substance, it expresses that substance, as accompanied by -some attribute: in other words, it limits a generic name, -confining it to that part of the kind, which possesses the -character, which the attributive specifies; but it affirms -nothing. Thus, if we say, “<em>a wise man</em>,” which is equivalent -to “a man with,” or “having wisdom,” there is no affirmation; -an individual is singled from a species, under the -character of wisdom, but nothing is asserted of this individual. -If we say “the man is wise,” there is something -affirmed of the man, and the affirmation is expressed by <em>is</em>. -If the attribute and the assertion be combined in the expression, -as in Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">vir sapit</i>, it is obvious that the essence of -the verb consists, not in denoting the attribute wisdom, but -in affirming that quality, as belonging to the subject; for, if -you cancel the assertion, the verb is immediately converted -into an adjective, and the expression becomes <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">vir sapiens</i>, a -wise man.</p> - -<p>The simplest of all verbs is that which the Greeks call a -verb of existence, namely, the verb <em>to be</em>. This verb frequently -denotes pure affirmation, as “God is good,” where -the verb, or <em>copula</em>, as it has been termed, serves to predicate -of the Deity, the attribute denoted by the following -word. Hence, as it expresses mere affirmation, the Latins -call it a substantive verb, in contradistinction to those verbs -which, with an attribute, denote assertion, and were called by -some grammarians adjective verbs.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_78"></a>[78]</span></p> - -<p>Sometimes it predicates pure or absolute existence, as -“God is,” that is, “God <em>exists</em>.” In the following example -it occurs in both senses. “We believe that thou art, and -that thou art the rewarder of them who diligently seek thee.”</p> - -<p>As nouns denote the subjects of our discourse, so verbs -predicate their accidents, or properties. The former are the -names of things, the latter what we say concerning them. -These two, therefore, must be the only essential parts of -speech; for to mental communication nothing else can be -indispensably requisite, than to name the subject of our -thoughts, and to express our sentiments of its attributes or -properties. And as the verb essentially expresses affirmation, -without which there could be no communication of -sentiment, it has been hence considered as the principal part -of speech, and was therefore called, by the ancient grammarians, -<em>verb</em>, or <em>the word</em>, by way of eminence. The noun, -however, is unquestionably of earlier origin. To assign -names to surrounding objects would be a matter of the first -necessity: the next step would be to express their most -common actions, or states of being. This indeed is the -order of nature—the progress of intellect.</p> - -<p>Mr. Tooke observes that, “the verb does not imply any -assertion, and that no single word can.” “Till one single -thing,” says he, “can be found to be a couple, one single -word cannot make an assertion or affirmation: for there is -joining in that operation, and there can be no junction of -one thing.” This theory he illustrates by the tense <em>ibo</em>, -which he resolves thus:</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>English</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Hi<a id="FNanchor_40" href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">Wol</td> -<td class="tdl">Ich</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Latin</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I</td> -<td class="tdl">Vol</td> -<td class="tdl">O</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Greek</em></td> -<td class="tdl" lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">Ι</td> -<td class="tdl" lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">Βουλ</td> -<td class="tdl" lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">Εω.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>The first of each triad are the simple verbs, equivalent to <em>go</em>. -The second are the verbs <em>Wol</em>, <em>Vol</em>, <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">Βουλ</span>, denoting <em>will</em>. -The third are the pronouns of the first person. Whatever -opinion may be formed respecting the truth of this analysis, -its ingenuity will not be questioned. There are two objections, -however, by which its justness may possibly be controverted.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_79"></a>[79]</span> -The first is, if the personal pronouns are contained, -as Mr. Tooke says, in the Greek and Latin terminations -of the three persons of their verbs, why is the -pronoun repeated with the verb? If the <em>o</em> in <em>volo</em> be an abbreviated -suffix for <em>ego</em>, why do we redundantly say <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ego volo</i>? -Now, in answer to this objection, it might be observed, were -we disposed to indulge in mere hypothesis, that the involution -of the pronoun may have eluded the attention of the -Latins; or, if this explanation should be deemed too improbable, -it may be supposed that usage, against whose -decree there is no appeal, may have established the repetition -of the pronoun at the expense of strict propriety. One -thing particularly deserves attention, that the pronoun was -seldom or never used, unless in cases where emphasis was implied, -or an antithesis of persons was to be strongly marked. -But without resorting to conjectures, which may be deemed -vague and unsatisfactory, we may appeal to a fact which is -decisive of the point in question. I have already observed, -that in the Hebrew language we can distinctly mark the -pronouns suffixed to the verb; yet we find the Hebrew -writers repeating the pronouns even in cases where no emphasis -is intended. Thus, in Gen. xlviii. 22, <em>Ve-ani nathatti</em>, -“and I have given;” Job xix. 25, <em>Ve-ani iadahgti</em>, “and I -knew;” Deut. ix. 2, <em>attah iadahghta, ve-atta shamahgh ta</em>, -“thou knowest, and thou hast heard.” In these examples, -the pronoun is both incorporated with the verb and repeated -by itself. Whatever may be the abstract propriety of this -phraseology, its existence in Hebrew is sufficient to obviate -the objection proposed.</p> - -<p>Again, it may be urged, if the pronoun <em>ego</em> be suffixed to -the verb, why do not all the tenses in the first person singular -end in <em>o</em>? This second objection may also be partly, if not -entirely, removed. The Latin language appears to be a commixture -of Greek and one of the northern languages. This -commixture will account for the first person singular sometimes -ending in <em>o</em>, in imitation of the Greeks, and at other -times in <em>m</em>, in imitation of the Celts. The present tense of -the Gaelic, a dialect of the Celtic, proceeds thus: <em>sgriobh-aim</em>, -“I write,” sgriobh-air, sgriobh-aidh, sgriobh-amoid,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_80"></a>[80]</span> -sgriobh-aoidhesi, sgriobh-aidsion. Here, as Whiter observes, -we have something resembling the Latin verb <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">scribo</i>: and it -is to be remarked that the first person singular ends in <em>m</em>, -which the Romans most probably adopted as one of their -verbal terminations. And could we prosecute the inquiry, -and investigate the structure of the Greek and Celtic tenses -themselves, we should doubtless find, that they involve, along -with the radical word, one or more terms expressing the accessary -ideas of action, passion, state, person, time, and so -forth. The same theory, we are persuaded, may be applied -to all languages, in which the tenses are formed by variety -of termination.</p> - -<p>Nothing, I conceive, can be more evident, than that the -inflexions of nouns and verbs, how inexplicable soever they -may now prove, were not originally the result of systematic -art, but were separate terms significant of the circumstances -intended, and afterwards, by celerity of pronunciation, -coalesced with the words of which they now form the terminations.</p> - -<p>It has been observed, that the essence of the verb consists -in affirmation. This theory, I have remarked, is controverted -by Mr. Tooke. It must be obvious, however, from the -preceding observations, that the difference between the -opinion of this eminent philologist, and that which is here -delivered, is more apparent than real. For Mr. Tooke will -not deny, that an affirmation is implied in <em>ibo</em>; he merely -observes, that every assertion requires “a couple of terms.” -Now it is of little moment to the point in question whether -the two terms be incorporated in one, as in <em>lego</em>, or remain -separate, as “I read.” In either case the verb affirms something -of its nominative, whether that nominative appear in a -simple or in a compound state. Sometimes the affirmation is -expressed by a separate and appropriate sign, as <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ille est -dives</i>, “he is rich:” and the verb of existence (<em>to be</em>) is supposed, -by several critics and philologists, to have been coeval -with the earliest infancy of language. In English, the affirmation, -and also the action, are frequently denoted, simply -by the junction of the name of the attribute with the nominative -of the subject, whether noun or pronoun. Thus, if we<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_81"></a>[81]</span> -say, “my will,” “the children’s will,” there is no affirmation -implied, and the term <em>will</em> is considered as a mere name. -But if we say, “I will,” “the children will,” it becomes invested -with a different character, and affirms the volition to -belong to the subject. Thus also, “the hero’s might,” “the -hero might,” “my ken” (my knowledge or ability), “I ken,” -<em>I can</em>, or <em>I am able</em>; “my love,” “I love.” Mr. Tooke observes, -that when we say “I love,” there is an ellipsis of the -word <em>do</em>. This appears to me a probable opinion, though -not entirely unobjectionable. For though we find the -auxiliary more frequently used in old English than in -modern compositions, yet it does not occur so frequently as, -according to this hypothesis, we should naturally expect. -Mr. Tooke indeed admits the fact; but observes, that -Chaucer had less occasion to use it, because in his time the -distinguishing terminations of the verb still remained, though -they were not constantly employed. Now I find, as Mr. -Tyrwhitt remarks, that Chaucer seldom uses the word <em>do</em> as -an auxiliary, even in those cases where the verb and the -noun are identical. This circumstance might lead us to infer -that the English present was derived from the Saxon, by -dropping the termination, as <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">ic lufige</i>, <em>I love</em>; the affirmation -and the action being sufficiently obvious from the construction, -and that it was originally optional to say either “I -love,” or “I do love.” Be that as it may, the assertion expressed -by “I do,” equivalent to “I act,” appears clearly to -be signified by the junction of the nominative pronoun with -the sign of action. Whether a note of affirmation was at -first separately employed, and afterwards involved in the -verbal termination, or whether the affirmation be merely inferred -and not signified, this is certain, that it is by the verb, -and the verb only, that we can express affirmation.</p> - -<p>As every subject of discourse must be spoken of as either -doing or suffering something, either acting or acted upon; or -as neither doing nor suffering; hence verbs have been divided -by all grammarians into active, passive, and neuter.</p> - -<p>The verb active denotes that the subject of discourse is -doing something, as, <em>I write</em>; the passive verb, that the subject -suffers, or is acted upon, as, <em>the book is burned</em>; and the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_82"></a>[82]</span> -neuter denotes neither the one nor the other, but expresses -merely the state, posture, or condition of the subject, as unaffected -by anything else, as, <em>I sit</em>, <em>I sleep</em>, <em>I stand</em>.</p> - -<p>Action, energy, or motion may either be confined to the -agent, or pass from him to something extrinsic. Hence active -verbs have been divided into transitive and intransitive. An -active transitive verb denotes that kind of action by which the -agent affects something foreign to himself, or which passes from -the agent to something without him, as, <em>to beat a drum</em>, <em>to whip -a horse</em>, <em>to kill a dog</em>. <em>Beat</em>, <em>whip</em>, <em>kill</em>, are active transitive -verbs; and it is the characteristic of these verbs that they -admit a noun after them, denoting the subject of the action.</p> - -<p>An active intransitive verb denotes that species of action -or energy, which passes not from the agent to anything else; -that is, it expresses what has been termed immanent energy. -Hence an intransitive verb does not admit a noun after it, -there being no extrinsic subject or object affected by the -action. Thus, <em>I run</em>, <em>I walk</em>, <em>the horse gallops</em>, are examples -of active intransitive verbs<a id="FNanchor_41" href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a>.</p> - -<p>Webster, in his Dissertations on the English Language, -delivers it as his opinion, that the division of verbs into -active, passive, and neuter is incorrect; and that the only -accurate distribution is into transitive and intransitive. “Is -not a man,” says he, “passive in hearing? yet hearing is -called an active verb.”</p> - -<p>It is doubtless true, that <em>to hear</em>, and many other verbs, -commonly called active, denote chiefly, perhaps, the effect of -an extrinsic or foreign act. But whether we view the matter -as a question either in metaphysics or in grammar, we shall -perceive but little impropriety in adopting the common distinction. -For, though the verb <em>to hear</em> denotes, perhaps, -chiefly, that a certain impression is made on the mind -through the auditory organ, yet even here the mind is not -entirely passive, as, were this the place for such a discussion, -it would be easy to prove. <em>I see</em>, <em>I hear</em>, <em>I feel</em>, <em>I perceive</em>, -denote not only the sensation in which we are passive, but<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_83"></a>[83]</span> -also a perception, to which the consent or activity of the -mind is unquestionably essential. Hence these verbs have, -in all languages, been denominated active. But if the term -transitive be the only correct name, it may be asked, why -does Mr. Webster call this verb by that appellation? He -would answer, I doubt not, “because something passes from -the agent to something else.” What, then, is that something -which passes? I am afraid Mr. Webster would have -difficulty in answering this question, so as to justify the term -transitive, without admitting the verb to be active. For, if -it be not an act, an energy, or some operation of the mind, -what is it, or how can it pass from one to another? The -truth is, this objection of Mr. Webster to the term active in -such cases, is founded neither on metaphysical nor grammatical -principles; for by an active transitive verb is meant, that -which admits a noun as its regimen; and, for the purposes -of grammar, this name is sufficiently correct. If the point in -question be metaphysically considered, it would be easy to -demonstrate that, though in sensation the mind be passive, in -perception it is active.</p> - -<p>I would here observe, in passing, that there are many verbs -neuter and intransitive, which, followed by a preposition, may -be truly considered as active transitive verbs. These have -been denominated, by the learned Dr. Campbell, compound -active verbs. <em>To laugh</em>, for example, is a neuter verb; it -cannot therefore admit a passive voice, as, “<em>I am laughed</em>.” -<em>To laugh at</em> may be considered as an active transitive verb; -for it not only admits an objective case after it in the active -voice, but is likewise construed as a passive verb, as, “<em>I am -laughed at</em>.” Here an obvious analogy obtains between -these two and the verbs <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">rideo</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">derideo</i>, in Latin; the former -of which is a neuter, and the latter an active verb. Nor, as -the same ingenious writer observes, does it matter whether -the preposition be prefixed to the simple verb, as in Latin, in -order to form the active verb, or be put after, and detached, -as is the case in English. The only grammatical criterion -in our language between an active and a neuter verb is this: -if the verb admits an objective case after it, either with or -without a preposition, to express the subject or object of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_84"></a>[84]</span> -energy, the verb may be grammatically considered as a compound -active verb; for thus construed it has a passive voice. -If the verb does not thus admit an objective case, it must be -considered grammatically as neuter or intransitive, and has -no passive voice. <em>To smile</em> is a neuter verb; it cannot, -therefore, be followed by an objective case, nor be construed -as a passive verb. We cannot say, <em>she smiled him</em>, or <em>he -was smiled</em>. <em>To smile on</em>, according to the principle now -proposed, is a compound active verb; we therefore say, <em>she -smiled on him</em>. <em>He was smiled on by Fortune in every -undertaking<a id="FNanchor_42" href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a>.</em></p> - -<p>As all things exist in time, and whatever is predicable of -any subject must be predicated as either past, present, or -future, every action, energy, or state of being, coming under -one or other of these predicaments, hence arises the utility of -tenses, to express the times, or relative order of their existence. -In regard to the number of these tenses<a id="FNanchor_43" href="#Footnote_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a>, necessary -to render a language complete, grammarians have been somewhat -divided in opinion.</p> - -<p>In our language we have two simple tenses, the present -and the preterperfect<a id="FNanchor_44" href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a>. The latter is generally formed by<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_85"></a>[85]</span> -adding <em>d</em> or <em>ed</em> to the present, as <em>love, loved</em>; <em>fear, feared</em>. -That the suffix here is a contraction for <em>did</em>, as Mr. Tooke<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_86"></a>[86]</span> -supposes, I can easily imagine; thus, <em>fear</em>, <em>fear-did</em>, <em>feared</em>, -or <em>did fear</em>; but the question returns, whence comes the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_87"></a>[87]</span> -termination <em>ed</em> in <em>doed</em>, from which <em>did</em> itself is contracted? -This query seems to have escaped the attention of the learned -author<a id="FNanchor_45" href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_88"></a>[88]</span></p> - -<p>Actions and states of being may be predicated as either -certain or contingent, free or necessary, possible or impossible,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_89"></a>[89]</span> -obligatory or optional; in short, as they may take place -in a variety of ways, they may be spoken of, as diversified in -their modes of production. Hence arises another accident -of verbs, called a mood, expressing the mode or manner of -existence. These modes are, in some languages, partly expressed -by inflexions, partly by auxiliary verbs, or words -significant of the model diversity. In English there is only -one mood, namely, the indicative. The Greeks and Romans -expressed by inflections the most common modes of action -or existence, as conditionality, power, contingency, certainty, -liberty, and duty. In our language they are denoted by -auxiliary verbs.</p> - -<p>The English verb has only one voice, namely, the active. -Dr. Lowth, and most other grammarians, have assigned it -two voices, active and passive. Lowth has, in this instance, -not only violated the simplicity of our language, but has also -advanced an opinion inconsistent with his own principles. -For, if he has justly excluded from the number of cases in -nouns, and moods in verbs, those which are not formed by -inflexion, but by the addition of prepositions and auxiliary -verbs, there is equal reason for rejecting a passive voice, if it -be not formed by variety of termination. Were I to ask him -why he denies <em>from a king</em> to be an ablative case, or <em>I may -love</em> to be the potential mood, he would answer, and very -truly, that those only can be justly regarded as cases or -moods which, by a different form of the noun or verb, express -a different relation or a different mode of existence. If this -answer be satisfactory, there can be no good reason for assigning -to our language a passive voice, when that voice is -formed, not by inflexion, but by an auxiliary verb. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Doceor</i> -is truly a passive voice; but <em>I am taught</em> cannot, without -impropriety, be considered as such. Besides, as it is justly -observed by Dr. Ash, our author, when he parses the clause, -“I am well pleased,” tells us that <em>am</em> is the indicative mood, -present tense of the verb <em>to be</em>; and <em>pleased</em>, the passive -participle of the verb to <em>please</em>. Now, in parsing, every<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_90"></a>[90]</span> -word should be considered as a distinct part of speech: -whether, therefore, we admit <em>pleased</em> to be a passive participle -or not, (for this point I shall afterwards examine,) it is obvious -that on the principle now laid down, and acknowledged by -Dr. Lowth, <em>am pleased</em> is not a present passive, nor has the -author himself parsed it in this manner. Into such inconsistencies -do our grammarians run, from a propensity to force -the grammar of our language into a conformity with the -structure of Greek and Latin.</p> - -<p>The same reasoning will also account for my assigning to -English verbs no more than two tenses and one mood. For, -if we consider the matter, not metaphysically, but grammatically, -and regard those only as moods which are diversified -by inflexion, (and, as Lowth himself observes, as far as grammar -is concerned, there can be no others,) we find that our -language has only one mood and two tenses.</p> - -<p>This doctrine, in respect to the cases, is very generally -admitted. For though the Greeks and Romans expressed -the different relations by variety of inflexion, which they -termed cases, it does not follow that we are to acknowledge -the same number of cases as they had, when these relations -are expressed in English, not by inflexions, but by prepositions -or words significant of these relations. The Latins -would not have acknowledged <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">absque fructu</i>, without fruit, as -forming a seventh case, though they acknowledged <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fructu</i>, -by fruit, as making an ablative or sixth case. And why? -because the latter only was formed by inflexion. For this -reason, I consider giving the name of dative case to the -combination of words <em>to a king</em>, or of ablative case to the -expression <em>from a king</em>, to be a palpable impropriety. Our -language knows no such cases; nor would an Englishman, -unacquainted with Greek or Latin, ever dream of these cases, -though perfectly master of his own language.</p> - -<p>In the same manner it may be asked, what could lead him -to distinguish a diversity of moods, or a plurality of voices, -where there is no variety of termination to discriminate them? -The distinction of circumstances, respecting the modes of -existence, he expresses by words significant of these accidents; -but he would no more dream of giving these<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_91"></a>[91]</span> -forms of expression the name of moods, than he would be -disposed to call <em>from a king</em> by the name of <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">casus ablativus</i>, -or <em>permit me to go</em> the first person singular of the imperative -mood. If, indeed, he were somewhat acquainted with Latin, -he might, in the true spirit of modern grammarians, contend -that <em>let me go</em>, or <em>permit me to go</em>, is truly the first person -singular of the imperative mood; assigning as a reason for -this assertion, that such is the designation of <em>eam</em> in Latin. -With the most correct knowledge, however, of his own language -only, he could never be seduced into this absurdity. -A little reflection indeed might teach him, that even <em>eam</em> in -Latin is an elliptical expression for <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">sine ut eam</i>, the word -<em>eam</em> itself denoting neither entreaty nor command.</p> - -<p>In truth, we may as reasonably contend that our language -has all the tenses which are to be found in Greek and Latin, -because, by the aid of auxiliaries and definitives, we contrive -to express what they denoted by one word, as to contend -that we have a potential, an optative or imperative mood, or -a passive voice; because by auxiliaries or variety of arrangement -we can express the circumstances of power, liberty, -duty, passion, &c. No grammarian has yet gone so far as -to affirm that we have in English a <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">paulo post future</i>, because -our language, by definitives or auxiliaries, is capable -of expressing that time. Or, what should we think of that -person’s discernment, who should contend that the Latins -had an optative mood, because <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">utinam legeres</i> signifies “I -wish you would read”? It is equally absurd to say that we -have an imperfect, preterpluperfect, or future tenses; or that -we have all the Greek varieties of mood, and two voices, because -by the aid of auxiliary words and definite terms we -contrive to express these accidents, times, or states of being. -I consider, therefore, that we have no more cases, moods, -tenses, or voices in our language, as far as its grammar, not -its capacity of expression, is concerned, than we have variety -of termination to denote these different accessary ideas.</p> - -<p>As the terminations of most verbs in languages are varied -by tense and mood, so are they also varied according as the -subject is of the first, second, or third person. Thus, in the -only two tenses that we have in English, namely, the present<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_92"></a>[92]</span> -and the preterperfect tenses, the second person singular of -each is formed from the first, by adding <em>st</em> or <em>est</em>, as, <em>I love, -thou lovest</em>; <em>I loved, thou lovedst</em>; and the third person singular -of the present is formed by adding <em>s</em>, or the syllable -<em>eth</em> or <em>th</em>, to the first as, <em>love, loves</em>, or <em>loveth</em>; <em>read, reads</em>, -or <em>readeth</em>. These are the only variations which our verbs -admit, in concordance with the person of the nominative singular. -The three persons plural are always the same with -the first person singular.</p> - -<p>Before I proceed to the conjugation of verbs in general, I -shall first explain the manner in which the auxiliaries are -conjugated. Of these the most extensively useful is the -verb <em>to be</em>, denoting simple affirmation, or expressing existence. -The next is that which signifies action, namely, the -verb <em>to do</em>. The third is the verb <em>to have</em>, implying possession. -The others are, <em>shall</em>, <em>will</em>, <em>may</em>, <em>can</em>, &c. I begin -with the verb <em>to be</em>.</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Indicative Mood.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Present Tense.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em><a id="FNanchor_46" href="#Footnote_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">I am</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou art</td> -<td class="tdl">He, she, or it is</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We are</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you are</td> -<td class="tdl">They are.</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_93"></a>[93]</span> - <em>Preterite.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I was</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou wast<a id="FNanchor_47" href="#Footnote_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">He was</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We were</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you were</td> -<td class="tdl">They were.</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Imperfect Conditional.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I were</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou wert</td> -<td class="tdl">He were</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We were</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you were</td> -<td class="tdl">They were.</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Infinitive.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4">To be.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>It may seem inconsistent with the opinion which I have -delivered concerning moods, to assign an infinitive to this -verb; and the existence of this infinitive may appear, perhaps, -a sufficient refutation of that opinion. I shall, therefore, -briefly repeat what I have said, and offer a few additional -observations.</p> - -<p>I have remarked that the first care of men, in a rude and -infant state, would be to assign names to surrounding objects; -and that the noun, in the natural order of things, must have -been the first part of speech. Their inventive powers would -next be employed to express the most common energies or -states of being, such as are denoted by the verbs <em>to do</em>, <em>to -be</em>, <em>to suffer</em>. Hence, by the help of these combined with a -noun, they might express the energy or state of that thing, -of which the noun was the name. Thus, I shall suppose -that they assigned the word <em>plant</em>, as the name of a vegetable -set in the ground. To express the act of setting it, -they would say, <em>do plant</em>, that is, <em>act plant</em>. The letters <em>d</em> -and <em>t</em> being nearly allied, it is easy to conceive how the word -<em>do</em>, by a variation very natural and common to all languages, -might be changed into <em>to</em>; and thus the word <em>to</em> prefixed to -a noun would express the correspondent energy or action.</p> - -<p>In what light, then, are we to consider the phrase <em>to plant</em>, -termed an infinitive, or to what class of words is it reducible?<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_94"></a>[94]</span> -Previously to my answering this question, it is necessary -to remind the reader, that a verb joined to a noun -forms a sentence; that affirmation is essential to the character -of a verb; and that, for this reason, and this only, it has -been pre-eminently distinguished by the name of verb, or the -word. Destroy this characteristic, and it is immediately -confounded with the adjective, or the participle. It is its -power of predication only, which constitutes it a distinct -part of speech, and discriminates it from every other. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Vir -sapit</i>, and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">vir est sapiens</i>, are equivalent expressions. Cancel -the assertion, and the verb is lost. The expression becomes -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">vir sapiens</i>, “a wise man.” This opinion, I am persuaded, -requires only to be examined to be universally adopted. If -this be the case, the infinitive which affirms nothing, cannot, -without impropriety, be deemed a verb. It expresses merely -an action, passion, or state abstractedly. Hence many grammarians -have justly considered it as no part of the verb; and, -in the languages of Greece and Rome, the infinitive was -employed like a common substantive, having frequently an -adjective joined with it, and subject to the government of -verbs and prepositions. This opinion has been lately controverted -by a writer of considerable eminence as a Latin -scholar. But, after examining the matter with attention, I -take upon me to affirm, that not a single example can be produced -wherein the infinitive, as used by the Greeks and -Romans, might not be supplied by the substitution of a noun. -Wherefore, admitting the established principle, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">voces valent -significatione</i>, there cannot exist a doubt that the infinitive, -which may in all cases be supplied by a noun, has -itself the real character of a noun. And, if the essence of a -verb consist in predication, and not, as some think, in implying -time in conjunction with an attribute, which is the characteristic -of a participle, then the infinitive, as it can predicate -nothing, and joined to a substantive makes no sentence, -cannot therefore be deemed a verb. When I say, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">legere est -facile</i>, “to read is easy,” it is obvious that there is only one -sentence in each of these expressions. But if <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">legere</i> (to read) -were a verb as well as <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">est</i> (is), then there would be two verbs -and also two affirmations, for affirmation is inseparable from -a verb. I remark also, that the verbal noun <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">lectio</i> (reading)<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_95"></a>[95]</span> -substituted for <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">legere</i> (to read) would precisely express the -same sentiment. For these reasons I concur decidedly with -those grammarians who are so far from considering the infinitive -as a distinct mood, that they entirely exclude it from -the appellation of verb<a id="FNanchor_48" href="#Footnote_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a>.</p> - -<p>It may be asked, what then is it to be called? In answer -to this query, I observe, that it matters little what designation -be assigned to it, provided its character and office be -fully understood. The ancient Latin grammarians, as Priscian -informs us, termed it properly enough, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nomen verbi</i>, -“the noun or name of the verb.” To proscribe terms, which -have been long familiar to us, and, by immemorial possession, -have gained an establishment, is always a difficult, and frequently -an ungracious task. I shall therefore retain its usual -name, having sufficiently guarded the reader against a misconception -of its character.</p> - -<p>Now, in our language, the infinitive has not even the distinction -arising from termination, to entitle it to be ranked in -the number of moods; its form being the same with that of -the present tense, and probably, both in its termination and -its prefix, originally identical. For, if the doctrine just proposed -be correct, the word <em>do</em> was put before each. To this -rule the English language furnishes only one exception, -namely, the verb of existence, in which the present indicative -is <em>am</em>, whereas the infinitive is <em>to be</em>. This, however, can -scarcely be deemed an exception, when it is considered, that -the present indicative of this verb was originally <em>be</em> as well as -<em>am</em>; though the former be now in a state of obsolescence, or -rather entirely obsolete. At the same time, as this is the only -verb in which the infinitive differs in form from the present -of the indicative, I have judged it necessary to note the exception, -and assign the infinitive.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_96"></a>[96]</span></p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="60%" summary=""> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad20pc"><em>Present part.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad20pc">Being</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad20pc"><em>Past part.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad20pc">Been<a id="FNanchor_49" href="#Footnote_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a>.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> - -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4">TO DO.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Indicative Mood.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Present.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I do</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou doest or dost</td> -<td class="tdl">He doeth, doth or does</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We do</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you do</td> -<td class="tdl">They do.</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Preterperfect.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I did</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou didst</td> -<td class="tdl">He, she, or it did<a id="FNanchor_50" href="#Footnote_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We did</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you did</td> -<td class="tdl">They did.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="60%" summary=""> - -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="2"><em>Participles.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad20pc"><em>Present</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad20pc">Doing</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad20pc"><em>Past</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad20pc">Done.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> - -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4">TO HAVE.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Indicative Mood.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Present.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I have</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou hast</td> -<td class="tdl">He hath or has</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We have</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you have</td> -<td class="tdl">They have.</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_97"></a>[97]</span> - <em>Preterperfect.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I had</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou hadst</td> -<td class="tdl">He had</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We had</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you had</td> -<td class="tdl">They had.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="60%" summary=""> - -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="2"><em>Participles.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad20pc"><em>Present</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad20pc">Having</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad20pc"><em>Past</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad20pc">Had.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> - -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4">Liberty is expressed by the verb</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4">MAY.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Indicative Mood.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Present.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I may</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou mayest</td> -<td class="tdl">He may</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We may</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you may</td> -<td class="tdl">They may<a id="FNanchor_51" href="#Footnote_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a>.</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Preterperfect.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I might</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou mightest</td> -<td class="tdl">He might</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We might</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you might</td> -<td class="tdl">They might.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> - -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4">Power or ability is expressed by</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4">CAN.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Indicative Mood.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Present.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I can</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou canst</td> -<td class="tdl">He can</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We can</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you can</td> -<td class="tdl">They can<a id="FNanchor_52" href="#Footnote_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a>.</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Preterperfect.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I could</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou couldst</td> -<td class="tdl">He could</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We could</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you could</td> -<td class="tdl">They could.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_98"></a>[98]</span></p> - -<p>Futurition and duty are expressed by the verb <em>shall</em>, but -not each in the three persons.</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> - -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Indicative Mood.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Present.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em><a id="FNanchor_53" href="#Footnote_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">I shall</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou shalt</td> -<td class="tdl">He shall</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We shall</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you shall</td> -<td class="tdl">They shall.</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_99"></a>[99]</span> - <em>Preterperfect.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I should</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou shouldst</td> -<td class="tdl">He should</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We should</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you should</td> -<td class="tdl">They should.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> - -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4">Volition and futurity are expressed by the verb <em>to will</em>.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Present.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I will</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou wilt</td> -<td class="tdl">He will</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We will</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you will</td> -<td class="tdl">They will<a id="FNanchor_54" href="#Footnote_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a>.</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Preterperfect.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I would</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou wouldst</td> -<td class="tdl">He would</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We would</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you would</td> -<td class="tdl">They would.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<p>Priestley and Lowth, who have in this been followed by -most other grammarians, call the tenses <em>may</em>, <em>can</em>, <em>shall</em>, <em>will</em>, -absolute tenses; <em>might</em>, <em>could</em>, <em>should</em>, <em>would</em>, conditional. -That <em>might</em>, <em>could</em>, <em>should</em>, <em>would</em>, frequently imply conditionality, -there can be no question; but I am persuaded that the -proper character of these tenses is unconditional affirmation, -and for these two reasons:</p> - -<p>1st. Their formation seems to indicate that they are preterites -indicative, proceeding from their respective presents, -in the same manner as <em>did</em> from <em>do</em>, <em>had</em> from <em>have</em>, and -having therefore the same unconditional meaning. Thus, <em>I -may</em>, is equivalent to “I am at liberty;” <em>I might</em>, to “I was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_100"></a>[100]</span> -at liberty;” <em>I can</em>, means “I am able;” <em>I could</em>, “I was -able;” <em>I will</em>, “I am willing;” <em>I would</em>, “I was willing.”</p> - -<p>2dly. They are used to express unconditional meaning. -If we say, “This might prove fatal to your interest,” the -assertion of the possibility of the event is as unconditional -as absolute, as, “This may prove fatal to your interest.” -“This, if you do it, <em>will</em> ruin your cause,” is precisely -equivalent to, “This, were you to do it, <em>would</em> ruin your -cause;” equivalent as far, at least, as the unconditional -affirmation of the consequence of a supposed action is involved<a id="FNanchor_55" href="#Footnote_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a>. -“I may write, if I choose,” is not more absolute -than “I might write, if I chose.” If I say, “I might have -gone to the Continent,” the expression is as unconditional -as, “I had it in my power,” “I was at liberty to go to the -Continent.” “Can you construe Lycophron?” “I cannot -now; but once <em>I could</em>.” “May you do as you please?” -“Not now; but once I <em>might</em>.” Is there any conditionality -implied in the latter clause of each of these answers? Not -the least. They are unconditionally assertive. The formation -of these tenses, therefore, being analogous to that of -preterites indicative, and their import in these examples, as -in many others which might be adduced, being unconditional -and absolute, I am inclined to consider them as preterites indicative, -agreeably to their form, and as properly unconditional -in respect to signification.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_101"></a>[101]</span></p> - -<p>I observe, however, that though <em>might</em>, <em>could</em>, <em>would</em>, -<em>should</em>, are preterite tenses, they are frequently employed to -denote present time<a id="FNanchor_56" href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a>; but in such examples care must be -taken that congruity of tense be preserved, and that the subsequent -be expressed in the same tense with the antecedent -verb. Thus I say, “I may go if I choose,” where the liberty -and inclination are each expressed as present; or, “I -might go if I chose,” where, though present time be implied, -the liberty is expressed by the preterite, and the inclination -is denoted by the same tense.</p> - -<p>Before I proceed to show how these auxiliary verbs are -joined with others, to express the intended accessary ideas, -I shall offer a few observations on the participle.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_102"></a>[102]</span></p> - -<h3 id="CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI.<br /> - -<span class="fs60"><ins class="corr" id="tn-102" title="Transcriber’s Note—this subheading was missing from the original text"> -OF THE PARTICIPLE.</ins></span></h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent">A participle is a part of speech derived from a verb, agreeing -with its primitive in denoting action, being, or suffering, -but differing from it in this, that the participle implies no -affirmation<a id="FNanchor_57" href="#Footnote_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a>.</p> - -<p>There are two participles, the present, ending in <em>ing</em>, as -<em>reading</em><a id="FNanchor_58" href="#Footnote_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a>; and the perfect or past, generally ending in <em>d</em> or -<em>ed</em>, as <em>heard</em>, <em>loved</em>.</p> - -<p>The present participle denotes the relatively present, or -the contemporary continuation of an action, or state of being. -If we say, “James was building the house,” the participle -expresses the continuation of the action, and the verb may -be considered as active. If we say, “the house was building,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_103"></a>[103]</span> -when the wall fell,” the participle, the same as in the -preceding example, denotes here the continuation of a state -of suffering, or being acted upon; and the verb may be considered -as passive. This participle, therefore, denoting either -action or passion, cannot with propriety be considered, as it -has been by some grammarians, as entirely an active participle. -Its distinctive and real character is, that in point of -time it denotes the relatively present, and may therefore be -called the present participle; and, in regard to action or -passion, it denotes their continuance or incompletion, and -may therefore be termed imperfect. In respect to time, -therefore, it is present; in respect to the action or state of -being, it is continued or imperfect. But whether it express -action or passion can be ascertained only by inquiring -whether the subject be acting or suffering; and this is a -question which judgment only can decide, the participle itself -not determining the point. If we say, “the prisoner -was burning,” our knowledge of the subject only can enable -us to determine whether the prisoner was active or passive; -whether he was employing fire to consume, or was himself -consuming by fire.</p> - -<p>The other participle, ending generally in <em>ed</em> or <em>d</em>, has been -called by some grammarians the passive participle, in contradistinction -to the one which we have now been considering, -and which they have termed the active participle. -“This participle has been so called,” says the author of the -British Grammar, “because, joined with the verb <em>to be</em>, it -forms the passive voice.” If the reason here assigned justify -its denomination as a passive participle, there exists the -same reason for calling it an active participle; for, with the -verb <em>to have</em>, it forms some of the compound tenses of the -active voice. The truth is, that, as those grammarians have -erred who consider the participle in <em>ing</em> as an active participle, -when it in fact denotes either action or passion, so those, -on the other hand, commit a similar mistake, who regard the -participle in <em>ed</em> as purely passive. A little attention will -suffice to show that it belongs to neither the one voice nor -the other peculiarly: and that it denotes merely completion -or perfection, in contradistinction to the other participle,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_104"></a>[104]</span> -which expresses imperfection or continuation. If it be true, -indeed, that the participle in <em>ing</em> does not belong to the -active voice only, but expresses merely the continuation of -any act, passion, or state of being, analogy would incline us -to infer, that the participle in <em>ed</em>, which denotes the completion -of an act or state of being, cannot belong exclusively to -the passive voice; and I conceive that, on inquiry, we shall -find this to be the case. If I say, “he had concealed a -poniard under his coat,” the participle here would be considered -as active. If I say, “he had a poniard concealed -under his clothes,” the participle would be regarded as -passive. Does not this prove that this participle is ambiguous, -that it properly belongs to neither voice, and that -the context only, or the arrangement, can determine, whether -it denote the perfection of an action, or the completion of a -passion or state of being? When I say, “Lucretia stabbed -herself with a dagger, which she had concealed under her -clothes,” it is impossible to ascertain whether the participle -be active or passive, that is, whether the verb <em>had</em> be here -merely an auxiliary verb, or be synonymous with the verb <em>to -possess</em>. If the former be intended, the syntactical collocation -is, “she had concealed (which) dagger under her clothes:” -if the latter, the grammatical order is, “she had which dagger -concealed:” and it requires but little discernment to perceive -that “she had concealed a dagger,” and “had a dagger concealed,” -are expressions by no means precisely equivalent.</p> - -<p>I need not here remind the classical scholar, that the Latins -had two distinct forms of expression to mark this diversity; -the one, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quem abdiderat</i>, and the other <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quem abditum habebat</i>. -The latter is the phraseology of Livy, describing the -suicide of Lucretia. His words, if translated, “which she -had concealed,” become ambiguous; for this is equally a -translation of <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quem abdiderat</i>. It is observable also, that -the phrase <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quem abdiderat</i> would not imply, that the dagger -was in the possession of Lucretia at the time.</p> - -<p>The participle in <em>ed</em>, therefore, I consider to be perfectly -analogous to the participle in <em>ing</em>, and used like it in either -an active or passive sense; belonging, therefore, neither to -the one voice nor the other exclusively, but denoting the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_105"></a>[105]</span> -completion of an action or state of being, while the participle -in <em>ing</em> denotes its continuation.</p> - -<p>In exhibiting a paradigm of the conjugation of our verbs, -many grammarians have implicitly and servilely copied the -Latin grammar, transferring into our language the names -both of tenses and moods which have formally no existence -in English. “I may burn,” is denominated, by the author -of the British Grammar, the present subjunctive; “I might -burn,” the imperfect subjunctive; “I may have burned,” the -preterperfect; and so on. This is directly repugnant to the -simplicity of our language, and is in truth as absurd as it -would be to call “we two love,” the dual number of the present -tense; or “he shall soon be buried,” a paulo post -future. Were this principle carried its full length, we -should have all the tenses, moods, and numbers, which are -to be found in Greek or Latin. It appears to me, that -nothing but prejudice or affectation could have prompted our -English grammarians to desert the simple structure of their -own language, and wantonly to perplex it with technical -terms, for things not existing in the language itself.</p> - -<p>I purpose, therefore, in exhibiting the conjugation of the -English verb, to give the simple tenses, as the only ones belonging -to our language; and then show how, by the aid of -other words combined with these, we contrive to express the -requisite modifications, and various accessary ideas.</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc"><em>Indicative Present.</em></td> -<td class="tdc"><em>Preter.</em></td> -<td class="tdc"><em>Part. Perf.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">Write</td> -<td class="tdc">Wrote</td> -<td class="tdc">Written.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Present Tense.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>S.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I write</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou writest</td> -<td class="tdl">He writes or writeth</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>P.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We write</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you write</td> -<td class="tdl">They write.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p class="noindent">This tense is by some grammarians called the present indefinite; -while by others it is considered as either definite or indefinite. -When it expresses an action now present, it is -termed the present definite, as,</p> - -<p>“I write this after a severe illness.”—<cite>Pope’s Letters.</cite></p> - -<p>“Saul, why persecutest thou me?”—<cite>Bible.</cite></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“This day begins the woe, others must end.”—<cite>Shakspeare.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_106"></a>[106]</span></p> - -<p>If the proposition expressed be general, or true at all times, -this tense is then termed the present indefinite; as, “The -wicked flee, when no man pursueth.”</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“Through tatter’d clothes small vices do appear;</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Robes and furred gowns hide all.”—<cite>Shakspeare.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Preterperfect.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>S.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I wrote</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou wrotest</td> -<td class="tdl">He wrote</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>P.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We wrote</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you wrote</td> -<td class="tdl">They wrote.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>This tense is indefinite, no particular past time being -implied.</p> - -<p>These are the only two tenses in our language formed by -varying the termination; the only two tenses, therefore, which -properly belong to it.</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Present Progressive, or continued.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>S.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I am writing</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou art writing</td> -<td class="tdl">He is writing</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>P.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We are writing</td> -<td class="tdl">You are writing</td> -<td class="tdl">They are writing.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>This tense denotes a present action proceeding. In regard -to time, it has been termed definite; and, in respect to -action, it differs from the other present in this, that the -former has no reference either to the perfection or imperfection -of the action; whereas this denotes that the action is -continued and imperfect.</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Present Emphatic.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>S.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I do write</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou dost write</td> -<td class="tdl">He doth or does write</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>P.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We do write</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you do write</td> -<td class="tdl">They do write.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>This form of the verb is emphatic, and generally implies -doubt or contradiction on the part of the person addressed, -to remove which the assertion is enforced by the auxiliary -verb. In respect to time and action, it is precisely the same -with <em>I write</em>.</p> - -<p>“You cannot dread an honourable death.”</p> - -<p>“I do dread it.”</p> - -<p>“Excellent wretch! perdition seize my soul, but I do love -thee.”</p> - -<p>Cancel the auxiliary verb, and the expression becomes -feeble and spiritless. This is one of those phraseologies, -which it would be impossible to render in a transpositive<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_107"></a>[107]</span> -language. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Di me perdant, quin te amem</i>, is an expression -comparatively exanimate and insipid.</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Preterite, Indefinite, and Emphatic.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>S.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I did write</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou didst write</td> -<td class="tdl">He did write</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>P.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We did write</td> -<td class="tdl">You did write</td> -<td class="tdl">They did write.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p class="noindent">as, “This to me in dreadful secrecy impart they did.” The -emphasis here, however, may partly arise from the inverted -collocation. The following example is therefore more apposite. -“I have been told that you have slighted me, and -said, I feared to face my enemy. You surely did not wrong -me thus?” “I <em>did</em> say so.”</p> - -<p>This tense is indefinite, in respect both to the time, and -the completion of the action.</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Preter. Imp. &c. continued.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>S.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I was writing</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou wast writing</td> -<td class="tdl">He was writing</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>P.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We were writing</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye were writing</td> -<td class="tdl">They were writing.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>This tense denotes that an action was proceeding, or going -on, at a time past either specified or implied, as “I was -writing when you called.”</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="6"><em>Preterperfect.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>S.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I have</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou hast</td> -<td class="tdl">He has</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">written.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>P.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We have</td> -<td class="tdl">You have</td> -<td class="tdl">They have</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>This tense expresses time as past, and the action as perfect. -It is compounded of the present tense of the verb denoting -possession and the perfect participle. It signifies a -perfect action either newly finished, or in a time of which -there is some part to elapse, or an action whose consequences -extend to the present. In short, it clearly refers to present -time. This, indeed, the composition of the tense manifestly -evinces. Thus, “I have written a letter,” means “I possess -at present the finished action of writing a letter.” This -phraseology, I acknowledge, seems uncouth and inelegant; -but, how awkward soever it may appear, the tense is unquestionably -thus resolvable.</p> - -<p>1st. It expresses an action newly finished, as, “I understand<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_108"></a>[108]</span> -that a messenger has arrived from Paris,” that is, -“newly,” or “just now,” arrived.</p> - -<p>2dly. An action done in a space of time, part of which is -yet to elapse; as, “It has rained all this week,” “We have -seen strange things this century.”</p> - -<p>3dly. An action perfected some time ago, but whose consequences -extend to the present time; as, “I have wasted my -time, and now suffer for my folly.”</p> - -<p>This tense has been termed, by some grammarians, the -perfect indefinite, and “I wrote,” the perfect definite. The -argument which they offer for this denomination is, that the -latter admits a definitive, to specify the precise time, and the -former rejects it. Those who reason in this manner seem to -me not only chargeable with a perversion of terms, but also -to disprove their own theory. For what is meant by a definite -term? Not surely that which admits or requires a definitive -to give it precision; but that which of itself is already -definite. If, therefore, “I wrote,” not only admits, but even -requires, the subjunction of a defining term or clause to render -the time definite and precise, it cannot surely be itself a definite -tense. Besides, they appear to me to reason in this -case inconsistently with their own principles. For they call -<em>I am writing</em> a definite tense; and why? but because it defines -the action to be imperfect, or the time to be relatively -present<a id="FNanchor_59" href="#Footnote_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a>. But if they reason here as they do in respect to -the preterite tenses, they ought to call this an indefinite tense, -because it admits not a definitive clause. They must, therefore, -either acknowledge that <em>I have written</em> is a definite -tense, and <em>I wrote</em>, indefinite; or they must, contrary to their -own principles, call <em>I am writing</em> indefinite.</p> - -<p>Dr. Arthur Browne, in an Essay on the Greek Tenses<a id="FNanchor_60" href="#Footnote_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a>, -contends, that <em>I wrote</em> is the perfect definite, and <em>I have -written</em> the perfect indefinite. “<em>I wrote</em>,” says he, “is not -intelligible without referring to some precise point of time, -<em>e.g.</em> when I was in France. Why, then, does Dr. Beattie say<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_109"></a>[109]</span> -<em>I wrote</em> is indefinite, because it refers to no particular past -time? No: it is indefinite because the verb in that tense does -not define whether the action be complete or not complete. -And why does he say, <em>I have written</em> is definite in respect -of time? for it refers to no particular time at which the event -happened. Put this example: A says to B, ‘I wish you -would write to that man.’ ‘<em>I have written to him</em>,’ the sense -is complete; the expression is not supposed to refer to any particular -time, and does not necessarily elicit any further inquiry. -But if B answers, ‘<em>I wrote to him</em>,’ he is of course supposed -to have in his mind a reference to some particular time, and -it naturally calls on A to ask when? It is not clear, then, -that <em>I wrote</em> refers to some particular time, and cannot have -been called indefinite, as Dr. Beattie supposes, from its not -doing so?”</p> - -<p>Dr. Browne’s argument is chargeable with inconsistency. -He says, that because <em>I have written</em> elicits no farther inquiry, -and renders the sense complete, it denotes no determinate -time; and that <em>I wrote</em> refers to a particular time, -prompting to farther inquiry. This at least I take to be the -scope of his reasoning; for if it be not from their occasioning, -or not occasioning, farther interrogation, that he deduces his -conclusion concerning the nature of these tenses, his argument -seems nothing but pure assertion. Now, so far from -calling that a definite tense, which necessarily requires, as he -himself states, a defining clause to specify the point of time, -I should call it an indefinite tense. He admits that <em>I wrote</em> -refers to time past in general, and that it requires some farther -specification to render the time known, as <em>I wrote yesterday</em>. -In this case, surely it is not the term <em>wrote</em>, but -<em>yesterday</em>, which defines the precise time; the tense itself expressing -nothing but past time in general.</p> - -<p>For the same reason, if, as he acknowledges, <em>I have written</em> -elicits no farther inquiry, it is an argument that the sense is -complete, and the time sufficiently understood by the hearer. -Besides, is it not somewhat paradoxical to say that a tense -which renders farther explanation unnecessary, and the sense -complete, thus satisfying the hearer, is indefinite? and that a -tense which does not satisfy the hearer, but renders farther<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_110"></a>[110]</span> -inquiry necessary, is definite? This, to say the least, is somewhat -extraordinary.</p> - -<p>The observations of Lord Monboddo on this subject are -not inapplicable to the point in question: I shall therefore -transcribe them.</p> - -<p>“There are actions,” says he, “which end in energy, and -produce no work which remains after them. What shall we -say of such actions? cannot we say, I have danced a dance, -taken a walk, &c., and how can such actions be said in any -sense to be present? My answer is, that the consequences -of such actions, respecting the speaker, or some other person -or thing, are present, and what these consequences are, appears -from the tenor of the discourse. ‘I have taken a -walk, and am much better for it.’ ‘I have danced a dance, -and am inclined to dance no more.’”</p> - -<p>The order of nature being maintained, as Mr. Harris observes, -by a succession of contrarieties, the termination of -one state of things naturally implies the commencement of its -contrary. Hence this tense has been employed to denote an -attribute the contrary to that which is expressed by the verb. -Thus the Latins used <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">vixit</i>, “he hath lived,” to denote “he -is dead;” <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fuit Ilium</i>, “Troy has been,” to signify <em>Troy is no -more</em>. A similar phraseology obtains in English; thus, “I -<em>have</em> been young,” is equivalent to “now I am old.”</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="6"><em>Preter Imperfect.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I have been</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou hast been</td> -<td class="tdl">He has been</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">writing.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We have been</td> -<td class="tdl">You have been</td> -<td class="tdl">They have been</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>This tense, in respect to time, is the same as the last, but -implies the imperfection of the action, and denotes its progression.</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="6"><em>Preter Pluperfect.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I had</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou hadst</td> -<td class="tdl">He had</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">written.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We had</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you had</td> -<td class="tdl">They had</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>This tense denotes that an action was perfected before another -action was done.</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="6"><em>Plusquam Preterite Imperfect.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I had been</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou hadst been</td> -<td class="tdl">He had been</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">writing.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We had been</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye had been</td> -<td class="tdl">They had been</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_111"></a>[111]</span></p> - -<p>This tense, in respect to time, is more than past, and in respect -to action is imperfect. It denotes that an action was -going on, or in a state of progression, before another action -took place, or before it was perfected; as, “I had been -writing before you arrived.”</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="6"><em>Future Indefinite.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I shall</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou shalt</td> -<td class="tdl">He shall</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">write.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We shall</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you shall</td> -<td class="tdl">They shall</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc fs70" colspan="6">OR</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I will</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou wilt</td> -<td class="tdl">He will</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">write.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">We will</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you will</td> -<td class="tdl">They will</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>These compound tenses denote the futurity of an action indefinitely, -without any reference to its completion. The -meaning of the several persons has been already explained.</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Future Imp. Progressive.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I shall or will be</td> -<td class="tdl">We shall or will be</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Thou shalt or wilt be</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye shall or will be</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl">writing.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">He shall or will be</td> -<td class="tdl">They shall or will be</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>This tense agrees with the former in respect to time, but -differs from it in this, that the former has no reference to the -completion of the action, while the latter expresses its imperfection -and progression.</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Future Perfect.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I shall have</td> -<td class="tdl">We shall have</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Thou shalt have</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye shall have</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl">written.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">He shall have</td> -<td class="tdl">They shall have</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>This tense denotes that a future action will be perfected, -before the commencement or completion of another action, -or before a certain future time; as, “Before you can have an -answer, I shall have written a second letter.” “By the time -he shall have arrived, you will have conquered every difficulty.” -In short, it denotes, that at some future time an -action will be perfected.</p> - -<p>As it has been a subject of great controversy among grammarians, -what tenses should be called definite and what indefinite, -I shall now offer a few observations which may -serve to illustrate the point in question.</p> - -<p>Duration, like space, is continuous and uninterrupted. It -is divisible in idea only. It is past or future, merely in respect<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_112"></a>[112]</span> -to some intermediate point, which the mind fixes as -the limit between the one and the other. Present time, in -truth, does not exist, any more than a mathematical line -can have breadth, or a mathematical point be composed -of parts. This position has, indeed, been controverted -by Dr. Beattie; but, in my judgment, without the -shadow of philosophical argument<a id="FNanchor_61" href="#Footnote_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a>. Harris, Reid, and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_113"></a>[113]</span> -several others, have incontrovertibly proved it. But though -present time, philosophically speaking, has no existence, we -find it convenient to assume a certain portion of the past and -the future, as intermediate spaces between these extremes, -and to consider these spaces as present; for example, the -present day, the present week, the present year, the present -century, though part of these several periods be past, and part -to come. We speak of them, however, as present, as “this -month,” “this year,” “this day.” Time being thus in its -nature continuous, and past and future being merely relative -terms, some, portion or point of time being conceived where -the one begins and the other ends, it is obvious that all -tenses indicative of any of these two general divisions must -denote relative time, that is, time past or future, in relation -to some conceived or assumed space; thus it may be past or -future, in respect to the present hour, the present day, the -present week.</p> - -<p>Again. The term indefinite is applicable either to time or -to action. It may, therefore, be the predicate of a tense denoting -either that the precise time is left undetermined, or -that the action specified is not signified, as either complete or -imperfect. Hence the controversy has been partly verbal. -Hence, also, the contending parties have seemed to differ, while, -in fact, they were agreed; and, on the contrary, have seemed -to accord, while their opinions were, in truth, mutually repugnant.</p> - -<p>Dr. Browne confines the term to action only, and pleads -the authority of Mr. Harris in his favour. It is true, indeed, -that Mr. Harris calls those tenses definite which denote the -beginning, the middle, or the perfection of an action: but it -is obvious, from the most superficial examination of his -theory, that he denominates the tenses definite or indefinite, -not in respect to action, but to time. When, in the passage -from Milton,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Unseen, both when we wake and when we sleep;”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">he considers “<em>walk</em>” as indefinite, is it in regard to action? -No. “It is,” says he, “because they were walking, not at -that instant only, but indefinitely, at any instant whatever.”<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_114"></a>[114]</span> -And when he terms, <em>Thou shalt not kill</em>, an indefinite tense, is -it because it has no reference to the completion or the imperfection -of the action? No; it is “because,” says he, “this -means no particular future time, but is extended indefinitely -to every part of time.” Besides, if Mr. Harris’s and Dr. -Browne’s ideas coincide, how comes it that the one calls that -a definite tense, which the other terms indefinite? This does -not look like accordance in sentiment, or in the application -of terms. Yet the tenses in such examples as these,</p> - -<p>“The wicked flee when no man pursueth;”</p> - -<p>“<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Ad pœnitendum properat, cito qui judicat;</span>”</p> - -<p>“God is good;” “Two and two are four;”</p> - -<p>which Harris and Beattie properly call indefinite, Browne -terms definite. Nay, he denominates them thus for the very -reason for which the others call them indefinite, namely, because -the sentiments are always true, and the time of their -existence never perfectly past. So far in respect to Mr. -Harris’s authority in favour of Browne, when he confines the -terms definite and indefinite to action only<a id="FNanchor_62" href="#Footnote_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a>.</p> - -<p>But I forbear to prosecute this controversy further, or to -point out the inaccuracies with which I apprehend many -writers on this subject are chargeable. I therefore proceed -to review and illustrate the doctrine of the tenses which I -have already offered.</p> - -<p>The present time being, as I have already observed, an -assumed space, and of no definite extent, as it may be either -the present minute, the present hour, the present month, the -present year, all of which consist of parts, it follows that, as -the present time is itself indefinite, having no real existence, -but being an arbitrary conception of the mind, the tense -significant of that time must be also indefinite. This, I conceive, -must be sufficiently evident. Hence the present tense<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_115"></a>[115]</span> -not only admits, but frequently requires, the definitive <em>now</em> to -limit the interval between past and future, or to note the -precise point of time.</p> - -<p>Time past and time future are conceived as infinitely more -extended than the present. The tenses, therefore, significant -of these two grand divisions of time, are also necessarily indefinite.</p> - -<p>Again, an action may be expressed, either as finished, or -as proceeding; or it may be the subject of affirmation, without -any reference to either of these states. In English, to -denote the continuation of the action we employ the present -or imperfect participle; and to denote its completion we use -the preterite or perfect participle. When neither is implied, -the tenses significant of the three divisions of time, without -any regard to the action as complete or imperfect, are uniformly -employed.</p> - -<p>The tenses, therefore, indefinite as to time and action are -these:</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="60%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>The Present</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I write</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>The Preterite</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I wrote</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>The Future</em></td> -<td class="tdl">I shall write.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>The six following compound tenses are equally indefinite -in point of time; but they denote either the completion or -the progress of the action, and in this respect are definite.</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad2"><em>Its progress.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad2"><em>Its perfection</em>, as</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I am writing</td> -<td class="tdl"><ins class="corr" id="tn-115" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'I written'"> -I have written</ins></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I was writing</td> -<td class="tdl">I had written</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I shall be writing</td> -<td class="tdl">I shall have written.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<p class="pfs90"> -<em>I write</em> <span class="pad10pc"><em>I am writing</em></span> <span class="pad10pc"><em>I have written.</em></span> -</p> - -<p>The first is indefinite as to time and action. If I say, “I -write,” it is impossible to ascertain by the mere expression, -whether be signified, “I write now,” “I write daily,” or, “I -am a writer in general.” It is the concomitant circumstances -only, either expressed or understood, which can determine -what part of the present time is implied. When Pope introduces -a letter to Lady M. W. Montague with these words, -“I write this after a severe illness,” is it the tense which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_116"></a>[116]</span> -marks the time, or is it not the date of the letter, with which -the writing is understood to be contemporary? If you and -I should see a person writing, and either of us should say, -“He writes,” the proposition would be particular, and time -present with the speaker’s observation would be understood: -but, is it not evident, that it is not the tense which defines -the <em>present now</em>, but the obvious circumstances of the person’s -writing at the time? And when the king, in Hamlet, says,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“My words fly up, my thoughts remain below:</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Words, without thoughts, never to heaven go,”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">what renders the two first propositions particular, or confines -the tenses to the time then present, while the last proposition -is universally true, and the tense indefinite? Nothing, I -conceive, but the circumstances of the speaker. Nay, does -it not frequently happen, that we must subjoin the word <em>now</em> -to this tense, in order to define the point of time? Did the -tense of itself note the precise time, this definitive would in -no case be necessary. If I say, “Apples are ripe,” the proposition, -considered independently on adventitious circumstances, -is general and indefinite. The time may be defined -by adding a specific clause, as, “in the month of October;” -or, if nothing be subjoined, the ellipsis is supplied either by -the previous conversation, or in some other way, and the -hearer understands, “are <em>now</em> ripe.” This tense, therefore, -I consider as indefinite in point of time. That it is indefinite -in regard to action, there can be no question.</p> - - -<p class="p1 pfs90"><em>I am writing.</em></p> - -<p>This tense also is indefinite in respect to time. It derives -its character as a tense from the verb <em>am</em>, which implies -affirmation with time, either <em>now</em>, <em>generally</em>, or <em>always</em>. Mr. -Harris calls it the present definite, as I have already remarked; -and in regard to action it is clearly definite. It is -this, and this only, which distinguishes it from the other -present, <em>I write</em>, the latter having no reference to the perfection -or imperfection of the action, while <em>I am writing</em> -denotes its continuation. Hence it is, that the latter is employed -to express propositions generally or universally true, -the idea of perfection or incompletion being, in such cases,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_117"></a>[117]</span> -excluded. Thus we say, <em>The wicked flee when no man pursueth</em>; -but not, as I conceive, with equal propriety, <em>The -wicked are fleeing when no man is pursuing</em>.</p> - - -<p class="p1 pfs90"><em>I have written.</em></p> - -<p>As <em>I am writing</em> denotes the present continuation of an -action, so <em>I have written</em> expresses an action completed in -a time supposed to be continued to the present, or an action -whose consequences extend to the present time. As a tense, -it derives its character from the tense <em>I have</em>, significant of -present time; while the perfection of the action is denoted -by the perfect participle. But as I have shown that every -tense significant of present time must be, in regard to time, -indefinite, so this tense, compounded of the present tense -<em>I have</em>, must, in this respect, be therefore indefinite.</p> - -<p>Lowth, Priestley, Beattie, Harris, and several others, have -assigned it the name of the preterite definite, and <em>I wrote</em> -they have termed the preterite indefinite. Browne, and one -or two others, have reversed this denomination. Now, that -<em>I wrote</em> does not of itself define what part of past time is -specified, appears to me very evident. This is, indeed, admitted -by those who contend for the definite nature of this -tense. Why, then, do they call it a definite tense? Because, -they say, it admits a definitive term, by the aid of which it -expresses the precise time, as, “I wrote yesterday,” “a -week ago,” “last month;” whereas we cannot say, “I have -written yesterday.” Now, as I remarked before, this appears -to me a perversion of language; for we do not denominate -that term <em>definite</em>, which requires a definitive to render it -precise. Why have the terms <em>the</em>, <em>this</em>, <em>that</em>, been called -definitives? Is it because they admit a defining term? or -is it not because they limit or define the import of general -terms? I concur, therefore, with the author of the article -“Aorist,” in the “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Nouvelle Encyclopédie</span>,” when he ridicules -a M. Demandre for giving the character of definite to -a tense which marks past time indefinitely. This certainly -is a perversion of terms.</p> - -<p>“When we make use of the auxiliary verb,” says Dr. -Priestley, “we have no idea of any certain portion of time<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_118"></a>[118]</span> -intervening between the time of action and the time of speaking -of it; the time of action being some period that extends -to the present, as, ‘I have this year, this morning, written,’ -spoken in the same year, the same morning; whereas, speaking -of an action done in a period past, we use the preterite -tense and say, ‘I wrote,’ intimating that a certain portion of -time is past, between the time of action and the time of -speaking of it.” To the same purpose nearly are the words -of the author of the article “Grammar,” in the “Encyclopedia -Britannica.” “<em>I have written</em>,” says he, “is always -joined with a portion of time which includes the present -<em>now</em> or <em>instant</em>; for otherwise it could not signify, as it -always does, the present possession of the finishing of an -action. But the aorist, which signifies no such possession, -is as constantly joined with a portion of past time, which -excludes the present <em>now</em> or <em>instant</em>. Thus we say, ‘<em>I have -written</em> a letter this day,’ ‘this week,’ &c., but ‘<em>I wrote</em> a -letter yesterday;’ and to interchange these expressions would -be improper.”</p> - -<p>The explanation which these grammarians have given of -the tense <em>I have written</em>, appears to me perfectly correct, and -I would add, that, though the interval between the time of -action and the time of speaking of it may be considerable; -yet, if the mind, in consequence of the effect’s being extended -to the present time, should conceive no time to have -intervened, this tense is uniformly employed.</p> - -<p>That the aorist excludes the present instant is equally -true: but that it is incapable of being joined, as the latter -of these grammarians supposes, to a portion of time part of -which is not yet elapsed, is an assertion by no means correct; -for I can say, “I wrote to-day,” or “this day,” as well as, -“<em>I have written</em>.” “I dined to-day,” says Swift, “with Mr. -Secretary St. John.” “I took some good walks in the park -to-day.” “I walked purely to-day about the park.” “I -was this morning with Mr. Secretary about some business.” -Numberless other examples might be produced in which this -tense is joined with a portion of time not wholly elapsed.</p> - -<p>What then, it may be asked, is the difference between this -and the tense which is termed the preterite definite? I shall<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_119"></a>[119]</span> -endeavour to explain it, though, in doing this, I may be -chargeable with repetition.</p> - -<p>When an action is done in a time continuous to the present -instant, we employ the auxiliary verb. Thus on finishing -a letter I say, “I have written my letter,” “<em>I possess</em> -(now) <em>the finished action of writing a letter</em>.”</p> - -<p>Again: When an action is done in a space of time which -the mind assumes as present, or when we express our immediate -possession of things done in that space, we use the -auxiliary verb. “I have this week written several letters.” -“<em>I have now the perfection of writing several letters</em>, finished -this week.”<a id="FNanchor_63" href="#Footnote_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a></p> - -<p>Again: When an action has been done long ago, but the -mind is still in possession of its consequences, these having -been extended to the present time, unconscious or regardless -of the interval between the time of acting and the time of -speaking, we use the auxiliary verb. Thus, “I, like others, -have, in my youth, trifled with my health, and old age now -prematurely assails me.” In all these cases, there is a clear -reference to present time. <em>I have</em> must imply present possession, -and that the action, either as finished or proceeding, -is present to the speaker. This must be admitted, unless we -suppose that the term <em>have</em> has no appropriate or determinate -meaning.</p> - -<p>On the other hand, the aorist excludes all idea of the present -instant. It supposes an interval to have elapsed between -the time of the action and the time of speaking of it; -the action is represented as leaving nothing behind it which -the mind conceives to have any relation to its present circumstances, -as “Three days ago I lodged in the Strand.”</p> - -<p>But, though it unquestionably excludes the present instant, -or the moment of speaking, which the verb <em>have</em> embraces, -yet it does not exclude that portion of present time which is -represented as passing. All that is necessary to the use of -this tense is, that the present <em>now</em> be excluded, that an interval -have elapsed between the time of action and the time<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_120"></a>[120]</span> -of speaking of it, and that these times shall not appear to be -continuous. When Swift says, “It has snowed terribly all -night, and is vengeance cold,” it is to be observed, that -though the former of these events took place in a time making -no part of the day then passing, yet its effects extended to -that day; he therefore employs the auxiliary verb. When -he says, “I have been dining to-day at Lord Mountjoy’s, -and am come home to study,” he, in like manner, connects -the two circumstances as continuous.</p> - -<p>But when he says, “It snowed all this morning, and was -some inches thick in three or four hours,” it is to be observed -that, contrary to the opinion of the author<a id="FNanchor_64" href="#Footnote_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> I have quoted, -he joins the aorist with a portion of time then conceived as -present or passing, but the circumstances which had taken -place were nowise connected with the time of his writing, -or conceived as continuous to the date of his letter. If he -had said, “It <em>has</em> snowed all this morning, and is now two -inches thick,” the two times would have appeared as continuous, -their events being connected as cause and effect.</p> - - -<p class="p1 pfs90"> -<em>I wrote</em> <span class="pad10pc"><em>I was writing</em></span> <span class="pad10pc"><em>I had written.</em></span> -</p> - -<p>The first of these, as a tense, has been already explained; -it remains, therefore, to inquire, whether it be definite or indefinite -in respect to action.</p> - -<p>I observe, then, that a tense may frequently, by inference, -denote the perfection of an action, and thus appear to be definite; -though, in its real import, it be significant neither of -completion nor imperfection, and therefore, in regard to action, -is indefinite. This seems to be the character of the -tenses, <em>I write</em>, <em>I wrote</em>, <em>I shall write</em>.</p> - -<p>“Mr. Harris,” says Browne, “truly calls <em>I wrote</em> and <em>I -write</em> indefinites, although the man <em>who wrote</em>, <em>has written</em>, -that is, the action is perfected, and the man <em>who writes</em>, <em>is -writing</em>, that is, the action is imperfect; but the perfection -and imperfection, though it be implied, not being expressed, -not being brought into view, (to do which the auxiliary verb -is necessary,) nor intended to be so, such tenses are properly -called indefinites.”</p> - -<p>Though I am persuaded that Harris and Browne, though<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_121"></a>[121]</span> -they concur in designing certain tenses indefinite, are in principle -by no means agreed, yet the observations of the latter, -when he confines the terms to action, appear to me incontrovertible. -I would only remark, that it is not the presence of -the auxiliary, as Browne conceives, which is necessary to -denote the completion of the action, but the introduction of -the perfect participle. Nay, I am persuaded, that, as it is -the participle in <em>ing</em>, and this only, which denotes the progression -or continuation of the action, this circumstance in -every other phraseology being inferred, not expressed, so I -am equally convinced, that it is the perfect participle only -which denotes the completion of the action; and that, if any -tense not compounded of this participle, express the same -idea, it is by inference, and not directly. According to this -view of the matter, a clear and simple analogy subsists among -the tenses; thus,</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>First class.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad3"><em>Second.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad3"><em>Third.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"> I write</td> -<td class="tdl">I am writing</td> -<td class="tdl">I have written</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"> I wrote</td> -<td class="tdl">I was writing</td> -<td class="tdl">I had written</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"> I shall write</td> -<td class="tdl">I shall be writing</td> -<td class="tdl">I shall have written.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<p>Now, if the progression or the perfection of an action, as -present, past, or future, be all the possible variations, and if -these be expressed by the second and third classes, it follows -that, if there be any precise distinction between these and -the first class, or unless the latter be wholly supernumerary, -it differs in this from the second and third, that while <em>they</em> -express, either that the action is progressive, or that it is -complete, the first has no reference to its perfection, or imperfection.</p> - - -<p class="p1 pfs90"><em>I was writing.</em></p> - -<p>This tense, like <em>I wrote</em>, is, in point of time, indefinite; but, -in respect to action, it is definite. It denotes that an action -was proceeding in a time past, which time must be defined -by some circumstance expressed or understood.</p> - - -<p class="p1 pfs90"><em>I had written.</em></p> - -<p>This, as a tense, derives its character from the preterite of -the verb <em>to have</em>, implying past possession. <em>Had</em> being an<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_122"></a>[122]</span> -aorist, this tense, in regard to time, must therefore be indefinite. -In respect to action it is definite, implying, that the -action was finished. As the aorist expresses time past, and -by inference the perfection of the action, while the latter circumstance -is additionally denoted by the participle, this compound -tense is employed to denote, that an action was perfected -before another action or event, now also past, took -place.</p> - -<p>The character of the remaining tenses seems to require no -farther explanation. I proceed therefore to consider how we -express interrogations, commands, necessity, power, liberty, -will, and some other accessary circumstances.</p> - -<p>An interrogation is expressed by placing the nominative -after the concordant person of the tense; thus, “Thou -comest” is an affirmation; “Comest thou?” is an interrogation. -If the tense be compound, the nominative is placed -after the auxiliary, as “Dost thou come?” “Hast thou -heard?”</p> - -<p>A command, exhortation, or entreaty, is expressed by -placing the pronoun of the second person after the simple -form of the verb; as,</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="70%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Write thou</td> -<td class="tdl">Write ye</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad3">or</td> -<td class="tdl pad3">or</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Do thou write</td> -<td class="tdl">Do ye write:</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<p class="noindent">and sometimes by the verb simply, the person being understood; -as, <em>write</em>, <em>run</em>, <em>be</em>, <em>let</em><a id="FNanchor_65" href="#Footnote_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a>. By the help of the word <em>let</em>,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_123"></a>[123]</span> -which is equivalent to “permit thou,” or “permit ye,” we -express the persons of the Latin and Greek imperatives; -thus, <em>let me, let us, let him, let them, write</em>.</p> - -<p><em>Present necessity</em> is denoted by the verb <em>must</em>, thus,</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I must</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou must</td> -<td class="tdl">He must</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">write<a id="FNanchor_66" href="#Footnote_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a>.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">We must</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye must</td> -<td class="tdl">They must</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p class="noindent">This verb having only one tense, namely, the present, <em>past</em> -necessity is expressed by the preterite definite of the verb, -significant of the thing necessary, as,</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I must have</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou must have, &c.</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">written.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">We must have</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye must have, &c.</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="5"><em>Present Liberty.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I may</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou mayest</td> -<td class="tdl">He may</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">write.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">We may</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye may</td> -<td class="tdl">They may</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="5"><em>Past Liberty.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I might</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou mightest</td> -<td class="tdl">He might</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">write.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">We might</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye might</td> -<td class="tdl">They might</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Or</em>,</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I might have</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou mightest have, &c.</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">written.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">We might have</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye might have, &c.</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_124"></a>[124]</span></p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="5"><em>Present Ability.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I can</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou canst</td> -<td class="tdl">He can</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">write.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">We can</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye can</td> -<td class="tdl">They can</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="5"><em>Past Ability.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I could</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou couldst</td> -<td class="tdl">He could</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">write.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">We could</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye could</td> -<td class="tdl">They could</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><em>Or</em>,</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I could have</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou couldst have, &c.</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">written.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">We could have</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye could have, &c.</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<p><em>Could</em>, the preterite of the verb <em>can</em>, expressing past power -or ability, is, like the tense <em>might</em> of the verb <em>may</em>, frequently -employed to denote present time. Of their denoting past -time the following may serve as examples.</p> - -<p>“Can you construe Lycophron now? No; but once I -could.”</p> - -<p>“May you speak your sentiments freely? No; but once -I might.”</p> - -<p>That they likewise denote present time, I have already -adduced sufficient evidence. <em>Might</em> and <em>could</em>, being frequently -used in conjunction with other verbs, to express present -time, past liberty and ability are generally denoted by -the latter phraseology; thus, “I might have written,” “I -could have written.” Some farther observations respecting -the nature of these tenses I purpose to make, when I come -to consider what has been termed the subjunctive or conjunctive -mood.</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="5"><em>Present Duty or Obligation.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I ought</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou oughtest</td> -<td class="tdl">He ought</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">to write.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">We ought</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye ought</td> -<td class="tdl">They ought</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="5"><em>Past Duty.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I ought</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou oughtest</td> -<td class="tdl">He ought</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl">to have</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">We ought</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye ought</td> -<td class="tdl">They ought</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl">written.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p class="noindent">The same is expressed by the verb <em>should</em>. <em>Ought</em> being now -always considered as a present tense, past duty is expressed -by taking the preterite definitive of the following verb.</p> - -<p>Having shown how most of the common accessary circumstances -are signified in our language, I proceed to explain<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_125"></a>[125]</span> -how we express the circumstance of suffering, or being acted -upon.</p> - -<p>The manner of denoting this in English is simple and easy. -All that is necessary is to join the verb <em>to be</em> with the present -participle, if the state of suffering be imperfect or proceeding; -and with the perfect participle, if it be complete; thus,</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I am</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou art</td> -<td class="tdl">He is</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">written to.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">We are</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye are</td> -<td class="tdl">They are</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="5"><em>Preterite.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I was</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou wast</td> -<td class="tdl">He was</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">written to.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">We were</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye were</td> -<td class="tdl">They were</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I have been</td> -<td class="tdl">I had been</td> -<td class="tdl">I shall be</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">written to.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I may be</td> -<td class="tdl">I might be</td> -<td class="tdl">I could be</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>If the state be imperfect, the participle in <em>ing</em> must be substituted; -thus,</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="70%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">The house is building</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">The house was building</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl">Progressive.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">The house shall be building</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -<tr><td> </td></tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">The house is built</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">The house was built</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl">Perfect.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">The house shall be built</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<p>Neuter verbs, expressing neither action nor passion, admit, -without altering their signification, either phraseology; thus, -<em>I have arisen</em>, or <em>I am arisen</em>; <em>I was come</em>, or <em>I had come</em>.</p> - -<p>I conclude this part of the subject with a few observations -concerning the subjunctive or potential mood.</p> - -<p>Various disputes have arisen respecting the existence and -the use of this mood; nor is there, perhaps, any other point -in grammar, on which respectable authorities are so much -divided.</p> - -<p>That there is not in English, as in Latin, a potential mood -properly so called, appears to me unquestionable. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Amarem</i> -signifies ability or liberty<a id="FNanchor_67" href="#Footnote_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a>, involving the verbs <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">possum</i> and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_126"></a>[126]</span> -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">licet</i>, and may therefore be termed a potential mood; but in -English these accessary circumstances are denoted by the preterites -of the verbs <em>may</em> and <em>can</em>; as, <em>I might</em> or <em>could love</em>.</p> - -<p>That there is no subjunctive mood, we have, I conceive, -equal authority to assert. If I say in Latin, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cum cepisset</i>, -“when he had taken,” the verb is strictly in the subjunctive -mood; for, were not the verb subjoined to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cum</i>, it must have -taken the indicative form; but I hesitate not to assert, that -no example can be produced in English, where the indicative -form is altered <em>merely</em> because the verb is preceded by some -conjunctive particle. If we say, “though he were rich, he -would not despise the poor,” <em>was</em> is not here turned into <em>were</em> -because subjoined to <em>though</em>; for <em>though</em> is joined to the indicative -mood, when the sentiment requires it; the verb therefore -is not in the subjunctive mood.</p> - -<p>In respect to what has been denominated the conditional -form of the verb, I observe, that the existence of this form -appears to me highly questionable. My reasons are these:</p> - -<p>1st. Several of our grammarians have not mentioned it; -among these are the celebrated Dr. Wallis, and the author of -the British Grammar.</p> - -<p>2dly. Those, who admit it, are not agreed concerning its -extent. Lowth and Johnson confine it to the present tense, -while Priestley extends it to the preterite.</p> - -<p>3dly. The example which Priestley adduces of the conditional -preterite, <em>if thou drew</em>, with a few others which might -be mentioned, are acknowledged by himself to be so stiff and -so harsh, that I am inclined to regard them rather as anomalies, -than as constituting an authority for a general rule.</p> - -<p>4thly. If then this form be, agreeably to the opinions of -Lowth and Johnson, confined to the present tense, I must -say that I have not been able to find a single example, in -which the present conditional, as it is termed, is anything -but an ellipsis of the auxiliary verb.</p> - -<p>5thly. Those who admit this mood make it nothing but the -plural number of the correspondent indicative tense without -variation; as <em>I love</em>, <em>thou love</em>, <em>he love</em>, &c. Now as this is, -in fact, the radical form of the verb, or what may be deemed -the infinitive, as following an auxiliary, it forms a presumption<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_127"></a>[127]</span> -that it is truly an infinitive mood, the auxiliary -being suppressed.</p> - -<p>The opinion here given will, I think, be confirmed by the -following examples.</p> - -<p>“If he say so, it is well,” <em>i.e.</em> “if he shall say so.”</p> - -<p>“Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him,” (<cite>Bible</cite>) <em>i.e.</em> -“though he should slay.”</p> - -<p>“Though thou detain me, I will not eat,” (<em>Ibid.</em>) <em>i.e.</em> -“shouldst detain me.”</p> - -<p>“If thy brother trespass against thee,” (<em>Ibid.</em>) <em>i.e.</em> “should -trespass.”</p> - -<p>“Though he fall, he shall not utterly be cast down,” (<em>Ibid.</em>) -<em>i.e.</em> “though he should fall.”</p> - -<p>“Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day,” (<em>Ibid.</em>) -<em>i.e.</em> “thou shouldst keep.”</p> - -<p>There are a few examples in the use of the auxiliaries <em>do</em> -and <em>have</em>, in which, when the ellipsis is supplied, the expression -appears somewhat uncouth; but I am persuaded -that a little attention will show, that these examples form no -exception to this theory.</p> - -<p>“If now thou do prosper my way.”—<cite>Bible.</cite> It is here -obvious, that the event supposed was future; the appropriate -term, therefore, to express that idea, is either <em>shall</em> or <em>will</em>. -If the phrase were, “if thou prosper my way,” it would be -universally admitted that the auxiliary is suppressed, thus, -“if thou shalt or wilt prosper my way.” Again, when we -say, “if thou do it, I shall be displeased,” it is equally evident -that the auxiliary is understood, thus, “if thou shalt do -it.” Now, if these examples be duly considered, and if the -import of the verb <em>to do</em>, as formerly explained, be remembered, -I think it will appear that the expression is elliptical, -and truly proceeds thus, “if thou (shalt) do prosper my way.” -The same observations are applicable to Shakspeare’s phraseology, -when he says, “if thou do pardon, whosoever pray.” -Again; when Hamlet says, “if damned custom have not -brazed it so,” it is obvious that the auxiliary verb <em>may</em> is -understood; for, if the expression be cleared of the negative, -the insertion of the auxiliary creates no uncouthness; -thus, “if damned custom may have brazed it so.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_128"></a>[128]</span></p> - -<p>I am therefore inclined to think, that the conditional form, -unless in the verb <em>to be</em><a id="FNanchor_68" href="#Footnote_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a>, has no existence in our language.</p> - -<p>Though this be not strictly the proper place, I would beg -the reader’s attention to a few additional observations.</p> - -<p>Many writers of classic eminence express future and contingent -events by the present tense indicative. In colloquial -language, or where the other form would render the expression -stiff and awkward, this practice cannot justly be -reprehended. But where this is not the case, the proper -form, in which the note of contingency or futurity is either -expressed or understood, is certainly preferable. Thus,</p> - -<p>“If thou neglectest, or doest unwillingly, what I command -thee, I will rack thee with old cramps.”—<cite>Shakspeare.</cite> -Better, I think, “if thou shalt neglect or do.”</p> - -<p>“If any member absents himself, he shall forfeit a penny -for the use of the club.”—<cite>Spectator.</cite> Better, “if any member -absent, or shall absent.”</p> - -<p>“If the stage becomes a nursery of folly and impertinence, -I shall not be afraid to animadvert upon it.”—<cite>Spectator.</cite> -Preferably thus, “If the stage become, or shall become.”</p> - -<p>I observe also, that there is something peculiar and deserving -attention in the use of the preterite tense<a id="FNanchor_69" href="#Footnote_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a>. To illustrate -the remark, I shall take the following case. A servant -calls on me for a book; if I am uncertain whether I have it -or not, I answer, “if the book <em>be</em> in my library, or if I <em>have</em> -the book, your master shall be welcome to it:” but if I am -certain that I have not the book, I say, “if the book <em>were</em> -in my library, or if I had the book, it should be at your master’s -service.” Here it is obvious that when we use the -present tense it implies uncertainty of the fact; and when -we use the preterite, it implies a negation of its existence. -Thus also, a person at night would say to his friend, “if it -<em>rain</em>, you shall not go,” being uncertain at the time whether -it did or did not rain; but if, on looking out, he perceived it -did not rain, he would then say, “if it <em>rained</em>, you should -not go,” intimating that it did not rain.</p> - -<p>“Nay, and the villains march wide between the legs, as if<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_129"></a>[129]</span> -they had gyves on.”—<cite>Shakspeare.</cite> Where <em>as if they had</em> -implies that “they had not.”</p> - -<p>In the same manner, if I say, “I will go, if I can,” my -ability is expressed as uncertain, and its dependent event -left undetermined. But if I say, “I would go, if I could,” -my inability is expressly implied, and the dependent event -excluded. Thus also, when it is said, “if I may, I will accompany -you to the theatre,” the liberty is expressed as -doubtful; but when it is said, “if I might, I would accompany -you,” the liberty is represented as not existing.</p> - -<p>In thus expressing the negation of the attribute, the conjunction -is often omitted, and the order inverted; thus, “if -I had the book,” or “had I the book.” “Were I Alexander,” -said Parmenio, “I would accept this offer;” or, “if I were -Alexander, I would accept.” <em>Were</em> is frequently used for -<em>would be</em>, and <em>had</em> for <em>would have</em>; as, “it <em>were</em> injustice to -deny the execution of the law to any individual;” that is, -“it would be injustice.” “Many acts, which <em>had</em> been -blameable in a peaceable government, were employed to -detect conspiracies;” where <em>had</em> is put for <em>would have</em><a id="FNanchor_70" href="#Footnote_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a>.—<cite>Hume’s -History of England.</cite></p> - -<p>Ambiguity is frequently created by confounding fact with -hypothesis, or making no distinction between dubitative and -assertive phraseologies. Thus, if we employ such expressions -as these, “if thou knewest,” “though he was learned,” -not only to express the certainty of a fact, but likewise to -denote a mere hypothesis as opposed to fact, we necessarily -render the expression ambiguous. It is by thus confounding -things totally distinct, that writers have been betrayed not -into ambiguity only, but even into palpable errors. In evidence -of this, I give the following example: “Though he -were divinely inspired, and spoke therefore as the oracles of -God, with supreme authority; though he were endowed with -supernatural powers, and could, therefore, have confirmed the -truth of what he asserted by miracles; yet in compliance -with the way in which human nature and reasonable creatures<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_130"></a>[130]</span> -are usually wrought upon, he reasoned.”—<cite>Atterbury’s -Sermons.</cite></p> - -<p>Here the writer expresses the inspiration and the supernatural -powers of Jesus, not as properties or virtues which -he really did possess, but which, though not possessing them, -he might be supposed to possess. Now, as his intention was -to ascribe these virtues to Jesus, as truly belonging to him, he -should have employed the indicative form <em>was</em>, and not <em>were</em>, -as in the following sentence: “though he <em>was</em> rich, yet for -our sakes he became poor.” “Though he <em>were</em> rich,” would -imply the non-existence of the attribute; in other words, -“that he was <em>not</em> rich.”</p> - -<p>A very little attention would serve to prevent these ambiguities -and errors. If the attribute be conceived as unconditionally -certain, the indicative form without ellipsis must -be employed, as, “I teach,” “I had taught,” “I shall teach.” -If futurity, hypothesis, or uncertainty, be intended, with the -concessive term, the auxiliary may be either expressed or -understood, as perspicuity may require, and the taste and -judgment of the writer may dictate; thus, “if any man teach -strange doctrines, he shall be severely rebuked.” In the -former clause the auxiliary verb <em>shall</em> is unnecessary, and is -therefore, without impropriety, omitted. “Then hear thou in -heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people -Israel, that thou teach them the good way wherein they -should walk.”—<cite>Bible.</cite> In this example the suppression of the -auxiliary verb is somewhat unfavourable to perspicuity, and -renders the clause stiff and awkward. It would be better, I -think, “thou mayest teach them the good way.” Harshness, -indeed, and the appearance of affectation, should be particularly -avoided. Where there is no manifest danger of -misconception, the use of the assertive for the dubitative form -is far preferable to those starched and pedantic phraseologies -which some writers are fond of exhibiting. For this reason, -such expressions as the following appear to me highly offensive: -“if thou have determined, we must submit;” “unless -he have consented, the writing will be void;” “if this -have been the seat of their original formation;” “unless -thou shall speak, we cannot determine.” The last I consider<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_131"></a>[131]</span> -as truly ungrammatical. In such cases, if the dubitative -phraseology should appear to be preferable, the stiffness and -affectation here reprehended may frequently be prevented by -inserting the note of doubt or contingency.</p> - -<p>I observe farther, that the substitution of <em>as</em> for <em>if</em> when -the affirmation is unconditional, will often serve to prevent -ambiguity<a id="FNanchor_71" href="#Footnote_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a>. Thus, when the ant in the fable says to the -grasshopper who had trifled away the summer in singing, -“if you sung in summer, dance in winter;” as the first clause, -taken by itself, leaves the meaning somewhat ambiguous, “as -you sung,” would be the better expression.</p> - - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<h4>IRREGULAR VERBS.</h4> - -<p class="noindent">The general rule for the formation of the preterite tense, and -the perfect participle, is to add to the present the syllable <em>ed</em>, -if the verb end with a consonant, or <em>d</em>, if it end with a -vowel, as</p> - -<p class="pfs90">Turn, Turned, Turned; Love, Loved, Loved.</p> - -<p>Verbs, which depart from this rule, are called irregular, of -which I believe the subsequent enumeration to be nearly -complete<a id="FNanchor_72" href="#Footnote_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a>.</p> - - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl pad3"><em>Present.</em></td> -<td class="tdl pad3"><em>Preterite.</em></td> -<td class="tdlx"><em>Perfect Participle.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Abide</td> -<td class="tdl">Abode</td> -<td class="tdl">Abode</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Am</td> -<td class="tdl">Was</td> -<td class="tdl">Been</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Arise</td> -<td class="tdl">Arose</td> -<td class="tdl">Arisen</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Awake</td> -<td class="tdl">Awoke R</td> -<td class="tdl">Awaked</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bake</td> -<td class="tdl">Baked</td> -<td class="tdl">Baken <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bear, to bring forth</td> -<td class="tdl">Bore, or Bear</td> -<td class="tdl">Born<a id="FNanchor_73" href="#Footnote_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bear, to carry</td> -<td class="tdl">Bore, or Bear</td> -<td class="tdl">Borne</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Beat</td> -<td class="tdl">Beat</td> -<td class="tdl">Beaten</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Begin</td> -<td class="tdl">Began</td> -<td class="tdl">Begun</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Become<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_132"></a>[132]</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Became</td> -<td class="tdl">Become</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Behold</td> -<td class="tdl">Beheld</td> -<td class="tdl">Beheld, or Beholden<a id="FNanchor_74" href="#Footnote_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bend</td> -<td class="tdl">Bent <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Bent <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bereave</td> -<td class="tdl">Bereft <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Bereft <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Beseech</td> -<td class="tdl">Besought</td> -<td class="tdl">Besought</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bid</td> -<td class="tdl">Bade, or Bid</td> -<td class="tdl">Bidden</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bind</td> -<td class="tdl">Bound</td> -<td class="tdl">Bound</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bite</td> -<td class="tdl">Bit</td> -<td class="tdl">Bitten, Bit<a id="FNanchor_75" href="#Footnote_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bleed</td> -<td class="tdl">Bled</td> -<td class="tdl">Bled</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Blow</td> -<td class="tdl">Blew</td> -<td class="tdl">Blown</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Break</td> -<td class="tdl">Broke, or Brake</td> -<td class="tdl">Broken<a id="FNanchor_76" href="#Footnote_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Breed</td> -<td class="tdl">Bred</td> -<td class="tdl">Bred</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bring</td> -<td class="tdl">Brought</td> -<td class="tdl">Brought</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Build</td> -<td class="tdl">Built <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Built<a id="FNanchor_77" href="#Footnote_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Burst</td> -<td class="tdl">Burst</td> -<td class="tdl">Burst</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Buy</td> -<td class="tdl">Bought</td> -<td class="tdl">Bought</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Can</td> -<td class="tdl">Could</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cast</td> -<td class="tdl">Cast</td> -<td class="tdl">Cast</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Catch</td> -<td class="tdl">Caught <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Caught <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Chide</td> -<td class="tdl">Chid<a id="FNanchor_78" href="#Footnote_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">Chidden</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Choose</td> -<td class="tdl">Chose</td> -<td class="tdl">Chosen</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cleave, to stick or adhere</td> -<td class="tdl">Clave <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Cleaved</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cleave, to split</td> -<td class="tdl">Clove, or Clave, or Cleft</td> -<td class="tdl">Cloven, or Cleft</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cling</td> -<td class="tdl">Clung</td> -<td class="tdl">Clung</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Climb</td> -<td class="tdl">Clomb<a id="FNanchor_79" href="#Footnote_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Climbed</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Clothe<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_133"></a>[133]</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Clad<a id="FNanchor_80" href="#Footnote_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Clad <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Come</td> -<td class="tdl">Came</td> -<td class="tdl">Come</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cost</td> -<td class="tdl">Cost</td> -<td class="tdl">Cost</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Crow</td> -<td class="tdl">Crew <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Crowed</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Creep</td> -<td class="tdl">Crept</td> -<td class="tdl">Crept</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cut</td> -<td class="tdl">Cut</td> -<td class="tdl">Cut</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Dare, to venture</td> -<td class="tdl">Durst <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Dared</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl" colspan="3">Dare, to challenge, is regular.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Deal</td> -<td class="tdl">Dealt <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Dealt <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Dig</td> -<td class="tdl">Dug <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Dug <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Do</td> -<td class="tdl">Did</td> -<td class="tdl">Done</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Draw</td> -<td class="tdl">Drew</td> -<td class="tdl">Drawn</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Drive</td> -<td class="tdl">Drove</td> -<td class="tdl">Driven</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Drink</td> -<td class="tdl">Drank</td> -<td class="tdl">Drunk</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Dwell</td> -<td class="tdl">Dwelt <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Dwelt <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Eat</td> -<td class="tdl">Ate</td> -<td class="tdl">Eaten</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Fall</td> -<td class="tdl">Fell</td> -<td class="tdl">Fallen</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Feed</td> -<td class="tdl">Fed</td> -<td class="tdl">Fed</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Feel</td> -<td class="tdl">Felt</td> -<td class="tdl">Felt</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Fight</td> -<td class="tdl">Fought</td> -<td class="tdl">Fought</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Find</td> -<td class="tdl">Found</td> -<td class="tdl">Found</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Flee</td> -<td class="tdl">Fled</td> -<td class="tdl">Fled</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Fly</td> -<td class="tdl">Flew</td> -<td class="tdl">Flown</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Fling</td> -<td class="tdl">Flung</td> -<td class="tdl">Flung</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Forget</td> -<td class="tdl">Forgot</td> -<td class="tdl">Forgotten</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Forgo<a id="FNanchor_81" href="#Footnote_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a></td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Forgone</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Forsake</td> -<td class="tdl">Forsook</td> -<td class="tdl">Forsaken</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Freeze</td> -<td class="tdl">Froze</td> -<td class="tdl">Frozen</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Freight</td> -<td class="tdl">Freighted</td> -<td class="tdl">Freighted, or Fraught<a id="FNanchor_82" href="#Footnote_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Get</td> -<td class="tdl">Gat, or Got</td> -<td class="tdl">Gotten, or Got</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Gild<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_134"></a>[134]</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Gild <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Gilt <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Gird</td> -<td class="tdl">Girt <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Girt <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Give</td> -<td class="tdl">Gave</td> -<td class="tdl">Given</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Go</td> -<td class="tdl">Went</td> -<td class="tdl">Gone</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Grave</td> -<td class="tdl">Graved</td> -<td class="tdl">Graven <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Grind</td> -<td class="tdl">Ground</td> -<td class="tdl">Ground</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Grow</td> -<td class="tdl">Grew</td> -<td class="tdl">Grown</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Have</td> -<td class="tdl">Had</td> -<td class="tdl">Had</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Hang<a id="FNanchor_83" href="#Footnote_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">Hung <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Hung <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Hear</td> -<td class="tdl">Heard</td> -<td class="tdl">Heard</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Heave</td> -<td class="tdl">Hove<a id="FNanchor_84" href="#Footnote_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Hoven <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Help</td> -<td class="tdl">Helped</td> -<td class="tdl">Holpen<a id="FNanchor_85" href="#Footnote_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Hew</td> -<td class="tdl">Hewed</td> -<td class="tdl">Hewn <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Hide</td> -<td class="tdl">Hid</td> -<td class="tdl">Hidden<a id="FNanchor_86" href="#Footnote_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a>, or Hid</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Hit</td> -<td class="tdl">Hit</td> -<td class="tdl">Hit</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Hold</td> -<td class="tdl">Held</td> -<td class="tdl">Holden<a id="FNanchor_87" href="#Footnote_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a>, or Held</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Hurt</td> -<td class="tdl">Hurt</td> -<td class="tdl">Hurt</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Keep</td> -<td class="tdl">Kept</td> -<td class="tdl">Kept</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Kneel</td> -<td class="tdl">Knelt</td> -<td class="tdl">Knelt</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Knit</td> -<td class="tdl">Knit, or Knitted</td> -<td class="tdl">Knit, or Knitted</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Know</td> -<td class="tdl">Knew</td> -<td class="tdl">Known</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Lade<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_135"></a>[135]</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Laded</td> -<td class="tdl">Laden<a id="FNanchor_88" href="#Footnote_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Lay</td> -<td class="tdl">Laid</td> -<td class="tdl">Laid<a id="FNanchor_89" href="#Footnote_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Lead</td> -<td class="tdl">Led</td> -<td class="tdl">Led</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Leave</td> -<td class="tdl">Left</td> -<td class="tdl">Left</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Lend</td> -<td class="tdl">Lent</td> -<td class="tdl">Lent</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Let</td> -<td class="tdl">Let</td> -<td class="tdl">Let</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Lie, to lie down</td> -<td class="tdl">Lay</td> -<td class="tdl">Lien, or Lain<a id="FNanchor_90" href="#Footnote_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Lift</td> -<td class="tdl">Lifted, or Lift</td> -<td class="tdl">Lifted, or Lift</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Light</td> -<td class="tdl">Lighted, or Lit<a id="FNanchor_91" href="#Footnote_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">Lighted, or Lit</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Load</td> -<td class="tdl">Loaded</td> -<td class="tdl">Loaden, or Loaded</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Lose</td> -<td class="tdl">Lost</td> -<td class="tdl">Lost</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Make</td> -<td class="tdl">Made</td> -<td class="tdl">Made</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">May</td> -<td class="tdl">Might</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Mean</td> -<td class="tdl">Meant <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Meant <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Meet</td> -<td class="tdl">Met</td> -<td class="tdl">Met</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Mow</td> -<td class="tdl">Mowed</td> -<td class="tdl">Mown<a id="FNanchor_92" href="#Footnote_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Must</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Pay</td> -<td class="tdl">Paid</td> -<td class="tdl">Paid</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Put</td> -<td class="tdl">Put</td> -<td class="tdl">Put</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Quit</td> -<td class="tdl">Quit, or Quitted<a id="FNanchor_93" href="#Footnote_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">Quit</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Read</td> -<td class="tdl">Read</td> -<td class="tdl">Read</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Rend</td> -<td class="tdl">Rent</td> -<td class="tdl">Rent</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Ride</td> -<td class="tdl">Rode, or Rid</td> -<td class="tdl">Rid<a id="FNanchor_94" href="#Footnote_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a>, or Ridden</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Rid<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_136"></a>[136]</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Rid</td> -<td class="tdl">Rid</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Ring</td> -<td class="tdl">Rang, or Rung</td> -<td class="tdl">Rung</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Rise</td> -<td class="tdl">Rose</td> -<td class="tdl">Risen</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Rive</td> -<td class="tdl">Rived</td> -<td class="tdl">Riven</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Roast</td> -<td class="tdl">Roasted</td> -<td class="tdl">Roasted, or Roast<a id="FNanchor_95" href="#Footnote_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Rot</td> -<td class="tdl">Rotted</td> -<td class="tdl">Rotten <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Run</td> -<td class="tdl">Ran</td> -<td class="tdl">Run</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Saw</td> -<td class="tdl">Sawed</td> -<td class="tdl">Sawn <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Say</td> -<td class="tdl">Said</td> -<td class="tdl">Said</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">See</td> -<td class="tdl">Saw</td> -<td class="tdl">Seen</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Seek</td> -<td class="tdl">Sought</td> -<td class="tdl">Sought</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Seethe</td> -<td class="tdl">Seethed, or Sod</td> -<td class="tdl">Sodden</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sell</td> -<td class="tdl">Sold</td> -<td class="tdl">Sold</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Send</td> -<td class="tdl">Sent</td> -<td class="tdl">Sent</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Set</td> -<td class="tdl">Set</td> -<td class="tdl">Set</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shake</td> -<td class="tdl">Shook</td> -<td class="tdl">Shaken<a id="FNanchor_96" href="#Footnote_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shall</td> -<td class="tdl">Should</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shape</td> -<td class="tdl">Shaped</td> -<td class="tdl">Shapen <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shave</td> -<td class="tdl">Shaved</td> -<td class="tdl">Shaven <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shear</td> -<td class="tdl">Shore</td> -<td class="tdl">Shorn</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shed</td> -<td class="tdl">Shed</td> -<td class="tdl">Shed</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shine</td> -<td class="tdl">Shone <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Shone <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shew</td> -<td class="tdl">Shewed</td> -<td class="tdl">Shewn</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Show</td> -<td class="tdl">Showed</td> -<td class="tdl">Shown</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shoe</td> -<td class="tdl">Shod</td> -<td class="tdl">Shod</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shoot</td> -<td class="tdl">Shot</td> -<td class="tdl">Shot</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shrink</td> -<td class="tdl">Shrank<a id="FNanchor_97" href="#Footnote_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a>, or Shrunk</td> -<td class="tdl">Shrunk</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shred</td> -<td class="tdl">Shred</td> -<td class="tdl">Shred</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shut</td> -<td class="tdl">Shut</td> -<td class="tdl">Shut</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sing<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_137"></a>[137]</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Sang<a id="FNanchor_98" href="#Footnote_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a>, or Sung</td> -<td class="tdl">Sung</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sink</td> -<td class="tdl">Sank, or Sunk</td> -<td class="tdl">Sunk</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sit</td> -<td class="tdl">Sat</td> -<td class="tdl">Sitten<a id="FNanchor_99" href="#Footnote_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a>, or Sat</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Slay</td> -<td class="tdl">Slew</td> -<td class="tdl">Slain</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sleep</td> -<td class="tdl">Slept</td> -<td class="tdl">Slept</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Slide</td> -<td class="tdl">Slid</td> -<td class="tdl">Slidden</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sling</td> -<td class="tdl">Slang, or Slung</td> -<td class="tdl">Slung</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Slink</td> -<td class="tdl">Slank, or Slunk</td> -<td class="tdl">Slunk</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Slit</td> -<td class="tdl">Slit <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Slit, or Slitted</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Smite</td> -<td class="tdl">Smote</td> -<td class="tdl">Smitten</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sow</td> -<td class="tdl">Sowed</td> -<td class="tdl">Sown <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Speak</td> -<td class="tdl">Spoke, or Spake</td> -<td class="tdl">Spoken</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Speed</td> -<td class="tdl">Sped</td> -<td class="tdl">Sped</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Spend</td> -<td class="tdl">Spent</td> -<td class="tdl">Spent</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Spill</td> -<td class="tdl">Spilt <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Spilt <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Spin</td> -<td class="tdl">Spun, or Span</td> -<td class="tdl">Spun</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Spit</td> -<td class="tdl">Spat, or Spit</td> -<td class="tdl">Spitten, or Spit</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Split</td> -<td class="tdl">Split, or Splitted</td> -<td class="tdl">Split, Splitted</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Spread</td> -<td class="tdl">Spread</td> -<td class="tdl">Spread</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Spring</td> -<td class="tdl">Sprang, or Sprung</td> -<td class="tdl">Sprung</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Stand</td> -<td class="tdl">Stood</td> -<td class="tdl">Stood</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Steal</td> -<td class="tdl">Stole</td> -<td class="tdl">Stolen</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Stick</td> -<td class="tdl">Stuck</td> -<td class="tdl">Stuck</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sting</td> -<td class="tdl">Stung</td> -<td class="tdl">Stung</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Stink</td> -<td class="tdl">Stank, or Stunk</td> -<td class="tdl">Stunk</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Stride<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_138"></a>[138]</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Strode, or Strove</td> -<td class="tdl">Stridden</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Strike</td> -<td class="tdl">Struck</td> -<td class="tdl">Struck, or Stricken</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">String</td> -<td class="tdl">Strung</td> -<td class="tdl">Strung</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Strive</td> -<td class="tdl">Strove</td> -<td class="tdl">Striven</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Strew, or Strow</td> -<td class="tdl">Strewed, or Strowed</td> -<td class="tdl">Strown</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Swear</td> -<td class="tdl">Swore, or Sware</td> -<td class="tdl">Sworn</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sweat</td> -<td class="tdl">Sweat</td> -<td class="tdl">Sweat</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sweep</td> -<td class="tdl">Swept</td> -<td class="tdl">Swept</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Swell</td> -<td class="tdl">Swelled</td> -<td class="tdl">Swelled, or Swollen</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Swim</td> -<td class="tdl">Swam, or Swum</td> -<td class="tdl">Swum</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Swing</td> -<td class="tdl">Swang</td> -<td class="tdl">Swung</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Take</td> -<td class="tdl">Took</td> -<td class="tdl">Taken</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Teach</td> -<td class="tdl">Taught</td> -<td class="tdl">Taught</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Tear</td> -<td class="tdl">Tore, or Tare</td> -<td class="tdl">Torn</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Tell</td> -<td class="tdl">Told</td> -<td class="tdl">Told</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Think</td> -<td class="tdl">Thought</td> -<td class="tdl">Thought</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Thrive</td> -<td class="tdl">Throve<a id="FNanchor_100" href="#Footnote_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">Thriven</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Throw</td> -<td class="tdl">Through</td> -<td class="tdl">Thrown</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Thrust</td> -<td class="tdl">Thrust</td> -<td class="tdl">Thrust</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Tread</td> -<td class="tdl">Trod</td> -<td class="tdl">Trodden</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Wax</td> -<td class="tdl">Waxed</td> -<td class="tdl">Waxen <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Wash</td> -<td class="tdl">Washed</td> -<td class="tdl">Washed<a id="FNanchor_101" href="#Footnote_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Wear</td> -<td class="tdl">Wore</td> -<td class="tdl">Worn</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Weave</td> -<td class="tdl">Wove</td> -<td class="tdl">Woven</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Weep</td> -<td class="tdl">Wept</td> -<td class="tdl">Wept</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Will</td> -<td class="tdl">Would</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Win</td> -<td class="tdl">Won</td> -<td class="tdl">Won</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Wind</td> -<td class="tdl">Wound<a id="FNanchor_102" href="#Footnote_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> <span class="allsmcap">R</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Wound</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Work<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_139"></a>[139]</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Wrought R</td> -<td class="tdl">Wrought R</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Wring</td> -<td class="tdl">Wrung R</td> -<td class="tdl">Wrung</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Write</td> -<td class="tdl">Wrote</td> -<td class="tdl">Written<a id="FNanchor_103" href="#Footnote_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Writhe</td> -<td class="tdl">Writhed</td> -<td class="tdl">Writhen.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<h4>DEFECTIVE VERBS.</h4> - -<p>These, as Lowth observes, are generally not only defective, -but also irregular, and are chiefly auxiliary verbs.</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Present.</em></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Preterite.</em></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Perfect Participle.</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Must</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">May</td> -<td class="tdl">Might</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Quoth</td> -<td class="tdl">Quoth</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Can</td> -<td class="tdl">Could</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shall</td> -<td class="tdl">Should</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Wit<a id="FNanchor_104" href="#Footnote_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a>, or Wot</td> -<td class="tdl">Wot</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Will<a id="FNanchor_105" href="#Footnote_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">Would</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Wis<a id="FNanchor_106" href="#Footnote_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">Wist</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Ought<a id="FNanchor_107" href="#Footnote_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a></td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_140"></a>[140]</span></p> - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<h4>OF IMPERSONAL VERBS.</h4> - -<p>The distinctive character of impersonal verbs has been a -subject of endless dispute among grammarians. Some deny -their existence in the learned languages, and others as -positively assert it. Some define them to be verbs devoid -of the two first persons; but this definition is evidently incorrect: -for, as Perizonius and Frischlinus observe, this may -be a reason for calling them defective, but not for naming -them impersonal verbs. Others have defined them to be -verbs, to which no certain person, as the subject, can be prefixed. -But with the discussion of this question, as it respects<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_141"></a>[141]</span> -the learned languages, the English grammarian has no concern. -I proceed, therefore, to observe, that impersonal verbs, as the -name imports, are those which do not admit a person as their -nominative. Their real character seems to be, that they -assert the existence of some action or state, but refer it to -no particular subject. In English we have very few impersonal -verbs. To this denomination, however, may certainly -be referred, <em>it behoveth</em>, <em>it irketh</em>; equivalent to, <em>it is the -duty</em>, <em>it is painfully wearisome</em>. That the former of these -verbs was once used personally, we have sufficient evidence; -and it is not improbable that the latter also was so employed, -though I have not been able to find an example of its -junction with a person. They are now invariably used as -impersonal verbs. We cannot say, <em>I behove</em>, <em>thou behovest</em>, -<em>he behoves</em>; <em>we irk</em>, <em>ye irk</em>, <em>they irk</em>.</p> - -<p>There are one or two others, which have been considered -as impersonal verbs, in which the personal pronoun in the -objective case is prefixed to the third person singular of the -verb, as <em>methinks</em>, <em>methought</em>, <em>meseems</em>, <em>meseemed</em>; analogous -to the Latin expressions <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">me pœnitet</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">me pœnituit</i>. -<em>You thinketh</em>, <em>him liketh</em>, <em>him seemeth</em>, have long been -entirely obsolete. <em>Meseems</em> and <em>meseemed</em> occur in Sidney, -Spenser, and other contemporary writers; but are now universally -disused. Addison sometimes says <em>methoughts</em>, contrary, -I conceive, to all analogy.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_142"></a>[142]</span><br /></p> - -<h3 id="CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII.<br /> - -<span class="fs60">OF ADVERBS.</span></h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent">An adverb is that part of speech which is joined to a verb, -adjective, or other adverb, to express some circumstance, -quality, degree, or manner of its signification; and hence -adverbs have been termed attributives of the second order.</p> - -<p>“As the attributives hitherto mentioned,” says Mr. Harris, -“viz. adjective and verb, denote the attributes of substances, -so there is an inferior class of them, which denote the attributes -only of attributes. If I say, ‘Cicero was eloquent,’ -I ascribe to him the attribute of eloquence simply and absolutely; -if I say, ‘he was exceedingly eloquent,’ I affirm -an eminent degree of eloquence, the adverb <em>exceedingly</em> -denoting that degree. If I say, ‘he died, fighting <em>bravely</em> -for his country,’ the word <em>bravely</em> here added to the verb -denotes the manner of the action.” An adverb is, therefore, -a word joined to a verb, or any attributive, to denote some -modification, degree, or circumstance, of the expressed attribute.</p> - -<p>Adverbs have been divided into a variety of classes, according -to their signification. Some of those which denote</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Quality</em> simply, are,</td> -<td class="tdl">Well, ill, bravely, prudently, softly,</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">with innumerable others formed from</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">adjectives and participles.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Certainty</em> or <em>Affirmation</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Verily, truly, undoubtedly, yea, yes, certainly.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Contingence</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Perhaps, peradventure, perchance.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Negation</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Nay, no, not, nowise.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Explaining</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Namely.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Separation</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Apart, separately, asunder.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Conjunction</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Together, generally, universally.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Indication</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Lo.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Interrogation</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Why, wherefore, when, how.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Excess</em> or <em>Preeminence</em><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_143"></a>[143]</span></td> -<td class="tdl">Very, exceedingly, too, more, better, worse, best, worst.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Defect</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Almost, nearly, less, least.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Preference</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Rather, chiefly, especially.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Likeness</em> or <em>Equality</em></td> -<td class="tdl">So, thus, as, equally.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Unlikeness</em> or <em>Inequality</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Else, otherwise.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Abatement</em> or <em>Gradation</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Piecemeal, scarcely, hardly.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>To</em> or <em>in a place</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Here, there, where.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>To a place, only</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Hither, thither, whither.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Towards a place</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Hitherward, thitherward, whitherward.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>From a place</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Hence, thence, whence.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Time present</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Now, to-day.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>—— past</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Yesterday, before, heretofore, already, hitherto, lately.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>—— future</em></td> -<td class="tdl">To-morrow, hereafter, presently, immediately, afterwards.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Repetition of times indef.</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Often, seldom, frequently.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>—— Definitely</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Once, twice, thrice, again.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Order</em></td> -<td class="tdl">First<a id="FNanchor_108" href="#Footnote_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a>, secondly, thirdly, &c.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Quantity</em></td> -<td class="tdl">Much, little, enough, sufficiently.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<p>On inquiring into the meaning and etymology of adverbs, -it will appear, that most of them are abbreviations or contractions -for two or more words. Thus, <em>bravely</em>, or “in a brave -manner,” is probably derived by abbreviation from <em>brave-like</em>, -<em>wisely</em> from <em>wise-like</em>, <em>happily</em> from <em>happy-like</em><a id="FNanchor_109" href="#Footnote_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a>. Mr. Tooke,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_144"></a>[144]</span> -indeed, has proved, as I conceive incontrovertibly, that most -of them are either corruptions of other words, or abbreviations -of phrases or of sentences. One thing is certain, that the adverb -is not an indispensable part of speech, as it serves merely -to express in one word what perhaps would otherwise require -two or more words. Thus,</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="70%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Where<a id="FNanchor_110" href="#Footnote_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a></td> -<td class="tdl">denotes</td> -<td class="tdl">In what place</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Here</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">In this place</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">There</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">In that place</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Whither</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">To what place</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Hither</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">To this place</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Thither</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">To that place.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_145"></a>[145]</span><br /></p> - -<h3 id="CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII.<br /> - -<span class="fs60">OF PREPOSITIONS.</span></h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent">A preposition has been defined to be “that part of speech -which shows the relation that one thing bears to another.” -According to Mr. Harris, it is a part of speech devoid itself of -signification, but so formed as to unite words that are significant, -and that refuse to unite or associate of themselves. -He has, therefore, compared them to pegs or pins, which -serve to unite those parts of the building which would not, -by their own nature, incorporate or coalesce. When one considers -the formidable objections which present themselves to -this theory, and that the ingenious author now quoted has, -in defence of it, involved himself in palpable contradictions, -it becomes matter of surprise that it should have so long received -from grammarians an almost universal and implicit -assent. This furnishes one of many examples, how easily -error may be imposed and propagated by the authority of a -great name. But, though error may be repeatedly transmitted -from age to age, unsuspected and unquestioned, it cannot -be perpetuated. Mr. Horne Tooke has assailed this theory -by irresistible arguments, and demonstrated that, in our language -at least, prepositions are significant of ideas, and that, -as far as import is concerned, they do not form a distinct species -of words.</p> - -<p>It is not, indeed, easy to imagine, that men, in the formation -of any language, would invent words insignificant, and -to which, singly, they attached no determinate idea; especially -when it is considered, that, in every stage of their existence, -from rudeness to civilization, new words would perpetually -be wanting to express new ideas. It is not, therefore, probable -that, while they were under the necessity of framing new -words, to answer the exigences of mental enlargement, and -while these demands on their invention were incessantly recurring, -they would, in addition to this, encumber themselves<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_146"></a>[146]</span> -with the idle and unnecessary task of forming new words to -express nothing.</p> - -<p>But, in truth, Harris himself yields the point, when he says, -that prepositions, when compounded, transfuse something of -their meaning into the compound; for they cannot transfuse -what they do not contain, nor impart what they do not possess. -They must, therefore, be themselves significant words.</p> - -<p>But it is not so much their meaning with which the grammarian -is concerned, as their syntactical character, their capacity -of affecting other words, or being affected by them. -In both these lights, however, I propose to consider them.</p> - -<p>The name of preposition has been assigned to them, because -they generally precede their regimen, or the word which -they govern. What number of these words ancient and modern -languages contain, has been much disputed; some grammarians -determining a greater and some a less number. This, -indeed, of itself affords a conclusive proof that the character -of these words has not been clearly understood; for, in the -other parts of speech, noun, adjective, and verb, the discriminative -circumstances are so evident, that no doubt can arise -concerning their classification.</p> - -<p>That most of our English prepositions have signification -<em>per se</em>, and form no distinct species of words, Mr. Tooke has -produced incontrovertible evidence: nor is it to be doubted, -that a perfect acquaintance with the Northern languages -would convince us, that all of them are abbreviations, corruptions, -or combinations of other words. A few of Mr. -Tooke’s examples I shall now present to the reader.</p> - -<div class="blockquotx"> - -<p><em>Above</em>, from the Anglo-Saxon <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">ufa</i>, high; hence <em>bufan</em>, <em>on -bufan</em>, bove, above.</p> - -<p><em>With</em>, from <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">withan</i>, to join, of which <em>with</em> is the imperative; -thus, “<em>a house with a party wall</em>,”—“a house, -<em>join</em> a party wall;” or it is sometimes the imperative -of <em>wyrthan</em>, “to be;” hence, <em>by</em> and <em>with</em> are often -synonymous, the former being derived from <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">beon</i>, “to -be.”</p> - -<p><em>Without</em>, from the Saxon preposition <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">withutan</i>, <em>extra</em>, <em>sine</em>, -which is properly the imperative of the verb <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">wyrthanutan</i>,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_147"></a>[147]</span> -“to be out.” <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">Withutan</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">beutan</i>, “without,” -“be out,” or “but.” The Saxon preposition occurs -frequently in the writings of Chaucer, and is still used -in Scottish poetry<a id="FNanchor_111" href="#Footnote_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a>.</p> - -<p><em>From</em><a id="FNanchor_112" href="#Footnote_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a>, is simply the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic noun <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">frum</i>, -“beginning,” “source,” “origin;” thus, “Figs came -<em>from</em> Turkey;” that is, Figs came; “the source,” or -“beginning,” Turkey; to which is opposed the -word.</p> - -<p><em>To</em>, the same originally as <em>do</em>, signifying finishing or completion; -thus “Figs came <em>from</em> Turkey <em>to</em> England;” -“the beginning,” or “source,” Turkey; “the finishing,” -or “end,” England.</p> - -<p><em>Beneath</em>, is the imperative <em>be</em>, compounded with the noun -<em>neath</em>, of the same import with <em>neden</em> in Dutch, <em>ned</em> in -Danish, <em>niedere</em> in German, and <em>nedre</em> or <em>neder</em> in -Swedish, signifying the lower place; hence, the astronomical -term <em>Nadir</em>, opposed to <em>Zenith</em>. Hence also -<em>nether</em> and <em>nethermost</em>.</p> - -<p><em>Between</em>, “be twain,” “be two,” or “be separated.”<a id="FNanchor_113" href="#Footnote_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a></p> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Before</em>,</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_148"></a>[148]</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Behind</em>,</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -<td class="tdl" rowspan="2">Imperative <em>be</em>, and the nouns, <em>fore</em>, <em>hind</em>, <em>side</em>, <em>low</em>.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Beside</em>,</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Below</em>,</td> -<td class="tdl">}</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p><em>Under</em>, i.e. <em>on neder</em>.</p> - -<p><em>Beyond</em>, imperative <em>be</em>, and the participle past <em>goned</em> of -the verb <em>gan</em>, “to go:” as, “beyond the place,” i.e. -“be passed the place.”</p> - -<p><em>Among</em>, from <em>gemong</em>, the preterperfect of the verb <em>mengan</em>, -to mix, used as a participle, and signifying “mixed.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Many other examples might be produced from Tooke’s ingenious -illustration of his theory; but those which I have -now offered suffice to prove, that our prepositions, so far -from being words insignificant, belong to the class of nouns -or verbs either single or compounded.</p> - -<p>Besides, if prepositions denote relations, as Harris admits, -it is surely absurd to suppose, that they have no meaning; -for the relation, whether of propinquity, contiguity, approach, -or regress, &c., may be expressed, and apprehended by the -mind, though the objects between which the relation subsists -be not specified. If I hear the word <em>with</em>, I naturally conceive -the idea of conjunction; the reverse takes place when -I hear <em>without</em>. If it be said <em>a soldier with</em>, I have the idea -of a soldier associated with something else, which association -is denoted by <em>with</em>. What is conjoined to him I know not, -till the object be specified, as, “a soldier <em>with</em> a musquet;” -but the mere association was before sufficiently expressed, -and clearly apprehended. Again, if a person say, “<em>he threw -a glass under</em>,” I have instantly an idea of a glass, and of inferiority -of place, conceiving a glass removed into a situation -lower than something else. To ascertain that <em>something</em>, I -ask, <em>under what?</em> and the answer may be, <em>under the table</em>. -Now, if <em>under</em> had no meaning, this question would be insignificant, -or rather impossible.</p> - -<p>From the examples given, I trust the young reader sufficiently -understands the difference between the doctrine of -Harris on this subject, and that of Horne Tooke; nay, I -think, he must perceive, that the former is merely a theory,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_149"></a>[149]</span> -while the latter is supported by reason and fact. The syntax -of our prepositions will be afterwards explained. I shall -only observe at present, that the words which are in English -considered as prepositions, and joined to the objective case -are these:</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Above</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Beneath</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Since</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">About</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Below</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Through</td> -<td class="tdl fs180" rowspan="2">}</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">After</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Beside</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Throughout</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Against</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">By</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Till</td> -<td class="tdl fs180" rowspan="2">}</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Among</td> -<td class="tdl fs180" rowspan="2">}</td> -<td class="tdl">Down</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Until</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Amongst</td> -<td class="tdl">For</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">To</td> -<td class="tdl fs180" rowspan="2">}</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Amid</td> -<td class="tdl fs180" rowspan="2">}</td> -<td class="tdl">From</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Unto</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Amidst</td> -<td class="tdl">In</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Toward</td> -<td class="tdl fs180" rowspan="2">}</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Around</td> -<td class="tdl fs180" rowspan="2">}</td> -<td class="tdl">Into</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Towards</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Round</td> -<td class="tdl">Near</td> -<td class="tdl fs180" rowspan="2">}</td> -<td class="tdl">Under</td> -<td class="tdl fs180" rowspan="2">}</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">At</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Nigh</td> -<td class="tdl">Underneath</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Between</td> -<td class="tdl fs180" rowspan="2">}</td> -<td class="tdl">Of</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Up</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Betwixt</td> -<td class="tdl">Off</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">With</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Beyond</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Over</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Within</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Before</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">On</td> -<td class="tdl fs180" rowspan="2">}</td> -<td class="tdl">Without</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Behind</td> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl">Upon</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p class="noindent">Some of these, though they are commonly joined to an objective -case, and may therefore be deemed prepositions, are, -notwithstanding, of an equivocal character, resembling the -Latin adverbs <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">procul</i> and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">prope</i>, which govern a case by the -ellipsis of a preposition. Thus we say, “near the house” -and “near <em>to</em> the house,” “nigh the park,” and “nigh <em>to</em> the -park,” “off the table,” and “off <em>from</em> the table.”</p> - -<p>Several are used as adverbs, and also as prepositions, no -ellipsis being involved, as, <em>till</em>, <em>until</em>, <em>after</em>, <em>before</em>.</p> - -<p>There are certain particles, which are never found single -or uncompounded, and have therefore been termed inseparable -prepositions. Those purely English are, <em>a</em>, <em>be</em>, <em>fore</em>, -<em>mis</em>, <em>un</em>. The import of these, and of a few separable prepositions -when prefixed to other words, I proceed to explain.</p> - -<div class="blockquotx"> - -<p><em>A</em>, signifies <em>on</em> or <em>in</em>, as, <em>a foot</em>, <em>a shore</em>, that is, <em>on foot</em>, <em>on -shore</em>. Webster contends, that it was originally the -same with <em>one</em>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_150"></a>[150]</span></p> - -<p><em>Be</em>, signifies <em>about</em>, as, <em>bestir</em>, <em>besprinkle</em>, that is, <em>stir about</em>; -also <em>for</em> or <em>before</em>, as, <em>bespeak</em>, that is, <em>speak for</em>, or -<em>before</em>.</p> - -<p><em>For</em>, denies, or deprives, as, <em>bid, forbid</em>, <em>seek, forsake</em>, i.e. -<em>bid, bid not</em>; <em>seek, not seek</em>.</p> - -<p><em>Fore</em>, signifies <em>before</em>, as, <em>see, foresee</em>, that is, <em>see beforehand</em>.</p> - -<p><em>Mis</em>, denotes defect or error, as, <em>take, mistake</em>, or <em>take -wrongly</em>; <em>deed, misdeed</em>, that is, <em>a wrong</em> or <em>evil deed</em>.</p> - -<p><em>Over</em>, denotes eminence or superiority, as, <em>come, overcome</em>; -also excess, as, <em>hasty</em>, <em>over hasty</em>, or <em>too hasty</em>.</p> - -<p><em>Out</em>, signifies excess or superiority, as, <em>do, outdo</em>, <em>run, -outrun</em>, that is, “to surpass in running.”</p> - -<p><em>Un</em>, before an adjective, denotes negation, or privation, -as, <em>worthy, unworthy</em>, or “<em>not</em> worthy.” Before verbs -it denotes the undoing or the destroying of the energy -or act, expressed by the verb, as, <em>say, unsay</em>, that is, -“affirm,” retract the “affirmation.”</p> - -<p><em>Up</em>, denotes motion upwards, as, <em>start, upstart</em>; rest in a -higher place, as, <em>hold, uphold</em>; sometimes subversion, -as, <em>set, upset</em>.</p> - -<p><em>With</em>, <ins class="corr" id="tn-150" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'siginifies against'"> -signifies <em>against</em></ins>, as, <em>stand, withstand</em>, that is, -“stand against, or resist.”</p> -</div> - -<p>The Latin prepositions used in the composition of English -words are these, <em>ab</em> or <em>abs</em>, <em>ad</em>, <em>ante</em>, <em>con</em>, <em>circum</em>, <em>contra</em>, <em>de</em>, -<em>di</em>, <em>dis</em>, <em>e</em> or <em>ex</em>, <em>extra</em>, <em>in</em>, <em>inter</em>, <em>intro</em>, <em>ob</em>, <em>per</em>, <em>post</em>, <em>præ</em>, <em>pro</em>, -<em>præter</em>, <em>re</em>, <em>retro</em>, <em>se</em>, <em>sub</em>, <em>subter</em>, <em>super</em>, <em>trans</em>.</p> - -<div class="blockquotx"> - -<p><em>A, ab, abs</em>, signify <em>from</em> or <em>away</em>, as, <em>to abstract</em>, that is, -“to draw away.”</p> - -<p><em>Ad</em>, signifies <em>to</em> or <em>at</em>, as, <em>to adhere</em>, that is, “to stick to.”</p> - -<p><em>Ante</em>, means <em>before</em>, as, <em>antecedent</em>, that is, “going before.”</p> - -<p><em>Circum</em>, round, <em>about</em>, as, <em>circumnavigate</em>, or “sail round.”</p> - -<p><em>Con, com, co, col</em>, signify <em>together</em>, as, <em>convoke</em>, or “call -together,” <em>co-operate</em>, or “work together,” <em>colleague</em>, -“joined together.”</p> - -<p><em>Contra</em>, <em>against</em>, as, <em>contradict</em>, or “speak against.”</p> - -<p><em>De</em>, signifies <em>down</em>, as, <em>deject</em>, or “throw down.”</p> - -<p><em>Di, dis</em>, <em>asunder</em>, as <em>distract</em>, or “draw asunder.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_151"></a>[151]</span></p> - -<p><em>E</em>, <em>ex</em>, <em>out of</em>, as, <em>egress</em>, or “going out,” <em>eject</em>, or “throw -out,” <em>exclude</em>, or “shut out.”</p> - -<p><em>Extra</em>, <em>beyond</em>, as, <em>extraordinary</em>, or “beyond the ordinary -or usual course.”</p> - -<p><em>In</em>, before an adjective, like <em>un</em>, denotes privation, as, -<em>active</em>, <em>inactive</em>, or “not active;” before a verb, it has -its simple meaning.</p> - -<p><em>Inter</em>, <em>between</em>, as, <em>intervene</em>, or “come between,” <em>interpose</em>, -or “put between.”</p> - -<p><em>Intro</em>, <em>to within</em>, as, <em>introduce</em>, or “lead in.”</p> - -<p><em>Ob</em>, denotes opposition, as, <em>obstacle</em>, that is, “something -standing in opposition,” “an impediment.”</p> - -<p><em>Per</em>, <em>through</em>, or <em>thoroughly</em>, as, <em>perfect</em>, or “thoroughly -done,” to <em>perforate</em>, or “to bore through.”</p> - -<p><em>Post</em>, <em>after</em>, as, <em>postscript</em>, or “written after,” that is, after -the letter.</p> - -<p><em>Præ</em>, <em>before</em>, as, <em>prefix</em>, or “fix before.”</p> - -<p><em>Pro</em>, <em>forth</em>, or <em>forwards</em>, as, <em>promote</em>, or “move forwards.”</p> - -<p><em>Præter</em>, <em>past</em>, or <em>beyond</em>, as, <em>preternatural</em>, or “beyond the -course of nature.”</p> - -<p><em>Re</em>, <em>again</em>, or <em>back</em>, as, <em>retake</em>, or “take back.”</p> - -<p><em>Retro</em>, <em>backwards</em>, as, <em>retrograde</em>, or “going backwards.”</p> - -<p><em>Se</em>, <em>apart</em>, or <em>without</em>, as, <em>to secrete</em>, “to put aside,” or “to -hide,” <em>secure</em>, “without care or apprehension.”</p> - -<p><em>Subter</em>, <em>under</em>, as, <em>subterfluous</em>, or “flowing under.”</p> - -<p><em>Super</em>, <em>above</em>, or <em>over</em>, as, <em>superscribe</em>, or “write above, or -over.”</p> - -<p><em>Trans</em>, <em>over</em>, <em>from one place to another</em>, as, <em>transport</em>, that -is, “carry over.”</p> -</div> - -<p>The Greek prepositions and particles compounded with -English words are, <em>a</em>, <em>amphi</em>, <em>anti</em>, <em>hyper</em>, <em>hypo</em>, <em>meta</em>, <em>peri</em>, -<em>syn</em>.</p> - -<div class="blockquotx"> - -<p><em>A</em>, signifies privation, as, <em>anonymous</em>, or “without a name.”</p> - -<p><em>Amphi</em>, <em>both</em>, or <em>the two</em>, as, <em>amphibious</em>, “having both -lives,” that is, “on land and on water.”</p> - -<p><em>Anti</em>, <em>against</em>, as, <em>anti-covenanter</em>, <em>anti-jacobin</em>, that is, -“an opponent of the covenanters,” “an enemy to the -jacobins.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_152"></a>[152]</span></p> - -<p><em>Hyper</em>, <em>over and above</em>, as, <em>hypercritical</em>, or “over,” that -is, “too critical.”</p> - -<p><em>Hypo</em>, <em>under</em>, implying concealment or disguise, as, <em>hypocrite</em>, -“one dissembling his real character.”</p> - -<p><em>Meta</em>, denotes change or transmutation, as, <em>to metamorphose</em>, -or “to change the shape.”</p> - -<p><em>Para</em>, denotes sometimes propinquity or similarity, and -sometimes contrariety. It is equivalent to the Latin -terms <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">juxta</i> and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">præter</i>, as, “to paraphrase,” <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">παραφράζειν</span>, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">juxta alterius orationem loqui</i>; “to speak -the meaning of another.” <em>Paradox</em>, “beyond,” or -“contrary to, general opinion,” or “common belief.”</p> - -<p><em>Peri</em>, <em>round about</em>, as, <em>periphrasis</em>, that is, “circumlocution.”</p> - -<p><em>Syn</em>, <em>together</em>, as <em>synod</em>, “a meeting,” or “coming together,” -<em>sympathy</em>, or “feeling together.”</p> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_153"></a>[153]</span><br /></p> - -<h3 id="CHAPTER_IX">CHAPTER IX.<br /> - -<span class="fs60">OF CONJUNCTIONS.</span></h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent">A conjunction has been defined to be “that part of speech -which connects words and sentences together.”</p> - -<p>Mr. Ruddiman, and several other grammarians, have -asserted, that conjunctions never connect words, but sentences. -This is evidently a mistake; for if I say, “a man -of wisdom and virtue is a perfect character,” it implies not -“that a man of wisdom is a perfect character, and a man of -virtue a perfect character,” but “a man who combines wisdom -and virtue.” The farther discussion of this question, -however, I shall at present postpone, as it will form a subject -of future inquiry.</p> - -<p>Conjunctions have been distributed, according to their -significations, into different classes:</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Copulative</em>,</td> -<td class="tdl">And, also, but, (bot).</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Disjunctive</em>,</td> -<td class="tdl">Either, or.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Concessive</em>,</td> -<td class="tdl">Though, although, albeit, yet.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Adversative</em>,</td> -<td class="tdl">But, however.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Exclusive</em>,</td> -<td class="tdl">Neither, nor.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Causal</em>,</td> -<td class="tdl">For, that, because, since.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Illative</em>,</td> -<td class="tdl">Therefore, wherefore, then.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Conditional</em>,</td> -<td class="tdl">If.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Exceptive</em>,</td> -<td class="tdl">Unless.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>This distribution of the conjunctions I have given, in -conformity to general usage, that the reader may be acquainted -with the common terms by which conjunctions -have been denominated, if these terms should occur to him -in the course of reading. In respect to the real import, and -genuine character of these words, I decidedly adopt the theory -of Mr. Tooke, which considers conjunctions as no distinct -species of words, but as belonging to the class of attributives, -or as abbreviations for two or more significant words.</p> - -<p>Agreeably to his theory, <em>and</em> is an abbreviation for <em>anad</em>,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_154"></a>[154]</span> -the imperative of <em>ananad</em>, “to add,” or “to accumulate;” -as, “two and two make four;” that is, “two, add two, make -four.” <em>Either</em> is evidently an adjective expressive of “one -of two;” thus, “it is either day or night,” that is, “one of -the two, day or night.” It is derived from the Saxon <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">ægther</i>, -equivalent to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">uterque</i>, “each.”<a id="FNanchor_114" href="#Footnote_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a></p> - -<p><em>Or</em> is a contraction for <em>other</em>, a Saxon and English adjective -equivalent to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">alius</i> or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">alter</i>, and denotes diversity, either -of name or of subject. Hence <em>or</em> is sometimes a perfect disjunctive, -as when it expresses contrariety or opposition of -things; and sometimes a subdisjunctive, when it denotes -simply a diversity in name. Thus, when we say, “It is either -even or odd,” <em>or</em> is a perfect disjunctive, the two attributives -being directly contrary, and admitting no medium. If I say, -“Paris or Alexander” (these being names of the same individual); -or if I say, “Gravity or weight,” “Logic, or the art -of reasoning;” <em>or</em> in these examples is a subdisjunctive or -an explicative, as it serves to define the meaning of the preceding -term, or as it expresses the equivalence of two terms. -The Latins express the former by <em>aut</em>, <em>vel</em>, and the latter by -<em>seu</em> or <em>sive</em>. In the following sentence both conjunctions are -exemplified: “Give me <em>either</em> the black <em>or</em> the white;” <em>i.e.</em> -“Give me one of the two—the black—other, the white.”</p> - -<p>To these are opposed <em>neither</em>, <em>nor</em>, as, “Give me <em>neither</em> -poverty <em>nor</em> riches;” <em>i.e.</em> “Give me not one of the two, poverty—nor, -<em>i.e.</em> not the other, riches.”</p> - -<p>According to Mr. Tooke, the conjunction <em>if</em> is the imperative -of the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic verb <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">gifan</i>, “to give.” -Among others, he quotes the following example. “How -will the weather dispose of you to-morrow? If fair, it will -send me abroad; if foul, it will keep me at home”—<em>i.e.</em> -“Give,” or “grant it to be fair;” “give,” or “grant it to be foul.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_155"></a>[155]</span></p> - -<p><em>Though</em> is the same as <em>thaf</em>, an imperative from <em>thafan</em>, to -allow, and is in some parts of the country pronounced <em>thof</em>; -as, “Though he should speak truth, I would not believe -him;” <em>i.e.</em> “allow or grant, what? he should speak truth,” -or “allow his speaking truth, I would not believe him.”</p> - -<p><em>But</em>, from <em>beutan</em>, the imperative of <em>beon utan</em>, to <em>be out</em>, -is the same as <em>without</em> or <em>unless</em>, there being no difference -between these in respect to meaning. Grammarians, however, -in conformity to the distinction between <em>nisi</em> and <em>sine</em>, -have called <em>but</em> a conjunction, and <em>without</em> a preposition. -<em>But</em>, therefore, being a word signifying exception or exclusion, -I have not termed it an “adversative,” as most -grammarians have, but an “exceptive.” In this sense it -is synonymous with <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">præter</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">præterquam</i>, or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nisi</i>; thus, -“I saw nobody but John,” <em>i.e.</em> “unless,” or “except John.”</p> - -<p><em>But</em>, from <em>bot</em>, the imperative of <em>botan</em>, to <em>boot</em> or <em>superadd</em>, -has a very different meaning. This word was originally -written <em>bot</em>, and was thus distinguished from but<a id="FNanchor_115" href="#Footnote_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a>. They -are now written alike, which tends to create confusion. The -meaning of this word is, “add,” or, “moreover.” This interpretation -is confirmed by the probable derivation and -meaning of synonymous words in other languages. Thus, -the French <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mais</i> (but) is from <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">majus</i>, or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">magis</i>, “more,” or -“in addition;” the Italian <em>ma</em>, the Spanish <em>mas</em>, and the -Dutch <em>maar</em>, are from the same etymon, signifying “more.” -And it is not improbable, that <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">adsit</i> (be it present, or be it -added) by contraction became <em>ast</em> and <em>at</em>: thus, <em>adsit</em>, <em>adst</em>, -<em>ast</em>, <em>at</em>. In this sense <em>but</em> is synonymous with <em>at</em>, <em>autem</em>, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cæterum</i>, “moreover,” or “in addition.”</p> - -<p>It is justly observed by Mr. Tooke, that <em>bot</em> or <em>but</em> allays -or mitigates a good or bad precedent, by the addition of -something; for <em>botan</em> means “to superadd,” “to supply,” “to -atone for,” “to compensate,” “to add something more,” “to -make amends,” or “make up deficiency.” Thus,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“Once did I lay an ambush for your life,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">A trespass, that doth vex my grieved soul:</div> - <div class="verse indent0">But (bot), ere I last received the sacrament,</div> - <div class="verse indent0"><ins class="corr" id="tn-155" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'I did confess”... ">I did confess...”</ins></div> - <div class="verse indent25"><cite>Richard II.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>“Add (this) ere I last received.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_156"></a>[156]</span></p> - -<p>When <em>but</em> means <em>be out</em>, or <em>without</em>, it should, says Mr. -Tooke, be preceded by a negative; thus, instead of saying, -“I saw but John,” which means, “I saw John be out,” we -should say, “I saw none but John,” <em>i.e.</em> “none, John be -out,” or “had John been out,” or, “John being excluded.” -This, observes the ingenious author, is one of the most faulty -ellipses in our language, and could never have obtained, but -through the utter ignorance of the meaning of the word <em>but</em> -(bot).</p> - -<p><em>Yet</em>, from the imperative of <em>getan</em>, “to get.”</p> - -<p><em>Still</em>, from <em>stell</em> or <em>steall</em>, the imperative of <em>stellan</em>, <em>ponere</em>, -“to suppose.”</p> - -<p>Horne Tooke observing that these words, like <em>if</em> and <em>an</em><a id="FNanchor_116" href="#Footnote_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a>, -are synonymous, accounts for their equivalence by supposing -them to be derived from verbs of the same import. His mode -of derivation, however, appears at first hearing to be incorrect: -the meaning of the conjunctions have little or no affinity -to that of the verbs. Mr. Tooke himself does not seem -perfectly satisfied with its truth. Both these conjunctions -are synonymous with “notwithstanding,” “nevertheless;” -terms, the obvious meaning of which does not accord with -verbs denoting “to get,” or “to suppose.” I am inclined, -however, to think that Tooke’s conjecture is founded in truth. -If I say, “he was learned, yet modest,” it may be expressed, -“he was learned, notwithstanding this, or this being granted, -even thus, or <em>be it so</em> (<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">licet ita esset</i>) he was modest;” where -the general incompatibility between learning and modesty is -conceived, not expressed, the expression denoting merely the -combination of the qualities in the individual mentioned. -<em>Notwithstanding</em> indirectly marks the repugnance, by signifying -that the one quality did not prevent the co-existence of -the other; <em>yet</em> or <em>still</em> supposes the incompatibility to be sufficiently<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_157"></a>[157]</span> -known. This derivation is rendered the more probable, -as the word <em>though</em> (<em>thof</em>, <em>grant</em>) may be substituted to -express the same idea, as “<em>though</em> (grant) he was learned, he -was modest;” which is equivalent to “he was learned, yet -(this granted) he was modest.” Hence many repeat the -concessive term, and say, “<em>though</em> he was learned, <em>yet</em> he -was modest.”</p> - -<p><em>Unless.</em> Mr. Horne Tooke is of opinion that this exceptive -conjunction is properly <em>onles</em>, the imperative of the verb <em>onlesan</em>, -to dismiss; thus, “you cannot be saved <em>unless</em> you -believe;” <em>i.e.</em> “dismiss your believing, and you cannot be -saved,” or, “you cannot be saved, your believing being dismissed.”</p> - -<p><em>Lest</em> is contracted for <em>lesed</em>, the participle of the same verb, -<em>onlesan</em> or <em>lesan</em>, signifying “dismissed;” as, “Young men -should take care to avoid bad company, <em>lest</em> their morals be -corrupted, and their reputation ruined;” that is, “Young -men should take care to avoid bad company, <em>lest</em> (this being -dismissed, or omitted) their morals be corrupted,” &c.</p> - -<p><em>That</em> is evidently in all cases an adjective, or, as some consider -it, a demonstrative pronoun; as, “They say <em>that</em> the -king is arrived;” “They say that (thing) the king is arrived.”</p> - -<p><em>Whether</em> is an adjective, denoting “which of two;” thus, -“Whether he live or die;” that is, “Which of the two -things, he live or die.”</p> - -<p><em>As</em> is the same with <em>es</em>, a German article, meaning <em>it</em>, <em>that</em>, -or <em>which</em>.</p> - -<p><em>So</em> is <em>sa</em> or <em>so</em>, a Gothic article of the same import.</p> - -<p><em>Than</em>, which Mr. Tooke does not seem to have noticed, is -supposed to be a compound of the definitive <em>tha</em>, and the -additive termination, <em>en</em>, thus, <em>tha en, thænne, then</em>, and now -spelled <em>than</em><a id="FNanchor_117" href="#Footnote_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_158"></a>[158]</span></p> - -<p>These few examples will serve to explain Mr. Tooke’s -theory on this subject; and I am persuaded, that the further -we investigate the etymology and real import of conjunctions, -the more probable will it appear that they are all nouns or -attributives, some belonging to kindred languages, and others -compounds or abbreviations in our own. I am persuaded, -also, that from a general review of this subject, it must be -evident that adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions, form no -distinct species of words, and that they are all reducible to -the class either of nouns or attributives, if their original character -and real import be considered. But, as many of them -are derived from obsolete words in our own language, or from -words in kindred languages, the radical meanings of which -are, therefore, either obscure, or generally unknown—and as -the syntactical use of several of them has undergone a -change—it can be no impropriety, nay, it is even convenient, -to regard them not in their original character, but their -present use. When the radical word still remains, the case -is different. Thus <em>except</em> is by some considered as a preposition; -but as the verb <em>to except</em> is still in use, <em>except</em> -may, and indeed should, be considered as the imperative of -the verb<a id="FNanchor_118" href="#Footnote_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a>. But in parsing, to say that the word <em>unless</em> is<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_159"></a>[159]</span> -the imperative of the verb <em>onlesan</em>, “to dismiss,” that verb -belonging to a different language, would serve only to perplex -and to confound, were it even true that the etymology is -correct. For this reason, though I perfectly concur with -Mr. Tooke as to the proper and original character of these -words, I have distributed them under the customary head of -prepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_160"></a>[160]</span><br /></p> - -<h3 id="CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X.<br /> - -<span class="fs60">OF INTERJECTIONS.</span></h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent">An interjection has been defined to be, “that part of speech -which denotes some affection or emotion of the mind.” It -is clearly not a necessary part of speech; for, as Tooke observes, -interjections are not to be found in books of history, -philosophy, or religion: they occur in novels only, or -dramatic compositions. Some of these are entirely instinctive -and mechanical, as, <em>ha! ha! ha!</em> sounds common -to all men, when agitated with laughter. These physical -emissions of sound have no more claim to be called parts of -speech than the neighing of a horse, or the lowing of a cow. -There are others which seem arbitrary, and are expressive of -some emotion, not simply by the articulation, but by the accompanying -voice or gesture. Grief, for example, is expressed -in English by the word <em>ah!</em> or <em>oh!</em> in Latin by <em>oi</em>, -<em>ei!</em> and in Greek by <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">οἶ, οἶ, αἶ, αἶ</span>! Here the sounds are not -instinctive, or purely mechanical, as in laughing; but the -accompanying tone of voice, which is the same in all men, -under the influence of the same emotion, indicates clearly -the feeling or passion of the speaker. Others, which have -been deemed interjections, are, in truth, verbs or nouns, employed -in the rapidity of thought and expression, and under -the influence of strong emotion, to denote, what would otherwise -require more words to express: as, <em>strange!</em> for <em>it is -strange</em>; <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">adieu!</i> for <em>I recommend you to God</em>; <em>shame!</em> for -<em>it is shame</em>; <em>welcome!</em> for <em>you are welcome</em>.</p> - -<p>The words which have been considered by our English -grammarians as interjections, are the following, expressive of</p> - -<div class="textcol"> - -<p>1. <em>Joy</em>, as, Hey, Io.</p> - -<p>2. <em>Grief</em>, Ah, alas, alack.</p> - -<p>3. <em>Wonder</em>, Vah! hah! aha!</p> - -<p>4. <em>Aversion</em>, Tush, pish, pshaw, foh, fie, pugh.</p> - -<p>5. <em>Laughter</em>, Ha, ha, ha.</p> - -<p>6. <em>Desire of attention</em>, Hark, lo, halloo, hem, hip.</p> - -</div> -<div class="textcol"> - -<p> 7. <em>Languor</em>, Heigh ho.</p> - -<p> 8. <em>Desire of silence</em>, Hush, hist, mum.</p> - -<p> 9. <em>Deliberation</em>, Hum.</p> - -<p>10. <em>Exultation</em>, Huzza.</p> - -<p>11. <em>Pain</em>, Oh! ho!</p> - -<p>12. <em>Taking leave</em>, Adieu.</p> - -<p>13. <em>Greeting</em>, Welcome.</p> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_161"></a>[161]</span><br /></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="PART_II">PART II.<br /> - -<span class="fs110">SYNTAX.</span></h2> -</div> - -<hr class="r20" /> - - -<p class="noindent">Syntax is the arrangement of words in sentences or phrases, -agreeably to established usage, or to the received rules of -concord and government.</p> - -<p>Sentences are either simple or complex.</p> - -<p>A simple sentence consists of only one member, containing -therefore but one subject, and one finite verb, as, -“Alexander the Great is said to have wept.”</p> - -<p>A complex sentence consists of two or more members, as, -“Alexander, when he had conquered the world, is said to -have wept, because there were not other worlds to subdue.”</p> - -<p>Complex sentences are divided into members; and these, -if complex, are subdivided into clauses, as, “The ox knoweth -his owner | and the ass his master’s crib || but Israel doth -not know | my people doth not consider.” This complex -sentence has two members, each of which contains two -clauses.</p> - -<p>When a member of a complex sentence is simple, it is -called indifferently a member, or a clause; as, “I have -called, but ye have refused.” The two parts, into which -this sentence divides itself, are termed each either a member -or a clause.</p> - -<p>When a complex sentence is so framed, that the meaning -is suspended till the whole be finished, it is called a period; -otherwise the sentence is said to be loose. The following -sentence is an example of a period: “If Hannibal had not -wintered at Capua, by which circumstance his troops were -enervated, but had, on the contrary, after the battle of -Cannæ, proceeded to Rome, it is not improbable that the -great city would have fallen.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_162"></a>[162]</span></p> - -<p>The criterion of a period is, that you cannot stop before -you reach the end of the sentence, otherwise the sentence is -incomplete. The following is an example of a loose sentence. -“One party had given their whole attention during several -years, to the project of enriching themselves, and impoverishing -the rest of the nation; and, by these and other means, of -establishing their dominion, under the government, and with -the favour of a family, who were foreigners: and therefore -might believe, they were established on the throne, by the -good-will and strength of this party alone.” In this sentence -you may stop at the words <em>themselves</em>, <em>nation</em>, <em>dominion</em>, -<em>government</em>, or <em>foreigners</em>; and these pauses will severally -complete the construction, and conclude perfect sentences. -Thus, in a period, the dependence of the members is reciprocal; -in a loose sentence, the preceding are not necessarily -dependent on the subsequent members; whereas the -following entirely depend on those which are antecedent. -The former possesses more strength, and greater majesty; -hence it is adapted to the graver subjects of history, philosophy, -and religion. The latter is less artificial, and approaches -nearer to the style of conversation; hence it is -suited to the gayer and more familiar subjects of tales, dialogues, -and epistolary correspondence.</p> - -<p>Concord is the agreement of one word with another, in -case, gender, number, or person; thus, “I love.” Here <em>I</em> -is the pronoun singular of the first person, and the verb is -likewise in the first person, and singular number; they agree -therefore in number and person.</p> - -<p>Government is the power which one word hath over another -in determining its state; thus, “he wounded us.” In this -sentence, <em>wounded</em> is an active transitive verb, and governs -the pronoun in the objective case.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_163"></a>[163]</span><br /></p> - -<h3 id="CHAPTER_I_SYN">CHAPTER I.<br /> - -<span class="fs60">OF CONCORD.</span></h3> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule I.</span>—A verb agrees with its nominative in -number and person, as,</p> - -<p class="pfs90"> -<em>We teach</em><br /> -<em>He learns</em><br /> -</p> - -<p class="noindent">where <em>we</em> and <em>teach</em> are each plural, and of the first -person; <em>he</em> and <em>learns</em> are each singular, and of the -third person.</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—This rule is violated in such examples as these, -“I likes,” “thou loves,” “he need,” “you was.” In reference -to the last example, the reader should observe, that -<em>you</em> is plural, whether it relate to only one individual or to -more, and ought therefore to be joined with a plural verb. -It is no argument to say, that when we address a single person, -we should use a verb singular; for were this plea admissible, -we ought to say, “you wast,” for <em>wast</em> is the second -person singular, and not “you was,” for <em>was</em> is the first or -third. Besides, no one says, “you is,” or “you art,” but -“you are.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—The nominative to a verb is known by putting -the question, Who? or What? to the verb, as, <em>I read</em>; Who -reads? Ans. <em>I</em>.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 3.—The infinitive often supplies the place of a nominative -to a verb, thus, “To excel in every laudable pursuit -should be the aim of every one.” What should be the aim? -Ans. “To excel.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 4.—<em>As</em>, considered now as a conjunction, but being, -in its primitive signification, equivalent to <em>it</em>, <em>that</em>, or <em>which</em>, -likewise supplies the place of a nominative, thus, “As far -as regards his interest, he will be sufficiently careful not<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_164"></a>[164]</span> -to offend.” Some grammarians suppose <em>it</em> to be understood</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 5.—A verb is frequently construed with a whole -clause as its nominative, thus, “His being at enmity with -Cæsar was the cause of perpetual discord;” where, <em>his being -at enmity</em>, the subject of the affirmation, forms the nominative -to the verb.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 6.—The nominative, when the verb expresses command -or entreaty, is often suppressed, as, “speak,” for -“speak thou,” “honour the king,” for “honour ye the -king.” It is also frequently suppressed in poetry, as -“Lives there, who loves his pain?” <cite>Milton</cite>:—<em>i.e.</em> “Lives -there a man?” “To whom the monarch;” <em>replied</em> being -understood.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 7.—A noun singular, used for a plural, is joined to a -plural verb, as, “Ten <em>sail</em> of the line <em>were</em> descried at a distance.” -It has been already observed, that the plural termination -is sometimes suppressed, as, “ten thousand,” “three -brace,” “four pair.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 8.—Priestley has said, that when the particle <em>there</em> is -prefixed to a verb singular, a plural noun may follow, “without -a very sensible impropriety.” But, if there be an impropriety -at all, why should the phraseology be adopted? His -example is this, “There necessarily follows from thence -these plain and unquestionable consequences.” Nothing, -we apprehend, can justify this violation of analogy. It -should be, “follow.” Would Dr. Priestley have said “There -<em>is</em> men who never reason?”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 9.—The nominative generally precedes the verb, and -is, in some examples, known by nothing but its place. This -arrangement, however, is sometimes altered, and the verb -placed before the nominative.</p> - -<p>1st. Where the sentence is interrogative, as, “Does wealth -make men happy?” Here the nominative <em>wealth</em> follows the -auxiliary: “wealth does” would denote affirmation. “Stands -Scotland where it did?” Here also the nominative follows the -verb, to denote interrogation<a id="FNanchor_119" href="#Footnote_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_165"></a>[165]</span></p> - -<p>2ndly. In expressing commands or request, as “go thou,” -“read ye.”</p> - -<p>3rdly. When a supposition is elliptically expressed, the -conditional particle <em>if</em> being understood, as, “Were I Alexander,” -said Parmenio, “I would accept the offer,” where -“were I,” is equivalent to “if I were.”</p> - -<p>4thly. After the introductory word <em>there</em>, as “There was -a man sent by God, whose name was John.” “There are -many who have the wisdom to prefer virtue to every other -acquirement.” This arrangement is preferable to “a man -was sent,” “many are,” &c.; and, as a general rule, I -observe, that this collocation is not only proper but requisite, -when a sentiment of importance is to be introduced to the -hearer’s particular attention.</p> - -<p>5thly. When the speaker is under the influence of vehement -emotion, or when vivacity and force are to be imparted -to the expression, the nominative energetically follows the -verb, as, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” Alter the arrangement, -saying, “Diana of the Ephesians is great,” and -you efface the signature of impetuosity, and render the expression -frigid and unaffecting. “Blessed is he, that cometh -in the name of the Lord.” “He is blessed” would convert, -as Campbell judiciously observes, a fervid exclamation into -a cold aphorism. “Fallen, fallen is Babylon, that great -city.” The energy of the last expression arises partly, I acknowledge, -from the <em>epijeuxis</em> or reduplication<a id="FNanchor_120" href="#Footnote_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a>.</p> - -<p>6thly. The auxiliary verb is placed before the nominative, -when the sentence or member begins with <em>nor</em> or <em>neither</em>, as, -“Nor <em>did we</em> doubt that rectitude of conduct would eventually -prove itself the best policy.” Thus also is placed the -principal verb, as, “Nor left he in the city a soul alive.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_166"></a>[166]</span></p> - -<p>Besides the cases now enumerated, in which the verb -should precede the nominative, there are several others not -easily reducible to any precise rule. In general, however, it -may be remarked, that the place of the nominative depends, -in some degree, on its connexion with other parts of the -sentence. “Hence appears the impossibility, that this undertaking -should be carried on in a monarchy.” <em>Impossibility</em> -being here in sense closely connected with the following -words, this arrangement is preferable to that in the original. -Hume says, “Hence the impossibility appears, that -this undertaking should be carried on in a monarchy.”</p> - -<p>Priestley has said, that nouns, whose form is plural, but -signification singular, require a singular verb, as, “Mathematics -is a useful study.” This observation, however, is not -justified by general usage, reputable writers being in this -case much divided. (See <a href="#Page_19">p. 19</a>.)</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule II.</span>—Two or more substantives singular, denoting -different things, being equivalent to a plural, -take a plural verb; or, when two or more substantives -singular are collectively subjects of discourse, they -require a plural verb, and plural representatives, as, -“Cato and Cicero <em>were</em> learned men; and <em>they</em> loved -<em>their</em> country.”</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—This rule is violated in such examples as this, -“I do not think, that leisure of life and tranquillity of mind, -which fortune and your own wisdom <em>has</em> given you, could be -better employed.”—<cite>Swift.</cite></p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—It was customary with the writers of antiquity, -when the substantives were nearly synonymous, to employ a -verb singular, as, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">mens, ratio, et consilium in senibus est</i>, “understanding, -reason, and prudence <em>is</em> in old men.” In imitation -of these, some English authors have, in similar instances, -employed a verb singular. I concur, however, with L. Murray -in disapproving this phraseology. For either the terms -are synonymous, or they are not. If their equivalence be -admitted, all but one are redundant, and there is only one -subject of discourse; only one term should therefore be retained, -and a verb singular be joined with it. If they be not<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_167"></a>[167]</span> -equivalent, there are as many distinct ideas as there are -terms, and a plurality of subjects requires a plural verb.</p> - -<p>This observation, however, requires some limitation. It -occasionally happens that one subject is represented by two -names, neither of which singly would express it with sufficient -strength. In such cases, the two nouns <em>may</em> take a -verb singular; and if the noun singular should be in juxta-position -with the verb, the singular number <em>should</em> be used; -as “Why <em>is</em> dust and ashes proud?”—<cite>Ecclesiasticus</cite>, -chap. x.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 3.—In such expressions as the following, it has been -doubted, whether the verb should be in the singular or in -the plural number: “Every officer and soldier claim a superiority -in regard to other individuals.”—<cite>De Lolme on the -British Constitution.</cite> Here, I conceive, the phraseology is -correct. Such an expression as “every officer and soldier -claims” might signify one individual under two different designations. -Whether we should say, “Every officer, and -every soldier, claim,” is a point more particularly questioned. -We often hear correct speakers say, in common conversation, -“Every clergyman, and every physician, is by education -a gentleman;” and there seems to be more ease, as well -as more precision, in this, than in the other mode of expression. -It is unquestionably, however, more agreeable to -analogy to say, “are gentlemen.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 4.—It is not necessary, that the subjects of discourse -be connected, or associated by conjunctions: it is sufficient, -if the terms form a plurality of subjects to a common predicate, -whether with or without any connexive word, as -“Honour, justice, religion itself, were derided and blasphemed -by these profligate wretches.”<a id="FNanchor_121" href="#Footnote_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> In this example the -copulative is omitted. “The king, with the lords and commons, -constitute an excellent form of government.” Here the -connexive word is not a conjunction, but a preposition; and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_168"></a>[168]</span> -though <em>the lords and commons</em> be properly in the objective -case, and <em>the king</em> therefore the only nominative to the verb, -yet as the three subjects collectively constitute the government, -the verb without impropriety is put in the plural number. -This phraseology, though not strictly consonant with -the rules of concord, frequently obtains both in ancient and -modern languages; in some cases, indeed, it seems preferable -to the syntactical form of expression.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 5.—It is to be observed, that, when a pronominal adjective, -compounded with <em>self</em>, is joined to a verb, the simple -pronoun, which is the real nominative, is sometimes understood. -“If there be in me iniquity, slay me thyself:” -(<cite>Bible</cite>:) <em>i.e.</em> “Do thou thyself slay me.”</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“To know but this, that thou art good,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And that myself am blind:”—<cite>Pope.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">that is, “that I myself am blind.”</p> - -<p><cite>Note</cite> 6.—Where comparison is expressed or implied, and -not combination, the verb should be singular; thus, “Cæsar, -as well as Cicero, <em>was</em> remarkable for eloquence.”</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“As she laughed out, until her back,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">As well as sides, <em>was</em> like to crack.”—<cite>Hudibras.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p><em>Note</em> 7.—When the nominatives are of different persons, -the first person is preferred to the second, and the second to -the third. In other words, <em>I and you</em>, <em>I and he</em>, are sylleptically -the same as <em>we</em>; <em>you and he</em> the same as <em>ye</em>. This -observation, however, is scarcely necessary, as the verb -plural admits no personal inflexion: it can be useful only in -determining what pronoun should be the representative of -the terms collectively, as, “he and I shared it between <em>us</em>.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 8.—In the learned languages the pronoun of the first -person is deemed more worthy than that of the second, and -the second than that of the third; and hence arises the syllepsis -of persons which obtains in Greek and Latin. But, -though we admit the figure in English, we do not precisely -adopt the arrangement of the Latins; for though, like them, -we place the pronoun of the second person before that of the -third, we modestly place the pronoun of the first person after -those of the second and third. Thus, where a Roman would<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_169"></a>[169]</span> -say, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Si tu et Tullia valetis, ego et Cicero valemus</i>, we should -say, “If you and Tullia are well, Cicero and I are well.”</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule III.</span>—When, of two or more substantives singular, -one exclusively is the subject of discourse, a verb -singular is required, as, “John, James, or Andrew, intends -to accompany you;” that is, one of the three, -but not more than one.</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note.</em>—When the predicate is to be applied to the different -subjects, though they be disjoined by the conjunction, they -may be followed by a plural verb. “Neither you, nor I, are -in fault.” This is the usual form of expression. If we consider -<em>neither</em> in its proper character, as a pronoun, we should -say, “neither you nor I, is in fault:” <em>neither</em> being the nominative -to the verb. The former, however, is the common -phraseology, and is analogous to the Latin idiom. “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Quando -nec gnatus, nec hic, mihi quicquam obtemperant.</span>”—<cite>Ter. Hec.</cite> -“<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Id neque ego, neque tu, fecimus.</span>”—<em>Id.</em> “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Num Lælius, -aut qui duxit ab oppressa meritum Carthagine nomen, ingenio -offensi?</span>”—<cite>Hor.</cite></p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule IV.</span>—Nouns of number, or collective nouns, -may have a singular or plural verb, thus,</p> - -<p class="pfs90"> -“My people <em>do</em> not consider,”<br /> -“My people <em>does</em> not consider.”<br /> -</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p>This licence, however, as Priestley observes, is not entirely -arbitrary. If the term immediately suggest the idea of number, -the verb is preferably made plural; but, if it suggest the -idea of a whole or unity, it should be singular. Thus it seems -harsh and unnatural to say, “In France the peasantry <em>goes</em> -barefoot, and the middle sort <em>makes</em> use of wooden shoes.” -It would be better to say, “the peasantry <em>go</em>”—“the middle -sort <em>make</em>;” because the idea is that of number. On the -contrary, there is something incongruous and unnatural in -these expressions: “The court of Rome <em>were</em> not without -solicitude—The house of commons <em>were</em> of small weight—Stephen’s -party <em>were</em> entirely broken up.”—<cite>Hume.</cite></p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_170"></a>[170]</span></p> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule V.</span>—The adjectives <em>this</em> and <em>that</em> agree with -their substantives in number, as,</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>This man</em></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>These men</em></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>That woman</em></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Those women</em>.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<p>All other adjectives are inflexible, as,</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Good man</em></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Good men</em>.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—This rule is violated in such expressions as these, -which too frequently occur, “<em>These</em> kind of people.” “<em>Those</em> -sort of goods.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—The substantive, with which the adjective is -connected, is ascertained by putting the question, who, or -what? to the adjective, as, “a ripe apple.” What is ripe? -Ans. “The apple.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 3.—The inflexibility of the English adjective sometimes -occasions ambiguity, rendering it doubtful to which of -two or more substantives the adjective refers. The defect is -sometimes supplied by the note termed <em>hyphen</em>. If, for example, -we hear a person designated “an old bookseller,” we -may be at a loss to know, whether the person intended be an -old man who sells books, that is, “an old book-seller,” or -one who sells old books, that is, “an old-book seller.” When -we read the notice, “Lime, slate, and coal wharf,” we are indebted -to the exercise of common sense, and not to the perspicuity -of the diction, for understanding what is meant by -attaching the term wharf to all the preceding nouns, while in -strict grammatical construction the notice might bear a different -signification.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 4.—Every adjective has a substantive, either expressed -or understood, as “the just shall live by faith,” <em>i.e.</em> -“the just man;” “few were present,” <em>i.e.</em> “few persons.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 5.—The adjective is generally placed immediately before -the substantive, as, “a learned man,” “a chaste woman.”</p> - -<p><em>Exc.</em> 1.—When the adjective is closely connected with -some other word, by which its meaning is modified or explained, -as, “a man loyal to his prince,” where the attributive -<em>loyal</em> is closely connected with the following words.</p> - -<p><em>Exc.</em> 2.—When the verb <em>to be</em> expresses simple affirmation, -as, “thou art good;” or when any other verb serves as<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_171"></a>[171]</span> -a mere copula to unite the predicate with its subject, as, “he -seems courageous,” “it looks strange.”</p> - -<p><em>Exc.</em> 3.—For the sake of harmony, as, “Hail! bard divine.”</p> - -<p><em>Exc.</em> 4.—When there are more adjectives than one connected -with the substantive, as, “a man wise, valiant, and -good.”</p> - -<p><em>Exc.</em> 5.—Adjectives denoting extent, whether of space or -of time, are put after the clause expressing the measure, as, -“a wall ten feet high,” “a child three years old,” “a speech -an hour long.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 6.—It has been doubted whether the cardinal should -precede or follow the ordinal numeral. Atterbury says, in -one of his letters to Pope, “Not but that the four first lines -are good.” We conceive the expression to be quite correct, -though the other form, namely, “the first four,” be often employed -to denote the same conception. There is no contrast -intended between these four and any other four, otherwise he -should have said, “The first four.” If we say, “the first -seven years,” it implies a division into sevens, as takes place, -for example, in the terms of a lease; “the seven first years” -implies no such division. The Latins, as far as I have observed, -had only one mode of arrangement. “Itaque quinque -primis diebus.”—<cite>Cæs.</cite> <em>B. C.</em> i. 5. “Tribus primis diebus.”—<em>Ib.</em> -i. 18. That the adoption of one and the same -collocation, in all cases, would sometimes mislead the reader, -is evident. If we take, for example, seven objects, A, B, C, -D, E, F, G, and say “the first, and the three last,” we clearly -refer to A, and E, F, G; but if we say “the first and the last -three,” we may indicate A, B, C, the first three, and E, F, G, -the last three.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 7.—<em>Each</em> is employed to denote two things taken -separately, and is therefore used as singular<a id="FNanchor_122" href="#Footnote_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a>. <em>Either</em> is also -singular, and implies only one of two; as, <em>take either</em>, that is -“the one or the other, but not both.” <em>Both</em> is a plural adjective, -and denotes the two collectively.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 8.—<em>Every</em> is an adjective singular, applied to more -than two subjects taken individually, and comprehends them -all. It is sometimes joined to a plural noun, when the things<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_172"></a>[172]</span> -are conceived as forming one aggregate, as, <em>every twelve -years</em>, <em>i.e.</em> “every period of twelve years.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 9.—<em>All</em> is an adjective either singular or plural, denoting -the whole, whether quantity or number, as, “All men -are mortal.” “Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy -work.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 10.—<em>Much</em> is an adjective of quantity, and of the -singular number, as, “much fruit.” <em>Many</em> an adjective of -number, and therefore plural, as, “many men.” This word, -however, is sometimes construed with a noun singular, as,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“Many a poor man’s son would have lain still.”—<cite>Shakspeare.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p><em>Note</em> 11.—<em>More</em>, as the comparative of <em>much</em>, is singular, -denoting a greater quantity; as the comparative of <em>many</em>, it -is plural, and signifies a greater number, as <em>more fruit</em>, or, -“a greater quantity;” <em>more men</em>, “or a greater number.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 12.—<em>Enough</em> is an adjective singular, and denotes -quantity, as, “bread enough:” <em>enow</em> denotes number, as -“books enow.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 13.—The correlative word to the adjective <em>such</em>, is -<em>as</em>, and not <em>who</em>. There is an impropriety in saying, with -Mr. Addison, “Such, who are lovers of mankind,” instead of -“Such as,” or, “Those who.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 14.—The superlative degree is followed by <em>of</em>, and -also the comparative, when selection is implied, as, “Hector -was the bravest of the Trojans.” “Africanus was the greater -of the (two) Scipios.” When opposition is signified, the comparative -is followed by <em>than</em>, as, “Wisdom is better than -wealth.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 15.—There is an ambiguity in the adjective <em>no</em>, -against which it is necessary to guard, and which Priestley -seems to think that it is impossible to avoid in any language. -Thus, if we say, “No laws are better than the English,” it -may mean either, that the absence of all law is better than -the English laws, or that no code of jurisprudence is superior -to the English. If the latter be the meaning intended, the -ambiguity is removed by saying, “There are no laws better -than the English.” If the former is the sentiment to be -expressed, we might say, “The absence of all law is preferable -to the English system.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_173"></a>[173]</span></p> - -<div><a id="v16"></a></div> -<p><em>Note</em> 16.—Adjectives are sometimes improperly used for -adverbs, as <em>indifferent well</em>, <em>extreme bad</em>, for <em>indifferently -well</em>, <em>extremely bad</em>. An example of this error is also found -in the following sentence. “He was interrogated relative to -that circumstance.” <em>Relative</em> is an adjective, and must have -a substantive expressed or understood; the question is then, -what, or who was relative? The answer, according to the -rules of construction, should be <em>he</em>. This, however, is not the -meaning. The word ought to be <em>relatively</em>.</p> - -<p>I am somewhat, however, inclined to think that our grammarians -have been hypercritical, if not chargeable with error, -in condemning such expressions as these, <em>exceeding great</em>, -<em>exceeding strong</em>. This phraseology, I apprehend, has been -reprobated, partly because not conformable to the Latin -idiom, and partly because such expressions as these, <em>excessive -good</em>, <em>extreme dear</em>, <em>excellent well</em>, are justly repudiated. -Neither of these, however, can be deemed a sufficient reason -for condemning this phraseology. For when it is said, “His -strength was exceeding great,” may not the expression be -considered as elliptical, the word <em>exceeding</em> being construed -as a participle, thus, “his strength was exceeding,” or “surpassing -great strength,” that is, “his strength exceeded great -strength.”<a id="FNanchor_123" href="#Footnote_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> So Shakspeare says, “it was passing strange.” -Though <em>exceedingly strong</em>, <em>exceedingly good</em>, are now considered -to be the preferable phraseologies, there can be no<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_174"></a>[174]</span> -doubt, as Webster has observed, that adjectives are sometimes -used to modify the sense of other adjectives; thus we say, “red -hot,” “a closer grained wood,” “a sharper edged sword.”</p> - -<p>In connection with the preceding note, we would here -observe, that adjectives are used to modify the meaning of -the verbs to which they refer; thus we say, “Open thy hand -wide.”—<cite>Bible.</cite> “Cry shrill with thy voice.”—<em>Ib.</em> “He -fought hard for his life.” The use of the kindred adverbs, -as will be afterwards shown, would in many instances materially -alter the meaning.</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule VI.</span>—The article <em>a</em> or <em>an</em> is joined to nouns -of the singular number only, or nouns denoting a -plurality of things in one aggregate, as,</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>A man</em></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>An army</em></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>A thousand</em></td> -<td class="tdl"><em>A few</em>.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—To distinguish between the use of <em>a</em> and <em>an</em>, it -is usually given as a general rule that <em>a</em> be placed before -consonants and <em>h</em> aspirated, and <em>an</em> before vowels and <em>h</em> -not aspirated, as <em>a table</em>, <em>a hat</em>, <em>an oak</em>, <em>an heir</em>. In respect -to <em>a</em> before <em>h</em> aspirated, it must be observed, that usage is -divided. It would appear that, when the Bible was translated, -and the Liturgy composed, <em>an</em> was almost universally used -before <em>h</em>, whether the aspirate belonged to an emphatic or -an unemphatic syllable. A change has since taken place; -and some give it as a rule, to put <em>a</em> before <em>h</em>, when the -syllable is emphatic, and <em>an</em> when the syllable has not the -emphasis. This rule, however, is not universally observed; -some writing “a history,” others “an history;” some writing -“a hypothesis,” others “an hypothesis.” As far as easy -pronunciation is concerned, or the practice of Greek and -Roman writers may furnish a precedent, there seems to be -no solid objection to either of these modes. The former is -more common in Scotch and Irish writers than it is in -English authors, with whom the aspiration is less forcible, -and less common.</p> - -<p><em>An</em> is used before a vowel; but from this rule two deviations -are admitted. Before the simple sound of <em>u</em>, followed -by another vowel sound, whether signified or not, <em>a</em> and not<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_175"></a>[175]</span> -<em>an</em> is used. Thus we say, “such <em>a</em> one,” “such a woman.” -If the sound of “one” be analyzed, we shall find it resolvable -into <em>oo-un</em> or <em>won</em>, as some orthoepists have expressed it; -and <em>woman</em> into <em>oo-umman</em>. Again, before the diphthongal -sound of <em>eu</em>, in whatsoever manner that sound may be noted, -<em>a</em> may be, and frequently is, used. Thus we say, “a youth,” -“a yeoman,” “a eunuch,” “a unicorn.” Sheridan, indeed, -contends, that all words beginning with <em>u</em>, when it has the -diphthongal sound of <em>eu</em>, should be preceded by <em>a</em> and not -<em>an</em>. And here I must remark, that it is with no common -surprise, I find Webster, in his introduction to his Dictionary, -denying that the vowel <em>u</em> is anywhere equivalent to <em>eu</em> or <em>e-oo</em>. -Who those public speakers are, whom, he says, he heard in -England, and to whose authority he appeals, we are utterly -at a loss to conjecture. But this we confidently affirm, that -there is no orthoepist, no public orator, nay, not an individual -in any rank of society, who does not distinguish between the -sound of <em>u</em> in <em>brute</em>, <em>rude</em>, <em>intrude</em>, and in <em>cube</em>, <em>fume</em>, <em>cure</em>. -His reference to Johnson, who says that <em>u</em> is long in <em>confusion</em>, -and short in <em>discussion</em>, is irrelevant and nugatory. -Dr. Webster surely has not to learn, that the vowel may be -long, whether the sound be monophthongal, or diphthongal. -It is strange, too, that in the very example which he quotes -from Johnson, the <em>u</em> has the diphthongal sound, which he, -notwithstanding, denies as anywhere existing.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—<em>A</em> is employed to express one individual of a -species without determining who or which; <em>the</em> denotes some -particular individual or individuals; thus, “a book” means -any book, “the book” some particular book; and when both -articles are omitted the whole class is signified, as, “Man is -born unto trouble,” <em>i.e.</em> “all men.” Hobbes errs against -this rule when he says, “God Almighty has given reason to -<em>a</em> man, to be a light to him.” The article should be suppressed. -Pope commits a similar error when he writes,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“Who breaks a butterfly upon <em>a</em> wheel.”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">It is not any wheel that he meant to express, but a known -instrument of torture, or “the wheel.”</p> - -<p>The article <em>a</em> serves to distinguish between two subjects<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_176"></a>[176]</span> -compared with each other, and two subjects compared with -a third. “He is the author of two works of a different -character.” If the writer meant to say that he was the -author of two works of a different character from that of one -previously mentioned, the expression would be correct. But -he intended to signify a dissimilarity between the two productions. -He should, therefore, have omitted the article, -and said, “of different character,” or “of different characters.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 3.—The indefinite article, though generally placed -before the adjective, as, “a good man,” is put after the adjective -<em>such</em>; and where these words of comparison occur, -<em>as</em>, <em>so</em>, <em>too</em>, <em>how</em>, its place is between the adjective and substantive, -thus, “Such a gift is too small a reward for so great -a service.” When the order is inverted, this rule is not -observed, as “a reward so small,” “a service so great.” The -definite article is likewise placed before the adjective, as -“the great king.” <em>All</em> is the only adjective which precedes -the article. “All the servants,” “all the money.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 4.—Pronouns and proper names do not admit the -definite article, themselves sufficiently determining the subject -of discourse; thus we cannot say, <em>the I</em>, <em>the Alexander</em>. -If we employ the definite article with a proper name, an -ellipsis is involved; thus, if I say, <em>he commands the Cæsar</em>, -I mean, he commands the ship called “Cæsar.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 5.—The definite article is used to distinguish the explicative -from the determinative sense. The omission of the -article, when the sense is restricted, creates ambiguity. For -this reason the following sentence is faulty: “All words, -which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.”—<cite>Bolingbroke.</cite> -Here the clause, “which are signs of complex -ideas,” is not explicative, but restrictive; for all words -are not signs of complex ideas. It should, therefore, be “all -the,” or “all those words, which are signs of complex ideas, -furnish matter of mistake.”</p> - -<p>“In all cases of prescription, the universal practice of -judges is to direct juries by analogy to the Statute of Limitations, -to decide against incorporeal rights, which for many -years have been relinquished.”—<cite>Erskine on the Rights of Juries.</cite><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_177"></a>[177]</span> -This sentence is chargeable at once with ambiguity -and error. In the first place, it is doubtful whether a regard -to this analogy governs the directions of the judge, or is to -rule the decision of the jury. 2ndly. By the omission of the -definite article, or the word <em>those</em> before the antecedent, he -has rendered the relative clause explicative, instead of being -restrictive; for, as all incorporeal rights are not abolished, -he should have said, “against those incorporeal rights.”</p> - -<p>There are certain cases, indeed, in which the antecedent -clause admits the definite article, though the relative clause -be not restrictive, thus,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“Blest are the pure, whose hearts are clean</div> - <div class="verse indent0">From the defiling power of sin.”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Here the relative clause is merely explanatory, yet the antecedent -admits the article. Thus also, in the following sentence, -“My goodness extendeth not to thee, but to the saints, -and the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight.” The -relative clause is not intended to limit the meaning of the -antecedent terms, and yet they admit the definite article. In -all examples, therefore, like these, where the explanatory -meaning admits the article, it is necessary, for the sake of -perspicuity, to mark the determinative sense by the emphatic -words <em>that</em> or <em>those</em>. Thus, had the clause been determinative -in the latter of these examples, it would have been necessary -to say, “those saints, and those excellent ones, in whom -is my delight.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 6.—The definite article is likewise used to distinguish -between things which are individually different, but have -one generic name, and things which are, in truth, one and -the same, but are characterized by several qualities. For example, -if I should say, “the red and blue vestments were -most admired,” it may be doubtful whether I mean that the -union of red and blue in the same vestments was most admired, -or that the red and the blue vestments were both more -admired than the rest. In strictness of speech, the former is -the only proper meaning of the words, though the latter sentiment -be often thus expressed. If the latter be intended, -we should say, “the red vestments and the blue,” or “the -red and the blue vestments,” where the article is repeated.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_178"></a>[178]</span> -If I say, “the red and blue vestments,” it is obvious that -only one subject is expressed, namely, “vestments,” characterized -by two qualities, “redness,” and “blueness,” as combined -in the subject. Here the subject is one; its qualities -are plural. If I say, “the red vestments and the blue,” or -“the red and the blue vestments,” the subjects are plural, -expressed, however, by one generic name, <em>vestments</em>.</p> - -<p>In the same manner, if we say, “the ecclesiastical and secular -powers concurred in this measure,” the expression is -ambiguous, as far as language can render it such. The -reader’s knowledge, as Dr. Campbell observes, may prevent -his mistaking it; but, if such modes of expression be admitted, -where the sense is clear, they may inadvertently be -imitated in cases, where the meaning would be obscure, if not -entirely misunderstood. The error might have been avoided, -either by repeating the substantive, or by subjoining the substantive -to the first adjective, and prefixing the articles to -both adjectives; or by placing the substantives after both adjectives, -the article being prefixed in the same manner; thus, -“the ecclesiastical powers, and the secular powers,” or better, -“the ecclesiastical powers, and the secular,” or “the ecclesiastical, -and the secular powers.” The repetition of the -article shows, that the second adjective is not an additional -epithet to the same subject, but belongs to a subject totally -different, though expressed by the same generic name. -“The lords spiritual and temporal,” is a phraseology objectionable -on the same principle, though now so long sanctioned -by usage, that we dare hardly question its propriety. -The subjects are different, though they have but one generic -name. It should therefore be, “the spiritual and the temporal -lords.”</p> - -<p>On the contrary, when two or more adjectives belong as -epithets to one and the same thing, the other arrangement -is to be preferred. Thus, “the high and mighty states.” -Here both epithets belong to one subject. “The states high -and mighty,” would convey the same idea.</p> - -<p>Where the article is not used, the place of the substantive -ought to show, whether both adjectives belong to the same -thing, or to different things having the same generic name.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_179"></a>[179]</span> -“Like an householder, who bringeth out of his treasure -things new and old.” This arrangement is faulty; both epithets -cannot belong to the same subject. It should be, “new -things and old.”</p> - -<p>If both adjectives belong to one and the same subject, the -substantive ought either to precede both adjectives, or to -follow both, the article being uniformly omitted before the -second adjective, whether prefixed to the substantive before -the first, or suppressed. If, on the contrary, they belong to -different subjects, with the same name, the substantive ought -to follow the first adjective, and may be either repeated after -the second, or understood; or it should follow both adjectives, -the article being prefixed to each of them.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 7.—The omission, or the insertion of the indefinite -article, in some instances, nearly reverses the meaning; thus,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“Ah, little think the gay, licentious proud.”—<cite>Thomson.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Here <em>little</em> is equivalent to “not much,” or rather by a common -trope it denotes <em>not at all</em>. Locke says, “I leave him to -reconcile these contradictions, which may be plentifully found -in him by any one, who reads with but a little attention.” -Here, on the contrary, where the indefinite article is inserted, -“a little” means “not none,” or “some.”</p> - -<p>In like manner, when it is said, “Strait is the gate, and -narrow is the way, and few there be that find it;” <em>few</em> is opposed -to <em>many</em>. Thus also, “<em>Many</em> are called, but <em>few</em> are -chosen.” But when it is said, “Tarry a few days, till thy -brother’s fury turn;” <em>a few</em> is here equivalent to <em>some</em>, not as -opposed to <em>many</em>, but as opposed to <em>not none</em>. If we say, “<em>few</em> -accompanied the prince,” we seem to diminish the number, -and represent it as inconsiderable, as if we said, “not many,” -or “fewer than expectation:” if we say, <em>a few</em>, we seem to -amplify;—we represent the number as not unworthy of attention, -or as equal, at least, if not superior to expectation. -In short, if the article be inserted, the clause is equivalent to -a double negative, and thus it serves to amplify; if the article -be suppressed, the expression has either a diminutive or -a negative import.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 8.—The indefinite article has, sometimes, the meaning<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_180"></a>[180]</span> -of <em>every</em> or <em>each</em>; thus, “they cost five shillings a dozen,” -that is, “every dozen.”</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“What makes all doctrines plain and clear?</div> - <div class="verse indent0">About two hundred pounds a year.”—<cite>Hudibras.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">That is, “every year.”</p> - -<p><cite>Note</cite> 9.—There is a particular use of this article, which -merits attention, as ambiguity may thus, in many cases, be -avoided. In denoting comparison, when the article is suppressed -before the second term, the latter, though it may be -an appellative, assumes the character of an attributive, and -becomes the predicate of the subject, or first term. If, on the -contrary, the second term be prefaced with the article, it continues -an appellative, and forms the other subject of comparison. -In the former case, the subject, as possessing different -qualities in various degrees, is compared with itself; in the -latter, it is compared with something else.</p> - -<p>Thus, if we say, “he is a better soldier than scholar,” the -article is suppressed before the second term, and the expression -is equivalent to, “he is more warlike than learned,” or -“he possesses the qualities, which form the soldier, in a -greater degree than those, which constitute the scholar.” If, -we say, “he would make a better soldier, than <em>a</em> scholar,” -here the article is prefixed to the second term; this term, -therefore, retains the character of an appellative, and forms -the second subject of comparison. The meaning accordingly -is, “he would make a better soldier, than a scholar would -make;” that is, “he has more of the constituent qualities of -a soldier, than are to be found in any literary man.”</p> - -<p>Pope commits a similar error, when, in one of his letters to -Atterbury, he says, “You thought me not a worse man than -a poet.” This strictly means “a worse man than a poet is;” -whereas he intended to say, that his moral qualities were not -inferior to his poetical genius. He should have said, “a -worse man than poet.”</p> - -<p>These two phraseologies are frequently confounded, which -seldom fails to create ambiguity. Baker erroneously considers -them as equivalent, and prefers that, in which the article -is omitted before the second substantive. When there -are two subjects with one predicate, the article should be inserted;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_181"></a>[181]</span> -but when there is one subject with two predicates, it -should be omitted.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 10.—Perspicuity in like manner requires, that, when -an additional epithet or description of the same subject is intended, -the definite article should not be employed. It is by -an attention to this rule, that we clearly distinguish between -subject and predicate. For this reason the following sentence -appears to me faulty: “The apostle James, the son of Zebedee, -and the brother of St. John, would be declared the apostle -of the Britons.”—<cite>Henry’s History of Britain.</cite> It should -be rather, “and brother of St. John.” When a diversity of -persons, or a change of subject is intended to be expressed, -the definite article is necessarily employed, as “Cincinnatus -the dictator, and the master of horse, marched against the -Æqui.” The definite article before the latter appellative -marks the diversity of subject, and clearly shows that two -persons are designed. Were the article omitted, the expression -would imply, that the dictator, and the master of horse, -were one and the same individual.</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule VII.</span>—Substantives signifying the same thing -agree in case, thus, “I, George the Third, king of -Great Britain, defender of the faith.” The words <em>I</em>, -<em>George</em>, <em>king</em>, <em>defender</em>, are all considered as the nominative -case. “The chief of the princes, <em>he</em> who defied -the bravest of the enemy, was assassinated by a dastardly -villain:” where the pronoun <em>he</em> agrees in case -with the preceding term <em>chief</em>. This rule, however, -may be deemed unnecessary, as all such expressions are -elliptical; thus, “the chief of the princes was assassinated,” -“he was assassinated.” “He was the son of -the Rev. Dr. West, perhaps <em>him</em> who published Pindar -at Oxford.”—<cite>Johnson’s Life of West.</cite> That is, “the -son of him.” Were the pronoun in the nominative case, -it would refer to the son, and not the father, and thus -convey a very different meaning.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_182"></a>[182]</span></p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—As proper names are, by the trope antonomasia, -frequently used for appellatives, as when we say, “the Socrates -of the present age,” where <em>Socrates</em> is equivalent to -“the wisest man,” so also appellatives have frequently the -meaning and force of attributives. Thus, if we say, “he is -a soldier,” it means either that he is by profession a soldier, -or that he possesses all the qualities of a military man, whether -professionally a soldier or not. According to the former -acceptation of the term, it is a mere appellative; agreeably to -the latter, it has the force of an attributive.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—Two or more substantives in concordance, and -forming one complex name, or a name and title, have the -plural termination annexed to the last only, as, “<em>the two -Miss Louisa Howards</em>, <em>the two Miss Thomsons</em>.” Analogy, Dr. -Priestley observes, would plead in favour of another construction, -and lead us to say, <em>the two Misses Thomson</em>, <em>the two -Misses Louisa Howard</em>; for if the ellipsis were supplied, we -should say, “the two young ladies of the name of Thomson,” -and this construction he adds, he has somewhere met with.</p> - -<p>The latter form of expression, it is true, occasionally occurs; -but, general usage, and, I am rather inclined to think, -analogy likewise, decide in favour of the former; for, with a -few exceptions, and these not parallel to the examples now -given<a id="FNanchor_124" href="#Footnote_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a>, we almost uniformly, in complex names, confine the -inflexion to the last substantive. Some proofs of this we -shall afterwards have an opportunity of offering. I would -also observe, in passing, that ellipsis and analogy are different -principles, and should be carefully distinguished.</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule VIII.</span>—One substantive governs another, -signifying a different thing, in the genitive, as,</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">The tyrant’s rage.</td> -<td class="tdl">The apostle’s feet.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—This rule takes place when property, possession, -or the general relation, by which one thing appertains to another, -is implied.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—It may be considered as violated in such examples -as these, “Longinus his Treatise on the Sublime.”—<cite>Addison.</cite> -“Christ his sake.”—<cite>Common Prayer.</cite></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_183"></a>[183]</span></p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 3.—Substantives govern not only nouns, but likewise -pronouns, as, “its strength,” “his reward.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 4.—This case is generally resolvable into the objective -with the preposition <em>of</em>, as, “the king’s sceptre,” or “the -sceptre of the king;” “his head,” or “the head of him.” I -have said <em>generally</em>, for it is not <em>always</em> thus resolvable. For -example, the Christian sabbath is sometimes named, “the -Lord’s day;” but “the day of the Lord” conveys a different -idea, and denotes “the day of judgment.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 5.—The latter or governing substantive is frequently -understood, as, “the king will come to St. James’s to-morrow,” -that is, “St. James’s palace.” “I found him at the -stationer’s,” that is, “the stationer’s shop,” or “the stationer’s -house.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 6.—When a single subject is expressed as the common -property of two or more persons, the last only takes -the sign of the genitive, as, “this is John, William, and -Richard’s house;” that is, “this is the house of John, William, -and Richard.” But when several subjects are implied, -as severally belonging to various individuals, the names of -the individuals are all expressed in the genitive case, as -“these are John’s, William’s, and Richard’s houses.” In such -examples as these, the use of the genitive involves an ambiguity, -which it is sometimes difficult to prevent. Thus, if we -say, agreeably to the first observation in this note, “Abraham, -Isaac, and Jacob’s posterity were carried captive to -Babylon,” one unacquainted with the history of these patriarchs, -might be at a loss to determine whether “the patriarch -Abraham,” “the patriarch Isaac,” and “the posterity -of Jacob,” were carried captive; in other words, whether -there be three subjects of discourse, namely, <em>Abraham</em>, <em>Isaac</em>, -and <em>the posterity of Jacob</em>, or only one subject, <em>the posterity -of the patriarchs</em>. Nor will the insertion of the preposition -in all cases prevent the ambiguity. For, in the example before -us, were the word “descendants” substituted for “posterity,” -and the phrase to proceed thus, “the descendants -of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,” an ignorant reader -might be led to suppose that not one generation of descendants, -but three distinct generations of these three individuals<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_184"></a>[184]</span> -were carried into captivity. If we say, “the posterity of -Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” the expression appears to me -liable to the same misconstruction with the one first mentioned. -If we say, “the common posterity of Abraham, -Isaac, and Jacob, were carried captive to Babylon,” all ambiguity -of expression is prevented.</p> - -<p>Instead also of saying, “John, William, and Richard’s -house,” I should prefer “a house belonging in common to -John, William, and Richard.” This expression, though -laborious and heavy, is preferable to the inelegance and -harshness of three inflected substantives, while it removes -the ambiguity, which might in some cases be occasioned by -withholding the inflexion from the two first substantives. -Where neatness and perspicuity cannot possibly be combined, -it will not be questioned which we ought to prefer. -I observe, also, that though such phraseologies as this, -“John’s, William’s, and Richard’s houses,” be perfectly consonant -with syntactical propriety, and strictly analogous to -the established phraseology, “his, Richard’s, and my houses,” -yet, as there appears something uncouth in the former expression, -it would be better to say, “the houses belonging in -common, or severally (as the meaning may be) to John, -William, and Richard.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 7.—When a name is complex, that is, consisting of -more terms than one, the last only admits the sign of the -genitive, as, “Julius Cæsar’s Commentaries,” “John the -Baptist’s head,” “for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s -wife.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 8.—When a short explanatory term is subjoined to -a name, it matters little to which the inflexion be annexed, -as, “I left the parcel at Mr. Johnson, the bookseller’s,” or -“at Mr. Johnson’s, the bookseller.” But if the explanatory -term be complex, or if there are more explanatory terms than -one, the sign of the genitive must be affixed to the name, or -first substantive, thus, “I left the book at Johnson’s, a respectable -bookseller, a worthy man, and an old friend.” In -the same manner we should say, “this psalm is David’s, the -king, priest, and prophet of the people,” and not “this -psalm is David, the king, priest, and prophet of the people’s.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_185"></a>[185]</span></p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 9.—In some cases we employ both the genitive and -a preposition, as “this is a friend of the king’s,” elliptically, -for “this is a friend of the king’s friends.” We say also, “this -is a friend of the king.” These forms of expression, however, -though in many cases equivalent, sometimes imply different -ideas. Thus, if I say, “this is a picture of my friend,” -it means, “this is an image, likeness, or representation of my -friend.” If I say, “This is a picture of my friend’s,” it -means, “this picture belongs to my friend.”</p> - -<p>As the double genitive involves an ellipsis, and implies -part of a whole, or one of a plurality of subjects, I think -the use of it should be avoided, unless in cases where this -plurality may be implied. Thus we may say, “a kinsman -of the traitor’s waited on him yesterday,” it being implied -that the traitor had several or many kinsmen. The expression -is equivalent to “a kinsman of the traitor’s kinsmen.” -But, if the subject possessed were singular, or the only one -of the kind, I should recommend the use of the simple -genitive; thus, if he had only one house, I should say, “this -is the house of the traitor,” or “this is the traitor’s house;” -but not “this is a house of the traitor’s.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 10.—The recurrence of the analytical expression, -and likewise of the simple genitive, should be carefully -avoided. Thus, there is something inelegant and offensive -in the following sentence, “the severity of the distress of the -son of the king touched the nation.” Much better, “the -severe distress of the king’s son touched the nation.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 11.—There is sometimes an abrupt vulgarity, or uncouthness, -in the use of the simple genitive. Thus, in “the -army’s name,” “the commons’ vote,” “the lords’ house,” expressions -of Mr. Hume, there is a manifest want of dignity -and of elegance. Much better, “the name of the army,” -“the vote of the commons,” “the house of lords.”</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule IX.</span>—Pronouns agree with their antecedents, -or the nouns which they represent, in gender, number, -and person, as, “They respected Cato and his party,” -where <em>Cato</em> is singular and masculine, and <em>his</em> agrees -with it in gender and number. “He addressed you<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_186"></a>[186]</span> -and me, and desired <em>us</em> to follow him,” where <em>us</em> sylleptically -represents the two persons. “Thou, who -writest.” Here the antecedent <em>thou</em> being a person, -the relative <em>who</em>, not <em>which</em>, is employed. The antecedent -also being of the second person and singular -number, the relative is considered as of the same character, -and is therefore followed by the verb in the second -person and singular number. “Vice, which no -man practises with impunity, proved his destruction.” -Here the antecedent <em>vice</em> not being a person, the pronoun -<em>which</em>, of the neuter gender, is therefore employed. -“The rivers, which flow into the sea.” Here -also the antecedent not being a person, the relative is -<em>which</em>. It is also considered as in the plural number; -and, as all substantives are joined to the third person, -<em>which</em>, the representative of <em>rivers</em>, is joined to the -third person plural of the verb.</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—This rule is transgressed in the following examples: -“Beware of false prophets, <em>which</em> come to you in -sheep’s clothing.” “The fruit tree bearing fruit after <em>his</em> -kind.” “There was indeed in our destinies such a conformity, -as seldom is found in <em>that</em> of two persons in the -same age.” Here that, referring to <em>destinies</em>, is put for <em>those</em>. -“The crown had it in <em>their</em> power to give such rewards as -they thought proper.”—<cite>Parliamentary Debates.</cite></p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—The relative should be placed as near as possible -to the antecedent, otherwise ambiguity is sometimes occasioned.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 3.—In the earlier editions of Murray’s Grammar, we -find the following rule: “When the relative is preceded by -two nominatives of different persons, it may agree in person -with either, as, ‘I am the man who commands you,’ or ‘I -am the man who command you.’” The rule here given is -erroneous. The construction is by no means arbitrary. If -we say, “I am the man who commands you,” the relative -clause, with the antecedent <em>man</em>, form the predicate; and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_187"></a>[187]</span> -the sentence is equivalent to “I am your commander.” If -we say, “I am the man who command you,” <em>the man</em> simply -is the predicate, and <em>I who command you</em> the subject; thus, -“I who command you,” or “I your commander am the man.” -This error, sufficiently obvious to every discerning reader, I -pointed out in the former edition of this Treatise. Murray’s -rule, as it stood, is clearly repugnant to perspicuity, and syntactical -correctness.</p> - -<p>In the last edition of his Grammar, and, I believe, in every -edition posterior to the publication of the “Etymology and -Syntax,” the rule is altered; but whether from a disinclination -to expunge a rule, which he had once delivered—a disinclination -perhaps accompanied with a belief, that it might -be corrected with little prejudice to its original form, or from -what other motive he has left it in its present state, I will -not presume to determine; but in the alteration, which he -has introduced, he appears to me to have consulted neither -usefulness nor perspicuity. He says, “When the relative is -preceded by two nominatives of different persons, it <em>may</em> -agree in person with either.” So far he has transcribed the -former rule; but he adds, “according to the sense.” Now -it cannot be questioned, and the learner needs not to be informed, -that the relative <em>may</em> agree with either. If after -having taught the learner, that a Latin adjective <em>must</em> agree -with its substantive, we were to add, as a distinct rule, that -it <em>may</em> agree with either of the two substantives, according to -the sense, I apprehend, we should be chargeable with vain -repetition, or with extreme inattention to correctness and -precision. For what would our rule imply? Clearly nothing -more, than that the adjective is capable of agreeing with the -substantive to which it belongs; and of this capacity no -scholar, who had learned to decline an adjective, could possibly -be ignorant; or it might convey some idea, that the -concord is optional. Now, is it not certain, that the adjective -must agree with its proper substantive, namely, that whose -meaning it is intended to modify, and no other? The relative, -in like manner, <em>must</em> agree with that antecedent, and -that only, whose representative it is in the relative clause. -There is nothing arbitrary in either the one case, or the other.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_188"></a>[188]</span></p> - -<p>Perhaps it may be answered that, though the former part -of the altered rule leaves the concord as it first stood, discretionary, -the latter confines the agreement of the relative to -its proper antecedent. But why this apparent contrariety? -Why is that represented as arbitrary, which is determined by -the sense? This, however, is not the only objection; for it -may be affirmed, without hesitation, that the rule, thus considered, -is completely superfluous. For the learner has been -already told, that the relative agrees with the antecedent in -gender, number, and person. And can the antecedent be any -other, than that which the sense indicates? And what does -this rule teach? Precisely the same thing. The rule, therefore, -is either calculated to mislead by representing as arbitrary -what is fixed and determinate, or it is purely a rule of -supererogation. As it stood originally, it gave some new information; -but that information was erroneous: as it stands -now, it is either indefinite, or it is useless.</p> - -<p>The scholar may require an admonition, when there are -two antecedents of different persons, to be careful in referring -the relative to its proper antecedent; but to tell him that it -may agree with the one, or the other, according to the sense, -is to tell him nothing, or tell him that, which he already -knows. In the examples just now adduced, the termination -of the verb, by indicating the person of the relative, clearly -shows the antecedent; but, where the substantives are of the -same person, and the verb cannot therefore by its termination -indicate the antecedent, ambiguity should be precluded by -the mode of arrangement. Thus, “He is the hero who did -it,” and “He who did it is the hero.” In the former, <em>he</em> is -the subject, and the <em>hero who did it</em> the predicate; and in -the latter, <em>he who did it</em> is the subject, and the <em>hero</em> the predicate.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 4.—The relative, instead of referring to any particular -word as its antecedent, sometimes refers to a whole clause, -thus, “the bill was rejected by the lords, which excited no -small degree of jealousy and discontent,” that is, “which -thing,” namely, the rejection of the bill.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 5.—The antecedent pronoun of the third person is -often suppressed, when no particular emphasis is implied;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_189"></a>[189]</span> -as, “Who steals my purse, steals trash,” <em>i.e.</em> “he,” or “the -man, who.” “Whom he would he slew; and whom he -would he kept alive,” <cite>Bible</cite>; <em>i.e.</em> “Those whom he would.” -“Whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin.” In this -example the antecedent <em>he</em>, and nominative to the principal -verb, is understood.</p> - -<p>Priestley has remarked that the pronouns <em>whoever</em> and <em>whosoever</em> -have sometimes a double construction. He gives the -two following examples. “Elizabeth publicly threatened -that she would have the head of whoever had advised it.”—<cite>Hume.</cite> -“He offered a great recompense to whomsoever -would help him to a sight of him.”—<cite>Hume.</cite> Though the -learned author seems to admit both these modes of construction, -we apprehend that only one of them is grammatical. -It has been just now observed that the antecedent is often -understood to the relative <em>who</em>, and to the compounds <em>whoever</em> -and <em>whosoever</em>. If the antecedent be supplied, it will -be found that the construction is not arbitrary, as Priestley -supposes, but definite and fixed. The first sentence is correct. -“She would have the head of him, or them, whoever -had advised,” the relative being the nominative to the verb. -“He offered a great recompense to him, or them, whosoever -should help him.” <em>Whomsoever</em> is a solecism: though close -to the preposition <em>to</em>, it is not under its government. (<em>See the -following rules.</em>)</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule X.</span>—If no nominative intervene between the -relative and the verb, the relative shall be the nominative -to the verb, as, “Solomon, who was the son of -David, built the temple of Jerusalem.” Here <em>who</em> is -the nominative to the verb <em>was</em>.</p> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule XI.</span>—But, if a nominative intervene between -the relative and the verb, the relative shall be under the -government of the preposition going before, or the noun -or verb following, as, “God, whom we worship, is the -Lord, by whose gift we live, and by whom all things -were made.” In the first relative clause, where <em>we</em> is<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_190"></a>[190]</span> -the intervening nominative, the relative is in the objective -case, and governed by the verb following: in the -second clause, where the intervening nominative is -likewise <em>we</em>, the relative is in the genitive case, and governed -by the noun following, thus, “by whose gift,” or -“by the gift of whom;” and in the third clause, where -<em>things</em> is the intervening nominative, the relative is in -the objective case, and governed by the preposition.</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—The case of the relative may always be ascertained -by repeating the antecedent, and arranging the clause -in the natural order, thus, “the city, which is called Rome, -was founded by Romulus,” <em>i.e.</em> “the city, which city is -called Rome.” The antecedent repeated is the nominative to -the verb <em>is</em>, <em>which</em> therefore agrees with it in case. “God, -who sees all things, will punish the wicked,” <em>i.e.</em> “God, -which God sees all things;” the relative, therefore, is the nominative -to the verb <em>sees</em>, that is, it is in the same case in -which the antecedent would be put, if again expressed. “Solomon, -whom David loved, was the wisest of princes.” Here, -if we arrange the relative clause in the natural order, beginning -with the nominative and the verb, it will run thus, -“David loved whom,” an expression analogous to “David -loved him,” or “David loved which Solomon.” Many solecisms -in the construction of the relative would be easily -avoided, by a little attention to the natural arrangement. -Thus, instead of committing the error involved in the following -examples, “The philosopher, who he saw to be a man of -profound knowledge,” “’Twas my brother, who you met -with,” “I was a stranger to the person, who I spoke to,” we -should be led by the natural order to the correct phraseology; -“he saw whom,” “you met with whom,” “I spoke to whom.” -It is to be observed, however, that, though the personal pronouns, -when under the government of a verb, may either -precede or follow it, the relative in the same state of government -must invariably go before it.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—The relatives <em>who</em> and <em>which</em> are often understood, -especially in colloquial language: “The friend I<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_191"></a>[191]</span> -visited yesterday is dead to-day,” <em>i.e.</em> “the friend whom I -visited yesterday is dead to-day.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 3.—After a comparative, both relative and antecedent -are often understood. “The damage was far greater than -he knew.” Here there is a comparison of two objects, the -damage suffered, and the damage known; but only one is -expressed. The sentence, if the ellipsis were supplied, would -run thus, “The damage was far greater, than what,” or “that, -which he knew.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 4.—There are a few cases, which are considered by -some distinguished critics and grammarians, as requiring -the use of <em>that</em> in preference to the pronouns <em>who</em> and -<em>which</em>.</p> - -<p>1st. After superlatives the pronoun <em>that</em> is generally used, -as, “The wisest man, that ever lived, is liable to error.”</p> - -<p>2ndly. After the word <em>same</em>, <em>that</em> is generally used, as, “he -is the same man, that you saw yesterday.” But, if a preposition -should precede the relative, one of the other two -pronouns must be employed, the pronoun <em>that</em> not admitting -a preposition prefixed to it, as, “he is the same man, with -whom you were acquainted.” It is remarkable, however, -that when <ins class="corr" id="tn-191" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'the arrrangement is'"> -the arrangement is</ins> somewhat changed, the word -<em>that</em> admits the preposition, as, “he is the same man, that -you were acquainted with.”</p> - -<p>3rdly. <em>That</em> is used after <em>who</em>, taken interrogatively, as, -“Who, that has the spirit of a man, would suffer himself to -be thus degraded?”</p> - -<p>4thly. When persons and things are referred to, as, “the -<em>men</em> and <em>things</em>, <em>that</em> he hath studied, have not contributed -to the improvement of his morals.”</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule XII.</span>—An active transitive verb governs the -accusative or objective case, as,</p> - -<p class="pfs90"> -“He teaches me.”<br /> -“We honour him.”<br /> -</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—As examples of transgression against this rule, -we may adduce the following: “<em>Who</em> do I love so much?”—<cite>Shakspeare.</cite> -“<em>Who</em> should I meet the other day, but my<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_192"></a>[192]</span> -old friend?”—<cite>Spectator.</cite> “Those, <em>who</em> he thought true to -his party.”—<cite>Clarendon.</cite></p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2. As substantives have no objective case, the subject -or object of the energy or affection is distinguished by its -place, which is after the verb, as “Achilles slew Hector,” -where <em>Achilles</em>, the agent, precedes, and <em>Hector</em>, the subject -of the action, follows the verb. Reverse this order, and the -meaning is reversed, as “Hector slew Achilles.” Where -the proper arrangement is not observed, ambiguity or misconstruction -is frequently produced. Thus, when Pope says, -Odyss. xix.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“And thus the son the fervent sire address’d,”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">it may be asked, did the son address the sire, or the sire address -the son? A little attention would have prevented the -ambiguity. If the sire addressed the son, the line should -run thus,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“And thus his son the fervent sire address’d.”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">If the son addressed the sire,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“And thus the son his fervent sire address’d.”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p><em>Note</em> 3.—An active intransitive verb sometimes governs -the objective case of a noun, of the same or a kindred signification, -as, “Let us run the race, which is set before us.” -“If any man see his brother sin a sin, which is not unto -death.”—<cite>Bible.</cite> The latter verb, however, though thus used, -must not be employed in a transitive sense. It is an error, -therefore, to say, “What have I sinned?”—<cite>Bible.</cite> It should -be, “How?” or “In what?” Some intransitive verbs also, -when used in a reflex sense, are joined to an objective case, -as, “Then having shown his wounds, he’d sit him down.”—<cite>Home’s -Douglas.</cite> This is a poetic licence, which, in a prose -writer, would not be tolerated, unless in colloquial and very -familiar language.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 4.—The objective case should not, if possible, be -separated from its verb. This rule is violated in the following -sentence: “Becket could not better discover, than by -attacking so powerful an interest, his resolution to maintain,” -&c.—<cite>Hume.</cite> The regimen is here unnecessarily, and very -inelegantly, separated from its verb.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_193"></a>[193]</span></p> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule XIII.</span>—Verbs signifying to ask, teach, offer, -promise, pay, tell, allow, deny, and some others of like -signification, are sometimes, especially in colloquial -language, followed in the passive voice by an objective -case.</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—This rule seems to have escaped the attention of -all our English grammarians, except Priestley, who observes, -“that in some familiar phrases, the subject and object of our -affirmation seem to be transposed.” This idiom, except in -a very few instances, is not to be found in Latin, though it -occurs pretty often in Greek: it therefore particularly merits -the attention of the junior Latin scholar, lest in his Anglo-Latin -translations it should betray him into an egregious -solecism. “He allowed me great liberty,” turned passively, -in concurrence with the Latin idiom, “great liberty was allowed -me.” But we say also in English, “I was allowed -great liberty.” “He promised (to) me a ship in five days,” -passively, “a ship was promised me,” and “I was promised -<em>her</em> in five days.” “She would not accept the jewels, though -they were offered to her by her mother,” or, “though she -was offered <em>them</em> by her mother.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—After verbs of <em>giving</em>, <em>telling</em>, <em>sending</em>, <em>promising</em>, -<em>offering</em>, and others of like signification, the thing is very -generally placed before the person. In the time of Swift -and Addison this rule was not uniformly observed. We find -authors of that period saying indiscriminately, “Give it us,” -and “Give us it;” “Tell him it,” and “Tell it him;” “He -promised me it,” and “He promised it me.” In Scotland -these two modes of expression still obtain. In England -they are now reduced under one general rule. We say, -“Give it me,” “Tell it him,” “He sent it us.”</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule XIV.</span>—The verb <em>to be</em> has the same case -after it as it has before it, thus denoting that the subjects -are identical, or that the one term is the predicate -of the other, as, “It is he,” “You believed it to be -him.” In the former example, <em>it</em> is the nominative to -the verb, the nominative case <em>he</em> therefore follows the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_194"></a>[194]</span> -verb. In the latter, <em>it</em> is the regimen of the verb <em>believed</em>, -the verb <em>to be</em> is therefore followed by the objective -case.</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—This rule is violated in such examples as “it -is <em>me</em>,” “it was <em>him</em>,” “I believed it to be <em>he</em>,” “<em>whom</em> do -men say that I am?” In the last example, the natural arrangement -is, “men say that I am whom,” where, contrary -to the rule, the nominative <em>I</em> precedes, and the objective case -<em>whom</em> follows the verb.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—Priestley has asked, “Who would not say, ‘If -it be me,’ rather than ‘If it be I?’” Our ears are certainly -more familiar with the former than with the latter phraseology, -and those who consult the ear only, may prefer it: but, -where no advantage is gained by a departure from analogy, -every deviation is at once idle and reprehensible.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 3.—The verb <em>to be</em> is called by logicians the <em>copula</em>, -as connecting the subject with the predicate. Thus, when -we say, “he is wise,” “they are learned,” <em>he</em> and <em>they</em> are the -subjects; <em>wise</em> and <em>learned</em> the predicates. Now, it particularly -deserves the attention of the classical scholar, that in -English almost any verb may be used as a <em>copula</em>. This circumstance -is the more worthy of his notice, as a conformity -to the Latin idiom may lead him to reject expressions, which -are unexceptionable, and to adopt others not strictly correct<a id="FNanchor_125" href="#Footnote_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a>. -Thus we say, “it tastes good,” “he strikes hard,” “I remember -right,” “he feels sick;” “we came late,” “they rise -early,” “he drinks deep.” I am aware that the words <em>late</em>, -<em>early</em>, are in such examples considered as adverbs. It appears -to me they are adjectives,—that the idiom is truly English, -and that all these expressions are perfectly analogous.</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule XV.</span>—When two verbs come together, the -attribute signified by the one verb being the subject -or object of the action, energy, or affection expressed -by the other, the former is governed in the infinitive<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_195"></a>[195]</span> -mood, as, “he taught me to read,” “I knew him -to be.”</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—The infinitive thus frequently supplies the place of -an objective case after the verb, as it often stands for a nominative -before it, as, “he loves to study,” or “he loves study.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—In such examples as, “I read to learn,” where -the latter phrase, though in the same form as <em>to study</em>, in the -preceding example, has, notwithstanding, a different meaning, -and cannot be resolved like it into “I read learning,” in such -examples, as Tooke justly observes, the preposition <em>for</em> denoting -the object, and equivalent to <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">pour</i> in French, is understood, -as, “I read for to learn.” Our southern neighbours -indeed, in these examples, never omit the casual term; and -Trusler has not improperly observed, that, when the verb -does not express the certain and immediate effect, but something -remote and contingent, the words <em>in order to</em>, which are -nearly equivalent to <em>for</em>, may be pertinently introduced as, “in -order to acquire fame, men encounter the greatest dangers.”</p> - -<div><a id="xv3"></a></div> -<p><em>Note</em> 3.—The verbs to <em>bid</em>, <em>dare</em>, <em>need</em>, <em>make</em>, <em>see</em>, <em>hear</em>, <em>feel</em>, -<em>let</em>, are not followed by the sign of the infinitive, as, “He bade -me go,” “I saw him do it.” It is to be observed, however, -that in the language of Scripture the verb “to make” is often -followed by <em>to</em>, as, “He maketh his sun <em>to</em> rise.” The verb -“to dare,” for “to challenge,” or “to defy,” is also construed -with <em>to</em>, “I dare thee but <em>to</em> breathe upon my love.”—<cite>Shakspeare.</cite></p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 4.—Nouns, adjectives, and participles, are often followed -by an infinitive, as, “your <em>desire to improve</em> will -ultimately contribute to your happiness.” “Good men are -<em>desirous to do</em> good.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 5.—As the proper tense of the subsequent or secondary -verb has, in certain cases, been a subject of dispute, -it may be necessary to observe, that, when the simple -attribute, or merely the primary idea expressed by the subsequent -verb, is intended to be signified, it should then be put -in the present tense: but when the idea of perfection or completion -is combined with the primary idea, the subsequent -verb should have that form, which is termed the perfect of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_196"></a>[196]</span> -the infinitive. Or, perhaps, this rule may, more intelligibly -to the scholar, though less correctly, be thus expressed, that -when the action or state, denoted by the subsequent verb, is -contemporary with that of the primary verb, then the secondary -verb must be put in the present tense; but when the -action or state is prior to that expressed by the secondary -verb, the latter must be put in the preterite tense. Usage, -indeed, and the opinions of grammarians, are divided on this -subject. But when nothing but usage can be pleaded in -favour of one phraseology, and when reason concurs with -usage to recommend another, it will not be questioned that -the latter deserves the preference. Thus, we should say, “I -expected to see you,” and not “I expected to have seen you;” -because either the expectation and the seeing must be regarded -as contemporary, or the former must be considered as -prior to the latter. But why, it may be asked, must the seeing -be considered as contemporary with the expectation? -Might not the former have been anterior to the latter? This -is certainly possible; I may see a friend before I expect him. -But though the sight, abstractedly considered, may precede -the expectation, it cannot possibly, as an object of expectation, -be prior to it. The idea involves absurdity, equal and -analogous to the assertion, that the paper, on which I write, -existed as an object of my perception, previously to my perceiving -it. Agreeably to the second form of the rule here -given, we find that the Latins very generally used the present -of the infinitive, to express an action or state contemporary -with the attribute of the primary verb. Thus, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dixit me scribere</i>, -“he said that I wrote,” or “was writing,” that is, at the time of -his saying so: <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dixit me scripsisse</i>, “he said that I had written.”</p> - -<p>I have observed, that, when the simple attribute denoted -by the subsequent verb is implied, we should use the present -of the infinitive. This phraseology should not only be used -in all cases, where contemporary actions or states are to be -signified, but may also be sometimes employed, where the secondary -verb denotes something posterior to what is implied -by the first. For though in no instance, where the simple -action or state is to be expressed, should we use the sign of -past or future time, yet for obvious reasons we may, and often<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_197"></a>[197]</span> -do, employ the present infinitive, or simple name, to denote -what is future, when the primary verb necessarily implies the -futurity of its object. Thus, instead of saying, “he promised -that he would pay,” where the constructive sign of futurity -is used to denote the posteriority of the payment, we often -say, “he promised to pay,” employing the present tense, synonymous -with the simple name, as, “he promised payment.” -The Latins also, though they almost universally, unless in -colloquial language, preferred the former mode of expression, -sometimes adopted the latter, as, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">denegavit se dare</i>.—<cite>Plaut.</cite> -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Jusjurandum pollicitus est dare.</i>—<em>Id.</em> “He refused to give,” -“he promised to give,” or “he promised giving,” the secondary -verb expressing the act simply, and the time being -necessarily implied.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 6.—The infinitive mood is sometimes used in an absolute -or independent sense, as, “to speak the truth, we are -all liable to error.” “Not to trespass on your time, I will -briefly explain the whole affair,” that is, “that I may speak,” -“that I may not trespass.”</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule XVI.</span>—The imperative, agreeably to the -general rule, agrees with its nominative, as,</p> - -<p class="pfs90">“Love thou;” “listen ye,” or “you.”</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—The imperative is frequently used, without its -subject, that is, the nominative being suppressed, but the -person or persons being perfectly understood. “And -Samuel said to the people, Fear not,” <em>i.e.</em> “Fear ye not.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—It is employed in the same way, in an absolute -sense, without its subject. “Our ideas are movements of the -nerves of sense, as of the optic nerve, in recollecting visible -ideas, <em>suppose</em> of a triangular piece of ivory.”—<cite>Darwin.</cite> I -agree with Webster in thinking, that there is “a peculiar -felicity” in such absolute forms of expression, the verb being -thus applicable to any of the three persons, thus, “I may -suppose,” “you may suppose,” “one may suppose.”</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule XVII.</span>—Participles are construed as the verbs -to which they belong, as,</p> - -<p class="pfs90">“<em>Teaching us</em> to deny ungodliness.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_198"></a>[198]</span></p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—The imperfect participle is frequently used like -a substantive, and is, in such examples, of the same import -with the infinitive of the verb; as, “they love reading,” <em>i.e.</em> -“they love to read.” In some examples it becomes a real -noun, and has a plural number, as, <em>the outgoings of the -morning</em>.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—Lowth contends that, when the imperfect participle -of a transitive verb is not preceded by the definite article, -it properly governs the objective case, and is analogous -to the Latin gerund, as, “much advantage will be derived -from observing this rule;” in which example, <em>this rule</em> is the -regimen of the participle <em>observing</em>; and that, when the definite -article precedes the participle, it becomes then a pure -noun, and, therefore, cannot have the regimen of a verb. He -therefore condemns this expression, “by the sending them -the light of thy holy Spirit.” Some of our grammarians -consider Lowth, in this instance, as fastidiously critical; -but to me he appears chargeable with error. Let us examine -the reasons, which the author adduces in support of his -opinion.</p> - -<p>In this inquiry, the first and most pertinent question is, -does usage justify the opinion of the author? He acknowledges -the contrary: he even admits that there is not a single -writer who does not violate this rule. Were it necessary, -indeed, after this concession, it would be easy to evince, that -not only our translators of the Bible, whose authority surely -is of great weight, but also other writers of the highest eminence, -employ the phraseology which he condemns.</p> - -<p>Again. Does the distinction, which he wishes to establish, -favour perspicuity? The very reverse appears to me to -be the case; for he admits an identity of sense in two distinct -phraseologies, which are incontestably, in many instances, -susceptible of different meanings. And, though this ambiguity -may not be involved in every example, we have surely -good reasons for repudiating a phraseology which may, in -any instance, be liable to misconstruction. We are to prescribe, -not what may be perspicuous in some instances, but -what must be intelligible in all.</p> - -<p>Lowth says, that we may express the sentiment, either by<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_199"></a>[199]</span> -inserting the article before the participle and the preposition -after it, or by the omission of both; in other words, that these -phraseologies are equivalent. Thus, according to him, we may -say either, “<em>by sending</em> his Son into the world,” or “by the -sending <em>of</em> his Son.” Here, perhaps, the meaning is sufficiently -clear, whichsoever of these forms of expression be -adopted. But let us take another example, as, “he expressed -the pleasure he had, in hearing the philosopher.” Now, according -to Lowth, we may also say, “he expressed the pleasure -he had, in the hearing of the philosopher.” Is there no -difference of sentiment here? Are these expressions equivalent? -The contrary must be obvious to the most inattentive -reader. According to the former phraseology, the philosopher -was heard—he is represented as passive; agreeably to -the latter, he was active—he heard.</p> - -<p>Again. “When the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because -of the provoking of his sons and daughters.” Our -translators have correctly exhibited the sentiment. The sons -and daughters had given offence; they had provoked the Deity. -But, if Lowth’s opinion be correct, the expression might be -“because of provoking his sons and daughters;” a phrase -which evidently conveys a very different idea.</p> - -<p>Again. When it is said, “at the hearing of the ear, they -will believe,” is this expression convertible, without violating -the sense, into, “at hearing the ear they will believe?” -Many more examples might be produced to prove that these -phraseologies, which Lowth considers of the same import, are -by no means equivalent. It appears, then, that perspicuity -is not consulted by adopting this rule.</p> - -<p>Again. He considers the participle, with a preposition -before it, as correspondent to the Latin gerund, and therefore -governing an objective case; but the participle preceded -by an article, he considers as a substantive, and therefore -incapable of any regimen. Now, as the author reasons from -one language to another, we may pertinently ask, is not the -Latin gerund a noun, a verbal substantive, not only having -the form, and the inflexions of a noun, but governed like it, -by nouns, adjectives, verbs, and prepositions, itself likewise -governing the case of its verb? This position, were this the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_200"></a>[200]</span> -place for it, we could easily prove, notwithstanding the objections -which Scioppius, Vossius, with some other grammarians, -have alleged against it. Nay, whatever theory be adopted -respecting the nature of the gerund, there cannot exist a -doubt, that, in the early ages of Roman literature, the verbal -nouns in <em>io</em> governed an accusative, like the verbs whence -they were derived. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Quid tibi curatio est hanc rem</i>, is one -example from Plautus out of many, which might be produced<a id="FNanchor_126" href="#Footnote_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a>. -That the supines also were, in truth, substantives -admitting a regimen, is equally clear: <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Difficile dictu</i> was -originally <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">difficile in dictu</i>; and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">misit oratum opem</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">misit -ad oratum opem</i>. Nor can the structure of the future infinitive -passive be so satisfactorily resolved, notwithstanding a -few repugnant examples, as on this supposition: <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Dixit libros -lectum iri</i> is resolved into <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dixit (id) iri ad lectum libros</i>, -where <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">libros</i> is the regimen of the verbal noun <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">lectum</i>.</p> - -<p>Thus it is evident, that the Latin gerunds, supines, and -verbal nouns in <em>io</em>, though in form and inflexion substantives, -governed an accusative case. It matters not, indeed, -to the point in question, what was the practice of the ancients -in this respect; nor should I, therefore, have dwelt so -long on this subject, did I not conceive, that the very authority -to which Dr. Lowth seems to appeal, militates against -him; and that the very language, to which in this, as in most -other cases, he strives to assimilate ours, had nouns governing -cases, like the verbs from which they came.</p> - -<p>From the preceding observations, I think it must appear, -that the rule given by Dr. Lowth, is neither sanctioned by -general usage, nor friendly to perspicuity; while the violation -of it is perfectly reconcilable with the practice of the -Roman writers, if their authority can, in this question, be -deemed of any value.</p> - -<p>Having attempted to prove the invalidity of Lowth’s argument, -and the impropriety of his rule, as establishing an identity -of meaning, where a difference must exist, I would submit -to the candid and judicious critic the following remarks.</p> - -<p>The participle in <em>ing</em> has either an active or passive signification;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_201"></a>[201]</span> -its import must, therefore, be determined by the -judgment of the reader, or by explanatory adjections. Whatever, -then, is calculated to remove all misconstruction, and -to render its import clear and unequivocal, merits attention. -Consistently, then, with some of the examples already adduced, -I am inclined to suggest, that, when the noun, connected -with the participle, is active or doing something, the -preposition should be inserted, as, “in the hearing of the -philosopher,” that is, <em>the philosopher hearing</em>; and that, -when the noun represents the subject of an action, or what is -suffering, the preposition should be omitted, as, “in hearing -the philosopher,” or <em>the philosopher being heard</em>. An attention -to this rule will, I conceive, in most cases prevent -ambiguity.</p> - -<p>If it should be said that I have admitted Lowth’s phraseologies, -I answer, it is true; but with this difference, that -he considers them as equivalent, and I as diametrically -opposite. I observe, likewise, that, though I prefer the suppression -of the article when the participle is not followed by -<em>of</em>, and its insertion when it is followed by the preposition, -it is not because I perceive any impropriety in the other -phraseology, but because, since the publication of Lowth’s -Grammar, it has been less employed; and because also it -less forcibly marks the distinction, which I have recommended. -That it has the sanction of good authority, is unquestionable; -and that it is not inconsistent with analogy, -will still further appear from the following note.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 3.—The participle in <em>ing</em> is construed like a noun, -governing the genitive case, and, at the same time, having -the regimen of its proper verb, as, “Much depends on -Richard’s observing the rule, and error will be the consequence -of his neglecting it.” In this example, the words -<em>Richard’s</em> and <em>his</em> are in the genitive case, governed by the -participles <em>observing</em> and <em>neglecting</em>, while these participles, -having here every character of a noun, admit the objective -case. This form of expression has been received as unexceptionable; -the following phraseology, however, has been -censured, though, in truth, precisely analogous to the one -now exemplified: “Much depends on the rule’s being observed,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_202"></a>[202]</span> -and error will be the consequence of its being -neglected.” “Here,” said a certain writer, “is a noun with -a pronoun representing it, each in the possessive case, that is, -under the government of another noun, but without any other -noun to govern it; for <em>being observed</em> and <em>being neglected</em> -are not nouns, nor can you supply the place of the possessive -case by the preposition <em>of</em>, before the noun or pronoun.”</p> - -<p>I concur with Dr. Campbell, who has examined this objection, -in thinking, that the expression is not only sanctioned -by good usage, but is also agreeable to analogy, and -preventive of circumlocution. The objector, indeed, does -not seem to have been aware, that his opinion is at variance -with itself; and that the reason, which he assigns for rejecting -this phraseology, would, with equal force, conclude -against another mode of expression, which he himself approves. -For he would have no objection to say, “Much -depends on his observing the rule, and error will be the consequence -of his neglecting it.” Now let us try whether this -sentence be not liable to the same objection as the other. -In the former, he says, you cannot possibly supply the place -of the possessive case, by the preposition <em>of</em> before the noun -or pronoun. This is true; for it would not be English to -say, “Much depends on the being observed of the rule; and -error will be the consequence of the being neglected of it.” -But will his own approved phraseology admit this? Let us -see; “Much depends on the observing of him of the rule, -and error will be the consequence of the neglecting of him -of it.” Were the example simpler, the argument would be -equally strong; as, “Much depends on your pupil’s composing, -but more on his reading frequently.” This sentence, -the author alluded to, would have approved. Let us try if it -can be resolved by <em>of</em>: “Much depends on the composing -of your pupil, but more on the reading of him frequently.”</p> - -<p>The author’s argument, then, if it prove anything, proves -too much; it cannot, therefore, have any weight.</p> - -<p>In addition to these observations, I would remark, that the -writer’s argument involves another inconsistency. He admits -that the participle in <em>ing</em> may be thus construed; for he approves -the phrases, “his observing the rule,” and “his neglecting<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_203"></a>[203]</span> -it.” Why then does he reject “his being” and “its -being?” for the past or perfect participles <em>observed</em> and <em>neglected</em> -have no share in the government, <em>rule’s</em> and <em>it’s</em> being -under the regimen of the participle in <em>ing</em>. In fact, then, the -phrase seems no more objectionable than “his being a great -man did not make him a happy man;” which our author -would admit to be wholly unexceptionable.</p> - -<p>Some late writers, reasoning doubtless on a principle -similar to that, the absurdity of which we have been attempting -to expose, have discarded a phraseology which appears -unobjectionable, and substituted one which seems less correct. -Many writers, instead of saying, “his being smitten -with the love of Orestilla was the cause of his murdering his -son,” would say, “he being smitten with the love of Orestilla -was the cause.” This seems to me an idle affectation of the -Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode of expression, -and less consonant with the genius of our language. -For, ask what was the cause; and, according to this phraseology, -the answer must be <em>he</em>; whereas the meaning is, that -not <em>he</em>, but <em>his being smitten</em>, was the cause of his murder.</p> - -<p>“This jealousy accounts for Hall charging the Duke of -Gloucester with the murder of Prince Edward.” “This,” -says Mr. Baker, very justly, “is, in my opinion, a very uncouth -way of speaking, though much used by ignorant -people, and often affected by those who are not ignorant.” -The writer should have said, “for Hall’s charging.” “His -words being applicable to the common mistake of our age -induce me to transcribe them.” Here I agree with the same -writer in thinking, that it would be better to consider <em>words</em> -as in the genitive case plural, governed by the participle, as -<em>Hall’s</em> in the preceding example, and join <em>his words’ being -applicable</em>, equivalent to <em>the applicability of his words</em>, with -the verb singular; thus, “his words’ being applicable to the -common mistake of our age, induces me to transcribe them.” -A ridiculous partiality in favour of the Latin idiom, which in -this case is not so correct as our own, not exhibiting the -sentiment with equal precision, has given birth to this -phraseology, which in many cases conveys not the intended -idea. For, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, “What think<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_204"></a>[204]</span> -you of my horse’s running to-day?” it is implied, that the -horse did actually run. If it is said, “What think you -of my horse running to-day?” it is intended to ask, whether -it be proper for my horse to run to-day. This distinction, -though frequently neglected, deserves attention; for it is -obvious, that ambiguity may arise from using the latter only -of these phraseologies, to express both meanings.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 4.—This participle is sometimes used absolutely, in -the same manner as the infinitive mood, as, “this conduct, -<em>viewing it in the most favourable light</em>, reflects discredit on -his character.” Here the participle is made absolute, and is -equivalent to the infinitive in that state, as, “to view it in -the most favourable light.” Both these modes of expression -are resolvable, either by the hypothetical, or the perfective -conjunctions; thus, “if we view it in the most favourable -light.” “To confess the truth, I have no merit in the case;” -<em>i.e.</em> “that I may confess.”</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule XVIII.</span>—A noun or pronoun joined to a -participle, its case being dependent on no word in -the sentence, is put in the nominative.</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—This rule will be perfectly understood by the -classical scholar, when we say, that the absolute case in -English is the nominative. Thus, “We being exceedingly -tossed the next day, they lightened the ship.” The pronoun -of the first person, joined to the participle, <em>being</em>, is neither -the nominative to any verb, nor is it connected with any -word, of which it can be the regimen. It is therefore put in -the nominative case.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—This rule is violated in such examples as the -following, “Solomon made as wise proverbs as anybody has -done, <em>him</em> only excepted, who was a much wiser man than -Solomon.”—<cite>Tillotson.</cite></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“For only in destroying I find ease</div> - <div class="verse indent0">To my relentless thoughts; and, <em>him</em> destroy’d,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Or won to what may work his utter loss,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">For whom all this was made, all this will soon</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Follow,”—<cite>Milton.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">This seems to be the only example in which the poet has<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_205"></a>[205]</span> -transgressed this rule; and in several instances, in which he -has observed it, Bentley would erroneously substitute the -objective case.</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule XIX.</span>—Prepositions are joined with the objective -case, or govern nouns and pronouns in the accusative, -as, “he ran to me,” “he was loved by us.”</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—This rule is violated in such expressions as these, -“Who servest thou under?” “Who do you speak to?” for -the syntactical arrangement is, “thou servest under who?” -“thou speakest to who?” instead of “under whom?” “to -whom?”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—The preposition is frequently separated from its -regimen, as, “Horace is an author, whom I am much delighted -with,” <em>i.e.</em> “with whom I am much delighted.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 3.—The prepositions <em>to</em> and <em>for</em> are often understood, -as, “he gave me a book,” “he told me the news:” <em>i.e.</em> “he -gave to me,” “he told to me.”</p> - -<p>Lowth has, indeed, observed, that in such examples, the -pronouns, <em>me</em>, <em>thee</em>, &c., may be considered to be in the dative -case, as, in truth, they are in Saxon the datives of their -respective pronouns, and in their form include <em>to</em>, as, “woe -is to me.” This phrase, he observes, is pure Saxon, the -same as, “wae is me,” in which <em>me</em> is a dative case.</p> - -<p>The preposition <em>by</em> is also, in a few colloquial expressions, -omitted, as, “he went across the bridge,” “he crossed the -bridge,” for “he crossed (the river) by the bridge.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 4.—A preposition, following a verb, constituting with -it what has been termed a compound active verb, is sometimes -suppressed. We say, “he hoped for a reward,” “you -wondered at his courage.” Addison, Steele, and Johnson, -with several other reputable writers, say, “It is to be hoped,” -instead of “to be hoped for;” and Johnson very generally -says, “It is not to be wondered,” for “not to be wondered at.” -The latter form of expression seems to have been adopted, -in order to avoid the abrupt and inelegant conclusion of the -clause, especially when followed by the word <em>that</em>.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 5.—The prepositions <em>in</em>, <em>on</em>, <em>for</em>, and <em>from</em>, are often -understood before nouns of time and place; thus, “this day,”<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_206"></a>[206]</span> -“next month,” “last year,” are often used elliptically for -“on this day,” “in next month,” “in last year.” We say, -also, “He was banished England,” <em>i.e.</em> “<em>from</em> England.”</p> - -<p>Care, however, should be taken that the omission create -no ambiguity. If we say, “He was deaf some years before -he died,” referring to a temporary deafness, and a point of -time at which it occurred, the expression is not improper, -though the meaning might be more clearly expressed; but if -we intend to signify a continued deafness, we ought to say, -“for” or “during some years.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 6.—The preposition is improperly omitted in the -following line of Pope’s:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“And virgins smiled at what they blush’d before.”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">It should be, according to the rules of syntax, “smiled at what -they blushed at before,” both verbs requiring <em>at</em> after them, -thus, “they smiled at that, at which they blushed before.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 7.—Prepositions should be placed as near as possible -to each of the words, whose relation they express. The following -sentence from Hume is, in this respect, faulty: “The -ignorance of the age in mechanical arts, rendered the progress -very slow of this new invention.” It should be, “the -progress of this new invention.” The following sentence -from Johnson, is, for the same reason, chargeable with faulty -arrangement: “The country first dawned, that illuminated the -world, and beyond which the arts cannot be traced of civil -society or domestic life.”—<cite>Rasselas.</cite> It should be, “the arts -of civil society or domestic life cannot be traced.” Priestley -has censured the following clause from Harris, “being in no -sense capable of either intention or remission.” If it be considered, -however, that the word <em>either</em> properly means “the -one or the other,” and in truth denotes the subject, being, -therefore, in strict propriety, the regimen of the preposition, -the arrangement of Harris, though now not so common as the -other, will not appear exceptionable. Nay, whatever may be -the future decision of usage, that great arbitress of all language, -(for at present she is divided,) Harris’s arrangement -seems more conformable to the strict meaning of the words, -as well as to Priestley’s own rule, than that, which the latter<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_207"></a>[207]</span> -recommends; thus, “capable of either (<em>i.e.</em> of the one or of -the other), intension, or remission.”</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule XX.</span>—Adverbs have no government.</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—They are sometimes improperly used for adjectives, -as, “After those wars of which they hoped for a soon -and prosperous issue.”—<cite>Sidney.</cite> “A soon issue” is not -English; an adverb cannot agree with a substantive; it should -be “a speedy and prosperous issue.” Such expressions likewise -as the following, though not destitute of authority, are -exceedingly inelegant, and irreconcilable with analogy: “the -then ministry,” for “the ministry of that time;” “the above -discourse,” for “the preceding discourse.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—They are sometimes used like substantives, as, -“a little while,” for “in a little time,” or “for a little time.” -“Worth while,” “some how,” “any how,” “any where,” -are examples of the same kind.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 3.—The adverbs <em>whence</em>, <em>thence</em>, <em>hence</em>, are equivalent -to, “from which place,” “from that place,” “from this -place;” <em>from whence</em>, <em>from thence</em>, <em>from hence</em>, are therefore -chargeable with redundancy.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 4.—<em>Never</em> is sometimes erroneously used for <em>ever</em>, as, -“they might be extirpated, were they never so many.” It -should be, “ever so many,” <em>i.e.</em> “how many soever.” “Who -will not hearken to the voice of the charmer, charm he <em>never</em> -so sweetly.” It should be, “<em>ever</em> so sweetly;” <em>i.e.</em> “however -sweetly,” or “how sweetly soever.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 5.—<em>Ever</em> is likewise sometimes improperly used for -<em>never</em>, as, “I seldom or ever see him now.” It should be, -“seldom or <em>never</em>,” the speaker intending to say, “that rarely, -or rather at no time, does he see him now;” not “rarely,” or -“at any time.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 6.—Priestley remarks, that the French always place -their adverbs immediately after their verbs, which order, he -observes, by no means suits the English idiom. “His government -gave courage to the English barons to carry farther -their opposition.”—<cite>Hume.</cite> It would be better, “to carry -their opposition farther.” “Edward obtained a dispensation -from his oath, which the barons had compelled Gaveston to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_208"></a>[208]</span> -take, that he would abjure for ever the realm;” better “the -realm for ever.”</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 7.—The adverb is generally placed between the auxiliary -verb and the participle, as, “this is perfectly understood.” -When there are more auxiliaries than one, the same -author observes, that the adverb should be placed after the -first. This rule, however, is by no means universally followed; -for many of our best writers employ a different arrangement, -and, I think, with great propriety; as, “this will -be perfectly understood,” where the adverb follows both auxiliaries. -The place of the adverb may, in general, be ascertained, -by considering what word it is intended to qualify: -and, in the last example, it should be closely connected with -<em>understood</em>. But more on this subject in the following note.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 8.—The adverb, as its name imports, is generally -placed close to the word, which it modifies or affects: its force, -therefore, very much depends upon its position. Inattention -to the proper collocation of adverbs is frequently the cause -of much obscurity and misconception. To this inattention -we may ascribe the ambiguity in the following sentence: “He -was not honoured with this reward, but with the approbation -of the people.” This sentence may imply, either that he was -honoured with this reward, not without the approbation of -the people; or that he was not honoured with this reward, -but was honoured with the approbation of the people. The -latter is the meaning intended. It should therefore be, “he -was honoured, not with this reward, but with the approbation -of the people.” By this arrangement the sentiment is -correctly exhibited—the two subjects, reward and approbation, -are perspicuously contrasted, and while the former is -negatived, the latter is affirmed<a id="FNanchor_127" href="#Footnote_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_209"></a>[209]</span></p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 9.—Lowth observes that “the adverb should be for -the most part placed before adjectives, and after verbs;” -thus, “he was excessively modest,” “he fought bravely.” -This is, indeed, the general arrangement; but it admits many -exceptions. In no case are writers so apt to err as in the -position of the word <em>only</em>. Its place, in my opinion, is after -the substantive to which it refers, or which it exclusively implies, -and before the attributive. In the following sentence -of Steele’s, the collocation is faulty: “<ins class="corr" id="tn-209" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'The bridegrooms its'"> -The bridegroom sits</ins> with an aspect which intimates his thoughts were not only -entertained with the joys with which he was surrounded, but -also with a noble gratitude, and divine pleasure.” This collocation -of the two adverbs implies that his thoughts were -something more than entertained: whereas it is the author’s -intention to say, that his thoughts were entertained with -something more than joys. The sentence, therefore, should -proceed thus: “The bridegroom sits with an aspect, which -intimates, that his thoughts were entertained not with the -joys only, with which he was surrounded, but also with a -noble gratitude and divine pleasure.”<a id="FNanchor_128" href="#Footnote_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a></p> - -<p>When Addison says (<cite>Spec.</cite> No. 412), “By greatness I do -not only mean the bulk of any single object, but the largeness -of a whole view,” the question naturally occurs, what -does he more than mean? It is evident that, agreeably to -this arrangement, the adverb refers to <em>mean</em>, exclusively of all -other attributes or actions, and being prefaced by a negative, -implies “that he does something more than mean.” In this -criticism I concur with Blair, who has expressed his disapprobation -of this arrangement.</p> - -<p>Had he, as the same author observes, placed the adverb -after <em>bulk</em>, it would have still been wrong. For if he had -said, “I do not mean the bulk only,” then the adverb, following<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_210"></a>[210]</span> -a noun substantive, must refer to it exclusively of every -other, and the clause being negative, the question would be, -what does he mean more than the bulk? Is it the colour, -the beauty, or what else?</p> - -<p>Now, as Mr. Addison intended to say that he did not mean -one thing, the word <em>only</em> should have followed the name of that -thing, whether its designation was simple or complex. He -should, therefore, have said, “the bulk of any single object -only, but the largeness of a whole view.” According to this -arrangement, the word <em>only</em> refers, as it ought, to “the bulk -of any single object” as one idea; and the question occurs, -what does he mean more than the bulk of any single object? -to which the answer follows, “the largeness of a whole view.” -It may, however, at the same time be observed that, consistently -with the practice of some of our best writers, who -place the adverb before its subject, there seems no impropriety -here in saying, “I do not mean only,” <em>i.e.</em> “one thing,” -“the bulk of a single object, but the largeness of a whole -view.”</p> - -<p>“The perfidious voice of flattery reminded him,” says Gibbon, -“that by exploits of the same nature, by the defeat of -the Nemean lion, and the slaughter of the wild boar of Erymanthus, -the Grecian Hercules had acquired a place among -the gods, and an immortal memory among men.” “<em>They -only</em> forgot to observe that, in the first ages of society, a successful -war against savage animals is one of the most beneficial -labours of heroism.” In the beginning of the latter sentence -the adverb <em>only</em> is misplaced. As it stands, the meaning -is that they were the only persons who forgot: it should -be “<em>only</em> they forgot to observe;” <em>i.e.</em> “one thing they forgot,” -namely, “to observe.” To this erroneous collocation -in Gibbon, I shall oppose a similar example from Pope, in -which the adverb is correctly placed. In a letter to Hughes, -speaking of the compliments which this gentleman had paid -to him on his translation of Homer, he acquaints him, that -he should be ashamed to attempt returning these compliments; -one thing, however, he would observe, namely, that -he esteemed Mr. Hughes too much not to be pleased with the -compliments which he had received from him. His words,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_211"></a>[211]</span> -therefore, are, “I should be ashamed to offer at saying any -of those civil things, in return to your obliging compliments, -in regard to my translation of Homer: <em>only</em> I have too great -a value for you not to be pleased with them;” where the word -<em>only</em> introduces the clause, and is equivalent to “one thing -is true,” or “thus much (<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">tantum</i>), I say, I have too great a -value,” &c. Here it is obvious that the adverb, as it precedes -the pronoun, does not refer to it; and that Mr. Pope’s -collocation of it is perfectly correct, to express the sentiment, -which he intended. Had he said, “I only,” the adverb -would have referred to the pronoun, and implied that he -was the only person who valued. Had he intended to say, -that he merely entertained an esteem for him, but could not -manifest it, then the presence of the auxiliary would have -been necessary, and he would have expressed himself thus, -“I do only entertain too great an esteem for you;” that is, -“I do only (one thing) entertain too great an esteem.” Had -he said, “I have only too great a value for you,” it would -be properly opposed to, “and not too little.” Had he said, -“I have too great a value only,” then <em>value</em> would be contrasted -with some other sentiment, as when one says, he “has -wealth only, but not virtue,” for example, or any other acquirement. -As a violation of this rule, I adduce also the -following expression of a reviewer. “We only discharge -our duty to the public;” a declaration which, strictly interpreted, -means “we are the only persons who discharge.” -It should be, “we do only (one thing) discharge our duty;” -for the writer intended to say, that he did nothing but discharge -his duty to the public<a id="FNanchor_129" href="#Footnote_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a>. In justification of such inaccuracies, -it is impertinent to plead, that a little attention will -prevent misconception. It is the business of every author to -guard his reader, as far as the language in which he writes -will permit, from the possibility of misconstruction, and to -render that attention to the language unnecessary. Quintilian’s -maxim cannot be too often repeated to those who, by<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_212"></a>[212]</span> -such apologies, attempt to defend any avoidable ambiguity<a id="FNanchor_130" href="#Footnote_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a>.</p> - -<p>The following sentence is justly censured by Blair, and also -by Baker, in his “Remarks.” “Theism,” says Shaftesbury, -“can only be opposed to polytheism or atheism.” He ought -to have said, observes Baker, “Theism can be opposed only -to polytheism or atheism.” Dr. Blair concurs in opinion with -the remarker. I am inclined, however, to differ from both; -and think, that the sentence should run thus: “Theism can -be opposed to polytheism only, or atheism;” where the adverb -<em>only</em> refers to the noun immediately preceding, and is understood -to the other, implying, that these two systems of belief -are the only creeds to which theism can be opposed. If this -be not the proper arrangement, it is obvious, that no definite -rule can be given on the subject. For, if the adverb may be -placed either before or after the substantive, to which it refers, -then precision becomes impossible, and we may say, “<em>he -only</em>” or “<em>only he</em>” to express the same sentiment; which -collocations, I have already shown, denote ideas materially -different. But, if there be a definite and precise rule for the -position of this word, and if the sense be different, according -to the collocation of the adverb, then I think it will -appear, that it ought to be subjoined to the substantive or -pronoun to which it refers; and this opinion is supported -by the authority of Blair himself, in the examples which I -have just now adduced. For why, unless on this principle, -does he contend that the word <em>only</em> should be placed after <em>the -bulk of a single object</em>? If the adverb then be, in this example, -rightly placed after the substantive or complex name, -to which it refers, it ought to have the same position assigned -to it in every similar instance. That the adverb, in the last -example, refers to “polytheism,” there can be no question; -it should therefore follow, and not precede, it.</p> - -<p>I am well aware, that many examples may be produced, -wherein, with an arrangement different from that here recommended, -the sense would, notwithstanding, be perfectly -clear; and, perhaps, Blair’s collocation, in the last example,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_213"></a>[213]</span> -may be adduced as an instance. But when a rule, conducive -to perspicuity, is once established, every unnecessary deviation -from it should be studiously avoided, or, at least, not -wantonly adopted.</p> - -<p>The sentence, as it stands in Shaftesbury, implies that -theism is capable of nothing, but of being opposed to polytheism, -or atheism; “Theism can only (one thing, namely) -be opposed to polytheism or atheism;” where it is evident -that <em>only</em> refers to <em>be opposed</em>, agreeably to the rule now -given. In the same manner, if I say, “he was only great,” -it is implied, that he was nothing but great, the adverb being -placed before the attributive, to which it refers. Hence the -question naturally is, what was he not besides? The answer -may be, “not good,” “not wise,” “not learned.” Were the -adverb placed after the pronoun, it would imply, that “he -was the only person who was great.”<a id="FNanchor_131" href="#Footnote_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a></p> - -<p>I am perfectly aware, that the rule here given will not, in -all cases, preclude ambiguity; but whenever it becomes -doubtful, whether the adverb is intended to affect the preceding -substantive, or the following attributive, a different -form of expression may be adopted, and the use of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_214"></a>[214]</span> -auxiliary, along with the principal verb, will, in many instances, -ensure perspicuity. This expedient, however, cannot -always be employed. If we say, “The manufacturer only -was prosperous,” it may be uncertain, whether the adverb is -to restrict the predicate “prosperous” to the manufacturer, -implying that he was the only prosperous man, or to the verb -expressing past time, signifying that he was then, but is not -now prosperous. If the former be the meaning intended, we -may say, “he was the only prosperous man;” if the latter, -we may say, “the manufacturer was once,” or “was then, the -only prosperous man.”</p> - -<p>It would have contributed much to perspicuity, if authors -had adopted one uniform practice, placing the adverb constantly, -either before or after its subject, whether a substantive -or an attributive<a id="FNanchor_132" href="#Footnote_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a>. But, where usage is so divided,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_215"></a>[215]</span> -and where the adoption of a new and general rule would -be now liable to insuperable objections, all that can be successfully -attempted is, in accommodation to existing circumstances, -to reduce the evil within narrow limits, if we cannot, -by any precise rule, entirely remove it. With this view we -would recommend, that when the adverb refers not to a -word, but to a sentence or clause, it be placed at the beginning -of that sentence or clause; where it refers to a -predicate, it precede the predicating term; and when it has -a reference to a subject, it follow its name or description. -An observation, however, already made, may be here repeated, -namely, that in the last case, a different collocation -may often be adopted without the risk of ambiguity, and even -with advantage to the structure of the sentence.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 10.—Adverbs, as Lowth observes, are generally -placed before the adjective to which they refer. This rule, -however, admits a few exceptions. The adverb <em>enough</em> is -always placed after its adjective, as, “the reward was small -enough.” The proper position of this adverb, indeed, seems -to be immediately after the adjective; it is frequently, however, -placed at some distance from it, as, “a large house -enough.” Usage is, indeed, somewhat divided on this point, -Mr. Baker, and a few others, pleading for the following -arrangement, “a large enough house.” The former collocation, -however, seems far the more general; and is recommended -by that rule, by which the substantive and adjective -should be placed in juxta-position, or as near as -possible to each other. The latter is defended by the principle, -that the qualifying adverb should be placed close to -the adjective, whose signification it modifies. This collocation -is generally, however, pronounced a Scotticism; but it is -not peculiar to Scotch writers.</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule XXI.</span>—Conjunctions have no government.</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—In giving this rule, I differ from all other grammarians, -who have erroneously, as I conceive, assigned them -a regimen. Some conjunctions, says Lowth, govern the indicative, -and some the subjunctive mood. This I affirm -without hesitation to be a great mistake; for not a single example,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_216"></a>[216]</span> -I venture to assert, can be produced, in which the -verb is divested of its indicative form, in consequence of its -being subjoined to any conjunction. The Latins had a form -of the verb, which they properly enough denominated the -subjunctive mood; because, where the meaning was unconditionally -assertive, they employed this form, if the clause -was preceded by some particular conjunctive or adverbial -term. Thus, when they said, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">adeo benevolus erat, ut omnes -eum amarent</i>, “he was so benevolent, that all men loved -him,” though the assertion in the latter clause, be evidently -unconditional, as the English shows, they changed the indicative -into another form, because the verb is preceded by the -conjunction <em>ut</em>. No similar example can be produced in -English.</p> - -<p>Lowth informs us, that, when hypothesis, conditionality, -or contingency is implied, the mood should be subjunctive; -if certainty, or something determinate and absolute be signified, -the verb should be indicative. Now surely, if the -sense require a form different from the indicative, the verb -cannot be said to be under the government of the conjunction; -for the verb assumes that form, not because preceded -by the conjunctive term, or because it is under its government, -but because the sentiment to be expressed requires that -phraseology. Whether the conditional, or what Lowth terms -the subjunctive, be a distinct form of the verb, or only an -elliptical mode of expression, we have already inquired. See -<a href="#Page_126">p. 126</a>.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—Mr. Harris says, that the chief difference between -prepositions and conjunctions is, that the former couple -words, and the latter sentences. This opinion is erroneous; -for conjunctions frequently couple words, as in the following -example: “A man of wisdom and virtue is a perfect character.” -Here it is not implied, that “a man of wisdom is a -perfect character;” but “a man of wisdom combined with -virtue, or a man of wisdom and virtue.” That conjunctions, -indeed, do not couple at all, in that sense, at least, in which -grammarians have understood the term, Mr. Tooke seems to -have incontestably proved. That they sometimes couple -sentences, or that instances may be produced, in which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_217"></a>[217]</span> -Harris’s definition will appear correct, the following example -will serve as an evidence: “You, and I, and John rode to -town;” <em>i.e.</em> “you rode,” “and I rode,” “and John rode.” -But to assert, that this is their distinctive property, is to affirm -what may be disproved by numberless examples. If we -say, “two and two are four.” Are two four, and two four? -“A B, B C, and C A, form a triangle.” Is A B a triangle? -or B C? or C A? “John and Mary are a handsome couple.” -Is John a couple? and Mary a couple? The common theory, -therefore, is false; nor is it to be doubted, that conjunctions -are, in respect to signification, and were originally in regard -to their regimen, verbs, or words compounded of nouns and -attributives. In explaining them, however, I divided them, -as the reader may remember, into the several classes of adversative, -concessive, conditional, &c. This I did, not only in -conformity to general usage, and that he might not be a -stranger to the names assigned to them; but likewise for this -reason, that, though they originally formed no distinct species -of words, but were either verbs, or compounds of nouns and -verbs, they have now assumed another character, and are -construed in a different manner. It is necessary, however, -that he should be acquainted not only with their present use, -but also with their primitive import, and classification.</p> - -<p>How these words were degraded from their original rank, -and deemed insignificant, while some, perhaps, lost their syntactical -power, is a matter, I conceive, of no difficult inquiry. -For, when the verbs, to which any of these words belonged, -became obsolete, the words themselves, thus separated from -their parent stock, and stripped of that consequence and -authority which they thence derived, their extraction becoming -daily more dubious, and their original value more obscure, -sunk by degrees into inferior note, and at last dwindled into -comparative insignificance. Besides, many of them, doubtless, -were transplanted into our language without the <em>radices</em>; -their etymology, therefore, being little known, their primitive -character, and real import, would soon be involved in increasing -darkness.</p> - -<p>It is to be considered, also, that those who have dispensed -the laws of grammar in our language, or assumed the office -of critics, have been generally such as, though perhaps<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_218"></a>[218]</span> -sufficiently conversant in Greek and Latin, were entirely unacquainted -with the Northern languages. Accustomed, -therefore, to render the conjunctions and prepositions in -Greek or Latin, by synonymous English words, and unacquainted -with the true character of these vernacular terms, -their <em>etymons</em> being obsolete, or having never been used in -our language, it is easy to conceive how they would naturally -assign to the English words the same character and the same -name which were affixed to the synonymous Latin terms. -Nay, this has been so much the case, that we have ascribed -an ambiguous character to several English words, referring -them now to one class, then to another, merely because they -agree in signification with certain Greek and Latin terms, -which have been severally referred by classical grammarians -to different orders. That the word <em>whether</em> has uniformly, -in our language, the same import and the same character, -denoting “which of the two,” there can be no doubt; yet, -because this word answers sometimes to <em>an</em>, <em>anne</em>, <em>num</em>, and -sometimes to <em>uter</em>, grammarians and lexicographers have accounted -it both a conjunction and a pronoun. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Utrum</i> in -Latin has shared the same fate. So far, indeed, has this -spirit been carried, that we will not admit <em>except</em>, <em>according</em>, -<em>concerning</em>, <em>respecting</em>, with many similar terms, to be verbs -or participles, because <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">præter</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">secundum</i>, <em>de</em>, are prepositions. -It is from this propensity to assimilate ours with the Latin -language, that all these errors have arisen.</p> - -<p>That the words now termed prepositions and conjunctions -were originally verbs, or nouns, or compounds of these, -Tooke has, in my judgment, incontrovertibly proved. This -being admitted, it appears to me highly probable, that they -were primitively construed as such, joined either with the nominative -or the objective case, as the verbs had either a transitive -or intransitive meaning; and that they were followed -by either single words or clauses. This, however, is merely -conjecture, founded indeed in the nature of the words, but -not supported by any evidence. In process of time, in consequence -of that assimilation which naturally takes place between -a living language and a dead one, much read, much -written, and much admired, these words, when their origin -became obscure, would, as I have remarked, be divested of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_219"></a>[219]</span> -their primitive character, and be considered as belonging to -those classes, to which the synonymous Latin words were -referred. Hence their regimen would likewise undergo a -change. It would appear awkward and vicious to say now, -“I saw nobody but he;” is not improbable, however, that -the mode of expression was originally, “I saw nobody, be out -he,” <em>i.e.</em> “he be out.” But I am now indulging in conjecture, -the very error which chiefly has misled us in our grammatical -researches. One thing, however, is certain, that several words, -which were originally employed as prepositions or conjunctions -indifferently, have now acquired a more fixed character, -and are used but seldom in a double capacity. Of this the -word <em>without</em> is an example. Thus, it was not unusual to -say, “without you go, I will not,” where the term of exclusion, -though in truth a preposition prefixed to a clause, was -considered as a conjunction synonymous with <em>nisi</em>. This -usage, unless in conversation, is now almost entirely relinquished; -and the term <em>without</em> is now generally employed as -a preposition, being prefixed to single words. It is likewise -certain that in respect to signification there is no difference -between conjunctions and prepositions: <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">vidi neminem nisi -eum</i>, is equivalent to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">vidi neminem præter eum</i>. In like -manner, “I saw nobody but him,” is synonymous with “I -saw nobody besides him;” in which examples the conjunctions -<em>nisi</em> and <em>but</em> are perfectly synonymous with <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">præter</i> and -<em>besides</em>, which are termed prepositions.</p> - -<p>It may be asked, if then prepositions and conjunctions be -alike verbs, or nouns, or compounds of these, and if many -prepositions and conjunctions be in point of meaning identical, -what forms the ground of distinction between them? It -is simply this, that the former are prefixed to single words -only, as nouns and pronouns, or to clauses involving an infinitive -mood<a id="FNanchor_133" href="#Footnote_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a>, the infinitive being strictly the name of the -verb; and that they have a regimen; while the latter are -prefixed to clauses, and have no regimen. This is the only -distinction between prepositions and conjunctions as discriminated -in modern use. Their original character is sufficiently -established by Mr. Tooke.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_220"></a>[220]</span></p> - -<p>I have said that some of these words have, in our language, -an ambiguous character, being employed both as prepositions -and conjunctions. Of this the word <em>than</em> is an example. -Priestley seems to consider it as a preposition, and pleads in -favour of the following expression, “you are taller than him,” -not “taller than he.” “Since it is allowed,” says the Doctor, -“that the oblique case should follow prepositions, and since -the comparative degree of an adjective, and the particle <em>than</em>, -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, so that, -<em>greater than me</em> will be more grammatical than <em>greater than -I</em>.” Here I cannot concur with the learned author. The -same argument would prove that <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">major quam me</i>, would be -more grammatical than <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">major quam ego</i>; a conclusion which -is opposed by universal authority. The truth is, <em>than</em> must be -either a conjunction or a preposition, or both. If a conjunction, -it can have no government, any more than the Latin -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quam</i>; unless we confound the distinction which has been -just now explained, and is universally admitted, namely, that -conjunctions are distinguished from prepositions, by their -having no government. If it be a preposition, no argument -is necessary to prove that it may be joined with an objective -case; for such is the distinguishing character of prepositions. -If it be either a preposition or a conjunction, it follows, that -it may be construed either with or without a regimen. Lowth, -with greater propriety, considers it as a conjunction; and -Campbell, in his “Rhetoric,” recommends this usage as the -only means of preventing that ambiguity, which necessarily -arises from the employment of this word as a preposition -only. For, if we use it as a preposition, we should say, “I -love you better than him,” whether it be meant “I love you -better than I love him,” or “I love you better than he does.” -By using it as a conjunction, the ambiguity is prevented. -For, if the former sentiment be implied, we say, “I love you -better than him,” <em>i.e.</em> “than I love him;” if the latter, we -say, “I love you better than he,” <em>i.e.</em> “than he loves you.” -Whatever may have been the original character or syntax of -this word, since usage is now divided, some writers employing -it as a conjunction, and others as a preposition, the grammarian<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_221"></a>[221]</span> -may, consistently with his duty, plead for that usage -only, which prevents ambiguity.</p> - -<p>The rule here recommended is generally violated, when -<em>than</em> is joined with the relative pronoun, as, “Alfred, than -whom a greater king never reigned.” “Beelzebub, than -whom, Satan excepted, none higher sat.” Salmon has attempted -to account for this almost universal phraseology, by -saying, that the expression is elliptical, being the same as, -“than compared with whom.” This explanation is forced -and unnatural. It is likewise unnecessary. The simple fact -is, that the word <em>than</em> was formerly used as a preposition, -and, I believe, more frequently than it is now. Hence, -doubtless, arose this phraseology.</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule XXII.</span>—Derivatives are generally construed -like their primitives; as, “it was a happy thing <em>for</em> this -country, that the Pretender was defeated;” or “happily -<em>for</em> this country the Pretender was defeated.” Thus also, -“to compare <em>with</em>,” and “in comparison <em>with</em> riches;”—“to -depend <em>on</em>,” and his “dependence on the court.”</p> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule XXIII.</span>—One negative destroys another; or -two negatives are equivalent to an affirmative; as, -“nor have I no money, which I can spare;” that is, -“I have money, which I can spare.”—“Nor was the -king unacquainted with his designs;” that is, “he -was acquainted.”</p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Note</em> 1.—Here our language accords with the Latin. In -Greek and French, two negatives render the negation stronger.</p> - -<p><em>Note</em> 2.—This rule is violated in such examples as this, -“Nor is danger ever apprehended in such a government, no -more than we commonly apprehend danger from thunder or -earthquakes.” It should be <em>any more</em>.</p> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Rule XXIV.</span>—Interjections are joined with the objective -case of the pronoun of the first person, and with -the nominative of the pronoun of the second, as, “ah -me,” “oh me,” “ah thou wretch,” “O thou who -dwellest.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_222"></a>[222]</span></p> - -<div class="fs90"> - -<p><em>Syntax</em> being that part of grammar, which teaches rules -not only for the concord and government, but also for the -order of words in clauses and sentences, I shall subjoin the -few following brief directions for the guidance of the scholar, -respecting arrangement.</p> - -<p>1st. The collocation should never invert the natural order -of events, or violate the principles of reason and metaphysical -propriety. It is obvious, for example, that no person -can write, who cannot read. The ability to do the former -necessarily implies a capacity to do the latter. It is preposterous, -therefore, to say with Addison, “There will be few in -the next generation, who will not at least be able to write and -read.” He should have said, “to read and write.” “He was -the son of a mother, who had nursed him with maternal -tenderness, and had borne him in an hour of the deepest -affliction.” The natural order of events should have dictated -the reverse arrangement. There would be a manifest impropriety -in saying “Our father is well, and alive;” the former -state necessarily implying the latter. In the following passage, -however, it is perhaps excusable, the answers particularly -corresponding to the questions: Joseph says to his -brothers, “Is your father well? The old man, of whom ye -spake, is he yet alive?” They answer, “Thy servant, our -father, is in good health; he is yet alive.” This error was -termed by the ancient grammarians <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">hysteron proteron</i>; and, -though not so palpably as in the preceding examples, it -occurs much more frequently than an inattentive reader is -apt to imagine.</p> - -<p>2nd. The English language admits but few inflexions, and -therefore little or no room for variety of arrangement. The -connection of one word with another is not to be perceived, -as in Greek and Latin, by correspondence of termination, -but by relative position. This renders it indispensably -necessary, that those words which are intimately related by -sense one to another, should be closely connected by collocation. -“The cunning of Hannibal was too powerful for the -Pergamenians, who by the same kind of stratagem had frequently -obtained great victories at land.” The relative here, -by its position, must be understood as referring to the Pergamenians; -whereas it is intended to refer to Hannibal. The<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_223"></a>[223]</span> -relative clause, therefore, should have followed the name of -the Carthaginian. “His picture, in distemper, of calumny, -borrowed from the description of one painted by Apelles, -was supposed to be a satire on that cardinal.”—<cite>Walpole.</cite> -The error here is obvious. He should have said, “His -picture of calumny.” “It is folly to pretend to arm ourselves -against the accidents of life, by heaping up treasures, which -nothing can protect us against, but the good providence of -our heavenly Father.”—<cite>Sherlock.</cite> Here the grammatical -antecedent is <em>treasures</em>; but it is intended to be <em>accidents</em>. -The relative is removed from its proper subject.</p> - -<p>3rd. As the converse of the preceding rule, it may be observed, -that those words should be separated, which in juxta-position -may, at first sight, or first hearing, possibly convey -a meaning which the speaker or writer does not intend. “I, -like a well-bred man, who is never disposed to mortify or to -offend, praised both sorts of food.” As the two introductory -words are capable of two meanings, would it not be better to -say, “Like a well-bred man ... I praised both sorts of -food.” I am aware, that the other collocation is preferable, -where a particular stress is to be laid on the principal subject; -but ambiguity is an error, which should be studiously -avoided, and the meaning should not be left to the determination -of a comma.</p> - -<p>4th. From the preceding rules, it follows as a corollary, -that no clause should be so placed in a sentence, as to be -referable either to what precedes, or what follows. “The -knight, seeing his habitation reduced to so small a compass, -and himself in a manner shut out of his own house, <em>on the -death of his mother</em>, ordered all the apartments to be flung -open.” The clause in italics is ambiguously placed.</p> - -<p>5th. When each of two arrangements is equally favourable -to perspicuity, and equally consistent with metaphysical propriety, -that should be preferred which is the more agreeable -to the ear.</p> - -<p>6th. Harsh and abrupt cadences should be avoided; and -in elevated style, the clauses should swell towards the close -of the sentence. This latter rule, however, which requires -some limitations, belongs to the province of the rhetorician, -rather than to that of the grammarian.</p> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_224"></a>[224]</span><br /></p> - -<h2 class="p2 nobreak" id="PART_III">PART III.</h2> -</div> - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<h3 id="CHAPTER_I_CC">CHAPTER I.<br /> - -<span class="fs60">CANONS OF CRITICISM.</span></h3> - - -<p class="noindent">Having explained and illustrated the etymology and syntax -of the English language, as fully as the limits, which I have -prescribed to myself, will permit, I would now request the -reader’s attention to some additional observations.</p> - -<p>The grammar of every language is merely a compilation of -those general principles, or rules, agreeably to which that -language is spoken. When I say, a compilation of rules, I -would not be understood to mean, that the rules are first -established, and the language afterwards modelled in conformity -to these. The very reverse is the fact: language is -antecedent to grammar. Words are framed and combined to -express sentiment, before the grammarian can enter on his -province. His sole business is, not to dictate forms of -speech, or to prescribe law to our modes of expression; but, -by observing the modes previously established, by remarking -their similarities and dissimilarities, his province is to deduce -and explain the general principles, and the particular forms, -agreeably to which the speakers of that language express -themselves. The philosopher does not determine by what -laws the physical and moral world should be governed; but, -by the careful observation and accurate comparison of the -various phenomena presented to his view, he deduces and -ascertains the general principles, by which the system is -regulated. The province of the grammarian seems precisely -similar. He is a mere digester and compiler, explaining -what <em>are</em> the modes of speech, not dictating what they -<em>should be</em>. He can neither assign to any word a meaning -different from that which custom has annexed to it; nor can -he alter a phraseology, to which universal suffrage has given<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_225"></a>[225]</span> -its sanction. Usage is, in this case, law; usage <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quem penes -arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi</i>. If it were now the -practice to say, “I loves,” instead of “I love,” the former -phraseology would rest on the same firm ground, on which -the latter now stands; and “I love,” would be as much a -violation of the rules of grammar, or, which is the same -thing, of established usage, as “I loves” is at present. -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Regula est, quæ rem, quæ est, breviter enarrat; non ut ex -regula jus sumatur, sed ex jure, quod est, regula fiat.</i>—<cite>Paul. -Leg. 1, de Reg. Jur.</cite></p> - -<p>Having said thus much to prevent misconception, and to -define the proper province of the grammarian, I proceed to -observe, that this usage, which gives law to language, in -order to establish its authority, or to entitle its suffrage to -our assent, must be, in the first place, <em>reputable</em>.</p> - -<p>The vulgar in this, as in every other country, are, from -their want of education, necessarily illiterate. Their native -language is known to them no farther, than is requisite for -the most common purposes of life. Their ideas are few, and -consequently their stock of words poor and scanty. Nay, -their poverty, in this respect, is not their only evil. Their -narrow competence they abuse and pervert. Some words -they misapply, others they corrupt; while many are employed -by them, which have no sanction, but provincial or -local authority. Hence the language of the vulgar, in one -province, is sometimes hardly intelligible in another. Add -to this, that debarred by their occupations from study, or -generally averse to literary pursuits, they are necessarily -strangers to the scientific improvements of a cultivated -mind; and are therefore entirely unacquainted with that -diction, which concerns the higher attainments of life. -Ignorant of any general principles respecting language, to -which they may appeal; unable to discriminate between -right and wrong; prone therefore to adopt whatever usage -casual circumstances may present; it is no wonder, if the -language of the vulgar be a mixture of incongruity and error, -neither perfectly consistent with itself, nor to themselves -universally intelligible. Their usage, therefore, is not the -standard, to which we must appeal for decisive authority;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_226"></a>[226]</span> -a usage so discordant and various, that we may justly apply -to it the words of a celebrated critic,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry" lang="la" xml:lang="la"> - <div class="verse indent0">Bellua multorum es capitum; nam quid sequar, aut quem?</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>The question then is, what is reputable usage? On this -subject philologists have been divided. Dr. Campbell appears -to me to decide judiciously, when he says, that the -usage, to which we must appeal, is not that of the court, or -of great men, nor even of authors of profound science, but of -those, whose works are esteemed by the public, and who -may, therefore, be denominated <em>reputable</em> authors. By referring -to their practice, he appeals to a standard less equivocal, -than if he had resorted to the authority of good writers; -for, as he justly observes, there may be various opinions -respecting the merits of authors, when there may be no disagreement -concerning the rank which they hold in the estimation -of the public; and, because it is the esteem of the -public, and not their intrinsic merit, (though these go generally -hand in hand,) that raises them to distinction, and -stamps a value on their language. Besides, it is to be observed, -that consummate knowledge is not always accompanied -with a talent for communicating it: hence the sentiment -may be confessedly valuable, while the language is -regarded as of no authority.</p> - -<p>This usage must be, in the second place, <em>national</em>. It -must not be confined to this or that province; it must not be -the usage of this or that district, the peculiarities of which -are always ridiculous, and frequently unintelligible beyond -its own limits; but it must be the general language of the -country, intelligible everywhere, and in no place ridiculous. -And, though the variety of dialects may collectively form a -greater number of authorities than national usage can boast, -taken singly they are much fewer. Those, to use Campbell’s -apposite similitude, who deviate from the beaten road, may -be incomparably more numerous than those who travel in it; -yet, into whatever number of by-paths the former may be -divided, there may not be found in any one of these tracks so -many as travel in the king’s highway.</p> - -<p>In the third place, this usage must be <em>present</em>. Here it -may be asked, what is meant by present usage? Is it the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_227"></a>[227]</span> -usage of the present year, the present age, or the present century? -How is it defined, or by what boundary is it limited? -In short, how far may we revert in search of decisive authority? -may we go back, for example, as far as Chaucer, or -must we stop at the age of Addison?</p> - -<p>In determining this matter, the same learned and judicious -critic observes, that regard must be had to the species of composition -and the nature of the subject. Poetry is properly -allowed a greater latitude than prose; and therefore, a word, -which in prose we should reject as a barbarism, may, with -strict propriety, be admitted in verse. Here, also, there are -limits which must not be passed; and, perhaps, any word, -which cannot plead the authority of Milton, or of any contemporary -or later poet, may be justly regarded as obsolete. -In prose, no word, unless the subject be art or science, should -be employed, which has been disused for a period greater -than the age of man. This is the judgment of the same -critic. Against this answer, indeed, it is possible to raise a -thousand cavils; and, perhaps, we shall be reminded of the -poet’s strictures on the term <em>ancient</em> in his days<a id="FNanchor_134" href="#Footnote_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a>. One thing, -however, is certain, that, though it be difficult to fix a precise -limit, where the authority of precedent terminates, and -legislative usage commences, or to define with precision the -age of man, it must be acknowledged, that there are limits, -in respect to usage, which we must not overleap, as there is -a certain term, which the life of man cannot surpass.</p> - -<p>As there is a period, beyond which precedent in language -ceases to have authority; so, on the contrary, the usage of -the present day is not implicitly to be adopted. Mankind are -fond of novelty; and there is a fashion in language, as there<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_228"></a>[228]</span> -is in dress. Whim, vanity, and affectation, delight in creating -new words. Of these, the far greater part soon sink into -contempt. They figure for a little, like ephemeral productions, -in tales, novels, and fugitive papers; and are shortly -consigned to degradation and oblivion. Now, to adopt every -new-fangled upstart at its birth, would argue not taste, nor -judgment, but childish fondness for singularity and novelty. -On the contrary, if any of these should maintain its ground, -and receive the sanction of a reputable usage, to reject it, in -this case, would be to resist that authority, to which every -critic and grammarian must bow with submission. The term -<em>mob</em>, for example, was, at its introduction, zealously opposed -by Dean Swift. His resistance, however, was ineffectual; -and to reject it now would betray prudish affectation, and -fruitless perversity. The word <em>inimical</em>, previously to the -American war, could, I believe, plead, in its favour, only one -authority. In some dictionaries, accordingly it was omitted; -and in others stigmatized as a barbarism. It has now obtained -a permanent establishment, and is justly admitted by -every lexicographer.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“In words, as fashions, the same rule will hold;</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Alike fantastic, if too new or old:</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Be not the first, by whom the new are tried,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.”</div> - <div class="verse indent24"><cite>Pope’s Essay on Criticism.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>In short, in this, as in every other question on this subject, -perspicuity should be our guide. If the subject be -art or science, or if the composition be intended for literary -men, then a greater latitude may be allowed, as the reader is -supposed to be master of the language, in all its varieties. -But if the subject be accommodated to common capacity, and -the composition designed for ordinary readers, the rule now -given, not to employ a word, which has been disused for a -period greater than the age of man, will be deemed, I conceive, -rational and necessary.</p> - -<p>The usage, then, which gives law to language, and which -is generally denominated “good usage,” must be <em>reputable</em>, -<em>national</em>, and <em>present</em>. It happens, however, that “good -usage” is not always uniform in her decisions, and that unquestionable<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_229"></a>[229]</span> -authorities are found for different modes of expression. -In such cases, the following canons, proposed by -the same author, will be of considerable service, in enabling -the reader to decide, to which phraseology the preference is -due. These canons I shall give, nearly in the words of the -author; and illustrate them, as I proceed, by a few apposite -examples, partly his, and partly my own.</p> - - -<p class="p1"><span class="smcap">Canon I.</span>—When the usage is divided, as to any particular -words or phrases, and when one of the expressions is susceptible -of a different meaning, while the other admits only one -signification, the expression, which is strictly univocal, should -be preferred.</p> - -<p>For this reason, <em>aught</em><a id="FNanchor_135" href="#Footnote_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a>, for “anything,” is better than -<em>ought</em>; <em>scarcely</em>, as an adverb, better than <em>scarce</em>; <em>by consequence</em> -is preferable to <em>of consequence</em>, which signifies -also “of importance;” and <em>exceedingly</em>, as an adverb, is -preferable to <em>exceeding</em>.</p> - -<p>For the same reason, <em>to purpose</em>, for “to intend,” is better -than <em>to propose</em>, which signifies also “to lay before,” or “submit -to consideration;” and <em>proposal</em>, for “a thing offered or -proposed,” is better than “proposition,” which denotes also -“a position,” or the “affirmation of any principle or maxim.” -Thus we say, “he demonstrated Euclid’s <em>proposition</em>,” and -“he rejected the <em>proposal</em> of his friend.”</p> - -<p>Agreeably also to this canon, <em>disposal</em>, in common language, -when a grant, or giving away is denoted, or when the -management of anything is to be expressed, is preferable to -<em>disposition</em>, which signifies also <em>arrangement</em>, and likewise -<em>temper of mind</em>; and <em>exposure</em>, as the verbal noun from <em>expose</em>, -is better than <em>exposition</em>, the verbal noun of <em>expound</em>. -We should say, “the exposure of a fault,” and “the exposition -of a text.” The analogous words <em>composure</em>, from <em>compose</em>, -and <em>composition</em>, from <em>compound</em>, or <em>compose</em>, have been -suffered to retain their distinct significations. “To speak -<em>contemptuously</em> of a person,” is better than “to speak <em>contemptibly</em>;” -the latter term meaning generally, “in a contemptible -manner,” or, “in a manner worthy of contempt;”<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_230"></a>[230]</span> -whereas the former is univocal, and denotes <em>disrespectfully</em>, or -“in a manner significant of contempt.”</p> - -<p>For the same reason, <em>obvious</em>, for “evident,” is better than -<em>apparent</em>, which means also “seeming,” as opposed to “real.”</p> - -<p>The term <em>primitive</em>, as equivalent to <em>original</em>, is preferable -to <em>primary</em>. The latter is synonymous with <em>principal</em>, and is -opposed to <em>secondary</em>; the former is equivalent to <em>original</em>, -and is opposed to <em>derivative</em> or <em>acquired</em>. I shall illustrate -this distinction by a few examples. The words <em>falsehood</em> and -<em>lie</em> agree in expressing the same primary idea, namely, “contrariety -to fact;” but they differ in their secondary ideas, the -former implying simply, “inconsistency with physical truth,” -the latter being a term of reproach, expressing “a wilful -breach of veracity, or of moral truth.” <em>To kill</em>, and <em>to murder</em>, -agree also in their primary ideas, both denoting “the deprivation -of life;” but they differ in their secondary, the former -implying no moral turpitude, the latter denoting an immoral -act. From these examples it will appear, that <em>primary</em> denotes -“what is principal or chief,” as opposed to “secondary,” -or “subordinate.”</p> - -<p><em>Primitive</em> is equivalent to <em>original</em>; thus we say, the <em>primitive</em> -meaning of the word <em>villain</em>, was “a nearer tenant to -the lord of the manor;” custom has altered its signification, -and it now denotes “a wicked fellow.” Thus the <em>primary</em> -and the <em>primitive</em> meaning of words may be very different; -these terms, therefore, ought to be duly discriminated.</p> - -<p><em>Intension</em>, for “the act of stretching or straining,” is for -the same reason, preferable to <em>intention</em>, which signifies also -“purpose,” or “design.” “I am mistaken,” is frequently -used to denote “I misunderstand,” or “I am in error;” but -as this expression may also signify, “I am misunderstood,” -it is better to say, “I mistake.”</p> - -<p>This canon I would earnestly recommend to the observance -of every writer, who is solicitous to exclude all unnecessary -ambiguity, but more emphatically to my junior readers, who -are peculiarly prone to the violation of this rule, misled by -false notions of elegance and dignity. There prevails at present -a foolish and ridiculous, not to say absurd, disposition in -some writers, to prefer in every instance, with no discrimination,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_231"></a>[231]</span> -long to short words. They seem to entertain an inveterate -antipathy to monosyllabic terms; and disdaining -whatever savours of Saxon origin, are incessantly searching -after the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">sesquipedalia verba</i> of Greek or Latin extraction, -with no regard whatever to precision and perspicuity. Thus -many words, which cannot be dismissed without detriment -to the language, are falling into disuse, and their places supplied -by equivocal and less appropriate terms.</p> - - -<p class="p1"><span class="smcap">Canon II.</span>—In doubtful cases analogy should be regarded.</p> - -<p>For this reason, <em>contemporary</em> is better than <em>cotemporary</em>, -<em>con</em> being used before a consonant, and <em>co</em> before a vowel; as, -<em>concomitant</em>, <em>coeval</em>.</p> - -<p>For the same reason, “<em>he needs</em>,” “<em>he dares</em>,” “<em>whether -he will or not</em>,” are better than “<em>he need</em>,” “<em>he dare</em>,” -“<em>whether he will or no</em>.” The last of the three phraseologies, -here recommended, Priestley thinks exceptionable. To me, -as to Campbell, the ellipsis appears evident; thus, “whether -he will, or will not:” hence “will not” seems the only analogical -expression.</p> - - -<p class="p1"><span class="smcap">Canon III.</span>—When expressions are in other respects equal, -that should be preferred, which is most agreeable to the ear. -This requires no illustration.</p> - - -<p class="p1"><span class="smcap">Canon IV.</span>—When none of the preceding rules take place, -regard should be had to simplicity. On this ground, “accept,” -“approve,” “admit,” are preferable to “accept of,” -“approve of,” “admit of.”</p> - -<p>I have already observed, that no expression, or mode of -speech, can be justified, which is not sanctioned by usage. -The converse, however, does not follow, that every phraseology, -sanctioned by usage, should be retained; and, in such -cases, custom may properly be checked by criticism, whose -province it is, not only to remonstrate against the introduction -of any word or phraseology, which may be either unnecessary -or contrary to analogy, but also to extrude whatever -is reprehensible, though in general use. It is by this exercise -of her prerogative, that languages are gradually refined<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_232"></a>[232]</span> -and improved; and were this denied, language would soon -become stationary, or more probably would hasten to decline. -In exercising this authority, she cannot pretend to degrade instantly -any phraseology, which she may deem objectionable; -but she may, by repeated remonstrances, gradually effect its -dismission. Her decisions in such cases may be properly regulated -by the following canons, as delivered by the same author.</p> - - -<p class="p1"><span class="smcap">Canon I.</span>—All words and phrases, particularly harsh, and -not absolutely necessary, should be dismissed; as, “shamefacedness,” -“unsuccessfulness,” “wrongheadedness.”</p> - - -<p class="p1"><span class="smcap">Canon II.</span>—When the etymology plainly points to a different -signification from what the word bears, propriety and -simplicity require its dismission. For example, the word -“beholden,” taken for “obliged,” or the verb “to unloose,” -for “to loose,” or “untie,” should be rejected.</p> - - -<p class="p1"><span class="smcap">Canon III.</span>—When words become obsolete, or are never -used, but in particular phrases, they should be repudiated; -as they give the style an air of vulgarity and cant, when their -general disuse renders them obscure. Of these “lief,” “dint,” -“whit,” “moot,” “pro and con,” furnish examples; as, “I -had as lief go,” “by dint of argument,” “not a whit better,” -“a moot point,” “it was argued pro and con.” These -phraseologies are vulgar, and savour too much of cant to be -admitted in good writing.</p> - - -<p class="p1"><span class="smcap">Canon IV.</span>—All words and phrases, which, analyzed grammatically, -include a solecism, should be dismissed; as, “I -had rather go.” The expression should be, “I would,” or -“I’d rather go:” and from the latter, the solecism “I had -go,” seems by mistake to have arisen, <em>I’d</em> being erroneously -conceived to be contracted for <em>I had</em>, instead of a contraction -for <em>I would</em>. This is the opinion of Campbell, and to this -opinion I expressed my assent, in the former edition of this -Treatise. I acknowledge, however, that it now appears to me -not strictly correct; and that Webster has not questioned its -accuracy on insufficient grounds. In the phrases adduced by<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_233"></a>[233]</span> -Campbell, such as “I’d go,” “I’d rather stay,” we can readily -perceive the probability that <em>I’d</em> is a contraction for “I would.” -But in such expressions as “I had like to have been caught,” -which occur not only in colloquial language, but also in -authors of considerable name, it is impossible to admit Campbell’s -explanation. I must observe also, that the phraseology, -which he censures, occurs in some of our earliest writers, and -is so frequently found in Pope and Swift, that one is tempted -to infer, notwithstanding its solecistic appearance, that it is -genuine English. It is difficult, however, nay, perhaps impossible, -to reconcile it to analogy. Were I to offer conjecture -on the subject, I should be inclined to say, that in such -phrases as “I had go,” <em>I had</em> is, by a grammatical figure -very common in English, put for <em>I would have</em>, or <em>I would -possess</em>, and that the simple name of the act or state, by an -ellipsis perhaps of the verbal sign, is subjoined, as the object -wished, no regard being had to the completion of the action; -in the same manner as we say, I would have <em>gone</em>, when we -wish the action perfected. But by whatever authority this -phraseology may be recommended, and in whatever way it -may be reconciled to the rules of syntax, it has so much the -appearance of solecism, that I decidedly prefer with Campbell -the unexceptional form of expression, <em>I would</em>. The phrase -<em>I had like</em> appears to me utterly irreconcilable with any -principle of analogy.</p> - - -<p class="p1"><span class="smcap">Canon V.</span>—All expressions, which, according to the established -rules of the language, either have no meaning, or -involve a contradiction, or, according to the fair construction -of the words, convey a meaning different from the intention -of the speaker, should be dismissed. Thus, when a person -says, “he sings a good song,” the words strictly imply that -“the song is good,” whereas the speaker means to say, “he -sings well.” In like manner, when it is said, “this is the -best part he acts,” the sentence, according to the strict interpretation -of the words, expresses an opinion, not of his -manner of acting, but of the part or character which he acts. -It should be, “he acts this part best,” or “this is the part -which he acts best.” “He plays a good fiddle,” for “he<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_234"></a>[234]</span> -plays well on the fiddle,” is, for the same reason, objectionable.</p> - -<p>Of expressions involving a contradiction, the following -will serve as an example. “There were four ladies in company, -every one prettier than another.” This is impossible. -If A was prettier than B, B must have been less pretty than -A; but by the expression every one was prettier than another, -therefore B was also prettier than A. Such absurdities as -this ought surely to be banished from every language<a id="FNanchor_136" href="#Footnote_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a>.</p> - -<p>Of those, which have little or no meaning, Campbell has -given us examples, “currying favour,” “having a month’s -mind,” “shooting at rovers.” Such modes of expression, he -justly calls trash, the disgrace of any language.</p> - -<p>These canons I have extracted from “Campbell on -Rhetoric,” a book which I would recommend to the reader’s -attentive perusal.</p> - -<p>I proceed to observe, that to write any language with -grammatical purity, implies these three things:</p> - -<p>1st. That the words be all of that language.</p> - -<p>2ndly. That they be construed and arranged, according to -the rules of syntax in that language.</p> - -<p>3rdly. That they be employed in that sense, which usage -has annexed to them.</p> - -<p>Grammatical purity, therefore, may be violated in three -ways:</p> - -<p>1st. The words may not be English. This error is called -barbarism.</p> - -<p>2ndly. Their construction may be contrary to the English -idiom. This error is termed solecism.</p> - -<p>3rdly. They may be used in a sense different from their established -acceptation. This error is named impropriety<a id="FNanchor_137" href="#Footnote_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a>.</p> - -<p>The barbarism is an offence against lexicography, by admitting -new words, as, “volupty,” “connexity,” “majestatic;” -or by using obsolete words, as, “uneath,” “erst;” or an<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_235"></a>[235]</span> -offence against etymology, by improper inflection, as, -“teached” for “taught,” “oxes” for “oxen.”</p> - -<p>The solecism is an offence against the rules of syntax, as, -“I reads,” “you was.”</p> - -<p>The impropriety is an offence against lexicography, by -mistaking the meaning of words or phrases.</p> - -<p>A solecism is regarded by grammarians as a much greater -offence than either of the others; because it betrays a greater -ignorance of the principles of the language. Rhetorically -considered, it is deemed a less trespass; for the rhetorician -and grammarian estimate the magnitude of errors by different -standards; the former inquiring only how far any error -militates against the great purpose of his art—persuasion; -the latter, how far it betrays an ignorance of the principles of -grammar. Hence with the former, obscurity is the greatest -trespass; with the latter, solecism, and that species of barbarism -which violates the rules of etymology<a id="FNanchor_138" href="#Footnote_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a>.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="p2 chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_236"></a>[236]</span><br /></p> - -<h3 id="CHAPTER_II_CC">CHAPTER II.<br /> - -<span class="fs60">CRITICAL REMARKS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.</span></h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent">Having, in the preceding chapter, explained the nature of -that usage which gives law to language; and having proposed -a few rules for the student’s direction in cases where -usage is divided, and also where her authority may be justly -questioned and checked by criticism; I intend, in the following -pages, to present the young reader with a copious exemplification -of the three general species of error against -grammatical purity, arranging the examples in the order of -the parts of speech.</p> - - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<h4 id="CRI_I">SECTION I.<br /> - -<span class="fs80">THE NOUN.</span></h4> - - -<h5>BARBARISM.</h5> - -<p class="noindent">“I rode in a one-horse chay.” It ought to be “a one-horse -chaise.” There is no such word as <em>chay</em>.</p> - -<p>“That this has been the true and proper acception of this -word, I shall testify by one evidence.”—<cite>Hammond.</cite> <em>Acception</em> -is obsolete; it ought to be <em>acceptation</em>.</p> - -<p>“Were the workmen to enter into a contrary combination -of the same kind, not to accept of a certain wage.”—<cite>Wealth -of Nations.</cite> <em>Wage</em> is obsolete; the plural only is used.</p> - -<p>“Their alliance was sealed by the nuptial of Henry, with -the daughter of the Italian prince.”—<cite>Gibbon.</cite> <em>Nuptial</em> has -not, I believe, been used as a substantive since the days of -Shakspeare, and may be deemed obsolete. The plural <em>nuptials</em> -is the proper word.</p> - -<p>“He showed that he had a full comprehension of the whole -of the plan, and of the judicious adaption of the parts to -the whole.”—<cite>Sheridan’s Life of Swift.</cite> <em>Adaption</em> is obsolescent, -if not obsolete: <em>adaptation</em> is the proper term. -<em>Adaption</em> is frequently employed by Swift, from whom -Sheridan seems to have copied it.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_237"></a>[237]</span></p> - -<p>... “Which even his brother modernists themselves, like -ungrates, whisper so loud that it reaches up to the very -garret I am now writing in.”—<cite>Swift.</cite> “Ungrate” is a barbarism. -“Ingrate” is to be found in some of our English -poets as an adjective, and synonymous with “ungrateful;” -but “ungrate,” as a substantive, is truly barbarous. Almost -equally objectionable is Steele’s use of <em>stupid</em> as a substantive -plural. “Thou art no longer to drudge in raising -the mirth of stupids.”—<cite>Spectator</cite>, No. 468. And also of -<em>ignorant</em>, “the ignorants of the lowest order.”—<em>Ibid.</em></p> - -<p>Pope also says, in one of his letters, “We are curious impertinents -in the case of futurity.” This employment of the -adjective as a noun substantive, though never sanctioned by -general use, is now properly avoided by our most reputable -writers. It tends to confusion, where distinction is necessary.</p> - -<p>“The Deity dwelleth between the cherubims.” The -Hebrews form the plural of masculines by adding <em>im</em>; -“cherubims,” therefore, is a double plural. “Seraphims,” -for the same reason, is faulty. The singular of these words -being “cherub” and “seraph,” the plural is either “cherubs” -and “seraphs,” or “cherubim” and “seraphim.” Milton has -uniformly avoided this mistake, which circumstance Addison, -in his criticisms on that author, has overlooked; nay, he has, -even with Milton’s correct usage before him, committed the -error. “The zeal of the <em>seraphim</em>,” says he, “breaks forth -in a becoming warmth of sentiments and expressions, as the -character which is given of <em>him</em>,” &c. Here “seraphim,” a -plural noun, is used as singular. It should be, “the zeal of -the seraph.”</p> - -<p>“Nothing can be more pleasant than to see virtuosoes -about a cabinet of medals descanting upon the value, the -rarity, and authenticalness of the several pieces.” <em>Authenticalness</em>, -though used by Addison, is obsolescent, and may, -perhaps, be deemed a barbarism. It may be properly dismissed, -as a harsh and unnecessary term.</p> - -<p>“He broke off with Lady Gifford, one of his oldest acquaintances -in life.”—<cite>Sheridan’s Life of Swift.</cite> <em>Acquaintances</em> -is now deemed a Scotticism, being almost peculiar to -the northern parts of the island. Johnson, however, did not<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_238"></a>[238]</span> -disclaim it. “A young student from the inns of court, who -has often attacked the curate of his father’s parish, with such -arguments as his acquaintances could furnish.”—<cite>Rambler.</cite> -We find it also in Steele; thus, “she pays everybody their -own, and yet makes daily new acquaintances.”—<cite>Tatler</cite>, No. 109.</p> - -<p>“I am sure that the farmeress at Bevis would feel emotions -of vanity ... if she knew you gave her the character -of a reasonable woman.”—<cite>Lord Peterborough to Pope.</cite> -This, I believe, is the only passage in which <em>farmeress</em> is to -be found; but, though it may therefore be pronounced a -barbarism, the author could not have expressed himself so -clearly and so concisely, in any other way. We every now -and then, as Johnson observes, feel the want of a feminine -termination.</p> - -<p>“The bellowses were broken.” The noun, as here inflected, -is barbarous. “Bellows” is a plural word denoting -a single instrument, though consisting of two parts. There -is, therefore, no such word as “bellowses.”</p> - - -<h5 class="p1">SOLECISM<a id="FNanchor_139" href="#Footnote_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a>.</h5> - -<p>“I have read Horace Art of Poetry.” This expression -may be deemed solecistical, being a violation of that rule, -by which one substantive governs another in the genitive. -It should be, “Horace’s Art of Poetry.” “These are ladies -ruffles,” “this is the kings picture,” are errors of the same -kind, for “ladies’ ruffles,” “the king’s picture.”</p> - -<p>“These three great genius’s flourished at the same time.” -Here “genius’s,” the genitive singular, is improperly used -for “geniuses,” the nominative plural.</p> - -<p>“They have of late, ’tis true, reformed, in some measure, -the gouty joints and darning work of <em>whereunto’s</em>, <em>whereby’s</em>, -<em>thereof’s</em>, <em>therewith’s</em>, and the rest of this kind.”—<cite>Shaftesbury.</cite> -Here also the genitive singular is improperly used for -the objective case plural. It should be, <em>whereuntos</em>, <em>wherebys</em>, -<em>thereofs</em>, <em>therewiths</em>.</p> - -<p>“Both those people, acute and inquisitive to excess, corrupted -the sciences.”—<cite>Adams’s History of England.</cite></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_239"></a>[239]</span></p> - -<p>“Two rival peoples, the Jews and the Samaritans, have -preserved separate exemplars of it.”—<cite>Geddes’ Preface to his -Translation of the Bible.</cite> The former of these passages involves -a palpable error, the word “people,” here equivalent -to <em>nation</em>, and in the singular number, being joined with <em>both</em> -or “the two,” a term of plurality. In the latter, this error is -avoided, the noun being employed in the plural number. -This usage, however, though sanctioned by the authority of -our translators of the Bible in two passages, seems now to be -obsolete. <em>States</em>, <em>tribes</em>, <em>nations</em>, appear to be preferable.</p> - -<p>“I bought a scissars,” “I want a tongs,” “it is a tattered -colours,” involve a palpable solecism, the term significant of -unity being joined with a plural word. It should be “a pair -of scissars,” “a pair of tongs,” “a pair of colours.”</p> - -<p>“They tell us, that the fashion of jumbling fifty things together -in a dish was at first introduced, in compliance to a -depraved and debauched appetite.”—<cite>Swift.</cite></p> - -<p>We say, “comply with;” therefore, by Rule xvii. “in compliance -with” is the analogical form of expression, and has -the sanction of classical usage.</p> - -<p>“The fortitude of a man, who brings his will to the -obedience of his reason.”—<cite>Steele.</cite> Analogy requires “obedience -to.” We say, <em>obedient to command</em>: the person -obeying is expressed in the genitive, or with the preposition -<em>of</em>; and the person or thing obeyed with the preposition <em>to</em>, -as, “a servant’s obedience,” or “the obedience of a servant -to the orders of his master.”</p> - -<p>“Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.”—<cite>Bible.</cite> -“Attendance” and “attention” are verbal nouns, -derived from “attend.” When the verb signifies “to regard,” -or “to fix the mind upon,” it is followed by <em>to</em>, as, -“he attends to his studies,” and the verbal noun is “attention,” -construed, agreeably to Rule xvii. in the same manner -as the verb. Thus, “he gives attention to his studies.” But -when “to attend” signifies “to wait on,” or “be present at,” -it is followed by <em>on</em>, <em>upon</em>, or <em>at</em>, and is sometimes used -without the preposition.</p> - -<p>Thus, “if any minister refused to admit a lecturer recommended -to him, he was required to attend <em>upon</em> the committee.”—<cite>Clarendon.</cite></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_240"></a>[240]</span></p> - -<p>“He attended <em>at</em> the consecration with becoming gravity.”—<cite>Hume.</cite> -In this sense the verbal noun is “attendance,” and -construed like the verb, when it bears this signification. In -the sentence, therefore, last quoted, syntax requires, either -“attendance at” or “attention to.” The latter conveys the -meaning of the original.</p> - - -<h5 class="p2">IMPROPRIETY.</h5> - -<p>“The observation of the Sabbath is a duty incumbent on -every Christian.” It should be, “the observance.” Both -substantives are derived from the verb “to observe.” When -the verb means “to keep,” or “obey,” the verbal noun is -“observance;” when “to remark,” or “to notice,” the noun -is “observation.”</p> - -<p>“They make such acquirements, as fit them for useful -avocations.”—<cite>Staunton’s Embassy to China.</cite></p> - -<p>The word <em>avocation</em> is frequently, as in the example before -us, confounded with <em>vocation</em>. By the latter is clearly signified -“calling,” “trade,” “employment,” “business,” “occupation;” -and by the former is meant whatever withdraws, -distracts, or diverts us from that business. No two words -can be more distinct; yet we often see them confounded.</p> - -<p>“A supplication of twenty days was decreed to his honour.”—<cite>Henry’s -History of Britain.</cite> The term <em>supplication</em> is in -our language confined to what Johnson calls “petitionary -worship,” and always implies request, entreaty, or petition. -The Latin term <em>supplicatio</em> has a more extensive meaning, -and likewise <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">supplicium</i>, each denoting not only <em>prayer</em>, -strictly so called, but also <em>thanksgiving</em>. The latter of these -should have been employed by the author.</p> - -<p>“Our pleasures are purer, when consecrated by nations, -and cherished by the greatest <em>genii</em> among men.”—<cite>Blackwell’s -Mythology.</cite> <em>Genii</em> means spirits. (See <a href="#Page_18">p. 18</a>.) It -ought to be <em>geniuses</em>.</p> - -<p>I have already remarked (see <a href="#Page_31">p. 31</a>), that, when the primary -idea implied in the masculine and feminine terms is the -chief object of attention, and when the sex does not enter as -a matter of consideration, the masculine term should be employed, -even when the female is signified. Thus, the -Monthly Reviewer, in giving a critique on the poems of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_241"></a>[241]</span> -Mrs. Grant, says, in allusion to that lady, “such is the poet’s -request.” This is strictly proper. He considers her merely -as a writer of poetry. But, were we to say, “as a poet she -ought not to choose for her theme the story of Abelard,” we -should be chargeable with error. For this would imply, that -the story of Abelard is not a fit subject for a poem,—a -sentiment manifestly false. There is no incongruity between -the subject and poetry, but between the subject and female -delicacy. We ought, therefore, to say, “as a poetess, she -ought not to choose for her theme the story of Abelard.”</p> - -<p>“It was impossible not to suspect the veracity of this -story.” “Veracity” is applicable to persons only, and properly -denotes that moral quality or property, which consists -in speaking truth, being in its import nearly synonymous with -the fashionable, but grossly perverted term, <em>honour</em>: it is, -therefore, improperly applied to things. It should be “<em>the -truth</em> of this story.” The former denotes moral, and the -latter physical truth. We therefore say “the truth” or -“verity of the relation or thing told,” and “the veracity of -the relater.”</p> - -<p>Pope has entitled a small dissertation, prefixed to his -translation of the Iliad, “A View of the Epic Poem,” misled, -it is probable, by Bossu’s title of a similar work, “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Traité du -Poëme Epique</span>.” <em>Poem</em> denotes the work or thing composed; -“the art of making,” which is here intended, is -termed <em>poesy</em>.</p> - -<p>An error similar to this occurs in the following passage: -“I apprehend that all the <em>sophism</em> which has been or can be -employed, will not be sufficient to acquit this system at the -tribunal of reason.”—<cite>Bolingbroke.</cite> “Sophism” is properly -defined by Johnson, “a fallacious argument;” sophistry -means “fallacious reasoning,” or “unsound argumentation.” -The author should have said “all the sophistry,” or “all the -sophisms.”</p> - -<p>“The Greek is, doubtless, a language much superior in -riches, harmony, and variety to the Latin.”—<cite>Campbell’s -Rhet.</cite> As the properties or qualities of the languages are -here particularly compared, I apprehend, that the abstract -“richness” would be a more apposite term. “Riches” properly<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_242"></a>[242]</span> -denotes “the things possessed,” or “what constitutes -the opulence of the owner;” “richness” denotes the state, -quality, or property of the individual, as possessed of these. -The latter, therefore, appears to me the more appropriate -term.</p> - -<p>“He felt himself compelled to acknowledge the justice of -my remark.” The <em>justness</em> would, agreeably to Canon 1st, -be the preferable word, the former term being confined to -persons, and the latter to things.</p> - -<p>“The negligence of this leaves us exposed to an uncommon -levity in our usual conversation.”—<cite>Spectator.</cite> It ought -to be “the neglect.” “Negligence” implies a habit; “neglect” -expresses an act.</p> - -<p>“For I am of opinion that it is better a language should -not be wholly perfect, than it should be perpetually changing; -and we must give over at one time, or at length infallibly -change for the worse; as the Romans did when they -began to quit their simplicity of style for affected refinements, -such as we meet with in Tacitus, and other authors, which -ended, by degrees, in many barbarities.” <em>Barbarity</em>, in this -sense, is obsolescent. The univocal term, <em>barbarism</em>, is much -preferable.</p> - -<p>Gibbon, speaking of the priest, says, “to obtain the acceptation -of this guide to salvation, you must faithfully pay -him tythes.” <em>Acceptation</em> in this sense is obsolete, or at least -nearly out of use; it should be <em>favour</em> or <em>acceptance</em>.</p> - -<p>“She ought to lessen the extravagant power of the duke -and duchess, by taking the disposition of employments into -her own hands.”—<cite>Swift.</cite> <em>Disposal</em>, for reasons already -assigned<a id="FNanchor_140" href="#Footnote_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a>, is much better.</p> - -<p>“The conscience of approving one’s self a benefactor to -mankind, is the noblest recompense for being so.” “Conscience” -is the faculty by which we judge our own conduct. -It is here improperly used for “consciousness,” or the perception -of what passes within ourselves.</p> - -<p>“If reasons were as plenty as blackberries, I would give no -man a reason on compulsion.”—<cite>Shakspeare.</cite> Here <em>plenty</em>, -a substantive, is improperly used for <em>plentiful</em>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_243"></a>[243]</span></p> - -<p>“It had a prodigious <em>quantity</em> of windows.”—<cite>Spence’s -Excursions.</cite> It should be <em>number</em>. This error frequently -occurs in common conversation. We hear of “a quantity -of people,” of “a quantity of troops,” “a quantity of boys -and girls,” just as if they were to be measured by the bushel, -or weighed in the balance.—“To-morrow will suit me equally -well.” If we enquire here for a nominative to the verb, we -find none, <em>morrow</em> being under the government of the preposition. -This error is so common, that we fear its correction -is hopeless. The translators of the Bible seem carefully -to have avoided this inaccuracy:—“<em>To</em>-morrow (<em>i.e.</em> ‘on the -morrow’) the Lord shall do this;” “And the Lord did that -thing on <em>the</em> morrow.” Analogy requires, that we should -say, “<em>The</em> morrow will suit me equally well.”</p> - -<p>“I have the Dublin copy of Gibbon’s History.” This is -a Scotticism for <em>Dublin edition</em>; and so palpable, that I -should not have mentioned it, were it not found in authors of -no contemptible merit. “I have no right to be forced,” said -a citizen to a magistrate, “to serve as constable.” This perversion -of the word <em>right</em>, originally, we believe, a cockneyism, -is gradually gaining ground, and is found in compositions, -into which nothing but extreme inattention can account -for its introduction. A <em>right</em> implies a just claim, or -title to some privilege, freedom, property, or distinction, supposed -by the claimant to be conducive to his benefit. We -should smile, if we heard a foreigner, in vindication of his innocence, -say, “I have no right to be imprisoned;” “I have -no right to be hanged.” The perversion here is too palpable -to escape our notice. But we hear a similar, though not so -ridiculous, an abuse of the word, in common conversation -without surprise. “I have no right,” says one, “to be taxed -with this indiscretion;” “I have no right,” says another, “to -be subjected to this penalty.” These phraseologies are absurd. -They involve a contradiction; they presume a benefit, -while they imply an injury. The correlative term on one -side is <em>right</em>, and on the other <em>obligation</em>; a creditor has a -right to a just debt, and the debtor is under an obligation to -pay it. Instead of these indefensible phraseologies we should -say, “I am not bound,” or “I am under no obligation to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_244"></a>[244]</span> -submit to this penalty;” “I ought not to be taxed with -this indiscretion,” or “you have no right to subject me,” -“you have no right to tax me.”</p> - -<p>Robertson, when speaking of the Mexican form of government -(Book viith), says, “But the description of their policy -and laws is so inaccurate and contradictory, that it is difficult -to delineate the form of their constitution with any precision.” -I should here prefer the appropriate and univocal -term <em>polity</em>, which denotes merely the form of government; -<em>policy</em> means rather wisdom or prudence, or the art of governing, -which may exist where there is no settled <em>polity</em>.</p> - -<p>“A letter relative to certain calumnies and misrepresentations -which have appeared in the Edinburgh Review, with -an exposition of the ignorance of the new critical junto.”—Here, -agreeably to Canon I. (see <a href="#Page_229">p. 229</a>), I should prefer <em>exposure</em>, -as being a word strictly univocal. It would conduce to -perspicuity were we to consider <em>exposition</em> as the verbal noun -of <em>expound</em>, and confine it entirely to <em>explanation</em>, and <em>exposure</em> -as the verbal noun of <em>expose</em>, signifying the act of setting -out, or the state of being set out or exposed.</p> - - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<h4 id="CRI_II">SECTION II.<br /> - -<span class="fs80">THE ADJECTIVE.</span></h4> - - -<h5>BARBARISM.</h5> - -<p class="noindent">“Instead of an able man, you desire to have him an insignificant -wrangler, opiniatre in discourse, and priding himself -on contradicting others.”—<cite>Locke.</cite> <em>Opiniatre</em> is a barbarism; -it should be <em>opinionative</em>.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“And studied lines, and fictious circles draw.”—<cite>Prior.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">The word <em>fictious</em> is of Prior’s own coining; it is barbarous.</p> - -<p>“The punishment that belongs to that great and criminous -guilt is the forfeiture of his right and claim to all mercies.”—<cite>Hammond.</cite> -<em>Criminous</em> is a barbarism.</p> - -<p>“Which, even in the most overly view, will appear incompatible -with any sort of music.”—<cite>Kames’s Elements.</cite> <em>Overly</em> -is a Scotticism; in England it is now obsolete. The proper -term is <em>cursory</em> or <em>superficial</em>.</p> - -<p>“Who should believe, that a man should be a doctor for<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_245"></a>[245]</span> -the cure of bursten children?”—<cite>Steele.</cite> The participle -<em>bursten</em> is now obsolete.</p> - -<p>“Callisthenes, the philosopher, that followed Alexander’s -court, and hated the king, being asked, how one should become -the <em>famousest</em> man in the world, answered, By taking -away him that is.”—<cite>Bacon’s Apophth.</cite> The superlative is a -barbarism; it should be, “most famous.”</p> - - -<h5 class="p2">SOLECISM.</h5> - -<p>“I do not like these kind of men.” Here the plural word -<em>these</em> is joined to a noun singular; it should be, “this kind.” -“Those sort,” “these kind of things,” are gross solecisms.</p> - -<p>“Neither do I see it is any crime, farther than ill manners, -to differ in opinion from the majority of either, or both -houses; and that ill manners I have often been guilty of.”—<cite>Swift’s -Examiner.</cite> Here is another egregious solecism. He -should have said, “those ill manners,” or “that species of -ill manners.”</p> - -<p>“The landlord was quite unfurnished of every kind of provision.”—<cite>Sheridan’s -Life of Swift.</cite> We say, “to furnish -<em>with</em>,” not “to furnish <em>of</em>.” <em>Furnished</em> and <em>unfurnished</em> are -construed in the same manner. It should be, “unfurnished -<em>with</em>.”</p> - -<p>“A child of four years old was thus cruelly deserted by its -parents.” This form of expression frequently occurs, and is -an egregious solecism. It should be, “a child four years old,” -or “aged four years,” not “of four years.” Those who employ -this incorrect phraseology, seem misled by confounding -two very different modes of expression, namely, “a child of -four years of age,” or “of the age of four years,” and “a child -four years old.” The preposition <em>of</em> is requisite in the two -first of these forms, but inadmissible in the third. They -would not say, “I am of four years old,” but “I am four -years old;” hence, consistently, they ought to say, “a child -four years old.” “At ten years old, I was put to a grammar -school.”—<cite>Steele.</cite> Grammatically this is, “I old at ten -years.”</p> - -<p>“This account is very different <em>to</em> what I told you.” “I -found your affairs had been managed in a different manner -<em>than</em> what I advised.” Both these phraseologies are faulty.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_246"></a>[246]</span> -It should be in each, “different <em>from</em>.” The verb “to differ” -is construed with <em>from</em> before the second object of disparity; -the adjective therefore should (by Rule xvii.) be construed in -the same manner.</p> - -<p>“These words have the same sense of those others.” -<em>Same</em> should be followed with <em>as</em>, <em>with</em>, or the relatives <em>who</em>, -<em>which</em>, <em>that</em>. It ought, therefore, to be, “as those,” or “with -those,” or “have the sense of those others.”</p> - -<p>“I shall ever depend on your constant friendship, kind -memory, and good offices, though I were never to see or -hear the effects of them, like the trust we have in benevolent -spirits, who, though we never see or hear them, we think -are constantly serving and praying for us.”—<cite>Pope’s Letters -to Atterbury.</cite> <em>Like</em> can have no grammatical reference to -any word in the sentence but <em>I</em>, and this reference is absurd. -He should have said, “<em>as</em>, or <em>just as</em>, we trust in benevolent -spirits.”</p> - -<p>“This gentleman rallies the best of any man <ins class="corr" id="tn-246" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'I know.” Addison.'"> -I know.”—<cite>Addison.</cite></ins> -The superlative must be followed by <em>of</em>, the preposition -implying <em>out of</em> a plurality, expressed either by a -collective noun, or a plural number. But here we have a selection -denoted by <em>of</em>, and the selection to be made out of -one. This is absurd. It should be, “better than any other”—the -best of all men—“I know;” “this gentleman, of all -my acquaintance, rallies the best;” or “of all my acquaintance, -there is no one, who rallies so well as this gentleman.”</p> - -<p>“Besides, those, whose teeth are too rotten to bite, are -best, of all others, qualified to revenge that defect with their -breath.”—<cite>Preface to A Tale of a Tub.</cite></p> - -<p>“Here,” says Sheridan, “the disjunction of the word <em>best</em> -from the word <em>qualified</em> makes the sentence uncouth, which -would run better thus, ‘are, of all others, best qualified.’” -So far Mr. Sheridan is right; but he has left uncorrected a -very common error. The antecedent subject of comparison -is here absurdly referred at once to the same, and to a different -aggregate, the word <em>of</em> referring it to <em>others</em>, to which -it is opposed, and to which therefore it cannot, without a -contradiction, be said to belong. The sentence, therefore, involves -an absurdity: either the word <em>others</em> should be expunged,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_247"></a>[247]</span> -when the sentence would run thus, “Those, whose -teeth are too rotten to bite, are, of all, best qualified to revenge -that defect;” or, if the word <em>others</em> be retained, the -clause should be, “are better qualified than all others.”<a id="FNanchor_141" href="#Footnote_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a></p> - -<p>The phraseology here censured is admissible in those cases -only where a previous comparison has been made. If we -say, “To engage a private tutor for a single pupil is, perhaps, -of all others, the least eligible mode of giving literary -instruction,” (<cite>Barrow on Education</cite>,) without making that -previous discrimination, which the word <em>others</em> implies, we -commit an error. But we may say with propriety, “I prefer -the mode of education adopted in our public schools; -and of all <em>other modes</em>, to engage a private tutor appears to -me the least eligible.”</p> - - -<h5 class="p2">IMPROPRIETY.</h5> - -<p>“They could easier get them by heart, and retain them in -memory.”—<cite>Adams’s History of England.</cite> Here the adjective -is improperly used for the adverb; it ought to be “more -easily.” Swift commits a similar error, when he says, “Ned -explained his text so full and clear,” for “so fully and clearly.”</p> - -<p>“Thus much, I think, is sufficient to serve, by way of address, -to my patrons, the true modern critics, and may very -well atone for my past silence as well as for that, which I -am like to observe for the future.”—<cite>Swift.</cite> <em>Like</em>, or <em>similar</em>, -is here improperly used for <em>likely</em>, a word in signification -nearly synonymous with <em>probable</em>. We say, “he is likely to -do it,” or “it is probable he will do it.”</p> - -<p>“Charity vaunteth not itself, doth not behave itself unseemly.” -Here the adjective <em>unseemly</em> is improperly used for -the adverb, denoting “in an unseemly manner.” <em>Unseemlily</em> -not being in use, the word <em>indecently</em> should be substituted.</p> - -<p>“The Romans had no other subsistence but the scanty<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_248"></a>[248]</span> -pillage of a few farms.” <em>Other</em> is redundant; it should be, -“no subsistence but,” or “no other subsistence than.” In the -Saxon language, and the earlier English writers, the word -<em>other</em> is not uniformly followed by <em>than</em>, but sometimes with -<em>but</em>, <em>before</em>, <em>save</em>, <em>except</em><a id="FNanchor_142" href="#Footnote_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a>, thus, Mark xii. 32, -“<span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">thær an God is, and nis other butan him</span>,” thus rendered in the Bishops’ -Translation, “there is one God, and there is none but he,” -and in the common version, “none other but he.” In the -Book of Common Prayer we have, “Thou shalt have no other -Gods but me;” and the same form of expression occurs in -Addison, Swift, and other contemporary writers. Usage, -however, seems of late to have decided almost universally in -favour of <em>than</em>. This decision is not only consistent with -analogy, if the word <em>other</em> is to be deemed a comparative, but -may also, in some cases, be subservient to perspicuity. <em>No -other but</em>, <em>no other beside</em>, <em>no other except</em>, are equivalent expressions, -and do not perhaps convey precisely the same idea -with <em>none but</em>, <em>no other than</em>. Thus, if we take an example -similar to Baker’s, and suppose a person to say “A called on -me this morning,” B asks, “No one else?” “No other,” -answers A, “but my stationer.” Here the expression, as -Baker remarks, seems strictly proper, the words <em>no other</em> -having a reference to A. But if the stationer had been the -only visitor, he should say, “none but,” or “no other <em>than</em> -the stationer called on me this morning.” This is the opinion -of Baker. The distinction, which he wishes to establish, is<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_249"></a>[249]</span> -sufficiently evident; but that it is warranted by strict analysis, -I do not mean to affirm.</p> - -<p>“He has eaten no bread, nor drunk no water, these two -days.” <em>No</em> is here improperly used for <em>any</em>, two negatives -making an affirmative: it should be, “nor drunk any water.”</p> - -<p>“The servant must have an undeniable character.” <em>Undeniable</em> -is equivalent to <em>incontrovertible</em>, or “not admitting -dispute.” An “undeniable character,” therefore, means, a -character which cannot be denied or disputed, whether good -or bad: it should be “unexceptionable.”</p> - -<p>“But you are too wise to propose to yourselves an object -inadequate to your strength.”—<cite>Watson’s History of -Philip III.</cite> <em>Inadequate</em> means “falling short of due proportion,” -and is here improperly used in a sense nearly the -reverse. It should be “to which your strength is inadequate,” -or “superior to your strength.”</p> - -<p>“I received a letter to-day from our mutual friend.” I -concur with Baker in considering this expression to be incorrect. -A may be a friend to B, and also to C, and is therefore -a friend common to both; but not their mutual friend: -for this implies reciprocity between two individuals, or two -parties. The individuals may be mutually friends; but one -cannot be the mutual friend of the other. Locke more properly -says, “I esteem the memory of our common friend.” -This is, doubtless, the correct expression; but, as the term -<em>common</em> may denote “ordinary,” or “not uncommon,” the -word <em>mutual</em>, though not proper, may, perhaps, as Baker -observes, be tolerated.</p> - -<p>The superlatives <em>lowest</em> and <em>lowermost</em>, <em>highest</em> and <em>uppermost</em>, -appear to me to be frequently confounded. Thus we say, -“the lowest house in the street,” when we mean the lowest in -respect to measurement, from the basement to the top, and -also the lowest in regard to position, the inferiority <ins class="corr" id="tn-249" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'being accasioned'"> -being occasioned</ins> by declivity. Now it appears to me, that when we -refer to dimension, we should say, <em>lowest</em> or <em>highest</em>; and -when we refer to site or situation, we ought to say, <em>lowermost</em> -or <em>uppermost</em>.</p> - -<p>“It was due, perhaps, more to the ignorance of the scholars, -than to the knowledge of the masters.”—<cite>Swift.</cite> It<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_250"></a>[250]</span> -should be rather, “it was owing,” or “it is ascribable.” The -author had previously been speaking of the first instructors -of mankind, and questioning their claim to the title of sages. -To say, then, that their right to this title, or that the appellation -itself, “was due more to ignorance than to knowledge,” -is manifestly improper. Swift, however, was not singular in -using the adjective in this sense. Steele, and some other -contemporary writers, employed it in the same acceptation. -“The calamities of children are due to the negligence of the -parents.”—<cite>Spectator</cite>, No. 431. It is now seldom or never -employed as equivalent to “owing to,” or “occasioned by.”</p> - -<p>“Risible,” “ludicrous,” and “ridiculous,” are frequently -confounded. <em>Risible</em> denotes merely the capacity of laughing, -and is applied to animals having the faculty of laughter, as, -“man is a risible creature.” <em>Ludicrous</em> is applicable to things -exciting laughter simply; <em>ridiculous</em> to things exciting laughter -with contempt. The tricks of a monkey are <em>ludicrous</em>, the -whimsies of superstition are <em>ridiculous</em>. “The measure of the -mid stream for salmon among our forefathers is not less risible.”—<cite>Kames’s -Sketches.</cite> He should have said “ridiculous.”</p> - -<p>We have already expressed our doubt of the propriety of -using the numeral adjective <em>one</em>, as referring to a plurality of -individuals, denoted by a plural noun. (<em>See</em> <a href="#Page_48">p. 48</a>.) There is -something which is not only strange to the ear, but also -strikes us as ungrammatical, in saying<a id="FNanchor_143" href="#Footnote_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a>, “The Greeks and -the Trojans continued the contest; the one were favoured by -Juno, the other by Venus.” At the same time, it must be -acknowledged, that there seems to be an inconsistency in -questioning this phraseology, and yet retaining some others, -which appear to be analogous to it, and can plead in their -defence reputable usage. We say, “The Romans and the -Carthaginians contended with each other;” and “The -English, the Dutch, and the Spaniards disputed, one with -another, the sovereignty of the sea.” Here <em>each</em> and <em>one</em><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_251"></a>[251]</span> -clearly refer to a plurality, expressed by a noun plural. A -similar example occurs in the following sentence: “As the -greatest part of mankind are more affected by things, which -strike the senses, than by excellences, that are discovered by -reason and thought, they form very erroneous judgments, -when they compare <em>one</em> with the other.”—<cite>Guardian.</cite> If we -inquire, what one? we find the answer to be “things.” Here -is a manifest incongruity, which might have been prevented, -by saying, “one subject with the other,” or “when they compare -them together.” As this construction of <em>one</em>, referring -to a noun plural, seems irreconcilable with the notion of -unity, and may be avoided, it becomes a question, whether -this phraseology ought to be imitated. The subject, as far as I -know, has not been considered by any of our grammarians.</p> - -<p>“That this was the cause of the disaster, was apparent to -all.” <em>Apparent</em> is sometimes used in this sense. The word, -however, is equivocal, as it denotes <em>seeming</em>, opposed to <em>real</em>; -and <em>obvious</em>, opposed to <em>doubtful</em> or <em>obscure</em>. “I consider -the difference between him and the two authors above mentioned, -as more apparent than real.”—<cite>Campbell.</cite> Here <em>apparent</em> -is opposed to <em>real</em>; and to this sense it would be -right to confine it, as thus all ambiguity would be effectually -prevented. “But there soon appeared very apparent reasons -for James’s partiality.”—<cite>Goldsmith.</cite> <em>Obvious</em>, or <em>evident</em>, -would unquestionably be preferable.</p> - -<p>“How seldom, then, does it happen, that the mind does -not find itself in similar circumstances? Very rare indeed.”—<cite>Trusler’s -Preface to Synon.</cite> The adjective <em>rare</em> is here -improperly used for the adverb. As the question, indeed, is -adverbially proposed, it is somewhat surprising that the author -should answer <em>adjectively</em>: it ought to be, “very rarely.”</p> - -<p>“No man had ever <em>less</em> friends, and more enemies.” <em>Less</em> -refers to quantity, <em>fewer</em> to number; it should be, “<em>fewer</em> -friends.”</p> - -<p>“The mind may insensibly fall off from this relish of virtuous -actions, and by degrees exchange that pleasure, which -it takes in the performance of its duty, for delights of a much -more inferior and unprofitable nature.”—<cite>Addison.</cite> <em>Inferior</em> -implies comparison, but it is grammatically a positive. When<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_252"></a>[252]</span> -one thing is, in any respect, lower than another, we say, “it -is inferior to it;” and if a third thing were still lower, we -should say, “it is still more inferior.” But the author is -comparing only two subjects; he should therefore have said, -“of a much inferior, and more unprofitable nature.” The -expression “more preferable” is for the same reason faulty, -unless when two degrees of excess are implied.</p> - -<p>The adjectives <em>agreeable</em>, <em>suitable</em>, <em>conformable</em>, <em>independent</em>, -<em>consistent</em>, <em>relative</em>, <em>previous</em>, <em>antecedent</em>, and many -others, are often used, where their several derivative adverbs -would be more properly employed; as, “he lives <em>agreeable</em> -to nature,” “he wrote to me <em>previous</em> to his coming to town,” -“<em>tolerable</em> good,” “he acted <em>conformable</em> to his promise.” -It is worthy of remark, however, that the idiom of our language -is not repugnant to some of these phraseologies; a -circumstance which many of our grammarians have overlooked, -if we may judge from the severity with which they -have condemned them. If I say, “he acted according to -nature,” the expression is deemed unobjectionable: but is -not <em>according</em> a participle, or, perhaps, here more properly a -<em>participial</em>? “He acted contrary to nature” is also considered -as faultless; but is not <em>contrary</em> an adjective? Were -we to reason on abstract principles, or to adopt what is -deemed the preferable phraseology, we should say, “contrarily” -and “accordingly to nature.” This, however, is not -the case. “Contrary to nature,” “according to nature,” and -many similar phraseologies, are admitted as good: why, then, -is “conformable to nature,” an expression perfectly analogous, -so severely condemned? Johnson has, indeed, uselessly -enough, in my opinion, called <em>according</em> a preposition; fearful, -however, of error, he adds, it is properly a participle, for -it is followed by <em>to</em>. <em>According</em> is always a participle, as -much as <em>agreeing</em>, and can be nothing else. Because <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">secundum</i> -in Latin is termed a preposition, hence some have -referred <em>according</em> to the same species of words. With equal -propriety might <em>in the power of</em> be deemed a preposition, because -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">penes</i> in Latin is so denominated. Now, if “he acted -contrary to nature” and “according to nature” be deemed -unexceptionable expressions, with many others of the same<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_253"></a>[253]</span> -kind, which might be adduced, it follows that, “he acted -agreeable,” “conformable,” “suitable to nature,” may plead -in their favour these analogous phraseologies. I offer these -observations, in order to show that, misled by abstract reasonings, -or by the servile imitation of another language, we -sometimes hastily condemn, as altogether inadmissible, modes -of expression, which are not repugnant to our vernacular -idiom. I would not, however, be understood to mean, that -the adverb is not, in these cases, much to be preferred, when -it can be employed consistently with good usage. For, if -we say, “he acts agreeable to the laws of reason,” the question -is, who or what is agreeable? the answer, according to -the strict construction of the sentence, is <em>he</em>; but it is not <em>he</em>, -but <em>his mode of acting</em>, of which the accordance is predicated; -<em>agreeably</em> is, therefore, the preferable term.</p> - -<p>I observe also, that, wherever the adjective is employed to -modify the meaning of another adjective, it becomes particularly -exceptionable, and can scarcely, indeed, plead aught in -its favour, as, “indifferent good,” “tolerable strong,” instead -of “indifferently good,” and “tolerably strong.” The following -phraseology is extremely inelegant, and is scarcely -admissible on any principle of analogy: “Immediately consequent -to the victory, Drogheda was invested.”—<cite>Belsham’s -History.</cite> What was consequent? Grammatically “Drogheda.”</p> - -<p>“No other person, besides my brother, visited me to-day.” -Here the speaker means to say that no person, besides his -brother, visited him to-day; but his expression implies two -exceptions from <em>none</em>, the terms <em>other</em> and <em>besides</em> each implying -one, and can, therefore, be correct on this supposition -only, that some one besides his brother had visited him. It -should be rather, “no person besides.”</p> - -<p>“The old man had, some fifty years ago, been no mean -performer on the vielle.”—<cite>Sterne.</cite> This phraseology appears -to me very objectionable; and can be proper in no case, except -when the date of the period is to be expressed as uncertain. -The word <em>some</em> should be cancelled. We may say, “I -was absent some days,” because the period is indefinite; but -to say, “I was absent some five days,” either involves an -incongruity, representing a period as at once definite and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_254"></a>[254]</span> -indefinite; or denotes “some five days or other,” a meaning -which the expression is rarely intended to signify.</p> - -<p>“Brutus and Aruns killed one another.” It should be, -“each other:” “one another” is applied to more than two. -“The one the other” would be correct, though inelegant.</p> - -<p>“It argued the most extreme vanity.”—<cite>Hume.</cite> <em>Extreme</em> -is derived from a Latin superlative, and denotes “the -farthest,” or “greatest possible:” it cannot, therefore, be -compared.</p> - -<p>“Of all vices pride is the most universal.” <em>Universal</em> is -here improperly used for <em>general</em>. The meaning of the latter -admits intension and remission, and may, therefore, be compared. -The former is an adjective, whose signification cannot -be heightened or lessened; it therefore rejects all intensive -and diminutive words, as, <em>so</em>, <em>more</em>, <em>less</em>, <em>least</em>, <em>most</em>. -The expression should be, “Of all vices pride is the most -general.”</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“Tho’ learn’d, well-bred; and tho’ well-bred, sincere:</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Modestly bold, and humanly severe.”—<cite>Pope.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent"><em>Human</em> and <em>humane</em>, as Dr. Campbell observes, are sometimes -confounded. The former properly means “belonging -to man;” the latter, “kind and compassionate:” <em>humanly</em>, -therefore, is improperly, in the couplet now quoted, used for -<em>humanely</em>.</p> - - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<h4 id="CRI_III">SECTION III.<br /> - -<span class="fs80">THE PRONOUN.</span></h4> - - -<h5>BARBARISM.</h5> - -<p class="noindent">Pronouns are so few in number, and so simple, that this -species of error, in respect to them, can scarcely occur. To -this class, however, may perhaps be reduced such as, <em>his’n</em>, -<em>her’n</em>, <em>our’n</em>, <em>your’n</em>, <em>their’n</em>, for <em>his own</em>, <em>her own</em>, <em>our own</em>, -&c., or for <em>his one</em>, <em>her one</em>, &c.</p> - - -<h5 class="p2">SOLECISM.</h5> - -<p>“Who calls?” “’T is me.” This is a violation of that rule, -by which the verb <em>to be</em> has the same case after it that it has -before it. It should be, “It is I.”</p> - -<p>“You were the quarrel,” says Petulant in “The Way of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_255"></a>[255]</span> -the World.” Millamant answers, “Me!” For the reason -just given it should be “<em>I</em>.”</p> - -<p>“Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults.” -As the relative refers to persons, it should be <em>who</em>.</p> - -<p>“Nor is mankind so much to blame, in his choice thus determining -him.”—<cite>Swift.</cite> <em>Mankind</em> is a collective noun, and -is uniformly considered as plural; <em>his</em>, therefore, is a gross -solecism.</p> - -<p>“By this institution, each legion, to whom a certain portion -of auxiliaries was allotted, contained within itself every -species of lighter troops, and of missile weapons.”—<cite>Gibbon.</cite> -It ought to be, <em>to which</em>—the pronoun <em>itself</em>, which follows, -referring to a noun of the neuter gender. <em>To whom</em> and -<em>itself</em> cannot each agree with one common antecedent.</p> - -<p>“The seeming importance given to every part of female -dress, each of which is committed to the care of a different -sylph.”—<cite>Essay on the Writings of Pope.</cite> This sentence is -ungrammatical. <em>Each</em> implying “one of two,” or “every -one singly of more than two,” requires the correlative to be -considered as plural; yet the antecedent <em>part</em>, to which it -refers, is singular. It should be “all parts of female dress.”</p> - -<p>“To be sold, the stock of Mr. Smith, left off business.” -This is an ungrammatical and very offensive vulgarism. The -verb <em>left off</em>, as Baker observes, has no subject, to which it -can grammatically belong. It should be, “who has left off,” -or “leaving off business” “A. B. lieutenant, <em>vice</em> C. D. resigned.” -Here is a similar error. Is C. D. resigned? or is -it the office which has been resigned? An excessive love -of brevity gives occasion to such solecisms.</p> - -<p>“He was ignorant, the profane historian, of the testimony -which he is compelled to give.”—<cite>Gibbon’s Decline of the -Roman Empire.</cite></p> - -<p>“The youth and inexperience of the prince, he was only -fifteen years of age, declined a perilous encounter.”—<em>Ib.</em></p> - -<p>In the former sentence <em>the historian</em> appears neither as the -nominative, nor the regimen to any verb. If it be intended -to agree with <em>he</em> by apposition, it should have immediately -followed the pronoun. If it be designed emphatically, and -ironically, to mark the character of the historian, it should<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_256"></a>[256]</span> -have been thrown into the form of a parenthetic exclamation. -In the latter sentence a phraseology occurs, which, notwithstanding -its frequency in Gibbon, is extremely awkward and -inelegant. The fault may be corrected either by throwing -the age of the prince into a parenthesis, or, preferably, by the -substitution of <em>who</em> for <em>he</em>.</p> - -<p>“Fare thee well” is a phraseology which, though sanctioned -by the authority of a celebrated poet, and also by -other writers, involves a solecism. The verb is intransitive, -and its imperative is <em>fare thou</em>. No one would say, “I fare -me well,” “we fare us well.”</p> - -<p>“That faction in England, who most powerfully opposed -his arbitrary pretensions.”—<cite>Mrs. Macaulay.</cite> It ought rather -to be, “that faction in England, <em>which</em>.” It is justly observed -by Priestley, “that a term, which only implies the idea of -persons, and expresses them by some circumstance or epithet, -will hardly authorize the use of <em>who</em>.”</p> - -<p>“He was certainly one of the most acute metaphysicians, -one of the deepest philosophers, and one of the best critics, -and most learned divines, which modern times have produced.”—<cite>Keith -on the Life and Writings of Campbell.</cite></p> - -<p>“Moses was the mildest of all men, which were then on -the face of the earth.”—<cite>Geddes.</cite></p> - -<p>“Lord Sidney was one of the wisest and most active -governors, whom Ireland had enjoyed for several years.”—<cite>Hume.</cite></p> - -<p>In the two first of these passages, <em>which</em> is improperly applied -to persons; in the last, the author has avoided this impropriety, -and used <em>whom</em>. The pronoun <em>that</em>, however, is -much preferable to <em>who</em>, or <em>which</em>, after a superlative.</p> - -<p>“Such of the Morescoes might remain, who demeaned -themselves as Christians.”—<cite>Watson’s Life of Philip III.</cite> -<em>Such</em> is here improperly followed by <em>who</em> instead of <em>as</em>. The -correlative terms are <em>those who</em>, and <em>such as</em>.</p> - -<p>“It is hard to be conceived, that a set of men could ever -be chosen by their contemporaries, to have divine honours -paid to them, while numerous persons were alive, who knew -their imperfections, and who themselves, or their immediate -ancestors, might have as fair a pretence, and come in competition<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_257"></a>[257]</span> -with them.”—<cite>Prideaux’s Connexion.</cite> The identity -of subject, in the relative clauses of this sentence, requires -the repetition of the same pronoun. It should be, “who -themselves, or whose immediate ancestors.”</p> - -<p>“If you were here, you would find three or four in the -parlour, after dinner, whom you would say past their afternoons -very agreeably.”—<cite>Swift.</cite> The pronoun <em>whom</em> should -not be under the government of the verb <em>would say</em>, having -no connection with it; but should be a nominative to the -verb <em>passed</em>; thus, “who, you would say, passed their afternoons.”</p> - -<p>“By these means, that religious princess became acquainted -with Athenias, whom she found was the most accomplished -woman of her age.” <em>Whom</em>, for the reason -already assigned, should be <em>who</em>, being the nominative to the -verb <em>was</em>. If it were intended to be a regimen to the verb -<em>found</em>, the sentence should proceed thus, “whom she found -to be.”</p> - -<p>“Solomon was the wisest man, him only excepted, who -was much greater and wiser than Solomon.” In English the -absolute case is the nominative; it should, therefore, be, -“he only excepted.”</p> - -<p>“Who, instead of being useful members of society, they -are pests to mankind.” Here the verb <em>are</em> has two nominatives, -<em>who</em> and <em>they</em>, each representing the same subjects -of discourse. One of them is redundant; and by the use of -both, the expression becomes solecistical, there being no verb -to which the relative <em>who</em> can be a nominative.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“My banks, they are furnish’d with bees,”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">is faulty for the same reason, though here, perhaps, the poetic -licence may be pleaded in excuse.</p> - -<p>“It is against the laws of the realm, which, as they are -preserved and maintained by your majesty’s authority, so we -assure ourselves, you will not suffer them to be violated.” -<em>Which</em> is neither a regimen nor a nominative to any verb; -the sentence, therefore, is ungrammatical—<em>Them</em> is redundant.</p> - -<p>“Whom do men say that I am?” The relative is here in -the objective case, though there be no word in the sentence<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_258"></a>[258]</span> -by which it can be governed. In such inverted sentences, it -is a good rule for those who are not well acquainted with -the language to arrange the words in the natural order, beginning -with the nominative and the verbs, thus, “men say, -that I am who,” a sentence precisely analogous to “men say, -that I am he,” the verb requiring the same case after it, as -before it. Hence it is obvious, that it should be, “Who do -men say that I am?”</p> - -<p>“Who do you speak to?” It ought to be <em>whom</em>, the -relative being under the government of the preposition, thus, -“To whom do you speak?”</p> - -<p>“Who she knew to be dead.”—<cite>Henry’s Hist. of Britain.</cite> -Here also the relative should be in the objective case, under -the government of the verb, thus, “whom she knew,” or -“she knew whom to be dead.”</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">“Than whom, Satan except, none higher sat.”—<cite>Milton.</cite></div> - </div> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">“The king of dykes, than whom no sluice of mud,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">With deeper sable blots the silver flood.”—<cite>Pope.</cite></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">This phraseology I have already examined. In answer to -Mr. Baker’s reason for condemning the phrase “than whom,” -Story’s observations betray, as I conceive, extreme ignorance, -and require correction. “The English,” says he, “is strictly -good; for the relative <em>whom</em> is not in the same case with -<em>sluice</em>, (which is the nominative to the verb <em>blots</em>,) but referring -to its antecedent, <em>the king of dykes</em>, is very properly -in the objective case, even though the personal pronoun <em>he</em>, -if substituted in its place, would be in the nominative.”</p> - -<p>If Mr. Story conceives that the relative must agree with -its antecedent in case, he labours under an egregious mistake. -Every page of English evinces the contrary. Yet, such -must be his opinion, or his argument means nothing; for the -only reason, which he offers for <em>whom</em>, is, that its antecedent -is in the objective case. Besides, if <em>than whom</em> be admissible, -nay proper, he will have difficulty in assigning a good -reason, why it should not be also <em>than him</em>. But Mr. Story -should have known, that, when two nouns are coupled by a -conjunction, the latter term is not governed by the conjunction, -but is either the nominative to the verb, or is -governed by it, or by the preposition understood. The<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_259"></a>[259]</span> -sentence proceeds thus, “no sluice of mud blots with deeper -sable, than <em>he</em> or <em>who</em> blots.”</p> - -<p>“It is no wonder if such a man did not shine at the court -of Queen Elizabeth, who was but another name for prudence -and economy.”—<cite>Hume.</cite> The word <em>Elizabeth</em>, as represented -in the latter clause, is here a mere word, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nuda vox</i>, and -not the sign of a person; for it is said to be another name -for <em>prudence</em> and <em>economy</em>. Not the person, but the word, is -said to be significant of this quality. The pronoun, therefore, -should be <em>which</em>, not <em>who</em>. The sentence, however, -even thus corrected, would be inelegant. Better thus, -“Queen Elizabeth, whose name was but another word for -prudence and economy.”</p> - -<p>“Be not diverted from thy duty by any idle reflections the -silly world may make upon you.” Consistency requires -either “<em>your</em> duty,” or “upon <em>thee</em>.” <em>Thy</em> and <em>your</em>, a singular -and a plural pronoun, each addressed to the same individual, -are incongruous.</p> - -<p>A similar error occurs in the following passage: “I pray -<em>you</em>, tarry all night, lodge here, that <em>thy</em> heart may be merry.”—<cite>Bible.</cite></p> - -<p>“It is more good to fall among crows than flatterers, for -these only devour the dead, those the living.” The pronoun -<em>this</em> always refers to the nearer object, <em>that</em> to the more remote. -This distinction is here reversed. It should be, -“those (crows) devour the dead; these (flatterers) the living.” -I observe also, in passing, that those adjectives, whose mode -of comparison is irregular, are not compared by <em>more</em> and -<em>most</em>. It ought to be, “it is better.”</p> - -<p>“It is surprising, that this people, so happy in invention, -have never penetrated beyond the elements of geometry.” -It should be <em>has</em>, <em>this people</em> being in the singular number. -We may say, “people have,” the noun being collective, but -not “this people have.”</p> - -<p>“I and you love reading.” This is a Latinism, and not -accordant with our mode of arrangement. Wolsey was right, -when he said, “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Ego, et rex meus;</span>” but in English we reverse -the order. It should be, “you and I.” We say also, -“he and I,” “they and I.” <em>You</em> always precedes.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_260"></a>[260]</span></p> - -<p>“Each of the sexes should keep within its proper bounds, -and content themselves with the advantages of their particular -districts.”—<cite>Addison.</cite> Here the pronoun does not -agree with the word to which it refers, the word <em>each</em> being -singular; whereas <em>themselves</em> and <em>their</em> are plural. It should -be, <em>itself</em> and <em>its</em>.</p> - -<p>A similar error occurs in the following sentence: “Some of -our principal public schools have each a grammar of <em>their</em> -own.”—<cite>Barrow on Education.</cite> It ought to be, “each a -grammar of <em>its</em> own.” The expression is elliptical, for -“schools have each (has) a grammar of its own.” Thus we -say, “Simeon and Levi took each man <em>his sword</em>,” not <em>their -swords.</em>—<cite>Gen.</cite> xxxiv. 25.</p> - -<p>“Let each esteem other better than themselves.”—<cite>Bible.</cite> -For the reason just given, it ought to be <em>himself</em>.</p> - -<p>“So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, -if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their -trespasses.”—<cite>Bible.</cite> Here is a manifest solecism, the pronoun -<em>their</em> referring to “his brother,” a singular subject.</p> - -<p>“I wonder that such a valiant hero as you should trifle -away your time in making war upon women.”—<cite>Essay on the -Writings of Pope.</cite> Here the pronoun disagrees in person -with the noun to which it refers, <em>hero</em> being of the third -person, and <em>your</em> of the second. The connexion is, “I -wonder that such a valiant hero should trifle away <em>his</em> -time.”</p> - -<p>“The venison, which I received yesterday, and was a -present from a friend,” &c. <em>Which</em> is here in the objective -case, and cannot properly be understood as the nominative -to the verb <em>was</em>: better, therefore, “and which was a -present.” The following sentence is still more faulty: “It -was happy for them, that the storm, in which they were, and -was so very severe, lasted but a short time.” This is ungrammatical, -the verb “was” having no nominative. It -should be, “which was.”</p> - -<p>“There is not a sovereign state in Europe, but keeps a -body of regular troops in their pay.” This expression, to say -the least of it, is inelegant and awkward. Better, “its pay.” -“Is any nation sensible of the lowness of their own manners?”—<cite>Kames. Nation</cite><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_261"></a>[261]</span> -is here improperly construed as both singular -and plural. It should be rather “its own.”</p> - -<p>“The treaty he concluded can only be considered as a temporary -submission, and of which he took no care to secure -the continuance of it.”—<cite>Dryden.</cite> The redundancy of the -words <em>of it</em>, renders the sentence somewhat ungrammatical. -It should run thus, “The treaty he concluded can only be -considered as a temporary submission, of which he took no -care to secure the continuance.”</p> - -<p>An improper reference occurs in the following sentence: -“Unless one be very cautious, he will be liable to be deceived.” -<em>One</em> here answers to the indefinite word <em>on</em> in -French, and cannot be represented by any pronoun. It must, -therefore, be repeated, thus, “Unless one be very cautious, -one will be liable to be deceived.”</p> - - -<h5 class="p2">IMPROPRIETY.</h5> - -<p>“Give me them books.” Here the substantive pronoun is -used adjectively, instead of the demonstrative <em>those</em> or <em>these</em>. -The substantive pronouns, which are, strictly speaking, the -only pronouns, cannot be construed as adjectives agreeing with -substantives. We cannot say, “it book,” “they books,” “them -books:” but “this” or “that book,” “these” or “those books.” -The former phraseology may be deemed solecistical.</p> - -<p>“Great numbers were killed on either side.”—<cite>Watson’s -Philip III.</cite> “The Nile flows down the country above five -hundred miles from the tropic of Cancer, and marks on either -side the extent of fertility by the measure of its inundation.”—<cite>Gibbon.</cite></p> - -<p>It has been already observed, that the Saxon word <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">ægther</i> -signifies <em>each</em>, as Gen. vii. 2. “Clean animals thou shalt take -by sevens of each kind,” <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">ægthres gecyndes</i>. The English word -<em>either</em> is sometimes used in the same sense. But as this is -the only word in our language, by which we can express -“one of two,” “which of the two you please,” and as it is -generally employed in that sense, perspicuity requires that it -be strictly confined to this signification. For, if <em>either</em> be -used equivocally, it must, in many cases, be utterly impossible -for human ingenuity to ascertain, whether only “one of two,” -or “both,” be intended. In such expressions, for example,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_262"></a>[262]</span> -as “take either side,” “the general ordered his troops to -march on either bank,” how is the reader or hearer to divine, -whether <em>both sides</em>, <em>both banks</em>, or <em>only one</em>, be signified? -By employing <em>each</em> to express “both,” taken individually, and -<em>either</em> to denote “one of the two,” all ambiguity is removed.</p> - -<p>“The Bishop of Clogher intends to call on you this morning, -as well as your humble servant, in my return from Chapel -Izzard.”—<cite>Addison to Swift.</cite> After the writer has spoken of -himself in the third person, there is an impropriety in employing -the pronoun of the first. Much better “in his return.”</p> - -<p>“The ends of a divine and human legislator are vastly different.”—<cite>Warburton.</cite> -From this sentence it would seem, -that there is only one subject of discourse, <em>the ends</em> belonging -to one individual, <em>a divine and human legislator</em>. The -author intended to express two different subjects, namely, -“the objects of a divine,” and “the objects of a human legislator.” -The demonstrative <em>those</em> is omitted. It should be, -“the ends of a divine, and those of a human legislator, are -vastly different.” This error consists in defect, or an improper -ellipsis of the pronoun: in the following sentence the -error is redundancy. “They both met on a trial of skill.” -<em>Both</em> means “they two,” as <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ambo</i> in Latin is equivalent -to “<span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc"><ins class="corr" id="tn-262" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'οἱ duo'"> -οἱ δύο</ins></span>” -It should therefore be, “both met on a trial of skill.”</p> - -<p>“These two men (A and B) are both equal in strength.” -This, says Baker, is nonsense; for these words signify only, -that A is equal in strength, and B equal in strength, without -implying to whom; so that the word <em>equal</em> has nothing to -which it refers. “A and B,” says he, “are equal in strength,” -is sense; this means, that they are equal to each other. “A -and B are both equal in strength to C,” is likewise sense. It -signifies, that A is equal to C, and that B likewise is equal -to C. Thus Mr. Baker. Now, it appears to me, that, when -he admits the expression, “are both equal,” as significant of -the equality of each, he admits a phraseology which does not -strictly convey that idea. For if we say, “A and B are both -equal,” it seems to me to imply, that the two individuals are -possessed of two attributes or qualities, one of which is here -expressed; and in this sense only, as I conceive, is this -phraseology correct. Thus we may say, with strict propriety,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_263"></a>[263]</span> -“A and B are both equal in strength, and superior in -judgment to their contemporaries.” Or it may denote, that -“they two together, namely, A and B, are equal to C singly.” -In the former case, <em>both</em> is necessarily followed by <em>and</em>, which -is in Latin rendered by <em>et</em>. Thus, “A and B are the two things, -(both) <em>equal in strength</em>, and (add) <em>superior in judgment</em> to -their contemporaries.” In the latter case, it is equivalent to -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ambo</i>, expressing two collectively, as, “they two <em>together</em> are -equal to C, but not <em>separately</em>.” I am aware, that the word -<em>both</em> in English, like <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ambo</i> in Latin, is an ambiguous term, denoting -either “the two collectively,” or “the two separately,” -and that many examples of the latter usage may be adduced. -But that surely cannot be deemed a correct or appropriate -term, which, in its strict signification, conveys an idea -different from that intended by the speaker; or which leaves -the sentiment in obscurity, and the reader in doubt. The word -<em>each</em>, substituted for <em>both</em>, renders the expression clear and -precise, thus, “A and B are each equal to C, in strength.”<a id="FNanchor_144" href="#Footnote_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a></p> - -<p>An error the reverse of this occurs in the following sentence: -“This proves, that the date of each letter must have -been nearly coincident.” Coincident with what? Not surely -with itself; nor can the date of each letter be coincident with -each other. It should be, “that the dates of both letters -must have been nearly coincident with each other.”</p> - -<p>“It’s great cruelty to torture a poor dumb animal.” Better, -<em>’Tis</em>, in order to distinguish the contraction from the genitive -singular of the pronoun <em>it</em>.</p> - -<p>“Neither Lady Haversham, nor Miss Mildmay, will ever -believe but what I have been entirely to blame.” The pronoun -<em>what</em>, equivalent to <em>that which</em>, is here improperly used -for <em>that</em>. This mode of expression still obtains among the -lower orders of the people, and is not confined to them in the -northern parts of the island. It should be, “<em>that</em> I have been.” -The converse of this error occurs in the following passages:</p> - -<p>“That all our doings may be ordered by thy governance,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_264"></a>[264]</span> -to do always that is righteous in thy sight.”—<cite>Book of Common -Prayer.</cite></p> - -<p>“For, if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted, according -to that a man hath.”—<cite>Bible.</cite></p> - -<p>The pronouns <em>it</em> and <em>that</em> were formerly used as including -the relative. “This submission is it implieth them all.” -“This is it men mean by distributive justice.”—<cite>Hobbes.</cite> “To -consider advisedly of that is moved.”—<cite>Bacon.</cite> This usage is -now obsolete. The clauses should therefore proceed thus, -“to do always what,” or “that, which is righteous.” “According -to what,” or “that, which a man hath.”</p> - - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<h4 id="CRI_IV">SECTION IV.<br /> - -<span class="fs80">THE VERB.</span></h4> - - -<h5>BARBARISM.</h5> - -<p class="noindent">“Thus did the French ambassadors, with great show of -their king’s affection, and many sugared words, seek to <em>addulce</em> -all matters between the two kings.”—<cite>Bacon.</cite> The -verb “to addulce” is obsolete.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“Do villany, do; since you profess to</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Like workmen, I’ll example you with thievery.”</div> - <div class="verse indent29"><cite>Shakspeare.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>The verb “to example,” as equivalent to the phrase “to -set an example,” is obsolete; and when used for “to exemplify,” -may be deemed obsolescent. “The proof whereof,” -says Spencer in his <cite>State of Ireland</cite>, “I saw sufficiently -exampled;” better “exemplified.”</p> - -<p>“I called at noon at Mrs. Masham’s, who desired me not -to let the prophecy be published, for fear of angering the -queen.”—<cite>Swift.</cite> The verb “to anger” is almost obsolete. -In Scotland, and in the northern part of England, it is still -colloquially used; but in written language, of respectable -authority, it now rarely occurs. I have met with it once or -twice in Swift or Pope; since their time it appears to have -been gradually falling into disuse.</p> - -<p>“Shall we once more go to fight against our brethren, or<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_265"></a>[265]</span> -shall we surcease?”—<cite>Geddes’s Transl.</cite> The verb to “surcease” -is obsolete.</p> - -<p>“And they and he, upon this incorporation and institution, -and onyng of themself into a realme, ordaynyd,” &c.—<cite>Fortescue.</cite> -Here we have the participle of the verb “to one,” -now obsolete, for “to unite.”</p> - -<p>“For it is no power to may alien, and put away; but it -is a power to may have, and kepe to himself. So it is no -power to may syne, and to do ill, or to may be syke, or wex -old, or that a man may hurt himself; for all thees powers -comyne of impotencye.”—<em>Ib.</em> It has been already observed, -that the verb <em>may</em> is derived from the Saxon <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">mægan</span>, <em>posse</em>.—<em>See</em> -<a href="#Page_97">p. 97</a>. From the passage before us it appears, that in -the time of Fortescue (anno 1440) the infinitive “to may,” -for “to be able,” was in use. It has now been long obsolete. -In the following passage, it forms what is called a compound -tense with the word <em>shall</em>, the sign of the infinitive being -suppressed. “<span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">Wherthorough the parlements schall may do -more good in a moneth.</span>”—<em>Ib.</em> That is, “shall be able to do.”</p> - -<p>“<span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">Wherefor al, that he dothe <em>owith</em> to be referryed to his -kingdom.</span>”—<em>Ib.</em> The verb to <em>owe</em>, as expressive of duty, is -now obsolete. It has been supplanted by <em>ought</em>, formerly its -preterite tense, and now used as a present. We should now -say, “ought to be referred.”</p> - -<p>“Both these articles were unquestionably true, and could -easily have been proven.”—<cite>Henry’s History of Britain.</cite> -“Admitting the charges against the delinquents to be fully -proven.”—<cite>Belsham’s History.</cite> <em>Proven</em> is now obsolete, having -given place to the regular participle. It is still, however, -used in Scotland, and is therefore deemed a Scotticism.</p> - -<p>“Methoughts I returned to the great hall, where I had -been the morning before.” <em>Methoughts</em> is barbarous, and -also violates analogy, the third person being <em>thought</em>, and -not <em>thoughts</em>.</p> - - -<h5 class="p2">SOLECISM.</h5> - -<p>“You was busy, when I called.” Here a pronoun plural -is joined with a verb in the singular number. It should be, -“you were.”</p> - -<p>“The keeping good company, even the best, is but a less<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_266"></a>[266]</span> -shameful art of losing time. What we here call science and -study are little better.” <em>What</em> is equivalent to <em>that which</em>. -It should be <em>is</em>, and not <em>are</em>; thus, “that, which we call ... -is little better.”</p> - -<p>“Three times three <em>is</em> nine,” and “three times three are -nine,” are modes of expression in common use; and it has -become a question, which is the more correct. The Romans -admitted both phraseologies. “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Quinquies et vicies duceni -quadrageni singuli <em>fiunt</em> sex millia et viginti quinque.</span>”—<cite>Colum.</cite> -Here the distributive numerals are the nominatives -to the verb. “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Ubi <em>est</em> septies millies sestertium.</span>”—<cite>Cic.</cite> -Here the adverbial numerals make the nominative, and the -verb is singular. Plurality being evidently implied, the -plural verb seems more consonant with our natural conception -of numbers, as well as with the idiom of our language.</p> - -<p>“This is one of those highwaymen, that was condemned -last sessions.” According to the grammatical construction -of this sentence, “one of those highwaymen” is the predicate; -for the syntactical arrangement is, “This (highwayman), -that was condemned last sessions, is one of those -highwaymen.” But this is not the meaning which this sentence -is in general intended to convey: for it is usually -employed to denote, that several highwaymen were condemned, -and that this is one of them. The sentence, therefore, -thus understood, is ungrammatical; for the antecedent is, in -this case, not <em>one</em>, but <em>highwaymen</em>. The relative, therefore, -being plural, should be joined with a plural verb, thus, “This -is one of those highwaymen, that <em>were</em> condemned last -sessions.”</p> - -<p>“I had went to Lisbon, before you knew that I had -arrived in England.” This is an egregious solecism, the -auxiliary verb <em>had</em>, which requires the perfect participle, -being here joined with the preterite tense. It should be, “I -had gone.”</p> - -<p>“He would not fall the trees this season.” The verb “to -fall” is intransitive, and cannot therefore be followed by an -objective case, denoting a thing acted upon. It should be, -“he would not fell.”</p> - -<p>“Let him know, that I shall be over in spring, and that<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_267"></a>[267]</span> -by all means he sells the horses.”—<cite>Swift.</cite> Here we have in -the latter clause a thing expressed as done or doing, for a -thing commanded. It should be, “that he should sell;” or -elliptically, “that he sell.”</p> - -<p>“It is very probable that neither of these are the meaning -of the text.” Neither, means, “not the one, nor the other,” -denoting the exclusion of each of two things. It should, -therefore, be, “neither <em>is</em> the meaning of the text.”</p> - -<p>“He was a man, whose vices were very great, and had the -art to conceal them from the eyes of the public.” According -to the grammatical construction of this sentence, <em>vices</em> understood -is the nominative to the verb <em>had</em>; thus, “whose -vices were very great, and whose vices had the art to conceal -them.” It should be, “and who had the art to conceal them.”</p> - -<p>“At the foot of this hill was soon built such a number of -houses, that amounted to a considerable city.” Here the -verb <em>amounted</em> has no nominative. To render the sentence -grammatical, it should be, “that they amounted,” or “as -amounted to a considerable city.”</p> - -<p>“It requires more logic than you possess, to make a man -to believe that prodigality is not a vice.” After the verb “to -make,” the sign of the infinitive should be omitted. <em>See</em> -<a href="#xv3">Rule xv. note 3</a>.</p> - -<p>“He dare not,” “he need not,” may be justly pronounced -solecisms, for “he dares,” “he needs.”</p> - -<p>“How do your pulse beat?” <em>Pulse</em> is a noun singular, -and is here ungrammatically joined with a verb plural. It -should be, “how <em>does</em> your pulse beat?”</p> - -<p>“The river had overflown its banks.” <em>Overflown</em> is the -participle of the verb <em>to fly</em>, compounded with <em>over</em>. It -should be “overflowed,” the participle of “overflow.”</p> - -<p>“They that sin rebuke before all.” The pronoun, which -should be the regimen of the verb <em>rebuke</em>, is here put in the -nominative case. It should, therefore, be <em>them</em>. The natural -order is, “rebuke them, that sin.”</p> - -<p>“There are principles innate in man, which ever have, and -ever will incline him to this offence.” If the ellipsis be supplied, -the sentence will be found to be ungrammatical; thus -“which ever have incline, and ever will incline.” It should -be, “which ever have inclined, and ever will incline.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_268"></a>[268]</span></p> - -<p>“Nor is it easy to conceive that in substituting the manners -of Persia to those of Rome, he was actuated by vanity.”—<cite>Gibbon.</cite> -“Substitute <em>to</em>,” is a Latinism. It should be, -“substitute <em>for</em>.”</p> - -<p>“I had rather live in forty Irelands, than under the frequent -disquiets of hearing, that you are out of order.”—<cite>Swift’s -Letters.</cite> “You had better return home without delay.” -In both these examples <em>would</em> is far preferable, thus, -“I would rather live,” “you would better return,” or “you -would do better to return.”</p> - -<p>“That he had much rather be no king at all, than have -heretics for his subjects.”—<cite>Watson’s Philip III.</cite> Here is -involved the same error. It should be, “he would.”</p> - -<p>“The nobility of England consisted only of one duke, four -earls, one viscount, and twenty-nine barons, all the nobles of -the Lancastrian party having been either killed in battles, or -on scaffolds, or had fled into foreign parts.”—<cite>Henry’s -History.</cite> This sentence is ungrammatical. The word <em>nobles</em> -joined to the participle <em>having</em> must be regarded as put absolutely, -and therefore to the verb <em>had</em> there is strictly no nominative. -But, even were a nominative introduced, the structure -of the sentence would be still highly objectionable, the -two last clauses, “having been killed,” and “they had fled,” -being utterly discordant one with the other. The primary -idea to be expressed is the <em>fewness of the nobility</em>; this forms -the subject of the principal clause. There are two reasons -to be assigned for this fewness, <em>their destruction</em> and <em>their -flight</em>; these form the subjects of the two subordinate clauses. -Between these two, therefore, there should be the strictest -congruity; and in this respect the sentence is faulty. It -ought to proceed either thus, “The nobility of England consisted -only of one duke, four earls, one viscount, and twenty-nine -barons; for all the nobles of the Lancastrian party had -either been killed in battles, or on scaffolds, or had fled into -foreign parts;” or thus, “all the nobles having been killed, -or having fled.” The latter is the preferable form.</p> - -<p>“He neglected to profit of this occurrence.” This phraseology -occurs frequently in Hume. “To profit of,” is a Gallicism; -it ought to be, “to profit <em>by</em> this occurrence.”</p> - -<p>“The people of England may congratulate <em>to</em> themselves,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_269"></a>[269]</span> -that the nature of our government and the clemency of our -king, secure us.”—<cite>Dryden.</cite> “Congratulate to,” is a Latinism. -The person congratulated should be in the objective -case governed by the verb; the subject is preceded by the -preposition <em>on</em>, as, “I congratulate you <em>on</em> your arrival.”</p> - -<p>“You will arrive to London before the coach.”</p> - -<p>“A priest newly arrived to the north-west parts of Ireland.”—<cite>Swift’s -Sacr. Test.</cite></p> - -<p>In these examples the verb “to arrive,” is followed by <em>to</em>, -instead of <em>at</em>, an error which should be carefully avoided. -Good writers never construe it with the preposition significant -of motion or progression concluded, but with those prepositions -which denote propinquity or inclusion, namely, <em>at</em> -or <em>in</em>. Hence also to join this verb with adverbs, expressive -of motion to, or towards a place, is improper. We should -say, “he arrived <em>here</em>, <em>there</em>, <em>where</em>,” not—“<em>hither</em>, <em>thither</em>, -<em>whither</em>.”</p> - -<p>“Elizabeth was not unconcerned; she remonstrated to -James.”—<cite>Andrew’s Continuation of Henry’s History.</cite> This -is incorrect. We remonstrate <em>with</em> and not <em>to</em> a person, and -<em>against</em> a thing.</p> - -<p>“I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth -forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth the earth abroad by -myself.” According to the structure of the second and third -clauses of this sentence, <em>the Lord</em> is the antecedent to <em>that</em>, -which is, therefore, properly joined with the third person of -the verbs following, “maketh,” “spreadeth;” but the pronoun -of the first person, <em>myself</em>, in the last clause, does not -accord with this structure; for as we cannot say, “he spreadeth -the earth by myself,” there being only one agent implied, and -where <em>he</em> and <em>myself</em> are supposed to allude to one person, -so we cannot say, “that (Lord) spreadeth the earth by myself,” -but “by himself,” an identity of person being indispensably -requisite. The sentence, therefore, should conclude -thus, “that spreadeth abroad the earth by himself.” If <em>myself</em> -be retained, the pronoun <em>I</em> must be considered as the -antecedent, and the sentence will then run thus: “I am the -Lord, that make all things, that stretch forth the heavens -alone, that spread abroad the earth by <em>myself</em>.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_270"></a>[270]</span></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“Thou great First Cause, least understood,</div> - <div class="verse indent2">Who all my sense confin’d</div> - <div class="verse indent0">To know but this, that thou art good,</div> - <div class="verse indent2">And that myself am blind.”—<cite>Pope.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>The antecedent to the pronoun <em>who</em> is the pronoun of the -second person singular. The relative, therefore, being of the -same person, should be joined to the second person singular -of the verb, namely, “confinedst.”</p> - -<p>“The executive directory, to prove that they will not reject -any means of reconciliation, declares,” &c.—<cite>Belsham’s -Hist.</cite> The nominative is here joined to a verb singular, and -at the same time represented by a pronoun plural. The error -may be corrected either by the substitution of <em>it</em> for <em>they</em>, or -<em>declare</em> instead of <em>declares</em>.</p> - -<p>“These friendly admonitions of Swift, though they might -sometimes produce good effects, in particular cases, when -properly timed, yet could they do but little towards eradicating -faults.”—<cite>Sheridan.</cite> The nominative <em>admonitions</em> is connected -with no verb, the pronoun <em>they</em> being the nominative -to the verb <em>could</em>. The sentence, therefore, is ungrammatical; -nor can the figure <em>hyperbaton</em> be here pleaded in excuse, -as the simplicity and shortness of the sentence render it unnecessary. -<em>They</em> in the third clause should be suppressed.</p> - -<p>“This dedication may serve for almost any book, that has, -is, or shall be published.”—<cite>Bolingbroke.</cite> <em>Has</em> being merely -a part of a compound tense, conveys no precise meaning -without the rest of the tense. When joined, then, to the participle, -here belonging to the three auxiliaries, the sentence -proceeds thus, “This dedication may serve for almost any -book, that <em>has</em> published.” It ought to be “has been, is, -or shall be published.” The following sentence is chargeable -with an error of the same kind.</p> - -<p>“This part of knowledge has been always growing, and will -do so, till the subject be exhausted.” Do what? The auxiliary -cannot refer to <em>been</em>, for the substantive verb, or verb -of existence, does not imply action, nor can we say, “do -growing.” It ought to be, “has been growing, and will still -be so.”</p> - -<p>“All that can be now urged, is the reason of the thing, and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_271"></a>[271]</span> -this I shall do.”—<cite>Warburton.</cite> Here is a similar incongruity. -He should have said, “and this shall be done.”</p> - -<p>Some of the preceding errors, with those which follow -under this head, may be denominated rather inaccuracies, -than solecisms.</p> - -<p>“’T was twenty years and more, that I have known him,” -says Pope to Gay, speaking of Congreve’s death. It ought -to be, “It is twenty years and more,” the period concluding -with the present time, or the time then present. He -might have said, “It is now twenty years,” where the adverb -<em>now</em>, being obviously admissible, points to present time, and -necessarily excludes the preterite tense. Pope says, “’T was -twenty years.” When? not surely in some part of the past -time, but at the time of writing.</p> - -<p>“It <em>were</em> well for the insurgents, and fortunate for the king, -if the blood, that was now shed, had been thought a sufficient -expiation for the offence.”—<cite>Goldsmith.</cite> “It were,” -which is equivalent to “it would be,” is evidently incongruous -with the following tense, “had been thought.” It -ought to be, as he was speaking of past time, “it would have -been,” or, “it had been, well for the insurgents.”</p> - -<p>“Was man like his Creator in wisdom and goodness, I -should be for allowing this great model.”—<cite>Addison.</cite> This -form of expression cannot be pronounced entirely repugnant -to analogy, the preterite of the auxiliary “to have” being -used in a similar sense. But the verb “to be” having a -mood appropriate to the expression of conditionality, the -author should have said, “Were man like his Creator.”</p> - -<p>“If you please to employ your thoughts on that subject, -you would easily conceive the miserable condition many of -us are in.”—<cite>Steele.</cite> Here there is obviously an incongruity -of tense. It should be either, “if you please to employ, you -<em>will</em> conceive,” or “if it pleased you to employ, you <em>would</em> -conceive.”</p> - -<p>“James used to compare him to a cat, who always fell -upon her legs.”—<cite>Adam’s Hist. of England.</cite> Here the latter -clause, which is intended to predicate an attribute of the species, -expresses simply a particular fact; in other words, what -is intended to be signified as equally true of all, is here limited<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_272"></a>[272]</span> -to one of the kind. It should be, “always <em>falls</em> upon her -legs.”</p> - -<p>“This is the last time I shall ever go to London.” This -mode of expression, though very common, is certainly improper -after the person is gone, and can be proper only -before he sets out. The French speak correctly when they -say, “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">la dernière fois que je vais</span>,” <em>i.e.</em> the last time of my -going. We ought to say, “this is the last time I shall be in -London.”</p> - -<p>“He accordingly draws out his forces, and offers battle to -Hiero, who immediately accepted it.” Consistency requires, -that the last verb be in the same tense with the preceding -verbs. The actions are described as present; the language -is graphical, and that which has been properly enough denominated -the “historical tense” should not be employed. -It ought to be, “who immediately accepts it.”</p> - -<p>“I have lost this game, though I thought I should <em>have -won</em> it.” It ought to be, “though I thought I should <em>win</em> -it.” This is an error of the same kind, as, “I expected to -have seen you,” “I intended to have written.” The preterite -time is expressed by the tenses “expected,” “intended;” -and, how far back soever that expectation or intention may -be referred, the seeing or writing must be considered as -contemporary, or as soon to follow; but cannot, without -absurdity, be considered as anterior. It should be, “I expected -to see,” “I intended to write.” Priestley, in defending -the other phraseology, appears to me to have greatly -erred, the expression implying a manifest impossibility. The -action, represented as the object of an expectation or intention, -and therefore, in respect to these, necessarily future, -cannot surely, without gross absurdity, be exhibited as past, -or antecedent to these. In the following passage the error -seems altogether indefensible. “The most uncultivated Asiatics -discover that sensibility, which, from their situation on -the globe, we should expect them to have felt.”—<cite>Robertson’s -History of America.</cite> The author expresses himself, as if he -referred to a past sensation, while the introductory verb -shows that he alludes to a general fact. The incongruity is -obvious. He should have said, “expect them to feel.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_273"></a>[273]</span></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“Fierce as he moved, his silver shafts resound.”—<cite>Pope.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Much better, “Fierce as he moves.” Congruity of tense is -thus preserved; and there is, besides, a peculiar beauty in -employing the present,—a beauty, of which the preterite is -wholly incapable. The former imparts vivacity to the expression; -it presents the action, with graphical effect, to the -mind of the reader; and thus, by rendering him a spectator -of the scene, impresses the imagination, and rouses the feelings -with greater energy. Compared to the latter, it is like -the pencil of the artist to the pen of the historian.</p> - -<p>“Jesus answering said unto him, What wilt thou, that I -should do unto thee?” The blind man said unto him: “Lord, -that I might receive my sight.” It ought to be, “that I may -receive my sight,” <em>I will</em> being understood; thus, “I will, -that I may receive my sight,” where the present wish, and the -attainment of it, are properly represented as contemporary.</p> - -<p>“These things have I spoken unto you, that your joy might -be full.” Better, “that your joy may be full.”</p> - -<p>“If an atheist would peruse the volume of nature, he would -confess, that there was a God.” Universal, or abstract truths, -require the present tense; it should be, “that there <em>is</em> a God.”</p> - -<p>“ ... impresses us with a feeling, as if refinement was nothing, -as if faculties were nothing, as if virtue was nothing, -as if all that was sweetest, and all that was highest in human -nature was an idle show.”—<cite>Godwin’s Life of Chaucer.</cite> This -sentence errs at once against elegance and accuracy. The -former offence may be partly corrected, by substituting the -conditional for the indicative tense, in the hypothetical -clauses. But the author’s principal error consists in converting -a general proposition into a particular fact, by representing -that as past which is always present and immutable. -The sentence should proceed thus: “Impresses us with a -feeling, as if refinement <em>were</em> nothing, as if faculties <em>were</em> -nothing, as if virtue <em>were</em> nothing, as if all that <em>is</em> sweetest, -and all that <em>is</em> highest in human nature, <em>were</em> an idle show.”</p> - -<p>A similar error occurs in this passage: “He proceeded to -demonstrate, that death <em>was</em> not an evil;” and also in this, -“I have frequently been assured by great ministers, that -politics <em>were</em> nothing, but common sense.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_274"></a>[274]</span></p> - -<p>“Tom has wit enough to make him a pleasant companion, -<em>was</em> it polished by good manners.” As the latter clause is -intended to be purely hypothetical, the verb should not be -in the indicative mood. “<em>Were</em> it polished,” is the proper -expression.</p> - -<p>“He understood the language of Balnibarbi, although it -were different from that of this island.”—<cite>Swift’s Voyage to -Laputa.</cite> From the phraseology here employed, the reader -might naturally infer, that the language of the island, and -that of Balnibarbi, were identical; for a concessive term, as -I have already said, when joined to what is called the conjunctive -form of the verb, implies pure hypothesis, as contrary -to fact; or, in other words, implies a negation of the -attribute expressed. The author’s intention was to signify, -that the languages <em>were not</em> the same. He should, therefore, -have said, “although it <em>was</em> different.”</p> - -<p>“The circumstances were as follows.” Several grammarians -and critics have approved this phraseology; I am inclined, -however, to concur with those, who prefer “as follow.” -To justify the former mode of expression, the verb -must be considered as impersonal. This, I own, appears to -me a very questionable solution of the difficulty; for I am -convinced, that we have no impersonal verbs in English, but -such as are uniformly preceded by <em>it</em>. We frequently, indeed, -meet with sentences, where verbs occur without a nominative, -and in the singular number. These are, by some, considered -as impersonal verbs, to which the nominative <em>it</em> is understood. -I apprehend, however, that, on strict inquiry, some one or -other of the preceding words, which are now considered as -conjunctions, adverbs, or particles, was originally the nominative; -and that it is only since the primitive and real character -of these words has been obliterated and lost, that we -have found it necessary to inquire for another nominative. -Thus, if the word <em>as</em> be equivalent to <em>it</em>, <em>that</em>, or <em>which</em><a id="FNanchor_145" href="#Footnote_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a>, then -it is obvious, that, when we say, “the circumstances were<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_275"></a>[275]</span> -<em>as follows</em>,” there is no real ellipsis of the nominative involved, -nor, therefore, any ground for asserting the impersonality of -the verb, in order to explain the syntax, or construction of -the phrase; for the word <em>as</em>, equivalent to <em>it</em>, <em>that</em>, or <em>which</em>, -is the true nominative. It is evident, then, that this solution -of the difficulty must be rejected as false; and that the argument -in favour of “as follows,” resting on the supposed impersonality -of the verb, and the suppression of the pronoun, -is entirely unfounded.</p> - -<p>If <em>as</em> then be the nominative to the verb, and be synonymous -with <em>it</em>, <em>that</em>, or <em>which</em>, it is of importance to determine, whether -<em>as</em> be a singular, or a plural word; or whether it be either -the one, or the other. That it is construed as singular, there -can be no doubt. We say, “his insensibility is such, <em>as excites</em> -our detestation.” That it is also joined to a verb plural -is equally certain, thus, “his manners are such, <em>as are</em> universally -pleasing.” In the former example, <em>such as</em> is equivalent -to <em>that which</em>, and in the latter to <em>those which</em>. If <em>as</em>, -then, be either singular or plural, and synonymous with <em>it</em>, -<em>that</em>, or <em>which</em>, I conceive that, when it refers to a plural antecedent, -it must, like <em>which</em>, be considered as plural, and -joined to a plural verb. Now, it is surely more consonant -with analogy to say, “the circumstances were, which follow,” -than <em>it follows</em>, or <em>that follows</em>. Besides, when the demonstrative -<em>such</em> precedes, and is joined to a plural noun, it is -universally admitted, that <em>as</em> must then be followed by a -plural verb. If so, the construction of the word <em>as</em> cannot, I -apprehend, be in the least degree affected by the ellipsis of -the correlative term. Let us now hear those who adopt the -contrary opinion.</p> - -<p>Baker prefers the verb singular, and remarks “that there -are instances in our language of verbs in the third person -without a nominative case, as, ‘he censures her, so far as regards.’” -In answer to this it may be observed, that, if the -word <em>as</em> is to be considered in no other light, than as a conjunctive -particle, it is certainly true, that the verb <em>regards</em> -has no nominative. But I am persuaded, no person who has -examined the theory of Mr. Tooke can entertain a doubt respecting -the original and real character of this word. Nay,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_276"></a>[276]</span> -if we investigate the true and primitive import of the correspondent -Latin terms <em>ut</em> and <em>uti</em>, we shall find, that these, -which are termed adverbs, are, in fact, the pronouns <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">ὅτι, ὁτ’</span>, -and that <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quod</i> (anciently written <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quodde</i>) is nothing else than -<span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">καὶ ὅττι</span>, which, like our word <em>that</em>, is sometimes called a conjunction, -and sometimes a pronoun. Why the original character -and real import of the word <em>as</em> have been completely -merged in the name of adverb, while the word <em>that</em> has been -assigned the double character of pronoun and conjunction, it -would be easy to show, if the discussion were essential to the -question before us. But in answer to Baker’s remark, it is -sufficient to observe, that <em>as</em> means properly <em>it</em>, <em>that</em>, or <em>which</em>.</p> - -<p>Campbell adopts the opinion of Baker. “When a verb,” -says he, “is used impersonally, it ought undoubtedly to be -in the singular number, whether the neuter pronoun be expressed -or understood.” But a question naturally arises, -whence has the author learned that the verb is impersonal? -There appears to me to be no more impersonality in the verb, -when we say, “it is as follows,” than when we say, “it is -such, as follows,” or, “they are such, as follow.” If <em>as</em> be -admitted as the nominative in two of these examples, I can -perceive no reason for rejecting it in the third. But here lies, -as will presently appear, the author’s great error. Unacquainted -with the true meaning of the word <em>as</em>, he conceived -it as incapable of becoming a nominative to a verb, as <em>ut</em> or -<em>uti</em> is deemed in Latin; and he therefore immediately recurs -to <em>ellipsis</em>.</p> - -<p>“For this reason” (that is, because the verb is impersonal), -he proceeds to observe, “analogy as well as usage favour this -mode of expression, <em>The conditions of the agreement were as -follows</em>, and not <em>as follow</em>.”</p> - -<p>How analogy favours this mode of expression, I am utterly -at a loss to conceive. The general rule surely is, that to -every verb there shall be a nominative, and that this nominative -shall be expressed, unless its presence in some preceding -clause shall render the repetition of it unnecessary. But how -is it consonant with analogy, that no nominative shall appear; -or that the supposed nominative shall not be found in any -part of the sentence? This surely is repugnant to analogy.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_277"></a>[277]</span></p> - -<p>“A few late writers,” he observes, “have inconsiderately -adopted this last form (as follow) through a mistake of the -construction.” But, if the verb be not impersonal, the error -is his, not theirs. I must observe, likewise, that from the -manner in which the author expresses himself, one would -naturally infer, that a few writers, either contemporary, or -immediately preceding his own time, had inconsiderately introduced -a solecism into our language. When he offered -this observation, he surely was not aware that Steele and -Addison, nearly seventy years before the publication of -“The Philosophy of Rhetoric,” used the plural form. “The -most eminent of the kennel,” says Steele, “are blood-hounds, -which lead the van, and are <em>as follow</em>.”—<cite>Tatler</cite>, No. 62. -“The words were <em>as follow</em>.”—<em>Ibid.</em> No. 104. “The words -are <em>as follow</em>.”—<cite>Addison</cite>, <cite>Spectator</cite>, No. 513.</p> - -<p>“For the same reason,” continues he, still presuming the -verb to be impersonal, “we ought to say, <em>I shall consider -his censures so far only, as concerns my friend’s conduct</em>, not -<em>concern</em>. It is manifest,” he observes, “that the word <em>conditions</em> -in the first case, and <em>censures</em> in the second, cannot -serve as nominatives.” This observation demonstrates that -the author’s argument is founded in his ignorance of the real -character of the word <em>as</em>. The most extraordinary part of -his reasoning follows. “But,” says he, “if we give either -sentence another turn, and instead of <em>as</em>, say <em>such as</em>, the verb -is no longer impersonal. The pronoun <em>such</em> is the nominative, -whose number is determined by its antecedent. Thus -we must say, <em>they were such as follow</em>; <em>such of his censures -only as concern my friend</em>.” This is truly an extraordinary -assertion. The antecedent correlative term <em>such</em> can have -no connexion whatever with the subsequent verb, but must -agree with the principal subject of discourse. Not only does -analogy require this, but the usage of every language with -which I am acquainted. If we say, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Perseverantia fuit tanta, -quantus erat furor.</i> <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Is est, quem dicimus.</i> <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Talis est, qualem -esse creditis.</i> <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Illæ erant conditiones, quæ sequuntur</i>,—the -antecedent correlative terms <em>tanta</em>, <em>is</em>, <em>talis</em>, <em>illæ</em>,—have no -connexion whatever with the verbs in the subsequent clause, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">erat</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dicimus</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">creditis</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">sequuntur</i>. The truth of this observation<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_278"></a>[278]</span> -must be sufficiently obvious to every classical -scholar.</p> - -<p>But to illustrate the extreme inaccuracy of the learned -author’s opinion, let us change the correlative terms, and say, -“I will consider those censures only, which concern my -friend.” In this sentence it will not be questioned that <em>those</em> -and <em>censures</em> are in the objective case, under the government -of the verb. And can it be doubted, if we say, “I will consider -such censures,” that <em>censures</em> with its concordant adjective -are in the same case? It is impossible, I conceive, -to make this plainer; but we shall suppose, for the sake of -illustration, if this should yet be deemed necessary, the example -in question to be thus rendered in Latin, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">eas tantum -reprehensiones perpendam, quæ ad amicum meum attinent</i>. -Now, what should we think of his classical attainments who -should contend that <em>eas</em> or <em>reprehensiones</em> is the nominative -to the verb? If we revert, then, to the original terms, and say, -“I will consider such of his censures as concern my friend,” -by what rule of grammar, by what principle of analysis, can -we suppose <em>such</em> to be the nominative to the verb? For let -me ask, what is he to consider? Is it not <em>such censures</em>? -And are we, contrary to every principle of English grammar, -to represent the object or subject after an active verb, as in -the nominative case? The absurdity is too monstrous for a -moment’s consideration. The very argument, therefore, by -which the author defends his doctrine is founded in error, -and involves an absurdity. Murray, as usual, adopts the -opinion of Campbell.</p> - -<p>If it should be inquired how <em>as</em>, an adverb or a conjunctive -particle, can be the nominative to a verb, it may be answered, -that to whatever order of words we reduce this term, it was -evidently at first what we denominate a pronoun; and that -it still so far retains its primitive character as to supply the -place of a nominative. It is of little moment by what designation -it be called, if its character and real import are well -understood, any more than it can be of consequence whether -we call <em>that</em> a conjunction or a pronoun, provided we know, -that it is truly and essentially the same word in the same -meaning wherever it occurs. I would observe, also, though<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_279"></a>[279]</span> -my limits will not permit me to illustrate the principle, that -those, who disapprove the verb singular in the examples in -question, may notwithstanding admit it in such expressions -as <em>so far as</em>, <em>so long as</em>, and all similar phraseologies.</p> - -<p>“To illustrate, and often to correct him, I have meditated -Tacitus, examined Suetonius, and consulted the following -moderns.”—<cite>Gibbon.</cite> <em>To meditate</em>, when a regimen is assigned -to it, as here, means <em>to plot</em>, <em>to contrive</em>, as, “he meditated -designs against the state.” When it signifies <em>to -ponder</em>, or <em>to reflect seriously</em>, it should be followed by the -preposition <em>on</em>, as, “he meditates <em>on</em> the law of God day and -night.”</p> - - -<h5 class="p2">IMPROPRIETY.</h5> - -<p>“They form a procession to proceed the palanquin of the -ambassador.”—<cite>Anderson’s Embassy to China.</cite> Here the verb -<em>to proceed</em>, or <em>go forward</em>, is improperly used for <em>to precede</em>, -or <em>to go before</em>.</p> - -<p>“He waved the subject of his greatness.”—<cite>Dryden.</cite> “To -wave” is properly “to move loosely,” and should be distinguished -from “to waive,” <em>i.e.</em> “to leave” or “to turn -from.”—<em>See</em> <cite>Skinner’s Etym.</cite></p> - -<p>“It lays on the table; it laid on the table.” This error is -very common, and should be carefully avoided. The verb -<em>to lay</em> is an active verb; <em>to lie</em> is a neuter verb. When the -subject of discourse is active, the former is to be used; when -the subject is neither active nor passive, the latter ought to -be employed. Thus, “he lays down the book,” “he laid -down the book,” where the nominative expresses an agent, or -a person acting. “The book lies there,” “the book lay -there,” where the nominative expresses something, neither -active, nor passive. When we hear such expressions as -these, “he lays in bed,” “he laid in bed,” a question naturally -occurs, what does he lay? what did he lay? This question -demonstrates the impropriety of the expressions. The error -has originated, partly in an affected delicacy, rejecting the -verb “to lie,” as being synonymous with the verb “to tell a -falsehood wilfully,” and partly from the identity of the one -verb in the present with the other in the preterite sense; -thus, “<em>lay</em>,” “laid,” “laid;” “lie,” “<em>lay</em>,” “lain.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_280"></a>[280]</span></p> - -<p>“The child was overlain.” The participle, for the reason -now given, should be <em>overlaid</em>.</p> - -<p>“It has been my brother you saw in the theatre, and not -my cousin.” This use of the preterite definite is, I believe, -confined to Scotland, where, in colloquial language, it is very -common. The Scots employ it in those cases, in which an -Englishman uses either the preterite indefinite, or the verb -signifying necessity. Thus, in the preceding instance, an -Englishman would say, “it <em>must have been</em> my brother, you -saw in the theatre.”</p> - -<p>“Without having attended to this, we will be at a loss in -understanding several passages in the classics.”—<cite>Blair’s -Lectures.</cite> “In the Latin language, there are no two words -we would more readily take to be synonymous, than <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amare</i> -and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">diligere</i>.”—<em>Ib.</em> This error occurs frequently in Blair. -In the former example it should be <em>shall</em>, and in the latter -<em>should</em>. (See <a href="#Page_98">p. 98</a>.)</p> - -<p>An error, the reverse of this, occurs in the following -passage. “There is not a girl in town, but let her have her -will, in going to a mask, and she shall dress like a shepherdess.”—<cite>Spectator</cite>, -No. 9. It should be, <em>she will</em>. The -author intended to signify mere futurity; instead of which he -has expressed a command.</p> - -<p>“He <em>rose</em> the price of bread last week.” Here <em>rose</em>, the -preterite of the neuter verb <em>to rise</em>, and, therefore, unsusceptible -of a regimen, is ungrammatically joined with an objective -case, instead of <em>raised</em>, the preterite of the active verb -<em>to raise</em>. This error, therefore, involves a solecism, as well -as an impropriety.</p> - -<p>“Does the price of bread raise this week?” This error is -the converse of the former, the active verb being here used -instead of the neuter. The question, What does it raise? -shows the impropriety of the expression. It ought to be, -“Does the price of bread rise this week?” These verbs, -like the verb <em>to lay</em> and <em>to lie</em>, are very often confounded in -vulgar use.</p> - -<p>“It would be injurious to the character of Prince Maurice, -to suppose, that he would demean himself so far, as to be -concerned in those anonymous pamphlets.”—<cite>Watson’s Philip III.</cite><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_281"></a>[281]</span> -Here the verb <em>to demean</em>, which signifies “to behave,” -is used as equivalent to the verb <em>to debase</em>, or “to degrade.” -This impropriety is now, I believe, almost entirely confined -to Scotland; it has, therefore, been ranked in the number of -Scotticisms. “I demean myself” is equivalent to “I behave -myself;” and in this sense the author last quoted has, in -another passage, very properly used it. “Such of the -Morescoes might remain, who, for any considerable time, demeaned -themselves as Christians.”—<em>Ibid.</em></p> - -<p>“Considerable arrears being now resting to the soldiers.”—<em>Ibid.</em> -“Resting,” which is equivalent to “being quiet,” or -“remaining,” is, in the sense in which it is here employed, a -rank Scotticism: it should be, “due,” or “owing.”</p> - -<p>“The reason will be accounted for hereafter.”—<cite>Warburton.</cite> -<em>Accounted for</em> is here improperly used for <em>assigned</em>. “To -account for a reason,” is “to account for an account.”</p> - -<p>“But no evidence is admitted in the house of lords, this -being a distinct jurisdiction, which differs it considerably -from these instances.”—<cite>Blackstone.</cite> The verb <em>to differ</em> is a -neuter verb, and cannot admit a regimen. The author has -improperly used it in an active sense, for “to make to differ.” -It should be, “by which it differs,” or “which makes it -differ considerably from these instances.”<a id="FNanchor_146" href="#Footnote_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_282"></a>[282]</span></p> - -<p>“In order to have this project reduced to practice, there -seems to want nothing more, than to put those in mind,” &c.—<cite>Swift.</cite> -Here, “to want,” that is, “to need,” “to require,” -is improperly used for “to be wanting,” “to be required,” -“to be wanted.” It should be, “there seems to be nothing -wanting.” The verb <em>to want</em> was frequently employed by -Pope and Swift in the sense in which we here find it. Johnson, -likewise, in one or two passages, has adopted the same -usage, thus, “there had never wanted writers to talk occasionally -of Arcadia and Strephon.”—<cite>Life of Phillips.</cite> But in -this sense it may now be deemed obsolescent, if not entirely -obsolete.</p> - -<p>The reader will here permit me to observe, that there is -an idiom in our language, respecting the use of active for -passive verbs, which seems worthy of attention, and which -I do not recollect to have seen remarked by any of our grammarians.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_283"></a>[283]</span> -In the languages of antiquity, the distinction between -active and passive was strictly observed; but in English -the active is frequently employed for the passive voice. -Of this remarkable idiom numberless examples might be produced; -but the few following will suffice. Thus we say, -“the sentence <em>reads</em> ill,” “the wine <em>drinks</em> harsh,” “the grass -<em>cuts</em> easily,” “the apples <em>eat</em> hard,” “the drum <em>beats</em> to arms,” -“the metal <em>works</em> well.” In these examples, the subject -clearly is acted upon; the verb, therefore, must be considered -as having a passive signification. It is almost unnecessary -to observe, that this phraseology should be avoided, whenever -it is likely to create ambiguity.</p> - -<p>“Lead me forth in thy truth, and learn me.”—<cite>Book of -Common Prayer</cite>, Psal. xxv. The verb <em>to learn</em> formerly denoted, -either “to teach,” or “to acquire knowledge.” In the -former sense it is now obsolete. It should therefore be, -“lead me forth in thy truth, and <em>teach</em> me.”</p> - -<p>“Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings by thy most -gracious favour.”—<cite>Book of Common Prayer.</cite> “He had prevented -the hour, because we might have the whole day before -us.”—<cite>Bacon.</cite> The verb <em>to prevent</em>, as signifying “to go before,” -or “come before,” is now obsolete.</p> - -<p>“There was no longer any doubt, that the king was determined -to wreck his resentment on all concerned.”—<cite>Watson’s -Philip II.</cite></p> - -<p>“They not only wrecked their vengeance on the living, -but on the ashes of the dead heretics.”—<cite>Henry’s Britain.</cite></p> - -<p>Here the verb <em>to wreck</em>, or “to destroy, by dashing on -rocks,” is improperly used for “to wreak,” or “to discharge.” -In the last example the adverbs <em>not only</em> are improperly -placed. It should be, “they wreaked their vengeance not -only,” &c.</p> - -<p>“We outrun our present income, not doubting to disburse -ourselves out of the profits of some future plan.”—<cite>Addison.</cite> -“To disburse,” or “to expend money,” is here improperly -used for “to reimburse,” or “to repay.”</p> - -<p>“And wrought a great miracle conform to that of the -apostles.”—<cite>Bacon.</cite></p> - -<p>“The last is the most simple, and the most perfect, as<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_284"></a>[284]</span> -being conform to the nature of knowledge.”—<cite>Hutton’s Investigation</cite>, -vol. i. p. 643. <em>Conform</em>, here used for <em>conformable</em>, -is, in this sense, deemed a Scotticism.</p> - - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<h4 id="CRI_V">SECTION V.<br /> - -<span class="fs80">THE ADVERB.</span></h4> - - -<h5>BARBARISM.</h5> - -<p class="noindent">“Friendship, a rare thing in princes, more rare between -princes, that so holily was observed to the last, of those two -excellent men.”—<cite>Sidney on Government.</cite> <em>Holily</em> is obsolete.</p> - -<p>“Enquire, what be the stones, that do easiliest melt.”—<cite>Bacon.</cite> -The adverb <em>easily</em> is not compared,—see <a href="#Page_70">p. 70</a>. -<em>Easiliest</em> is, therefore, a barbarism.</p> - -<p>“Their wonder, that any man so near Jerusalem should be -a stranger to what had passed there, their acknowledgment -to one they met accidently, that they believed in this prophet,” -&c.—<cite>Guardian.</cite> Steele has here used <em>accidently</em>, for -<em>accidentally</em>. The former is a barbarism, and its derivation -is repugnant to analogy.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“Uneath may she endure the flinty street,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">To tread them with her tender feeling feet.”—<cite>Shakspeare.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent"><em>Uneath</em> is now obsolete, and may therefore be deemed a barbarism.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“In northern clime, a val’rous knight</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Did whilom kill his bear in fight,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And wound a fiddler.”—<cite>Hudibras.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent"><em>Whilom</em> is now entirely disused. The adverbs <em>whilere</em>, <em>erst</em>, -and perhaps also <em>anon</em>, may be ranked in the class of barbarisms.</p> - -<p>“And this attention gives ease to the person, because the -clothes appear unstudily graceful.”—<cite>Wollstonecraft’s Original -Stories.</cite> The word <em>unstudily</em> is barbarous, and its -mode of derivation contrary to analogy.</p> - - -<h5 class="p2">SOLECISM.</h5> - -<p>“Use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thine often -infirmities.” <em>Often</em>, an adverb, is here improperly used as<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_285"></a>[285]</span> -an adjective, in accordance with the substantive “infirmities.” -It ought to be “thy frequent infirmities.”</p> - -<p>“We may cast in such seeds and principles, as we judge -most likely to take soonest and deepest root.” Here, as in -the preceding example, the adverb “soonest” is used as an -adjective; for the connexion is, “<em>soonest</em> root,” and “<em>deepest</em> -root.” Now, we cannot say “soon root,” the former term -being incapable of qualifying the latter; nor can we, therefore, -say, “<em>soonest</em> root.” It ought to be, “the earliest and -the deepest root.”</p> - -<p>“After these wars, of which they hope for a soon and -prosperous issue.” <em>Soon issue</em> is another example of the -same error.</p> - -<p>“His lordship inveighed, with severity, against the conduct -of the then ministry.” Here <em>then</em>, the adverb equivalent -to <em>at that time</em>, is solecistically employed as an adjective, -agreeing with <em>ministry</em>. This error seems to gain ground; -it should therefore be vigilantly opposed, and carefully -avoided. “The ministry of that time,” would be correct.</p> - -<p>“He tells them, that the time should come, that the temple -should be graced with the presence of the Messias.” Here -<em>that</em> is incorrectly used for <em>when</em>, <em>i.e.</em> “at which time the -temple should be graced.”</p> - - -<h5 class="p2">IMPROPRIETY.</h5> - -<p>“By letters, dated the third of May, we learn that the -West India fleet arrived safely.” Here <em>safely</em> is improperly -used for <em>safe</em>. The adverb is equivalent to “in a safe manner;” -and when it is said, “that the fleet arrived <em>safely</em>,” it -signifies that the manner of the arrival, rather than the fleet -itself, was safe or free from accident. If I say, “he carried -the parcel as safely as possible,” it implies merely his great -attention to the manner of carrying it; but this does not infallibly -exclude accident; for I may add, “but he unluckily -fell,” or, “he was unfortunately thrown down, and the glass -was broken.” But if I say, “he carried it as safe as possible,” -or, “he carried it safe,” it implies that it came safe, or escaped -all accidents. We should, therefore, say “that the West -India fleet arrived safe.” In disapproving the expression, -“he arrived <em>safely</em>,” I concur with Baker; but the judicious -reader will perceive, that my reason for reprehending it, does<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_286"></a>[286]</span> -not entirely coincide with his. The author’s words are these: -“If a man says, that he arrived safely, or in a safe manner, -he seems to suppose, that there is danger of some mischance -in arriving. But what danger is there to be apprehended in -the circumstance of arriving? The danger is only during the -journey, or voyage; in the arrival there is none at all. The -proper way of speaking is, therefore, ‘I arrived safe,’ that is, -‘having escaped all the dangers of the passage.’”</p> - -<p>“The poor woman carried them to the person to whom -they were directed; and when Lady Cathcart recovered her -liberty, she received her diamonds safely.” It should be, -“she received her diamonds safe.”</p> - -<p>Errors like the one on which I have now animadverted, -frequently arise from a desire to avoid the opposite mistake; -I mean the improper use of the adjective for the adverb.—<em>See</em> -<em><a href="#v16">Syntax, Rule V. Note</a></em> 16. Hence many, when they employ -such phraseologies as I have here exemplified, conceive -that they express themselves with the strictest accuracy, thus -verifying the poet’s observation,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">In vitium ducit culpæ fuga, si caret arte.</span>”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>In order to avoid this error, it should be remembered, that -many English verbs, while they affirm some action, passion, -or state of the subject, frequently serve as a copula, connecting -the subject with another predicate. This is one of those -idioms, in the grammar of our language, which demand the -particular attention of the classical scholar. For, though an -acquaintance with the learned languages will not seduce him -into an improper use of an adjective for the adverb, it may, -as in the example now before us, betray him into the converse -error. And I am inclined to think, that from a propensity -almost irresistible in the classical scholar to assimilate our -language with the Latin tongue, our lexicographers have designated -many of our words as adverbs, which are strictly adjectives. -When it is said, for example, “it goes hard,” Johnson -considers <em>hard</em> as an adverb. Yet when we say, “it goes -contrary,” he considers <em>contrary</em> as an adjective. There appears -to me to be more of caprice than of reason, more of -prejudice than of truth, in this classification. Both words, I -am persuaded, belong to one and the same species. Nay, I -might venture to assert, that no person, who had studied the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_287"></a>[287]</span> -principles of the English language, and of that only, would -pronounce the one to be an adverb, and the other an adjective. -It is to be observed, likewise, that we have the regular -adverb <em>hardly</em> to express the manner. When we say, “he -reasoned concerning the rule,” “we argued respecting the -fact,” “he lives according to nature,” is there not something -extremely arbitrary and unphilosophical, in calling <em>concerning</em> -a preposition, <em>according</em> a preposition, followed by <em>to</em>, but -properly a participle, and <em>respecting</em> a participle? Are not all -the three participles? Yet Johnson has classed them, as I -have now mentioned. But the farther illustration of this subject -would lead us into a field much too large for the limits of -the present treatise. We must therefore revert to our primary -observation, in which we cautioned the reader against the improper -use of the adjective for the adverb. It should be remembered -that, when it is intended to predicate something -of the subject, beside the attribute of the verb, the adjective -should be employed; but, when it is intended to express -merely some modification of the attribute of the verb, we -should then use the adverb. The difference may be illustrated -by the following examples. When Gustavus says to -his troops, “your limbs tread vigorous and your breasts beat -high,” he predicates with the act of treading their physical -strength; but had he said, “your limbs tread vigorously,” it -would merely modify their treading, and express an act, not -a constitutional habit. The same distinction may be made -between saying with Arnoldus in the same play, “the tear -rolls graceful down his visage,” and “the tear rolls gracefully.” -The former predicates grace of the tear itself, the -latter merely of its rolling. When we say, “he looks sly,” -we mean he has the look or the appearance of being a sly -man; when it is said, “he looks slyly,” we signify that he -assumes a sly look. When we say, “it tastes good,” we -affirm that the subject is of a good quality, whether the taste -be pleasant or unpleasant; if we say, “it tastes well,” we -affirm the taste of it to be pleasant.</p> - -<p>“The manner of it is thus.” The adverb <em>thus</em> means “in -this manner.” The expression, therefore, amounts to “the -manner of it is in this manner.” It should be, “the manner<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_288"></a>[288]</span> -of it is this,” or, “this is the manner of it.” “This much is -certain.” Better, “thus much,” or “so much.”</p> - -<p>“It is a long time since I have been devoted to your interest.” -<em>Since</em> properly means “from the time when,” and -not “during which time.” The expression might be construed -into a meaning the reverse of that which is intended, -implying, that the attachment had ceased for a long time. It -should be, “it is a long time since I became devoted,” or, “it -is a long time, that I have been devoted to your interest.”</p> - -<p>“It is equally the same.” <em>Equally</em> is here redundant; it -ought to be, “it is the same.”</p> - -<p>“Whenever I call on him, he always inquires for you.” -<em>Whenever</em> means “at what time soever,” “always when,” -or “as often as;” <em>always</em>, therefore, is redundant.</p> - -<p>“They will not listen to the voice of the charmer, charm -he never so wisely.” <em>Never</em> is here improperly used for <em>ever</em>. -It ought to be, “charm he ever so wisely;” that is, “<em>however -wisely</em>,” or “<em>how wisely soever</em>, he may charm.”</p> - -<p>“And even in those characteristical portraits, on which he -has lavished all the decorations of his style, he is seldom or -ever misled.”—<cite>Stewart’s Life of Robertson.</cite> This error is -the converse of the former. It ought to be, “seldom or -never;” that is, “seldom, or at no time.” “Seldom or ever” -is equivalent to “seldom or always,” or to “seldom or at any -time;” expressions evidently improper.</p> - -<p>“Whether thou be my son or not.”—<cite>Bible.</cite> “Whether -you will keep his commandments, or no.” Both these phraseologies -are in use; but I am inclined to agree with those -grammarians, who prefer the former, as more consistent with -the ellipsis—“Whether thou be, or be not.” “Whether you -will keep his commandments, or will not keep.”</p> - -<p>“Some years after being released from prison, by reason -of his consummate knowledge of civil law, and military -affairs, he was soon exalted to the supreme power.” The first -clause of this sentence is ambiguous; for the sentence may -imply, either that he gained the supremacy, some years after -he was released from prison, that period being left indeterminate; -or that some years after a time previously mentioned, -he was released from prison, and attained the chief power.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_289"></a>[289]</span> -The latter being the author’s meaning, it ought to be, -“some years <em>afterwards</em> being released from prison.” Another -ambiguity is here involved by improper arrangement; -for, as the sentence stands, it is somewhat doubtful, whether -his consummate knowledge was the cause of his releasement, -or the cause of his elevation. This error, however, belongs -more to the rhetorician, than the grammarian. The French -term this ambiguity, “construction louche,” or a <em>squinting -construction</em>.</p> - -<p>The following error consists in wrong collocation: “The -Celtiberi in Spain borrowed that name from the Celtæ and -Iberi, from whom they were jointly descended.” Jointly, -with whom? It should be, “from whom (the Celtæ and -Iberi) jointly they were descended.”</p> - -<p>“And the Quakers seem to approach nearly the only regular -body of Deists in the universe, the literati, or the disciples -of Confucius in China.”—<cite>Hume’s Essays.</cite> The adverb -<em>nearly</em>, which is synonymous with <em>almost</em>, is here improperly -used for <em>near</em><a id="FNanchor_147" href="#Footnote_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a>. It should be, <em>approach near</em>.</p> - -<p>“This is the Leviathan, from whence the terrible wits of -our age are said to borrow their weapons.”—<cite>Swift.</cite> <em>From</em> -is here redundant; <em>whence</em>, denoting “from which place.”</p> - -<p>“An ancient author prophecies from hence.”—<cite>Dryden.</cite> -Here a similar impropriety is involved. It should be, <em>hence</em>.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“E’er we can offer our complaints,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Behold him present with his aid.”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent"><em>E’er</em>, a contraction for <em>ever</em>, which is synonymous with <em>always</em>, -and also <em>at any time</em>, is here improperly used for <em>ere</em> or <em>before</em>.</p> - -<p>In the two following passages, there appears to me to be -a similar error: “Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the -golden bowl be broken.”—<cite>Bible.</cite> “I was set up from everlasting, -from the beginning, or ever the earth was.”—<em>Ibid.</em></p> - -<p>“And, as there is now never a woman in England, I hope, -I may talk of women without offence.”—<cite>Steele.</cite></p> - -<p>“He spake never a word.”—<cite>Bible.</cite></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_290"></a>[290]</span></p> - -<p>This usage of the word “never,” is now, I believe, entirely -confined to the vulgar.</p> - -<p>“As for conflagrations and great droughts, they do not -merely dispeople and destroy.”—<cite>Bacon.</cite> <em>Merely</em> is here used, -as it is uniformly by Bacon, and very frequently by Shakspeare, -for <em>entirely</em>. In this sense, it is obsolete; and it now -signifies <em>purely</em>, <em>simply</em>, <em>only</em>, <em>nothing more than</em>. From inattention -to this, the passage, now quoted, has been corrupted -in several editions. They have it, “do not merely dispeople, -but destroy,” conveying a sentiment very different from what -the author intended.</p> - - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<h4 id="CRI_VI">SECTION VI.<br /> - -<span class="fs80">THE PREPOSITION.</span></h4> - - -<h5>SOLECISM.</h5> - -<p class="noindent">“Who do you speak to?” Here the preposition is joined -with the nominative, instead of the objective case. It should -be, “whom do you speak to?” or “to whom do you speak?” -<em>To who</em> is a solecism.</p> - -<p>“He talked to you and I, of this matter, some days ago.” -It should be, “to <em>you</em> and <em>me</em>;” that is, “to you and to me.”</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“Now Margaret’s curse is fallen upon our heads,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">When she exclaim’d on Hastings you and I.”</div> - <div class="verse indent36"><cite>Shakspeare.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">It ought to be, “on Hastings <em>you</em> and <em>me</em>,” the pronouns -being under the government of the preposition understood.</p> - -<p>“Neither do I think, that anything could be more entertaining, -than the story of it exactly told, with such observations, -and in such a spirit, style, and manner, as you alone -are capable of performing it.” This sentence is extremely -faulty. “To perform a story” is not English; and the relative -clause is ungrammatical, the preposition being omitted. -It should be, “performing it in,” which would be grammatically -correct, but inelegant, as well as improper. It would -be better expressed thus, “in that spirit, style, and manner, -in which you alone are capable of narrating it.”</p> - -<p>“Notwithstanding of the numerous panegyrics on the ancient -English liberty.”—<cite>Hume’s Essays.</cite> The error here in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_291"></a>[291]</span> -the use of the preposition after <em>notwithstanding</em>, is, I believe, -peculiar to Scotland. <em>Notwithstanding</em> is a compound word -of the same import as <em>not preventing</em>. The grammatical construction -therefore is, “the numerous panegyrics notwithstanding,” -that is, “not hindering,” the noun and the participle -being in the absolute case. <em>Of</em> renders the expression -solecistical.</p> - - -<h5 class="p2">IMPROPRIETY.</h5> - -<p>“If policy can prevail upon force.”—<cite>Addison.</cite> Here <em>upon</em> -is improperly used for <em>over</em>. <em>To prevail on</em>, is “to persuade;” -<em>to prevail over</em>, is “to overcome.”</p> - -<p>“I have set down the names of several gentlemen, who -have been robbed in Dublin streets, for these three years -past.”—<cite>Swift.</cite> It should be, “within these three years past.” -Swift’s expression implies, as Baker observes, that these gentlemen -had been robbed during the whole three years.</p> - -<p>“Ye blind guides, who strain at a gnat, and swallow a -camel.” In this sentence, the preposition <em>at</em> is very improperly -used for <em>out</em>. It should be, “strain out a gnat;” that -is, exclude it from the liquor by straining.</p> - -<p>“Oliver Proudfute, a freeman and burgess, was slain upon -the streets of the city.”—<cite>Scott.</cite> This form of expression is -almost universal in Scotland. An Englishman says, “in the -streets.”</p> - -<p>“I have several times inquired of you without any satisfaction.”—<cite>Pope.</cite> -We say, “inquire of,” when we ask a -question; and “inquire for,” or “after,” when we desire to -know the circumstances, in which any object is placed. He -should have employed the latter expression.</p> - -<p>“The greatest masters of critical learning differ among one -another.”—<cite>Spectator.</cite> If the ellipsis be supplied, the sentence -proceeds thus: “The greatest masters of critical learning -differ, one differs among another.” Here the preposition -<em>among</em>, which implies a number, or a plurality, is joined to -a term significant of unity. It ought to be, “from one another;” -that is “one from another,” or “differ among themselves.”</p> - -<p>“I intended to wait <em>of</em> you this morning.” The preposition<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_292"></a>[292]</span> -<em>of</em> is here improperly used for <em>on</em>. We say, <em>to wait on</em>, -not <em>to wait of</em>.</p> - -<p>“He knows nothing <em>on</em> it.” This is a vile vulgarism for -“he knows nothing <em>of</em> it.”</p> - -<p>“He is now much altered to the better.” <em>To</em> is here improperly -used instead of <em>for</em>. “Altered to the better,” may, -I believe, be deemed a Scotticism. It ought to be, “he is -altered for the better.”</p> - -<p>Ambiguity is sometimes produced by putting the preposition -in an improper place. “A clergyman is, by the militia -act, exempted from both serving and contributing.” This, -though intended to express a different meaning, strictly implies, -that he is not obliged both to serve and to contribute, -but does not exclude his liability to do the one, or the -other. If we say, “he is exempted both from serving and -contributing,” we express an exemption from both.</p> - -<p>“Such of my readers, as have a taste of fine writing.”—<cite>Addison’s -Spect.</cite> “To have a taste of a thing,” is “to feel -how it affects the sensitive or perceptive faculty;” “to have -a taste for a thing,” is “to relish its agreeable qualities;” -“to have a taste in a thing,” which is the expression used by -Addison in the same paper, is “to have a discriminative -judgment in examining the object.” The first expression is -incorrect, as not conveying his meaning.</p> - -<p>Swift, speaking of Marlborough’s dismission from the -queen’s ministry, as a bad requital of his public services, -says, “If a stranger should hear these furious outcries of -ingratitude against our general, he would be apt to inquire,” -&c. One would naturally conclude from the author’s expression, -that Marlborough, and not the nation, was charged -with ingratitude. He should have said, “ingratitude towards -our general.”</p> - -<p>“I received the sword in a present from my brother.” -This is a very common colloquial Scotticism, and occurs -occasionally in written language. The sword was not received -<em>in</em>, but <em>as</em> a present.</p> - -<p>In the use of prepositions, a distinction is properly made -between their literal and figurative meaning. “Wit,” says -Shakspeare, “depends <em>on</em> dilatory time.” Here the verb is<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_293"></a>[293]</span> -employed figuratively, and the idea involved in the primitive -meaning is dismissed.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“From gilded roofs depending lamps display.”—<cite>Dryden.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Here the verb is used in its literal acceptation, denoting “to -hang,” and is followed, therefore, by <em>from</em>.</p> - -<p>To the same purpose it has been remarked by Campbell, -that the verb “to found,” used literally, is followed by <em>on</em> -preferably to <em>in</em>, as, “the house was founded <em>on</em> a rock;” -but, when employed metaphorically, is better followed by <em>in</em>, -as, “dominion is founded in grace.”</p> - -<p>“There is no need <em>for</em> your assistance.” It should be, -“<em>of</em> your assistance.” We say, “occasion <em>for</em>,” and “need -<em>of</em>.” <em>Need for</em> may likewise be pronounced a Scotticism, -as, I believe, this phraseology is seldom or never used by -English writers.</p> - -<p>“For, what chiefly deters the sons of science and philosophy -from reading the Bible, and profiting of that lecture, -but the stumbling-block of absolute inspiration?”—<cite>Geddes.</cite> -“To profit of” is a Gallicism; it should be, “profiting by.”</p> - - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<h4 id="CRI_VII">SECTION VII.<br /> - -<span class="fs80">THE CONJUNCTION.</span></h4> - - -<h5>SOLECISM.</h5> - -<p class="noindent">“A system of theology, involving such absurdities, can be -maintained, I think, by no rational man, much less by so -learned a man as him.” Conjunctions having no government, -the word <em>as</em> ought not to be joined with an objective -case. It should be, “so learned a man as <em>he</em>,” the verb <em>is</em> -being understood.</p> - -<p>“Tell the cardinal, that I understand poetry better than -him.”—<cite>Smollett.</cite> According to the grammatical construction -of the latter clause, it means, “I understand poetry better -than I understand him.” This, however, is not the sentiment -which the writer intended to convey. The clause should -proceed thus, “I understand poetry better than <em>he</em>;” that is,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_294"></a>[294]</span> -“than <em>he</em> understands it.” Those who contend for the use -of <em>than</em> as a preposition, and justify the phraseology which -is here censured, must at least admit, that to construe <em>than</em> -as a preposition, creates ambiguity. Thus, when it is said, -“you think him handsomer than <em>me</em>,” it would be impossible -to determine whether the meaning is, “you think him handsomer -than I think him,” or “you think him handsomer than -you think me.”</p> - -<p>“There is nothing more pleases mankind, as to have others -to admire and praise their performances, though they are -never so trivial.” Here there are two errors. The comparative -<em>more</em> is followed by <em>as</em>, instead of <em>than</em>; and the adverb -<em>never</em> is improperly used for <em>ever</em>. “How trivial so ever.” -It should be, “There is nothing that pleases mankind more, -than,” &c.</p> - -<p>Conjunctions having no government, the scholar, desirous -to avoid error, should carefully observe, whether the predicate -be applicable to the two subjects, connected by the conjunction, -or, to speak more generally, whether the two nouns be -dependent on the same verb or preposition, expressed or -understood. “The lover got a woman of greater fortune -than her he had missed.”—<cite>Addison</cite>, <cite>Guardian</cite>. This sentence, -if not acknowledged to be ungrammatical, is at least -inelegant. The pronoun should have been introduced. If -<em>than</em> be considered as having the power of a preposition, the -charge of solecism is precluded; but if <em>than</em> be a conjunction, -he should have said, “than she, whom he had missed.” -For, as Lowth observes, there is no ellipsis of the verb <em>got</em>, -so that the pronoun <em>her</em> cannot be under its government. -The meaning is not, “The lover got a woman of greater -fortune, than he got her, whom he missed,” for this would be -a contradiction, but, “of greater fortune, than she was.” In -like manner, in the following passage:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“Nor hope to be myself less miserable,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">By what I seek, but <em>others</em> to make</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Such <em>as I</em>.”—<cite>Milton.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Bentley says, that it should be <em>me</em>. We concur with Dr. -Lowth in rejecting this correction, and approving the expression<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_295"></a>[295]</span> -of Milton. There is no ellipsis of the verb <em>make</em>; -<em>others</em> and <em>I</em> are not under the government of the same word. -The meaning is not, “to make others such, as to make me,” -but, “such as I <em>am</em>” the substantive verb being understood.</p> - -<p>In the following passage, on the contrary, the ellipsis seems -evident: “I found none so fit as <em>him</em> to be set in opposition -to the father of the renowned city of Rome.” It has been -contended, that the author should have said, “as he,” and -not “as him:” but it appears to me, that the verb <em>found</em> is -understood in the secondary clause, and that the expression -is correct, the sense being, “I found none so fit, as I found -him.”</p> - -<p>In the following passage the two subjects belong to the -same verb:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“The sun, upon the calmest sea,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Appears not half so bright as thee.”—<cite>Prior.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">It ought to be, “as thou;” that is, “as thou appearest.”</p> - -<p>“So as,” and “as, as,” though frequently, have not always -the same import. “These things,” said Thales to Solon, -who was lamenting the supposed death of his son, “which -strike down <em>so firm a man as you</em>, have deterred me from -marriage.” The expression clearly refers to Solon; but, if -he had said “as firm a man as you,” it might have referred -to a different person from Solon, but a man of equal fortitude.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“For ever in this humble cell,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Let thee and I, my fair one, dwell.”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">The second line of the couplet is ungrammatical, the conjunction -connecting an objective with a nominative case, or, -to speak more correctly, the pronoun of the first person, -which should be a regimen to the verb understood, being -here in the nominative case. Thus, “let thee,” and, “let I, -my fair one, dwell,” instead of “let <em>thee</em>, and let <em>me</em>.”</p> - -<p>“Let us make a covenant, I and thou.”—<cite>Bible.</cite> The -error here, though similar, does not come under precisely the -same predicament with the former. The pronoun <em>us</em> is very -properly in the objective case, after the verb <em>let</em>; <em>I</em> and <em>thou</em> -should therefore be in the same case, according to Rule vii. -of Syntax. The expression is in fact elliptical, and when<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_296"></a>[296]</span> -completed proceeds thus, “Let us make a covenant: let me -and thee make.”</p> - -<p>“Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the -things which he suffered.” The first clause is intended to -express a fact, not a hypothesis; the verb, therefore, should -be in the indicative mood. Conjunctions have no government, -either of cases or moods.</p> - - -<h5 class="p2">IMPROPRIETY.</h5> - -<p>“If in case he come, all will be well.” <em>If</em> and <em>in case</em> are -synonymous, the one meaning “suppose,” and the other, -“on the supposition.” One of them, therefore, is redundant.</p> - -<p>“The reason of my desiring to see you was, because I -wanted to talk with you.” <em>Because</em> means “by reason;” the -expression, therefore, is chargeable with redundancy. It -should be, “that I wanted to talk with you.”</p> - -<p>“No sooner was the cry of the infant heard, but the old -gentleman rushed into the room.”—<cite>Martinus Scrib.</cite> The -comparative is here improperly followed by <em>but</em>, instead of -<em>than</em>.</p> - -<p>“Scarce had the Spirit of Laws made its appearance, than -it was attacked.” <em>Than</em> is employed after comparatives only, -and the word <em>other</em>. It ought to be “scarce,” or, for reasons -formerly given, “scarcely had the Spirit of Laws made its -appearance, <em>when</em> it was attacked,” or “no sooner—than.”</p> - -<p>“The resolution was not the less fixed, that the secret was -as yet communicated to very few, either in the French or -English court.” This passage from Hume I have not been -able to find. Priestley observes, that it involves a Gallicism, -the word <em>that</em> being used instead of <em>as</em>. If the meaning intended -be, that some circumstances, previously mentioned, had -not shaken the resolution, because the secret was as yet -known to few, then Priestley’s observation was correct, and -the word <em>as</em> should be substituted for <em>that</em>, to express the -cause of the firmness. But, if the author intended to say, -that the very partial discovery of the secret had not shaken -the resolution, the clause is then perfectly correct. According -to the former phraseology, the circumstance subjoined -operated as a cause, preventing the resolution from being<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_297"></a>[297]</span> -shaken: according to the latter, it had no effect, or produced -no change of the previous determination. In other words, -“the less fixed that,” implies that the subject of the following -clause did not affect that of the preceding; “the less -fixed <em>as</em>” denotes, that the latter circumstance contributed -to the production of the former. As it is obvious, that, in -such examples, the definite article may refer either to the -antecedent or the subsequent clause, the distinction, here -specified, should, for the sake of perspicuity, be carefully -observed<a id="FNanchor_148" href="#Footnote_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a>.</p> - -<p>“His donation was the more acceptable, that it was given -without solicitation.” That the word <em>that</em> is frequently used -for <em>because</em> cannot be questioned; thus, “I am glad <em>that</em> you -have returned safe,” that is, “<em>because</em> you have returned safe.”</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“’T is not <em>that</em> I love you less</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Than when <ins class="corr" id="tn-297" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'before you feet'">before your feet</ins> I lay.”—<cite>Waller.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Here <em>that</em> is equivalent to <em>because</em>. English writers, however, -after a comparative, employ <em>as</em> or <em>because</em>, to denote -that the circumstance subjoined was the cause of the preceding -one. The use of <em>that</em> in such examples is accounted -a Scotticism; it should, therefore, be, “his donation was -the more acceptable, <em>as</em>” or “<em>because</em> it was given without -solicitation.”</p> - -<p>“His arguments on this occasion had, it may be presumed, -the greater weight, that he had never himself entered within -the walls of a playhouse.”—<cite>Stewart’s Life of Robertson.</cite></p> - -<p>“A mortification, the more severe, that the joint authority -of the archduke and the infanta governed the Austrian -Netherlands.”—<cite>Thomson’s Continuation of Watson’s History.</cite></p> - -<p>These sentences are chargeable with the same error; and, -it is not a little remarkable, though the impropriety has been<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_298"></a>[298]</span> -pointed out again and again, that there is scarcely a Scotch -writer, not even among those of the highest name, who is -not chargeable with the frequent commission of this error.</p> - -<p>“On the east and west sides, it (America) is washed by the -Atlantic and Pacific oceans.”—<cite>Robertson.</cite> This mode of -expression is incorrect; and, though to the geographer intelligible, -it strictly conveys a conception not intended by the -author. The copulative joins the two sides, which ought to -be separated; and combines the two seas, instead of the two -facts, implying, that both sides are washed by the same two -oceans. It should be rather, “On the east side it is washed -by the Atlantic, and on the west (is washed) by the Pacific -ocean.”</p> - -<p>“Will it be believed, that the four Gospels are as old, or -even older than tradition?”—<cite>Bolingbroke.</cite> Here there is a -faulty omission of the particle corresponding to <em>as</em>; for the -positive and comparative cannot be followed by the same -conjunction. It ought to be, “as old <em>as</em>, or even older <em>than</em> -tradition;” or, perhaps, better, “as old as tradition, or even -older.”</p> - -<p>“The books were to have been sold as this day.” This is -a most offensive vulgarism. The conjunction <em>as</em> can have no -regimen; nor can it be properly used as equivalent to <em>on</em>. -It ought to be, “sold this day,” or “on this day.”</p> - -<p>“It is supposed, that he must have arrived at Paris as -yesterday.” This sentence is chargeable with the same error. -Construed strictly, it is, “he must have arrived at Paris <em>as</em>, -or <em>in like manner as</em>, he arrived yesterday.”</p> - -<p>“The duke had not behaved with that loyalty, as he ought -to have done.” Propriety of correspondence here requires -<em>with that</em> to be followed by <em>with which</em>, instead of <em>as</em>. The -sentence, even thus corrected, would be still inelegant and -clumsy. “The duke had not behaved with becoming -loyalty,” would be much better.</p> - -<p>“In <em>the</em> order <em>as</em> they lie in his preface.” This involves a -similar impropriety. It should be, “in order as,” or “in the -order, in which they lie in his preface.”</p> - -<p>“No; this is not always the case neither.”—<cite>Beattie.</cite></p> - -<p>“Men come not to the knowledge of ideas which are<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_299"></a>[299]</span> -thought innate, till they come to the use of reason; nor then -neither.”—<cite>Locke.</cite></p> - -<p>In old English two negatives denied; hence, perhaps, this -phraseology originated. Johnson remarks, that the use of -<em>neither</em>, after a negative, and at the end of a sentence, though -not grammatical, renders the expression more emphatic. -Analogy, however, is decidedly in favour of the affirmative -term; I, therefore, prefer the word “either.” Were Johnson’s -argument admitted, such expressions as these, “I forbade -you <em>not</em> to go;” “I won’t suffer no such thing;” “He -would not have none of my assistance,” might, I apprehend, -be justified on the same principle. Those who employ them, -doubtless, believe them to be more emphatic, than if they included -a single negative.</p> - -<p>“This I am the rather disposed to do, that it will serve to -illustrate the principles above laid down.”—<cite>Campbell on -Rhetoric.</cite> This sentence involves an error, on which I have -already animadverted. “<em>The rather</em>” should be followed by -<em>as</em>, not <em>that</em>.</p> - -<p>“This is another use, that in my opinion contributes rather -to make a man learned than wise: and is neither capable of -pleasing the understanding, or imagination.” Lowth justly -observes, that <em>or</em> is here improperly used for <em>nor</em>, the correlative -words being <em>neither</em>, <em>nor</em>. In addition to this observation, -I remark, that the word <em>neither</em> is erroneously placed. -To render this collocation of the conjunction correct, there -should be another attributive opposed to the word “capable,” -as, “neither capable of pleasing the understanding, nor calculated -to gratify the imagination.” But, as the author intended -to exclude two subjects, these should have been contrasted -by the exclusive conjunctions, thus, “is capable of -pleasing neither the understanding, nor the imagination.”</p> - -<p>A similar error occurs in the following sentence: “Adversity -both taught you to think and reason.”—<cite>Steele.</cite> The -conjunction, which is, in truth, the adjective <em>both</em>, is improperly -placed. It should be, “taught you both,” <em>i.e.</em> the -two things, “to think and reason.”</p> - -<p>It has been already observed, that the conjunction <em>or</em> is -used disjunctively, and subdisjunctively, sometimes denoting<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_300"></a>[300]</span> -a diversity of things, and sometimes merely a difference of -names. Hence often arises ambiguity, where the utmost precision -of expression is necessary<a id="FNanchor_149" href="#Footnote_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a>. When Ruddiman delivers -it as a rule, that “verbal adjectives, <em>or</em> such as signify an affection -of the mind, require the genitive,” I have known the -scholar at a loss to understand, whether there be two distinct -classes of adjectives, here intended, or one class under two -designations. The ambiguity might here be avoided, by using -<em>and</em> or <em>with</em> instead of <em>or</em>. It may also be prevented in many -cases, by more forcibly marking the distinction by the use of -<em>either</em>. Thus, if we say, “whosoever shall cause, or occasion -a disturbance,” it may be doubtful, whether the latter of -the two verbs be not designed as explanatory of the former, -they, though their meanings be distinct, being often used as -synonymous terms. If we say, “shall either cause or occasion,” -all doubt is removed. Sometimes ambiguity may be -precluded either by the insertion, or the omission, of the article. -Thus, if we say, “a peer, or lord of parliament,”<a id="FNanchor_150" href="#Footnote_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a> -meaning to designate only one individual, or one order, -the expression is correct. But if it be intended to signify -two individuals, every peer not being a lord of parliament, -and every lord of parliament not being a peer, we should -say, “a peer, or a lord of parliament,” or “either a peer, -or lord of parliament.”</p> - -<p>Having now endeavoured to explain and illustrate the etymology -and syntax of the English language, I cannot dismiss -the subject without earnestly recommending to the classical -student to cultivate a critical acquaintance with his native -tongue. It is an egregious, but common error, to imagine, -that a perfect knowledge of Greek and Latin precludes the -necessity of studying the principles of English grammar. -The structure of the ancient, and that of modern languages, -are very dissimilar. Nay, the peculiar idioms of any language,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_301"></a>[301]</span> -how like soever in its general principles to any other, -must be learned by study, and an attentive perusal of the best -writers in that language. Nor can any imputation be more -reproachful to the proficient in classical literature, than, with -a critical knowledge of Greek and Latin, which are now dead -languages, to be superficially acquainted with his native -tongue, in which he must think, and speak, and write.</p> - -<p>The superiority of Greek and Latin over the English language -in respect of harmony, graceful dignity, conciseness, -and fluency, will be readily admitted. Our language is, comparatively, -harsh and abrupt. It possesses strength, indeed; -but unaccompanied with softness, with elegance, or with -majesty. It must be granted also, that the Greek is, perhaps, -a more copious, and is certainly a more ductile<a id="FNanchor_151" href="#Footnote_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a> and tractable -language. But though, in these respects, the English be inferior -to the languages of Greece and Rome, yet in preciseness -of expression, diversity of sound, facility of communication, -and variety of phrase, it may claim the pre-eminence. -It would be easy to evince the truth of this assertion, did -the limits, which I have prescribed to myself permit. The -fact is, that analogous languages almost necessarily possess -a superiority in these respects over those, which are transpositive.</p> - -<p>It is to be remembered, also, that our language is susceptible -of high improvement; and though its abrupt and rugged -nature cannot be entirely changed, much may be done to -smooth its asperities and soften its harshness.</p> - -<p>As a further inducement to the study of the English language, -I would assure the young reader, that a due attention -to accuracy of diction is highly conducive to correctness of -thought. For, as it is generally true, that he, whose conceptions -are clear, and who is master of his subject, delivers his<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_302"></a>[302]</span> -sentiments with ease and perspicuity<a id="FNanchor_152" href="#Footnote_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a>; so it is equally certain, -that, as language is not only the vehicle of thought, but -also an instrument of invention, if we desire to attain a habit -of conceiving clearly and thinking correctly, we must learn -to speak and write with accuracy and precision.</p> - -<p>It must, at the same time, be remembered, that to give our -chief attention to mere phraseology, or to be more solicitous -about the accuracy of the diction than the value of the sentiment, -is a sure indication of a nerveless and vacant mind. -As we estimate a man, not by his garb, but by his intellectual -and moral worth, so it is the sentiment itself, not the -dress in which it is exhibited, that determines its character, -and our opinion of its author.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“True expression, like th’ unchanging sun,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Clears and improves whate’er it shines upon;</div> - <div class="verse indent0">It gilds all objects, <em>but it alters none</em>.”—<cite>Pope.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>In short, the precept of Quintilian should be studiously -observed: “curam ergo verborum, rerum volo esse solicitudinem.”—<cite>Inst. -Orat.</cite> lib. viii.</p> - - -<p class="p4 pfs80">THE END.</p> - - -<hr class="p4 full" /> - -<p class="pfs70">G. Woodfall and Son, Printers, Angel Court, Skinner Street, London.<br /></p> - - -<div class="chapter"></div> -<div class="footnotes"><h2 class="nobreak">FOOTNOTES:</h2> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> Beattie seems to think that the antediluvians had an alphabet, and -that hieroglyphical was posterior to alphabetical writing. “The wisdom -and simple manners of the first men,” says he, “would incline me to -think, that they must have had an alphabet; for hieroglyphic characters -imply quaintness and witticism.” In this reasoning I cannot concur. -Alphabetic writing is indeed simple, when known; so also are most -inventions. But, simple and easy as it appears to us, we have only to -examine the art itself, to be fully convinced, that science, genius, and -industry, must have been combined in inventing it. Nay, the learned -author himself acknowledges, “that though of easy acquisition to us, it is -in itself neither easy nor obvious.” He even admits, “that alphabetical -writing must be so remote from the conceptions of those who never heard -of it, that without divine aid it would seem to be unsearchable and impossible.” -I observe also that in passing from picture-writing to hieroglyphical -expression, and in transferring the signs of physical to intellectual -and invisible objects, fanciful conceits would naturally take place. It is -true also that the manners of the antediluvians were simple; but it is -not from prudence nor simplicity of manners, but from human genius, -gradually improved, that we are to expect inventions, which require the -greatest efforts of the human mind.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">[2]</a> Cicero regards the invention of alphabetic writing as an evidence of -the celestial character of the soul; and many have ascribed its origin to -the inspiration of the Deity. To resort to supernatural causes, to account -for the production of any rare or striking event, is repugnant to the -principles of true philosophy. And how wonderful soever the art of -alphabetical writing may appear, there can be no necessity for referring its -introduction to divine inspiration, if the inventive powers of man be not -demonstrably unequal to the task. Picture-writing is generally believed -to have been the earliest mode of recording events, or communicating information -by permanent signs. This was probably succeeded by hieroglyphical -characters. How these pictures and hieroglyphical devices -would, either through negligence or a desire to abbreviate, gradually vary -their form, and lose their resemblance to the objects which they represented, -may be easily conceived. Hence that association, which existed -between the sign and the thing signified, being founded in resemblance, -would in process of time be entirely dissolved. This having taken place, -hieroglyphical characters would naturally be converted into a mere verbal -denotation, representative of words and not of things. Hence, as Goguet, -in his work, “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">De l’Origine des Loix</span>,” &c., reasonably conjectures, would -arise by a partial and easy analysis, a syllabic mode of denotation, which -would naturally introduce a literal alphabet. This conjecture must seem -highly probable, when it is considered, that both a verbal and syllabic -mode of notation are still practised by some Eastern nations.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">[3]</a> I am aware, that in considering the letters <em>y</em> and <em>w</em> to be the same -with <em>i</em> and <em>u</em> (<em>oo</em>), I maintain an opinion, the truth of which has been -disputed. The reasons, however, which have been assigned for rejecting -it do not appear to me satisfactory.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">[4]</a> The mouth is not the proper organ for producing sound; but merely -the organ for modulating and articulating the specific sounds.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">[5]</a> The sound of <em>th</em> in <em>thin</em>, is usually marked with a stroke through -the <em>h</em>, to distinguish it from its other sound; thus, <em>tħick</em>. This distinction -is by some writers reversed.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">[6]</a> Hutton’s Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge, vol. ii. p. 688.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">[7]</a> Plato and Aristotle, when they treat of prepositions, considered the -noun and the verb as the only essential parts of speech; these, without -the aid of any other word, being capable of forming a sentence. Hence -they were called <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">τὰ ἐμψυχότατα μέρη τοῦ λόγου</span>, “the most animated parts -of speech.” The latter of these philosophers, in his Poetics, admits -four, adding to the noun and the verb the article and the conjunction. -The elder Stoics made five, dividing the noun into proper and appellative.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">[8]</a></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Noun, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Nomen de quo loquimur</span>.</p> - -<p>Verb, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Verbum seu quod loquimur</span>.—<cite>Quint.</cite> <em>lib.</em> i. 4.</p> -</div> - -<p>Horace has been thought by some to countenance this doctrine when -he says,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry" lang="la" xml:lang="la"> - <div class="verse indentq">“Donec verba, quibus voces sensusque notarent,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Nominaque invenere.”—<cite>Lib.</cite> i. <cite>Sat.</cite> 3.</div> -</div> -</div> - - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">[9]</a> The plural number, and the genitive singular, seem to have been -originally formed by adding <em>er</em> to the nominative singular, as <em>you, you-er, -your</em>; <em>they, they-er, their</em>; <em>we, we-er, our</em>. This termination was afterwards -changed into <em>en</em>, and then into <em>es</em> or <em>s</em>. Thus we have still in provincial -usage, though now almost entirely obsolete, <em>childer</em> for the plural -of <em>child</em>, and the double plural in <em>child-er-en, children</em>, with the double -genitive in <em>west-er-en, western</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">[10]</a> <em>Brethren</em>, in Scripture, is used for <em>brothers</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">[11]</a> The obsolete plural occurs in the Bible. “These men were bound -in their hosen and hats.”—<cite>Dan.</cite> iii. 21.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="label">[12]</a> Baker inclines also to this usage in preference to the other; but does -not affirm it to be a plural noun.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="label">[13]</a> <em>Much</em> is sometimes joined with collective nouns; but these denote -number in the aggregate; thus, <em>much company</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="label">[14]</a> The gender of <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">mors</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">virtus</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">sol</i>, <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">θάνατος, ἀρετή, ἥλιος</span>, was unalterably -fixed.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="label">[15]</a> It seems, however, to be more applicable to the English language -than to any other with which I am acquainted.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="label">[16]</a> These observations will sufficiently explain the reason why we cannot -concur with Dr. Johnson in thinking that there is “an impropriety -in the termination,” when we say of a woman, “She is a philosoph<em>er</em>.” -The female termination in such examples is not wanted; it would be -pleonastic and improper. The meaning is, “She is a person given to the -study of nature.” If we had been speaking of a lady devoted to philosophy, -and had occasion afterwards to mention her by an appellative, we -should feel the want of the appropriate termination; and instead of saying -“the philosopher,” we should wish, for the sake of discrimination, -to be able to say, “the philosophress,” or to employ some equally distinctive -term. In the example adduced by the learned lexicographer, the -female termination is superfluous; and would intimate a distinction of -philosophic character, instead of a distinction of sex, the latter being -denoted by the female pronoun.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="label">[17]</a> We remark, in some instances, a similar phraseology in Greek and -Latin. <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">Θεὸς</span> and <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">θεὰ</span>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">deus</i> and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dea</i>, are contradistinguished as in English, -<em>god</em> and <em>goddess</em>; the former of each pair strictly denoting the male, and -the latter the female. But the former, we find, has a generical meaning, -expressing “a deity,” whether male or female; and is frequently used -when the female is designed, if divinity in the abstract be the primary -idea without regard to the sex, thus,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent15">... “<span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">τὸν δ’ ἐξήρπαξ’ Ἀφροδίτη,</span></div> - <div class="verse indent0"><span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">Ῥεῖα μάλ’ ὥστε θεός.</span>”—<cite>Hom. Il.</cite> iii. 380.</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>Here the term <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">θεός</span> is applied to Venus, the character of divinity, and not -the distinction of sex, being the chief object of the poet’s attention. <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">Θεός</span> -is, therefore, to be considered as either masculine or feminine.</p> - -<p class="pad2"> -“<span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">Ἀλλά μ’ ἁ Διός γ’ ἀλκίμα θεός.</span>”—<cite>Soph. Aj.</cite> 401.<br /> -</p> - -<p class="pad2"> -“<span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">Μήτε τις οὖν θήλεια θεός.</span>”—<cite>Hom. Il.</cite> Θ. 7.<br /> -</p> - -<p class="pad2"> -“<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Descendo, ac ducente deo, flammam inter et hostes<br /> -Expedior.</span>”—<cite>Virg. Æn.</cite> ii. 632.<br /> -</p> - -<p>Here, also, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">deo</i> is applied to Venus, as likewise in the following passage, -“<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><em>deum</em> esse indignam credidi</span>.”—<cite>Plaut. Pœn.</cite> 2, l. 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="label">[18]</a> <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">Πτῶσις γενική</span>: general case. It has been supposed by some that -the Latins, mistaking the import of the Greek term, called this the genitive -case. See <cite>Ency. Brit., Art. Grammar</cite>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_19" href="#FNanchor_19" class="label">[19]</a> <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Amor Dei</i> denotes either <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amor quo Deus amat</i>, or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quo Deus amatur</i>. -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Reformatio Lutheri</i>, either <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">qua reformavit</i>, or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">qua reformatus est</i>. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Injuria -patris, desiderium amici</i>, with many other examples which might be produced, -have either an active or passive sense. <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">ἡ ἀγαπὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ</span>,<span lang="hbo" xml:lang="hbo"> אהבת יהוה,</span> -<span lang="it" xml:lang="it">l’amore de Dio</span>, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">l’amour de Dieu</span>, severally involve the same -ambiguity with “the love of God.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_20" href="#FNanchor_20" class="label">[20]</a> Of the six declensions, to one or other of which the learned Dr. -Hickes conceives the inflexion of almost all the Saxon nouns may be reduced, -three form their genitive in <em>es</em>, as, <em>word, wordes</em>; <em>smith, smithes</em>. -In the Mœsogothic, a kindred language, the genitive ends in <em>s</em>, some -nouns having <em>is</em>, some <em>ns</em>, and others <em>as</em>, as, <em>fan, fanins</em>; <em>faukagagja, -faukagagjis</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_21" href="#FNanchor_21" class="label">[21]</a> It must be obvious, that the terms general and universal belong not -to real existences, but are merely denominations, the result of intellect, -generalising a number of individuals under one head.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_22" href="#FNanchor_22" class="label">[22]</a> <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere curandum.</span>—<cite>Inst.</cite> -<em>lib.</em> viii. <em>cap.</em> 4.</p> - -<p>I am inclined to think that our language possesses a superiority in this -respect over the Greek itself. <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ τοῦ -Θεοῦ</span> may signify either “man in the species, or an individual, was sent -from God.” The author of the article Grammar, in the Encyc. Brit., -observes, “that the word <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">ἄνθρωπος</span> is here restricted to an individual by -its concord with the verb and the participle.” If he mean by this that -the term must be significant of only one individual, (and I can annex no -other interpretation to his words,) because a singular verb and participle -singular are joined with it, he errs egregiously. Numberless examples -might be produced to evince the contrary. Job. v. 7. <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">ἄνθρωπος γεννᾶται -κόπῳ</span> “man (mankind) is born unto trouble;” where the subject is -joined to a verb singular. Psal. xlix. 12. <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">ἄνθρωπος ἐν τιμῇ ὢν οὐ συνῆκε</span>, -“man being in honour abideth not.” Here also <em>man</em> for <em>mankind</em> is -joined with a participle and verb singular. And here it may be pertinently -asked, would not the term <em>one</em> for <em>a</em> in the first example somewhat -alter the meaning, and convey an idea different from that intended -by the evangelist?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_23" href="#FNanchor_23" class="label">[23]</a> They are the Saxon words <em>this</em> or <em>thes</em>, “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">hic, hæc, hoc,</span>” <em>that</em> or <em>thæt</em>, -“<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">ille, illa, illud,</span>” which were frequently used by the Saxons for what we -term the definite article, as, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">send us on thas swyn</i>, “send us into the -swine.” Mark v. 21, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">tha eodon tha unclænan gastas on tha swyn</i>, “then -the unclean spirits entered into the swine.”</p> - -<p>The Saxon definites are <em>se</em>, <em>seo</em>, <em>thæt</em>, for the three genders severally; -and <em>tha</em> in the plural, expressing <em>the</em> or <em>those</em>, as, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">thæt goed sæd</i>, the good -seed. <em>Thæt</em> is also joined to masculine and feminine nouns, as, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">thæt wif</i>, -the woman; <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">thæt folc</i>, the people. <em>Thæ</em> (pronounced <em>they</em>) still obtains -in Scotland, as, “thæ men” for “these men.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_24" href="#FNanchor_24" class="label">[24]</a></p> -<p><span lang="hbo" xml:lang="hbo"> ארץ‏‎ ‎‏הארץ.</span></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_25" href="#FNanchor_25" class="label">[25]</a></p> -<p><span lang="hbo" xml:lang="hbo"> אשרי האיש.</span></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_26" href="#FNanchor_26" class="label">[26]</a> Horne Tooke appears to me to have erred in deriving <em>odd</em> from <em>ow’d</em>. -His words are these: “<em>Odd</em> is the participle <em>ow’d</em>. Thus, when we are -counting by couples or pairs, we say, ‘one pair,’ ‘two pairs,’ &c., and -‘one ow’d,’ ‘two ow’d,’ to make up another pair. It has the same -meaning when we say, ‘an odd man,’ ‘an odd action,’ it still relates to -pairing; and we mean ‘without a fellow,’ ‘unmatched.’” Now, I must -own, this appears to me a very odd explanation; for, in my apprehension, -it leads to a conclusion the very reverse of that which the author -intends. The term <em>odd</em> is applied to the one which stands by itself, and -not to that which is absent, or ow’d, to complete the pair. If I say, -“there are three pairs, and an odd one,” the word <em>odd</em> refers to the -single one, over and above the three pairs, and not to the one which is -wanting; yet Mr. Tooke refers it to the latter. His explanation seems -at once unnatural and absurd. Had he substituted, according to his own -etymology, <em>add</em> for <em>and</em>, saying, “three pairs, add an ow’d one,” he must, -I think, have perceived its inaccuracy. It is the <em>odd</em> and <em>present one</em>, of -which the singularity is predicated, and not the <em>absent</em> or <em>ow’d one</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_27" href="#FNanchor_27" class="label">[27]</a> “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><em>Quivis</em> seu <em>quilibet</em> affirmat; <em>quisquam</em>, <em>quispiam</em>, <em>ullus</em>, aut negat aut -interrogat</span>,” are the words of an ancient grammarian. It is observable -also, that in Latin, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ullus</i>, any, is a diminutive from <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">unus</i>, one; as <em>any</em> in -English is from <em>ane</em>, the name of unity, as formerly used.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_28" href="#FNanchor_28" class="label">[28]</a> In Anglo-Saxon <em>ic</em>, in German <em>ich</em>, in Greek <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">ἐγὼ</span>, in Latin <em>ego</em>. Mr. -Webb delivered it as his opinion, that the pronoun of the first person was -derived from the Hebrew ech or ach, <em>one</em>, used by <em>apocope</em> for <em>achad</em> or -<em>ahad</em>, he added, “oned,” or “united.” It is doubtless true, that <em>ech</em> -occurs in one or two passages for <em>one</em>: see Ezek. xviii. 10, and Ps. xlix. -8; in which latter passage it is rendered in our translation, <em>brother</em>, and -by R. Jonah, <em>one</em>; but we apprehend that this fact will by no means -justify his conclusion. And as he considered that the pronoun of the first -person radically denoted <em>one</em>, he imagined that the pronoun of the second -person came from the numeral <em>duo</em>, <em>du</em>, <em>tu</em>, <em>thu</em>. Now, it must be granted -that there is an obvious resemblance between <em>ic</em> and <em>ech</em>, and also between -<em>duo</em>, <em>tu</em>, and <em>thu</em>; but were we to draw any conclusion from this similarity, -it would be the reverse of that which the author has deduced. It -seems quite preposterous to suppose, that the necessity for expressing a -number would present itself, before that of discriminating between the -person speaking and the person addressed. The rude savage could not -converse with his fellow without some sign of this distinction; and if -visible signs (as is probable) would be first adopted, we may reasonably -presume, on several grounds, that these would soon give place to audible -expressions.</p> - -<p>The pronoun <em>ic</em> is in Saxon declined thus:</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing. Nom.</em> Ic</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gen.</em> Min</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Dat.</em> Me</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Acc.</em> Me</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur. Nom.</em> We</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gen.</em> Ure</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Dat.</em> Us</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Acc.</em> Us.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_29" href="#FNanchor_29" class="label">[29]</a> The pronoun of the second person is thus declined:</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing. Nom.</em> Thu</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gen.</em> Thin</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Dat.</em> The</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Acc.</em> The</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Plur. Nom.</em> Ge (hard)</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gen.</em> Eower</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Dat.</em> and</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Acc.</em> Eow.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_30" href="#FNanchor_30" class="label">[30]</a> The Anglo-Saxon he is declined thus:</p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing. Nom.</em> He</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gen.</em> His</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Dat.</em> and <em>Acc.</em> Him.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_31" href="#FNanchor_31" class="label">[31]</a> </p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><em>Sing. Nom.</em> Heo</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Gen.</em> Hire</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Dat.</em> Hire.</td> -<td class="tdl"><em>Acc.</em> Hi.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_32" href="#FNanchor_32" class="label">[32]</a> This pronoun is from the Anglo-Saxon <em>hyt</em> or <em>hit</em>, “i” <em>or</em> “that.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_33" href="#FNanchor_33" class="label">[33]</a> In Anglo-Saxon <em>hi</em>, in Teutonic <em>die</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_34" href="#FNanchor_34" class="label">[34]</a> In Anglo-Saxon, hwa, hua; <em>Gen.</em> hwæs; <em>Dat.</em> hwam; <em>Acc.</em> hwæne, -hwone. Also <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hwilc</i>, whence, says Hickes, proceeded <em>which</em>, the letter <em>l</em> -being elided.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_35" href="#FNanchor_35" class="label">[35]</a> Mr. Tooke contends, that this part of speech is properly termed adjective -noun, and “that it is altogether as much the name of a thing, as -the noun substantive.” Names and designations necessarily influence our -conceptions of the things which they represent. It is therefore desirable, -that in every art or science, not only should no term be employed which -may convey to the reader or hearer an incorrect conception of the thing -signified, but that every term should assist him in forming a just idea of -the object which it expresses. Now, I concur with Mr. Tooke in thinking, -that the adjective is by no means a necessary part of speech. I -agree with him also in opinion, that, in a certain sense, all words are -nouns or names. But, as this latter doctrine seems directly repugnant -to the concurrent theories of critics and grammarians, it is necessary to -explain in what sense the opinion of Mr. Tooke requires to be understood; -and in presenting the reader with this explanation, I shall briefly state -the objections which will naturally offer themselves against the justness -of this theory. “<em>Gold</em>, and <em>brass</em>, and <em>silk</em>, is each of them,” says Mr. -Tooke, “the name of a thing, and denotes a substance. If, then, I say, -<em>a gold-ring</em>, a brass-tube, a silk-string; here are the substantives <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">adjectivè -posita</i>, yet names of things, and denoting substances.” It may be contended, -however, that these are not substantives, but adjectives, and are -the same as <em>golden</em>, <em>brazen</em>, <em>silken</em>. He proceeds: “If again I say, <em>a -golden ring</em>, <em>a brazen tube</em>, <em>a silken string</em>; do <em>gold</em>, and <em>brass</em>, and <em>silk</em>, -cease to be the names of things, and cease to denote substances, because -instead of coupling them with <em>ring</em>, <em>tube</em>, and <em>string</em>, by a hyphen thus -(-), I couple them to the same words, by adding the termination <em>en</em>?” -It may be answered, they do not cease to imply the substances, but they -are no longer names of those substances. <em>Hard</em> implies hardness, but it -is not the name of that quality. <em>Atheniensis</em> implies <em>Athenæ</em>, but it is -not the name of the city, any more than <em>belonging to Athens</em> can be -called its name. He observes: “If it were true, that adjectives were -not the names of things, there could be no attribution by adjectives; for -you cannot attribute nothing.” This conclusion may be disputed. An -adjective may imply a substance, quality, or property, though it is not -the name of it. <em>Cereus</em>, “waxen,” implies <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cera</i>, “wax;” but it is the -latter only which is strictly the name of the substance. <em>Pertaining to -wax, made of wax</em>, are not surely names of the thing itself. Every attributive, -whether verb or adjective, must imply an attribute; but it is not -therefore the name of that attribute. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Juvenescit</i>, “he waxes young,” -expresses an attribute; but we should not call <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">juvenescit</i> the name of -the attribute.</p> - -<p>It may be asked, what is the difference between <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">caput hominis</i>, “a -man’s head,” and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">caput humanum</i>, “a human head?” If <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">hominis</i>, -“man’s,” be deemed a noun, why should not <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">humanum</i>, “human,” be -deemed a noun also? It may be answered, that <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">hominis</i> does, in fact, -perform the office of an adjective, expressing not only the individual, -but conjunction also; and that Mr. Wallis assigns to the English genitive -the name of adjective. Besides, does not Mr. Tooke himself maintain, -“that case, gender, and number, are no parts of the noun”? and -does it not hence follow, that the real nouns are not <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">hominis</i>, but <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">homo</i>,—not -<em>man’s</em>, but <em>man</em>? for such certainly is their form when divested of -those circumstances which, according to Mr. Tooke, make no part of -them. If the doctrine, therefore, of the learned author be correct, and if -the real noun exclude gender, case, and number, as any part of it, neither -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">hominis</i> nor <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">humanum</i>, <em>man’s</em> nor <em>human</em>, can with consistency be called -nouns.</p> - -<p>But let Mr. Tooke’s argument be applied to the verb, the <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">τὸ ῥῆμα</span>, -which he justly considers as an essential part of speech. “If verbs were -not the names of things, there could be no attribution by verbs, for we -cannot attribute nothing.” Are we then to call <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">sapit</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">vivit</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">legit</i>, names? -If so, we have nothing but names; and to this conclusion Mr. Tooke -fairly brings the discussion; for he says, that all words are names.</p> - -<p>Having thus submitted to the reader the doctrine of this sagacious -critic, with the objections which naturally present themselves, I proceed -to observe, that the controversy appears to me to be, in a great degree, a -mere verbal dispute. It is agreed on both sides, that the adjective expresses -a substance, quality, or property; but, while it is affirmed by -some critics, it is denied by others, that it is the name of the thing signified. -The metaphysician considers words merely as signs of thought, -while the grammarian regards chiefly their changes by inflexion: and -hence arises that perplexity in which the classification of words has been, -and still continues to be, involved. Now, it is evident that every word -must be the sign of some sensation, idea, or perception. It must express -some substance or some attribute: and in this sense all words may -be regarded as names. Sometimes we have the name of the thing simply, -as <em>person</em>. Sometimes we have an accessary idea combined with the -simple sign, as “possession,” “conjunction,” “action,” and so forth, as -<em>personal</em>, <em>personally</em>, <em>personify</em>. This accessary circumstance, we have -reason to believe, was originally denoted by a distinct word, significant -of the idea intended; and that this word was, in the progress of language, -abbreviated and incorporated with the primary term, in the form of what -we now term an affix or prefix. Thus <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">frigus</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">frigidus</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">friget</i>, all denote -the same primary idea, involving the name of that quality, or of that sensation, -which we term <em>cold</em>. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Frigus</i> is the name of the thing simply; -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">frigidus</i> expresses the quality <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">in concreto</i>, or conjunction. Considering, -therefore, all words as names, it may be regarded as a complex name, -expressing two distinct ideas,—that of the quality, and that of conjunction. -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Friget</i> (the subject being understood) may be regarded as a name still -more complex; involving, first, the name of the quality; secondly, the -name of conjunction; thirdly, the sign of affirmation, as either expressed -by an appropriate name, or constructively implied, equivalent to the -three words, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">est cum frigore</i>. According, then, to this metaphysical view -of the subject, we have first <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nomen simplex</i>, the simple name; secondly, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nomen adjectivum</i> or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nomen duplex</i>, the name of the thing, with that of -conjunction; thirdly, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nomen affirmativum</i>, the name of the thing affirmed -to be conjoined.</p> - -<p>The simple question now is, whether all words, not even the verb excepted, -should be called nouns; or whether we shall assign them such -appellations as may indicate the leading circumstances by which they are -distinguished. The latter appears to me to be the only mode which the -grammarian, as the teacher of an art, can successfully adopt. Considering -the subject in this light, I am inclined to say with Mr. Harris, that -the adjective, as implying some substance or attribute, not <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">per se</i>, but <em>in -conjunction</em>, or <em>as pertaining</em>, is more nearly allied to the verb than to the -noun; and that though the verb and the adjective may, in common with -the noun, denote the thing, they cannot strictly be called its name. -To say that <em>foolish</em> and <em>folly</em> are each names of the same quality, would, -I apprehend, lead to nothing but perplexity and error.</p> - -<p>It is true, if we are to confine the term noun to the simple name of the -subject, we shall exclude the genitive singular from all right to this appellation; -for it denotes, not the subject simply, but the subject <em>in conjunction</em>—the -inflexion being equivalent to “belonging to.” This indeed -is an inconsistency which can in no way be removed, unless by adopting -the opinion of Wallis, who assigns no cases to English nouns, and considers -<em>man’s</em>, <em>king’s</em>, &c., to be adjectives. And were we to adopt Mr. -Tooke’s definition of our adjective, and say, “It is the <em>name of a thing</em> -which is directed to be joined to another <em>name of a thing</em>,” it will follow, -that <em>king’s</em>, <em>man’s</em>, are adjectives. In short, if the question be confined -to the English language, we must, in order to remove all inconsistency, -either deny the appellation of <em>noun</em> to the adjective, and, with Wallis, -call the genitive case an adjective; or we must first call <em>man’s</em>, <em>king’s</em>, &c., -adjectives; secondly, we must term <em>happy</em>, <em>extravagant</em>, <em>mercenary</em>, &c., -nouns, though they are not names; and thirdly, we must assign the appellation -of noun to the verb itself.</p> - -<p>From this view of the subject the reader will perceive that the whole -controversy depends on the meaning which we annex to the term <em>noun</em>. -If by this term we denote simply the thing itself, without any accessary -circumstance, then nothing can be called a noun but the name in its -simple form. If to the term noun we assign a more extensive signification, -as implying not only the thing itself simply and absolutely, but -also any accessary idea, as conjunction, action, passion, and so forth, -then it follows, that all words may be termed names.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_36" href="#FNanchor_36" class="label">[36]</a> The Saxons formed their comparative by <em>er</em> or <em>ere</em>, <em>ar</em> or <em>ære</em>, <em>er</em>, <em>or</em>, -<em>ur</em>, <em>yr</em>, and their superlative by <em>ast</em>, <em>aste</em>, <em>est</em>, <em>ist</em>, <em>ost</em>, <em>ust</em>, <em>yst</em>. Now <em>ar</em> -means <em>before</em>; hence the English words <em>ere</em> and <em>erst</em>. Thus, in Saxon, -<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">riht wisere</i> means “righteous <em>before</em>,” “just <em>before</em>,” or “<em>more than</em>.” The -suffix is equivalent to the Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">præ</i>, and the Hebrew preposition <em>min</em>, -signifying also <em>before</em>; the only difference being this, that what is a suffix -to the Saxon adjective is in Hebrew a prefix to the consequent subject of -comparison, and that in Latin the preposition following the positive -stands alone.</p> - -<p>Mr. Bosworth, in his “Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar,” a work -displaying sound philological principles, has remarked, that the Gothic -superlative in <em>itsa</em> bears an obvious resemblance to some of the Greek -superlatives, as, <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">ἄριστος, κάλλιστος, βράδιστος</span>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_37" href="#FNanchor_37" class="label">[37]</a> <em>Up</em> and <em>in</em> are now used as adverbs and prepositions.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_38" href="#FNanchor_38" class="label">[38]</a> This phraseology is Hebraistic—“more than all his children” is the -literal translation of the original,<span lang="hbo" xml:lang="hbo"> מְּכל־בניו </span>præ omnibus filiis, seu, magis -omnibus filiis suis.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_39" href="#FNanchor_39" class="label">[39]</a> See a valuable little volume on English Grammar, by Mr. Grant. -The “Institutes of Latin Grammar,” by the same author, we would recommend -to the attention of every classical student.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_40" href="#FNanchor_40" class="label">[40]</a> <em>I, hi, hie</em>, “to go,” he considers to be from <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">Ἰ-έναι</span>, the Greek verb; -and hence to be derived the Latin verb <em>I-re</em>, “to go,” “to hie.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_41" href="#FNanchor_41" class="label">[41]</a> Intransitive verbs sometimes are used transitively, as, when we say, -“to walk the horse,” “to dance the child.” They also admit a noun of -their own signification, as, “to run a race.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_42" href="#FNanchor_42" class="label">[42]</a> Conformably to general opinion I here consider the English language -as having a passive voice. How far this opinion is well founded shall be -the subject of future inquiry.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_43" href="#FNanchor_43" class="label">[43]</a> Mr. Bosworth seems to think, that the word <em>tense</em> is derived from -the Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">tensus</i>, “used to denote that extension or inflexion of the word, -by which difference in time is implied, or difference in action is signified.” -I am rather inclined to consider it as derived from the French <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">tems</i> or -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">temps</i>, and that from <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">tempus</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_44" href="#FNanchor_44" class="label">[44]</a> “Some,” says Dr. Beattie, “will not allow anything to be a tense, -but what, in one inflected word, expresses an affirmation with time; for, -that those parts of the verb are not properly called tenses, which assume -that appearance, by means of auxiliary words. At this rate, in English, -we should have two tenses only, the present and the past in the active -verb, and in the passive no tenses at all. But this is a needless nicety; -and, if adopted, would introduce confusion into the grammatical art. If -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amaveram</i> be a tense, why should not <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amatus fueram</i>? If <em>I heard</em> be a -tense, <em>I did hear</em>, <em>I have heard</em>, and <em>I shall hear</em>, must be equally entitled -to that appellation.”</p> - -<p>How simplicity can introduce confusion I am unable to comprehend, -unless we are to affirm that the introduction of Greek and Latin names, -to express nonentities in our language, is necessary to illustrate the grammar, -and simplify the study of the language to the English scholar. But -the author’s theory seems at variance with itself. He admits, that “we -have no cases in English, except the addition of <em>s</em> in the genitive;” whence -we may infer, that he considers inflexion as essential to a case. Now, if -those only be cases, which are formed by inflexion, those only should, -grammatically, be deemed tenses, which are formed in the same manner. -When he asks, therefore, if <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amaveram</i> be a tense, why should not <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amatus -fueram</i> be a tense also? the answer on his own principles is sufficiently -obvious, namely, because the one is formed by inflexion, the other by -combination. And, I would ask, if <em>king’s</em> be a genitive case, why, according -to this theory, is not of <em>a king</em> entitled to the same appellation? -I apprehend the answer he must give, consistently with his opinion respecting -cases, will sufficiently explain why <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amaveram</i>, and <em>I heard</em>, are -tenses, while <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amatus fueram</i>, and <em>I had heard</em>, are not.</p> - -<p>Nay, further, if it be needless nicety to admit those only as tenses, -which are formed by inflexion, is it not equally a needless nicety to admit -those cases only, which are formed by varying the termination? And if -confusion be introduced by denying <em>I had heard</em> to be a tense, why does -not the learned author simplify the doctrine of English nouns, by giving -them six cases, <em>a king</em>, <em>of a king</em>, <em>to</em> or <em>for a king</em>, <em>a king</em>, <em>O king</em>, <em>with, -from, in</em>, or <em>by a king</em>? This surely would be to perplex, not to simplify. -In short, the inconsistency of those grammarians, who deny that to be a -case, which is not formed by inflexion, yet would load us with moods -and tenses, not formed by change of termination, is so palpable, as to -require neither illustration nor argument to expose it. If these authors -would admit, that we have as many cases in English, as there exists relations -expressed by prepositions, then, indeed, though they might overwhelm -us with the number, we should at least acknowledge the consistency -of their theory. But to adopt the principle of inflexion in one case, -and reject it in another, precisely parallel, involves an inconsistency which -must excite amazement. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Nil fuit sic unquam impar sibi.</i> Why do not -these gentlemen favour us with a dual number, with a middle voice, and -with an optative mood? Nay, as they are so fond of tenses, as to lament -that we rob them of all but two, why do they not enrich us with a first -and second aorist, and a paulo post future? and, if this should not suffice, -they will find in Hebrew a rich supply of verbal forms. We should then -have kal and niphal, pihhel and pyhhal, hiphhil and hophhal, hithpahhel -and hothpahhel, and numerous other species and designations. What a -wonderful acquisition this would be to our stock of moods, tenses, and -voices!</p> - -<p>One of these grammarians, indeed, reverencing the old maxim <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">est modus -in rebus</i>, observes, that “it is necessary to set bounds to this business, so -as not to occasion obscurity and perplexity, when we mean to be simple -and perspicuous.” This is so far good; because, though it vindicates -the impropriety, it modestly would confine it within decent bounds. But -surely it cannot be necessary to remind this writer, that when the boundary -between right and wrong, propriety and impropriety, is once passed, -it is extremely difficult to prescribe limits to the transgression; and that -arbitrary distinctions, resting on no other foundation than prejudice or -fashion, must ever be vague, questionable, and capricious. These are -truths of which, I am persuaded, the author to whom I allude needs not -to be reminded. But it may be necessary to impress on his attention -another truth equally incontestable, that no authority, how respectable -soever, can sanction inconsistency; and that great names, though they -may be honoured by ignorance and credulity with the most obsequious -homage, will never pass with the intelligent reader, either for demonstration -or for argument. This author, in defence of his theory of cases and -tenses, observes, “that the proper form of a tense, in the Greek and Latin -languages, is certainly that which it has in the grammars of these languages.” -On what evidence is this assumption founded? Here is exhibited -a <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">petitio principii</i>, too palpable to escape the detection of the most -inattentive reader. He proceeds: “But in the Greek and Latin grammars -we uniformly find that some of the tenses are formed by variations -of the principal verb, and others by the addition of helping verbs.” It is -answered that the admission of these forms in Greek and Latin grammars -is a question of mere expediency, and nowise affects the doctrine for -which we contend, any more than the admission of six cases in all the -Latin declensions affects the doctrine of cases; though in no one declension -have all the cases dissimilar terminations. This position it would be -easy to demonstrate: it would be easy likewise to show why, notwithstanding -this occasional identity of termination, six cases are admitted in -all the declensions; but the subject is foreign to our present purpose. -It is important, however, to observe, what has escaped the notice of the -author, that the principle, on which the admission just mentioned may be -expedient in a Latin grammar, has no existence whatever in the English -language.</p> - -<p>“It is, therefore,” he continues, “indisputable, that the principal, or -the participle, and an auxiliary, constitute a regular tense in the Greek -and Latin languages.” This, as I have remarked, is a palpable <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">petitio -principii</i>. It is to say, that because <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amatus fueram</i> is a tense, therefore -“I had been loved” is a tense also. The author forgets that the premises -must be true, to render the conclusion legitimate. He forgets, that -a circular argument is a mere sophism, because it assumes as true what -it is intended to prove. Whether <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amatus fueram</i> be or be not a tense, is -the very point in question; and so far am I from admitting the affirmative -as unquestionable, that I contend, it has no more claim to the designation -of tense, than <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">ἔσομαι τετυφώς</span>—no more claim than <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amandum est mihi</i>, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amari oportet</i>, or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amandus sum</i>, have to be called moods. Here I must -request the reader to bear in mind the necessary distinction between the -grammar of a language and its capacity of expression.</p> - -<p>In answer to the objection of inconsistency, in admitting tenses where -there is no inflexion, yet rejecting cases where there is no change of -termination, the author says, “that such a mode of declension cannot -apply to our language.” But why can it not apply? Why not give as -English cases, <em>to a king</em>, <em>of a king</em>, <em>from a king</em>, <em>with a king</em>, <em>by a king</em>, -<em>at a king</em>, <em>about a king</em>, &c. &c.? The mode is certainly applicable, whatever -may be the consequences of that application. A case surely is as -easily formed by a noun and preposition, as a tense by a participle and -auxiliary. But the author observes, “the English language would then -have a much greater number of cases than the Greek and Latin languages.” -And why not? Is the number of cases in English, or any -other language, to be limited by the number in Greek or Latin? or does -the author mean to say, that there is any peculiar propriety in the number -five or six? The author, to be consistent with himself, ought to acknowledge -as many cases as there are prepositions to be found in the -English language. This, it may be said, would encumber our grammar, -and embarrass the learner. This is, indeed, an argument against the -expediency of the application, but not against the practicability of the -principle in question. Besides, it may be asked, why does the author -confine his love of simplification to cases? Why not extend it to tenses -also? Why maintain, that inflexion only makes a case, and that a tense -is formed without inflexion? Why dismiss one encumbrance, and admit -another?</p> - -<p>The author observes, that “from grammarians, who form their ideas -and <em>make</em> their decisions respecting this part of grammar, on the principles -and construction of languages, which in these points do not suit -the peculiar nature of our own, but differ considerably from it, we may -naturally expect grammatical schemes that are neither perspicuous nor -consistent, and which will tend more to perplex than inform the learner.” -Had I been reprehending the author’s own practice, I should have employed -nearly the same language. How these observations, certainly -judicious and correct, can be reconciled with the doctrine of the writer -himself, I am utterly at a loss to conceive. His ideas of consistency and -simplicity are to me incomprehensible. He rejects <em>prepositional</em> cases -for the sake of simplicity, and he admits various moods and tenses, -equally foreign to the genius of our language, in order to avoid perplexity. -Surely this is not a “consistent scheme.” Nay, he tells us, -“that on the principle of imitating other languages in names and forms -(I beseech the reader to mark the words), without a correspondence in -nature and idiom, we might adopt a number of declensions, as well as a -variety of cases, for English substantives: but,” he adds, “this variety -does not at all correspond with the idiom of our language.” After this -observation, argument surely becomes unnecessary.</p> - -<p>I have here, the reader will perceive, assailed the author’s doctrine -merely on the ground of inconsistency. It is liable, however, to objections -of a more serious nature; and were I not apprehensive that I have -already exhausted the patience of the reader, I should now proceed to -state these objections. There is one observation, however, which I feel -it necessary to make. The author remarks, that to take the tenses as -they are commonly received, and endeavour to ascertain their nature and -their differences, “is a much more useful exercise, as well as a more -proper, for a work of this kind, than to raise, as might be easily raised, -new theories on the subject.” If the author by this intends to insinuate -that our doctrine is new, he errs egregiously. For Wallis, one of the -oldest, and certainly one of the best of our English grammarians, duly -attentive to the simplicity of that language whose grammar he was exhibiting, -assigned only two tenses to the English verb. He says, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Nos -duo tantum habemus tempora Præsens et Præteritum</i>; and on this simple -principle his explanation of the verb proceeds. In the preface to his -grammar, he censures his few predecessors for violating the simplicity of -the English language, by the introduction of names and rules foreign to -the English idiom. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Cur hujusmodi casuum, generum, modorum, temporumque -fictam et ineptam plane congeriem introducamus citra omnem necessitatem, -aut in ipsa lingua fundamentum, nulla ratio suadet.</i> And so -little was he aware that the introduction of technical names for things -which have no existence, facilitates the acquisition of any art or science, -that he affirms it in regard to the subject before us to be the cause of -great confusion and perplexity. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Quæ (inutilia præcepta) a lingua nostra -sunt prorsus aliena, adeoque confusionem potius et obscuritatem pariunt, -quam explicationi inserviunt.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_45" href="#FNanchor_45" class="label">[45]</a> Mr. Gilchrist, in his “Philosophic Etymology,” represents the terminations -<em>ath</em>, <em>eth</em>, <em>ad</em>, <em>ed</em>, <em>et</em>, <em>en</em>, <em>an</em>, as conjunctives, equivalent to the -sign +, denoting <em>add</em>, or <em>join</em> (see <a href="#Page_162">p. 162</a>). In another part of the same -work, he considers <em>did</em> to be <em>do</em> doubled, as <em>dedi</em> from the Latin <em>do</em>, which -he believes to be the very same word with our <em>do</em>. Repetition, he observes, -is a mode of expressing complete action. Hence we have <em>do</em>, -<ins class="corr" id="fn-45" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'eo-ed, dede'"> -<em>do-ed</em>, <em>dede</em></ins>, <em>did</em>, in English. This explanation is ingenious, and furnishes -a probable account of the origin of the word <em>did</em>, which he remarks was -formerly spelled <em>dede</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_46" href="#FNanchor_46" class="label">[46]</a> </p> - -<table class="autotable fs90" width="80%" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I be</td> -<td class="tdl">Thou beest</td> -<td class="tdl">He, she, or it be</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">We be</td> -<td class="tdl">Ye or you be</td> -<td class="tdl">They be,</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="3">from the Saxon</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl" lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">Ic beo</td> -<td class="tdl" lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">Thu beest</td> -<td class="tdl" lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">He beeth,</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>are obsolete, unless followed by a concessive term. Thus, instead of saying, -“Many there <em>be</em> that go in thereat,” we should now say, “Many -there <em>are</em>.” For “to whom all hearts <em>be</em> open,” we should now write, -“to whom all hearts <em>are</em> open.” We find them, however, used with the -conjunctions <em>if</em> and <em>though</em>; thus, “If this be my notion of a great part -of that high science, divinity, you will be so civil as to imagine, I lay no -mighty stress upon the rest.”—<cite>Pope.</cite> That this was his notion the author -had previously declared; the introductory clause, therefore, is clearly -affirmative, and is the same as if he had said, “As this is my notion.” -“Although she <em>be</em> abundantly grateful to all her protectors, yet I observe -your name most often in her mouth.”—<cite>Swift.</cite> “The paper, although -it <em>be</em> written with spirit, yet would have scarce cleared a shilling.”—<cite>Swift.</cite> -In the two last sentences the meaning is affirmative; nothing conditional -or contingent being implied.</p> - -<p>In the following examples, it expresses doubt or contingency. “If -thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:” <em>i.e.</em> “shouldst be.” “If -I be in difficulty, I will ask your aid;” <em>i.e.</em> “If I should be.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_47" href="#FNanchor_47" class="label">[47]</a> Though the authority of Milton, Dryden, Pope, and Swift, can be -pleaded in favour of <em>wert</em>, as the second person singular of this tense, I -am inclined to agree with Lowth, that in conformity to analogy, as well -as the practice of the best ancient writers, it would be better to confine -<em>wert</em> to the imperfect conditional.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_48" href="#FNanchor_48" class="label">[48]</a> If the expression of time with an attribute “be sufficient to make a -verb, the participle must be a verb too, because it signifies time also. -But the essence of a verb consisting in predication, which is peculiar to -it, and incommunicable to all other parts of speech, and these infinitives -never predicating, they cannot be verbs. Again, the essence of a noun -consisting in its so subsisting in the understanding, as that it may be the -subject of predication, and these infinitives being all capable of so subsisting, -they must of necessity be nouns.”—<cite>R. Johnson’s Gram. Comment.</cite></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_49" href="#FNanchor_49" class="label">[49]</a> The variety of form which this verb assumes, clearly shows that it -has proceeded from different sources.</p> - -<p><em>Am</em> is from the Anglo-Saxon <em>eom</em>, and <em>is</em> from the Anglo-Saxon <em>ys</em> or <em>is</em>; -and these have been supposed to have come from the Greek <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">εἰμὶ, εἶς</span>.</p> - -<p>The derivation of <em>are</em> is doubtful. It may, perhaps, have proceeded -directly from <em>er</em> or <em>erum</em> of the Icelandic verb, denoting “to be.” By Mr. -Gilchrist it is considered as “the same with the infinitive termination -<em>are, ere, ire</em>.” Mr. Webb conjectured, that it might have some relation -to the Greek <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">ἔαρ</span>, <em>spring</em>. Both these explanations appear to us somewhat -fanciful.</p> - -<p><em>Art</em> is from the Anglo-Saxon <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">eart</i>. “Thou eart,” <em>thou art</em>.</p> - -<p><em>Was</em> is evidently the Anglo-Saxon <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">wæs</i>; and <em>wast</em>, <em>wert</em>, probably -from the Franco-Theatisc, <em>warst</em>; and <em>were</em> from the Anglo-Saxon <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">wære</i>, -<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">wæron</i>.</p> - -<p><em>Be</em> is from the Anglo-Saxon <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">Ic beo</i>, <em>I am</em>, which, with the Gaelic verb -<em>bi</em>, <em>to be</em>, Mr. Webb considered to be derived from <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">βίος</span>, <em>life</em>, as the Latin -<em>fui</em>, from <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">φύω</span>, <em>to grow</em>. This conjecture he supports by several pertinent -quotations. See Mr. Bosworth’s “Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar,” -p. 164.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_50" href="#FNanchor_50" class="label">[50]</a> The words <em>did</em>, <em>hast</em>, <em>hath</em>, <em>has</em>, <em>had</em>, <em>shall</em>, <em>wilt</em>, are evidently, as -Wallis observes, contracted for <em>doed</em>, <em>haveth</em>, <em>haves</em>, <em>haved</em>, <em>shall’st</em>, <em>will’st</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_51" href="#FNanchor_51" class="label">[51]</a> This verb is derived from the Saxon <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">magan</span>, <em>posse</em>, the present of -which is <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">Ic mæg</i>, and the preterite <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">Ic miht</i>. Hence also <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">Ic mot</i>.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry" lang="enm" xml:lang="enm"> - <div class="verse indentq">“For as the fisshe, if it be drie,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Mote in defaute of water die.”—<cite>Gower.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_52" href="#FNanchor_52" class="label">[52]</a> This verb is derived from cunnan, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">scire</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">posse</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">sapere</i>. Hence is derived -the verb “to ken,” or “to know;” or more probably, indeed, they -were one and the same word: hence also the word <em>cunning</em>. “To ken” -is still used in Scotland; and in the expression of Shakspeare, “I ken -them from afar,” is erroneously considered by some critics to mean, “I -see them.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_53" href="#FNanchor_53" class="label">[53]</a> This verb is, unquestionably, a derivative from the Saxon <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">ꞅceal</span>, <em>I -owe</em> or <em>I ought</em>, and was originally of the same import. <em>I shall</em> denoted -“it is my duty,” and was precisely synonymous with <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">debeo</i> in Latin. -Chaucer says, “The faith I shall to God;” that is, “the faith I owe to -God.” “Thou shalt not kill,” or “thou oughtest not to kill.” In this -sense <em>shall</em> is a present tense, and denoted present duty or obligation. -But, as all duties and all commands, though present in respect to their -obligation and authority, must be future in regard to their execution; so -by a natural transition, observable in most languages, this word, significant -of present duty, came to be a note of future time. I have considered -it, however, as a present tense; 1st, because it originally denoted present -time; 2dly, because it still retains the form of a present, preserving thus -the same analogy to <em>should</em> that <em>can</em> does to <em>could</em>, <em>may</em> to <em>might</em>, <em>will</em> to -<em>would</em>; and 3dly, because it is no singular thing to have a verb in the present -tense, expressive of future time, commencing from the present moment; -for such precisely is the Greek verb <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">μέλλω</span>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">futurus sum</i>. Nay, the verb -<em>will</em> denotes present inclination, yet in some of its persons, like <em>shall</em>, expresses -futurition. I have considered, therefore, the verb <em>shall</em> as a present -tense, of which <em>should</em> is the preterperfect.</p> - -<p>Johnson’s explanation of the meaning of this verb is so perspicuous, -that, as foreigners are apt to mistake its use, I shall here transcribe his -words. <em>I shall love</em>: “it will be so that I must love,” “I am resolved to -love.” <em>Shall I love?</em> “will it be permitted me to love?” “will it be -that I must love?” <em>Thou shalt love</em>: “I command thee to love;” “it is -permitted thee to love;” “it will be, that thou must love.” <em>Shalt thou -love?</em> “will it be, that thou must love?” “will it be permitted thee to -love?” <em>He shall love</em>: “it will be, that he must love;” “it is commanded -that he love.” <em>Shall he love?</em> “is it permitted him to love?” The plural -persons follow the signification of the singular.</p> - -<p>I transcribe also the same author’s explanation of the verb <em>I will</em>. <em>I -will come</em>: “I am willing to come,” “I am determined to come.” <em>Thou -wilt come</em>: “it must be, that thou must come,” importing necessity; -or “it shall be, that thou shalt come,” importing choice. <em>Wilt thou come?</em> -“hast thou determined to come?” importing choice. <em>He will come</em>: -“he is resolved to come;” or “it must be, that he must come,” importing -choice or necessity.</p> - -<p>Brightland’s short rule may be of some service in assisting foreigners -to distinguish the use of these two verbs. It is this:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“In the first person simply <em>shall</em> foretels:</div> - <div class="verse indent0">In <em>will</em> a threat, or else a promise, dwells;</div> - <div class="verse indent0"><em>Shall</em> in the second and the third does threat;</div> - <div class="verse indent0"><em>Will</em> simply then foretels the future feat.”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>In addition to these directions for the use of <em>shall</em> and <em>will</em>, it is to be -observed, that, when the second and third persons are represented as the -subjects of their own expressions, or their own thoughts, <em>shall</em> foretels, as -in the first person, thus, “he says he shall be a loser by this bargain:” -“do you suppose you shall go?” “He hoped he should recover,” and -“he hoped he would recover,” are expressions of different import. In -the former, the two pronouns necessarily refer to the same person; in the -latter, they do not.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_54" href="#FNanchor_54" class="label">[54]</a> This verb is derived from the Saxon verb <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">willan</span>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">velle</i>, the preterite -of which is <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">Ic wold</span>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_55" href="#FNanchor_55" class="label">[55]</a> The preterite <em>would</em> is frequently employed, like the Latin preterimperfect -tense, to denote what is usual or customary. Thus,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry" lang="la" xml:lang="la"> - <div class="verse indent0">Quintilio si quid recitares, corrige, sodes,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Hoc, aiebat, et hoc; melius te posse negares,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Bis terque expertum frustra; delere jubebat,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Et malè tornatos incudi reddere versus:</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Si defendere delictum quàm vertere, malles,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Nullum ultra verbum, aut operam insumebat inanem.</div> - <div class="verse indent38"><cite>Horace.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>where the verbs aiebat, jubebat, insumebat, may be translated, “he would -say,” “he would desire,” “he would spend.” Thus also in English,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">Pleas’d with my admiration, and the fire</div> - <div class="verse indent0">His speech struck from me, the old man <em>would</em> shake</div> - <div class="verse indent0">His years away, and act his young encounters:</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Then having show’d his wounds, <em>he’d</em> sit him down.</div> -</div> -</div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_56" href="#FNanchor_56" class="label">[56]</a> In Latin the imperfect potential is frequently employed in the same -manner to denote present time; thus, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">irem si vellem</i>, expresses present -liberty and inclination. And the same analogy obtains in Latin; for we -say, either, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">tu, si hic sis, aliter sentias</i>, or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">tu, si hic esses, aliter sentires</i>. -In such examples, it is intended to signify either the coexistence of two -circumstances, or the one as the immediate consequence of the other. -An identity of tense, therefore, best expresses contemporary events.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_57" href="#FNanchor_57" class="label">[57]</a> If it should be said, that the participle may properly be considered -as a verb, since it implies an attribute with time, I would ask, whether -<em>affirmation</em>, the most important of all circumstances, and without which -no communication could take place, should be overlooked in our classification -of words agreeably to their import, or the offices which they perform. -If the verb and participle be referred to one class, the principal -part of speech which has been pre-eminently distinguished by the name -of verb, or <em>the word</em>, is degraded from its rank, and confounded with a -species of words which are not even necessary to the communication of -thought. Surely, if any circumstance can entitle any sort of words to a -distinct reference, it is that of <em>affirmation</em>.</p> - -<p>If it should be objected that the participle, like the verb, governs a -case, I would ask, because <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">lectio</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">tactio</i>, and many other substantives, are -found sometimes joined with an accusative case, were they ever on this -account considered as verbs? Besides, if the government of a case be -urged as an argument, what becomes of those participles which govern -no case? Nay, if the government of a case be deemed the criterion of -a verb, what name shall we assign to those verbs which have no regimen -at all? If any species of words is to be distinguished from another, the -characteristic difference must surely belong, not to part only, but to the -whole.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_58" href="#FNanchor_58" class="label">[58]</a> The termination <em>ing</em> is from the Anglo-Saxon <em>ande</em>, <em>ænde</em>, <em>ende</em>, <em>ind</em>, -<em>onde</em>, <em>unde</em>, <em>ynde</em>, and corresponds to the termination of the Latin gerunds -in <em>andum</em> and <em>endum</em>, expressing continuation, <em>Amandum</em>, <em>Lufiande</em>, <em>Loving</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_59" href="#FNanchor_59" class="label">[59]</a> Here I would be understood to reason on their own principles; for -the truth is, that each of these tenses admits a definitive.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_60" href="#FNanchor_60" class="label">[60]</a> See the <cite>Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy</cite>, vol. iii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_61" href="#FNanchor_61" class="label">[61]</a> Dr. Beattie observes, “that the fundamental error of those philosophers -who deny the existence of present time is, that they suppose the -present instant to have, like a geometrical point, neither parts nor magnitude. -But as nothing is, in respect of our senses, a geometrical point, -(for whatever we see or touch must of necessity have magnitude,) so -neither is the present, or any other instant, wholly unextended.” His -argument amounts to this, that as a mathematical point is not an object -of sense, nor has any real existence, so neither has a metaphysical instant. -It is granted. They are each ideal. But does this prove the -author’s position, that philosophers have erred in asserting their similarity? -or does it evince that no analogy subsists between them? Quite -the reverse. The truth is, a geometrical point is purely ideal; it is -necessary to the truth of mathematical demonstration, that it be conceived -to have no parts. Finding it convenient to represent it to sense, -we therefore give it magnitude. A metaphysical instant, or present -time, is in like manner ideal; but we find it convenient to assume as -present an extended space. The doctor observes, that sense perceives -nothing but what is present. It is true; but it should be remembered -that not time, but objects which exist in time, are perceived by the senses. -It may enable a person to form a correct idea of this matter, if he will -ask himself, what he means by present time. If it be the present hour, -is it not obvious that part of it is past, and part of it future? If it be -the present minute, it is equally clear, that the whole of it cannot be -present at once. Nay, if it be the present vibration of the pendulum, is -it not obvious that part of it is performed, and part of it remains to be -performed? Nor is it possible to stop in this investigation, till present -time, strictly speaking, be proved to have no existence. Did it exist, -it must be extended; and if extended, it cannot be present, for past and -future must necessarily be included in it. If it should be answered, -that this proves time, like matter, infinitely divisible, and that the most -tedious process will still leave something capable of division, I reply, -that as whatever may be left in the one case must be figure, and not -a point, so the remainder, in the other, must be a portion of extended -time, how minute soever, and not an instant. The process, therefore, -must be continued, till we arrive in idea at a point and an instant, incapable -of division, being not made up of parts.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_62" href="#FNanchor_62" class="label">[62]</a> When we say, <em>God is good</em>, I would ask Dr. Browne whether the -verb be definite or indefinite, whether it denote perfection or imperfection, -or have no reference to either. It appears to me that neither of -the terms is in his sense applicable; for that the verb denotes simple -affirmation with time; or, if applicable, that the tense is, contrary to his -opinion, indefinite, the idea of completion or imperfection being entirely -excluded.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_63" href="#FNanchor_63" class="label">[63]</a> These phraseologies, as the author last quoted justly observes, are -harsh to the ear, and appear exceedingly awkward; but a little attention -will suffice to show that they correctly exhibit the ideas implied by the -tense which we have at present under consideration.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_64" href="#FNanchor_64" class="label">[64]</a> See Encyc. Brit., Art. Grammar.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_65" href="#FNanchor_65" class="label">[65]</a> I consider that no language, grammatically examined, has more cases, -tenses, or moods, than are formed by inflexion. But if any person be -inclined to call these forms of expression by the name of imperative -mood, I have no objection. Only let him be consistent, and call “Dost -thou love?” an interrogative mood, adopting also the precative, the requisitive, -the optative, the hortative, &c., together with the various cases -in nouns, and tenses in verbs, which are formed by prepositions and -auxiliary verbs: I should only apprehend, that language would fail him -to assign them names.</p> - -<p>If it should be asked, “Agreeably to your doctrine of the verb, as implying -affirmation, what part of speech would you make the verbs in the -following sentences, <em>Depart instantly</em>, <em>improve your time</em>, <em>forgive us our -sins</em>? Will it be said that the verbs in these phrases are assertions?” -I should answer that all moods, metaphysically considered, are, in my -apprehension, equally indicative. Every possible form of speech can do -nothing but express the sentiment of the speaker, his desire, his wish, -his sensation, his perception, his belief, &c. Whatever form, therefore, -the expression may assume, it must be resolvable into assertion; and -must be considered as expressing, in the person of the speaker, what he -desires, wishes, feels, thinks, and so forth. No one surely will deny, -that “thou oughtest not to kill,” “thou shalt not kill,” “thou art forbidden -to kill,” are affirmations. And are not these expressions so -nearly equivalent to “do not kill,” that in Greek and Latin they are -rendered indifferently either by <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">οὐ φονεύσεις</span>, or, <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">μὴ φόνευε</span>; <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">non occides</i>, or -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ne occidito</i>? If then we say, “kill thou,” will it be contended that, -though the prohibition implies an affirmation of the speaker, the command -does not? The expression I conceive to be strictly equivalent to -“thou shalt kill,” “thou art ordered to kill.” Hence <em>ave</em> and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">jubeo te -avere</i>, are deemed expressions of the same import. If the question be -examined grammatically, or as a subject of pure grammar, I am inclined -to think that where there is no variety of termination, there cannot be -established a diversity of mood.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_66" href="#FNanchor_66" class="label">[66]</a> This verb is derived from the Saxon verb <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">Ic most</span>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ego debeo</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_67" href="#FNanchor_67" class="label">[67]</a> It belongs not to my province to inquire, how <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amarem</i> came to signify -<em>I might</em> or <em>could love</em>, or whether it be strictly in the potential or the subjunctive -mood. I here take it for granted that <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amarem</i> does, without an -ellipsis, signify, <em>I might, could, would</em>, or <em>should love</em>, implying <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">licet</i>, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">possum</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">volo</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">debeo</i>.—See <cite>Johnson’s Comment</cite>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_68" href="#FNanchor_68" class="label">[68]</a> Why this verb forms an exception, it would be easy to explain.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_69" href="#FNanchor_69" class="label">[69]</a> See Webster’s Dissertations, p. 263.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_70" href="#FNanchor_70" class="label">[70]</a> A similar phraseology in the use of the pluperfect indicative for the -same tense subjunctive, obtains in Latin, as</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“Impulerat ferro Argolicas fœdare latebras.”—<cite>Virgil.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_71" href="#FNanchor_71" class="label">[71]</a> The Latins used <em>si</em> in both cases: and though their poets did not attend -to this distinction, their prose writers generally observed it, by joining -<em>si</em> for <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quoniam</i> with the indicative mood.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_72" href="#FNanchor_72" class="label">[72]</a> Where <span class="allsmcap">R</span> is added, the verb follows also the general rule.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_73" href="#FNanchor_73" class="label">[73]</a> Some have excluded <em>bore</em> as the preterite of this verb. We have sufficient -authority, however, for admitting it; thus,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indent0">“By marrying her who bore me.”—<cite>Dryden.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_74" href="#FNanchor_74" class="label">[74]</a> <em>Beholden</em> is obsolescent in this sense.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_75" href="#FNanchor_75" class="label">[75]</a> “So kept the diamond, and the rogue was bit.”—<cite>Pope.</cite></p> - -<p>“There was lately a young gentleman bit to the bone.”—<cite>Tatler.</cite></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_76" href="#FNanchor_76" class="label">[76]</a> <em>Brake</em> seems now obsolescent.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_77" href="#FNanchor_77" class="label">[77]</a> Though Johnson has not admitted the regular form of the participle -in this verb, I think there is sufficient authority for concurring with Lowth -in receiving <em>builded</em> as the participle as well as <em>built</em>, though it be not in -such general use.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_78" href="#FNanchor_78" class="label">[78]</a> <em>Chode</em>, which occurs twice in the Bible, is now obsolete.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_79" href="#FNanchor_79" class="label">[79]</a> Lowth has given <em>clomb</em> as the preterite of climb. I can find, however, -no authority later than Spenser, and am inclined to think it is now -obsolete.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_80" href="#FNanchor_80" class="label">[80]</a> The irregular preterite <em>clad</em> is obsolescent.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_81" href="#FNanchor_81" class="label">[81]</a> I know no example in which the preterite, which analogically would -be <em>forwent</em>, is to be found. It may be here remarked that this verb, in -violation of analogy, is generally spelled <em>forego</em>, as if it meant “to go before.” -This is equally improper as it would be to write <em>forebid, foresake, -foreswear</em>, for <em>forbid, forsake, forswear</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_82" href="#FNanchor_82" class="label">[82]</a> <em>Fraught</em> is more properly an adjective than participle.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_83" href="#FNanchor_83" class="label">[83]</a> This verb, Lowth says, when employed as an active verb, “may -perhaps, most properly be used in the regular form.” Here the learned -author appears to me, if he be not chargeable with error, to have expressed -his meaning incorrectly; for it cannot be disputed that the irregular -form of this verb is frequently, and with unquestionable propriety, -used in an active sense. Thus we say, “the servant hung the scales in -the cellar;” and passively, “the scales were hung by the servant.” I -should, therefore, rather say that, when this verb denotes suspension, for -the purpose of destroying life, the regular form is far preferable. Thus, -“the man was hanged,” not “hung.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_84" href="#FNanchor_84" class="label">[84]</a> The irregular preterite and participle of this verb are employed in -sea language; but the latter rarely.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_85" href="#FNanchor_85" class="label">[85]</a> Lowth has given <em>holpen</em> as the participle; it is now obsolescent, -if not obsolete. It belonged to the verb <em>to holp</em>, which has been long out -of use.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_86" href="#FNanchor_86" class="label">[86]</a> Several grammarians have rejected <em>hid</em> as a participle. It rests, however, -on unquestionable authority; but <em>hidden</em> is preferable.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_87" href="#FNanchor_87" class="label">[87]</a> <em>Holden</em>, which was some years ago obsolescent, is now returning into -more general use.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_88" href="#FNanchor_88" class="label">[88]</a> <em>Laden</em>, like <em>fraught</em>, may be deemed an adjective.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_89" href="#FNanchor_89" class="label">[89]</a> Priestley, I apprehend, has erred in giving <em>lain</em> as the participle of -this verb.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_90" href="#FNanchor_90" class="label">[90]</a> <em>Lien</em>, though not so generally used as <em>lain</em>, is not destitute of unexceptionable -authority. I have, therefore, with Johnson and Lowth, given -it as the participle. Murray has omitted it.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_91" href="#FNanchor_91" class="label">[91]</a> Some grammarians have rejected <em>lit</em>. It can plead, however, colloquial -usage in its favour, and even other authority. “I lit my pipe with -the paper.”—<cite>Addison.</cite></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_92" href="#FNanchor_92" class="label">[92]</a> With Priestley and Lowth, I have given this verb a regular participle; -for which, I believe, there is sufficient authority, without adducing -the example of Shakspeare. Most other grammarians have rejected it.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_93" href="#FNanchor_93" class="label">[93]</a> <em>Quitted</em> is far more generally used as the preterite than <em>quit</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_94" href="#FNanchor_94" class="label">[94]</a> Priestley has rejected <em>rid</em>, and Murray <em>ridden</em>, as the participle, while -Johnson makes <em>rid</em> the preterite of <em>ride</em>. As <em>rid</em> is the present and preterite -of another verb, it would, perhaps, be better to dismiss it entirely -from the verb <em>to ride</em>, and conjugate, with Priestley, <em>ride, rode, ridden</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_95" href="#FNanchor_95" class="label">[95]</a> Our translators of the Bible have used <em>roast</em> as the perfect participle. -In this sense it is almost obsolete. <em>Roast beef</em> retains its ground.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_96" href="#FNanchor_96" class="label">[96]</a> Story, in his Grammar, has most unwarrantably asserted, that the -participle of this verb should be <em>shaked</em>. This word is certainly obsolete, -and, I apprehend, was never in general use. I have been able to find only -one example of <em>shaked</em> as the participle, “A sly and constant knave, not -to be <em>shaked</em>.”—<cite>Shakspeare.</cite> And two as the preterite, “They shaked -their heads.”—<cite>Psal.</cite> cxi. 55. “I shaked my head.”—<cite>Steele</cite>, <cite>Spectator</cite>, -No. iv.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_97" href="#FNanchor_97" class="label">[97]</a> Of these preterites, the latter is now more generally used. Our -translators of the Bible used the former.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_98" href="#FNanchor_98" class="label">[98]</a> A. Murray has rejected <em>sung</em> as the preterite, and L. Murray has rejected -<em>sang</em>. Each preterite, however, rests on good authority.</p> - -<p>The same observation may be made respecting <em>sank</em> and <em>sunk</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_99" href="#FNanchor_99" class="label">[99]</a> <em>Sitten</em>, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable attempts, -however, have been made to restore it. “To have <em>sitten</em> on the -heads of the apostles.”—<cite>Middleton.</cite></p> - -<p>“Soon after the termination of this business, the parliament, which had -now <em>sitten</em> three years,” &c.—<cite>Belsham’s Hist.</cite></p> - -<p>“And he would gladly, for the sake of dispatch, have called together -the same parliament, which had <em>sitten</em> under his father.”—<cite>Hume</cite>, vol. vi. -p. 199.</p> - -<p>Respecting the preterites which have <em>a</em> or <em>u</em>, as <em>slang</em>, or <em>slung</em>, <em>sank</em>, -or <em>sunk</em>, it would be better were the former only to be used, as the preterite -and participle would thus be discriminated.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_100" href="#FNanchor_100" class="label">[100]</a> Pope has used the regular form of the preterite:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Sprung the rank weed, and thrived with large increase.”</div> - <div class="verse indent40"><cite>Essay on Crit.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>Horsley, with one or two other writers, have employed the regular participle.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_101" href="#FNanchor_101" class="label">[101]</a> <em>Washen</em> seems obsolescent, if not obsolete. The compound <em>unwashen</em> -occurs in our translation of the Bible.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_102" href="#FNanchor_102" class="label">[102]</a> Pope, and our translators of the Bible, have used <em>winded</em> as the preterite. -The other form, however, is in far more general use.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_103" href="#FNanchor_103" class="label">[103]</a> <em>Wrote</em>, as the participle, is generally disused, and likewise <em>writ</em>. The -latter was used as a preterite by Pope, Swift, and other writers of the -same period.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_104" href="#FNanchor_104" class="label">[104]</a> <em>Wit</em> is now confined to the phrase <em>to wit</em>, or <em>namely</em>. It is an abbreviation -from the Anglo-Saxon verb <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">þiꞇan</span>, to know.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_105" href="#FNanchor_105" class="label">[105]</a> This verb, as an auxiliary, is inflexible; thus we say, “he will go,” -and “<em>he wills to go</em>.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_106" href="#FNanchor_106" class="label">[106]</a> This verb, which signifies “to think,” or “to imagine,” is now -obsolete.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_107" href="#FNanchor_107" class="label">[107]</a> This verb is now used as significant of present duty. It was originally -the preterite, and the perfect participle of the verb <em>to owe</em>; and is -corruptedly used in Scotland still to express a past debt. “Apprehending -the occasion, I will add a continuance to that happy motion, and -besides give you some tribute of the love and duty I long have ought -you.”—<cite>Spelman.</cite></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“This blood, which men by treason sought,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">That followed, sir, which to myself I ought.”—<cite>Dryden.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>It is now used in the present tense only; and, when past duty or obligation -is to be signified, we note, as I formerly mentioned, the past time -by the preterite sense of the subsequent verb; thus, “I ought to read,” -“I ought to have read.” The classical scholar knows that the reverse -takes place in Latin. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Debeo legere, debui legere</i>. Cicero, however, -though very rarely indeed, uses the preterite of the infinitive after the -preterite tense of this verb.</p> - -<p>Murray has told us, that <em>must</em> and <em>ought</em> have both a present and past -signification, and, in proof of this, he adduces the following examples:—“I -must own, that I am to blame.” “He must have been mistaken.” -“Speaking things which they ought not.” “These ought ye to have -done.” This is truly a strange, and, I verily believe, a singular opinion. -Its inaccuracy is so manifest, that every reader of discernment must intuitively -perceive it. The opinion itself, indeed, is not more surprising, -than the ground on which it is maintained by the author. It surely requires -but a moderate portion of sagacity to perceive, that the past time, -in the second and fourth examples, is not denoted by <em>must</em> and <em>ought</em>, -but by the expressions “have been” and “have done.” In Latin, as I -have just observed, <em>necessity</em> and <em>duty</em> are expressed as either present, -past, or future, the verbs denoting these having the three correspondent -tenses; and the object of the necessity or duty is expressed as contemporary, -or relatively present. In English, on the contrary, the two verbs -<em>must</em> and <em>ought</em> having only the present tense, we are obliged to note the -past time by employing the preterite tense of the subsequent verb. Thus, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Me ire oportet</i>, “I ought to go,” “I must go.” <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Me ire oportuit</i>, “I -ought to have gone,” “I must have gone.” As well may it be affirmed, -that the past time is denoted by <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ire</i> and not <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">oportuit</i>, as that it is signified -by <em>must</em> and not by “have gone.”</p> - -<p>In the time of Wallis, the term <em>must</em>, as a preterite tense, was almost -obsolete. “<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Aliquando</i>,” he remarks, “<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">sed rarius in præterito dicitur</i>.” -And when it was employed as a preterite, it was followed by the present -tense. This verb in German has, I understand, a preterite tense.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_108" href="#FNanchor_108" class="label">[108]</a> <em>Firstly</em>, is used by some writers.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_109" href="#FNanchor_109" class="label">[109]</a> <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Denominativa terminantur in <em>lic</em> vel <em>lice</em>, ut þeꞃlic virilis, ælic legitimus, -ꞃælic marinus, þiꝼlic muliebris, &c. Hanc terminationem hodie -mutavimus in <em>like</em> vel <em>ly</em>, ut in <em>godlike</em> vel <em>godly</em>. Hickesii Thes.</span></p> - -<p>The correctness of this explanation has been controverted by Mr. Gilchrist, -who contends that, though it may answer in some cases, it will -fail “in nine times out of ten.” In the expressions “weekly wages,” -“daily labour,” “yearly income,” he observes, that the meaning cannot -be, “wages like a week,” “labour like a day,” “income like a year.” -He rejects, therefore, this explanation, and considers the termination <em>lic</em> -to be the same with <em>lig</em> in the Latin verb <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ligo</i>, “to tie,” or “join,” and -to have the same effect as other conjunctive particles, as “a friendly -part,” “a friend’s part,” “yearly produce,” “year’s produce.” Though -a copious induction of examples justifies us in refusing our assent to -Mr. Gilchrist’s exaggerated statement, that the derivation proposed by -Hickes will fail in nine cases out of ten; we candidly acknowledge, that -in many instances it is inadmissible; and that Mr. Gilchrist’s suggestion -is ingenious, though it will be found, we apprehend, opposed by the -same objection as he urges against Hickes’s explanation. Nor does it -appear to us, that Mr. Gilchrist’s argument subverts the doctrine generally -received. The termination may have been originally what Hickes -supposed, and the principle of analogy may, in time, have introduced -similar compositions, when this meaning of the termination ceased to be -regarded. Thus the term <em>candidly</em>, which we have just now used, was -probably introduced, in conformity to <em>analogy</em>, with no reference whatever -to the meaning of the termination. It may be here also observed, -that the import of this term seems inexplicable on the hypothesis that -<em>ly</em> is a mere term of conjunction.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_110" href="#FNanchor_110" class="label">[110]</a> These three adverbs, denoting motion or rest in a place, are frequently -employed by us, in imitation of the French, to denote motion to a place -in the same sense with the three following adverbs. It would be better, -however, were the distinction observed. The French use <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ici</i> for <em>here</em> -and <em>hither</em>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">là</i> for <em>there</em> and <em>thither</em>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">où</i> for <em>where</em> and <em>whither</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_111" href="#FNanchor_111" class="label">[111]</a> </p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="verse indentq">“For blithesome Sir John Barleycorn</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Had sae allur’d them i’ the morn,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">That, what wi’ drams, and mony a horn,</div> - <div class="verse indent4">And reaming bicker,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">The ferly is, <em>withouten</em> scorn,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">They wauk’d sae sicker.”</div> - <div class="verse indent19"><cite>Mayne’s Siller Gun.</cite></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>This animated little poem will be read with no common pleasure by -every admirer of the Scottish muse. In felicity of description the author -is not inferior to Burns, while in delicacy of humour he may claim the -superiority.</p> - -<p>This preposition is supposed by Mr. Gilchrist to be derived from <em>forth</em>, -or rather to be a different form of that word. See his “Philosophic -Etymology,” a work exhibiting considerable ingenuity and philological -knowledge, combined with many fanciful and unphilosophical opinions.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_112" href="#FNanchor_112" class="label">[112]</a> It is possible that the Greek <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">ἀπό</span>, and the Latin <em>ab</em> derived from it, -had their origin in<span lang="hbo" xml:lang="hbo"> אב </span><i lang="la" xml:lang="la">pater principium</i>, “author,” or “principle of existence.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_113" href="#FNanchor_113" class="label">[113]</a> The verb, “to twin,” is still used in Scotland for “to part,” or -“separate.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_114" href="#FNanchor_114" class="label">[114]</a> That the Saxon word <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">ægther</i> signified <em>each</em>, is sufficiently evident -from a variety of examples; and the adjective <em>either</em> has continued to be -used in that sense by reputable writers. Lowth, who, I apprehend, did -not advert to its primitive signification, condemns the use of it as equivalent -to <em>each</em>; and notwithstanding its original import, I agree with him in -thinking, that it is much better to confine its meaning to “one of two.” -The reason will be assigned hereafter.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_115" href="#FNanchor_115" class="label">[115]</a> <em>Bot</em> ser that Virgil standis <em>but</em> compare.—<cite>Gawin Douglass.</cite></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_116" href="#FNanchor_116" class="label">[116]</a> <em>An</em> occurs frequently for <em>if</em> in the earliest English writers. Bacon -frequently uses it in this sense. “Fortune is to be honoured and respected, -<em>an</em> it be but for her daughters, Confidence and Reputation.” -“And certainly it is the nature of extreme self-lovers, as they will set -their house on fire, <em>an</em> it were, but to roast their eggs.”—<cite>Bacon’s Essays, -Civ. and Mor.</cite> In the folio edition, printed in 1740, it is improperly -spelled <em>and</em>. <em>An</em> for <em>if</em> is still retained in our address to royalty, <em>An ’t -please your majesty</em>: and in Scotland is in general use.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_117" href="#FNanchor_117" class="label">[117]</a> The correctness of most of these, and several other of Tooke’s etymologies, -has been disputed, in a learned and ingenious article in the -Quarterly Review (No. 108). In many of the critic’s animadversions -it is impossible not to concur; but we do not agree with him, when he -rejects the derivation of <em>if</em> from the Anglo-Saxon verb <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">gifan</i>, “to give;” -nor do we consider that Jamieson’s argument, to which he refers, is such -as to justify the critic’s conclusion. The distinction between <em>bot</em> and <em>but</em> -he confidently pronounces to be “a mere chimera,” and maintains that -<em>but</em> is in every instance <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">be utan</i>, “be out,” without corresponding to the -Latin words <em>sed</em>, <em>vero</em>, <em>autem</em>, <em>sine</em>. It must be acknowledged that Tooke’s -derivation is erroneous, there being no such Anglo-Saxon verb as “botan,” -of which <em>bot</em> could be the imperative. But we agree with Dr. Jamieson -in thinking, whatever may be the etymology, that <em>but</em> and <em>bot</em> are originally -distinct words. Indeed, it appears to us, that the reasoning of the -critic is neither correct, nor quite consistent with itself. We do not consider -<em>but</em> for <em>bot</em> to be discriminative; nor can we allow, that, if <em>but</em> be -equivalent to <em>sed</em>, <em>se</em>, <em>sine</em>, implying separation, it can also be equivalent -to <em>autem</em>, “moreover,” to which <em>bot</em> corresponds, implying adjection, -or subjunction. Nor can we admit, that the synonymous words <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mais</i> -(French), <i lang="nl" xml:lang="nl">maar</i> (Dutch), <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">ma</i> (Italian), imply preference, as the critic -affirms, but something to be added, corresponding with what has been -previously said.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_118" href="#FNanchor_118" class="label">[118]</a> The critic to whom we have alluded in the preceding note contends, -that <em>except</em> cannot be an imperative, “because it has no subject; and that -a verb could not be employed, in any language that distinguishes the -different persons, without a gross violation of idiom.” He considers the -word to be an abbreviated participle. The correctness of this opinion I -am disposed to question. In our Anglo-Saxon translation, the term -<em>except</em> is rendered by <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">buton</i>, which is no participle; moreover, to place -the participle perfect before the noun, the clause being absolute, is irreconcilable -with the idiom of our language. “‘All were involved in -this affair, except one;’ that is,” says Webster, who seems divided between -the imperative and the participle, “‘one excepted.’” Now “one -excepted,” and “excepting one,” are perfectly consonant with analogy; -but “excepted one” is sanctioned by no authority. I am inclined to -think that our translators, without regarding the Latin or the Icelandic -idiom, to which the reviewer refers, used the word <em>except</em> as an imperative, -without a subject. He denies, however, that it can be so employed. -He surely will not deny, that usage warrants us in saying, “His arguments, -take them as here exhibited, amount to nothing.” The use of the -imperative, infinitive, and participles, in an absolute sense, or without a -subject, is a common idiom in our language, and recommends itself, as -shall be afterwards shown, by some peculiar advantages.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_119" href="#FNanchor_119" class="label">[119]</a> This phraseology has been censured by Buchanan and the author -of the British Grammar; but, as I apprehend, without the shadow of -authority. To ask a question with a principal verb, as <em>burns he</em>, the latter -affirms to be a barbarism. To disprove the assertion, I shall only, in addition -to the one quoted from Macbeth, produce these examples. “Simon, -son of Jonas, lovest thou me?”—<cite>Bible.</cite> “Died he not in bed?”—<cite>Shakspeare.</cite> -“Or flies the javelin swifter to its mark?”—<em>Ib.</em> “And live -there men who slight immortal fame?”—<cite>Pope.</cite></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_120" href="#FNanchor_120" class="label">[120]</a> Our translators, as the judicious critic last quoted observes, have totally -enervated the strength of the original, which runs thus, <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">ἔπεσε, ἔπεσε, -Βαβυλὼν ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη</span>, and which they have rendered, “Babylon is -fallen, is fallen, that great city.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_121" href="#FNanchor_121" class="label">[121]</a> The ellipsis of the copulative, in such examples, was termed by the -ancients <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">asyndeton</i>; and this deviation from the established rules of syntax -they referred to a grammatical figure termed <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">syllepsis indirecta</i>, or -“indirect comprehension of several singulars under one plural,” opposed -to the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">syllepsis directa</i>, or that expressed by a copulative.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_122" href="#FNanchor_122" class="label">[122]</a> It is sometimes used for <em>every</em>, and applied to more than two.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_123" href="#FNanchor_123" class="label">[123]</a> In the vulgar translation of the Bible, this mode of expression frequently -occurs, thus, “I am thy exceeding great reward.” “I will make -thee exceeding fruitful.”</p> - -<p>Wallis’s admission of this phraseology proves it to have been good -English when he wrote, or that, in his opinion at least, it was unobjectionable. -His translation of <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">vir summe sapiens</i>, is “a man exceeding -wise.” This, and similar modes of expression, appear to have been in -his time very common, thus,</p> - -<p>“<ins class="corr" id="fn-123" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'Athough he was'"> -Although he was</ins> exceeding wealthy.”—<cite>Peers.</cite></p> - -<p>“He was moreover extraordinary courteous.”—<em>Ibid.</em></p> - -<p>“The Athenians were extreme apprehensive of his growing power.”—<cite>Tully.</cite></p> - -<p>And in our version of the Bible we find a few such expressions as the -following: “The house I am to build, shall be <em>wonderful</em> great.”</p> - -<p>Addison likewise often uses the phrase “exceeding great;” and Swift, -less pardonably, writes “extreme unwilling,” “extreme good.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_124" href="#FNanchor_124" class="label">[124]</a> We say, indeed, “Messrs. Thomson;” but we seldom or never say, -“the two Messrs. Thomson,” but “the two Mr. Thomsons.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_125" href="#FNanchor_125" class="label">[125]</a> Horne Tooke observes, that Lowth has rejected much good English: -and it is to be apprehended, that the classical scholar is too prone to -condemn in his own language whatever accords not with the Latin -idiom.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_126" href="#FNanchor_126" class="label">[126]</a> See Johnson’s Comm. p. 351, and Seyer on the Latin Verb, p. 174. -To the arguments there offered, many others might be added.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_127" href="#FNanchor_127" class="label">[127]</a> The propriety of this collocation of the <em>negative</em> will be more evident, -if we attend to the two very different meanings of the word <em>but</em>. According -to the former construction of the sentence, <em>but</em> is the imperative of -<em>beutan</em>, “to be out,” and is synonymous with <em>unless</em> or <em>except</em>; thus, -“but with the approbation,” or <em>except</em> with the approbation. According -to the latter construction, it is properly <em>bot</em>, the imperative of <em>botan</em>, “to -add.” Thus, “he was honoured not with (<em>i.e.</em> exclude or except) this -reward, but (add) with the approbation of the people.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_128" href="#FNanchor_128" class="label">[128]</a> It is to be observed that a different collocation is sometimes admissible -without any risk of ambiguity, especially when the clause is negative. -Thus we may say, “His thoughts were entertained with not only,” <em>i.e.</em> -“with not one thing,” viz. “the joys” with which he was surrounded; -or, “not only with the joys; but (<em>bot</em> or <em>add</em>) a noble gratitude and divine -pleasure.”</p> - -<p>Usage in common conversation, and in familiar language, inclines to -this arrangement, and many of our best writers frequently adopt it.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_129" href="#FNanchor_129" class="label">[129]</a> The omission of the auxiliary in such examples tends much to produce -ambiguity: for, as the adverb, when placed between the noun and -the attributive, may qualify either the former or the latter, perspicuity -requires the insertion of the auxiliary.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_130" href="#FNanchor_130" class="label">[130]</a> <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere, curandum.</span></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_131" href="#FNanchor_131" class="label">[131]</a> In this and similar examples, the word <em>only</em> has been generally -considered as an adjective, equivalent to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">solus</i>. Thus, if we say, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ille -solum erat dives</i>, it means, “he was only rich,” or “he was nothing but -rich.” If we say, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ille solus erat dives</i>, it means, “he only,” or “he alone -was rich.” In the latter example, the word <em>only</em> has been termed an adjective. -It is from the equivalence of the words <em>only</em> and <em>alone</em>, in such -examples as the latter, that several writers have employed them, as if, in -all cases, synonymous. They are by no means, however, of the same -import. Thus, if we say, “virtue alone is true nobility,” it means -“virtue singly, or by itself, is true nobility;” if we say, “virtue only is -true nobility,” it implies that nothing but virtue is true nobility. The -expressions, therefore, are not equivalent. Both sentiments are conveyed -in the following passage:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry" lang="la" xml:lang="la"> - <div class="verse indent0">... “Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus.”—<cite>Juvenal</cite>, Sat. viii.</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>The same observations are applicable to the collocation of the numeral -term <em>first</em>, as equivalent either to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">primus</i> or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">primum</i>; and also to the -position of many other words, which are used adjectively and adverbially. -The classical scholar needs not to be informed, that <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Annibal primus</i>, -and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Annibal primum—Alpes transiit</i>, are not expressions mutually convertible.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_132" href="#FNanchor_132" class="label">[132]</a> Addison, Pope, Swift, Steele, and Johnson, very generally place the -adverb before the attributive, to which it refers, and very often also, -before the substantive. “What he said, was only to commend my prudence.”—<cite>Addison.</cite> -“He did not pretend to extirpate French music, but -only to cultivate and civilise it.”—<cite>Addison.</cite> “I was only scribbling.”—<cite>Johnson.</cite> -“Not only the thought, but the language is majestic.”—<cite>Addison.</cite> -“Known only to those, who enjoy.”—<cite>Johnson.</cite> “Lay the -blame only on themselves.”—<cite>Johnson.</cite> “Witty only by the help of -speech.”—<cite>Steele.</cite></p> - -<p>Our translators of the Bible have almost uniformly observed the same -collocation in respect to the predicate; but have, with few or no deviations, -preferred a different arrangement in regard to the subject, placing -the adverb after, and not before it. It is in conformity to their practice, -that we have recommended the rule here given. From the following examples, -to which many more might be added, it will appear that when -the adverb referred to a sentence, they made it the introductory word; -when it affected an attributive, they placed the adverb before it; and -when it referred to a substantive, or the name of a subject, they put the -adverb after it. “Only take heed to thyself.” “Only he shall not go -in unto the vail.” “Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi.” ... -“The thoughts of his heart are only evil.” “Thou shalt be only -oppressed.” “They might only touch the hem of his garment.” ... -“None followed David, but Judah only.” “He only of Jeroboam shall -come to the grave.” “Against thee only have I sinned.” “Take nothing -for your journey, but a staff only.” “David did that only which was -right.” “They only shall be delivered.” “This only have I found.” -“If in this life only we have hope.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_133" href="#FNanchor_133" class="label">[133]</a> In colloquial language, but chiefly among the vulgar, prepositions are -prefixed to verbs indicative.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_134" href="#FNanchor_134" class="label">[134]</a> </p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry" lang="la" xml:lang="la"> - <div class="verse indent0">“Est vetus, atque probus, centum qui perficit annos.</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Quid? qui deperiit minor uno mense, vel anno;</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Inter quos referendus erit? veteresne poetas,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">An quos et præsens et postera respuet ætas?</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Iste quidem veteres inter ponetur honestè,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Qui vel mense brevi, vel toto est junior anno.</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Utor permisso, caudæque pilos ut equinæ</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Paulatim vello; et demo unum, demo etiam unum;</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Qui redit ad fastos.”</div> - <div class="verse indent22"><cite>Horace</cite>, Ep. I. Lib. 2.</div> -</div> -</div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_135" href="#FNanchor_135" class="label">[135]</a> The Saxon word is <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">awiht</i>, contracted <em>auht</em>, <em>aliquid</em>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_136" href="#FNanchor_136" class="label">[136]</a> We have remarked the same violation of common sense, as occurring -in Cicero, oftener than once. “Alium alio nequiorem.”—<cite>Ep. Fam.</cite> -“Aliam alia jucundiorem.”—<cite>Att.</cite></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_137" href="#FNanchor_137" class="label">[137]</a> Deprehendat, quæ barbara, quæ impropria, quæ contra legem loquendi -composita.—<cite>Quintil.</cite> lib. i. cap. 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_138" href="#FNanchor_138" class="label">[138]</a> In conformity to the example of most of our grammarians, I have -employed the term <em>etymology</em> in the title of this work, and wherever else -it occurs, as denoting that part of grammar, which teaches the inflection -of words. In its primitive acceptation, it means an exposition of their -derivation, and is still employed in that sense, as well as in the signification -in which it is here used. Some writers have preferred the term -<em>analogy</em> to express the doctrine of inflection. If the principle of analogy -or similitude were confined to inflection, the designation might be proper; -but, as this principle extends to the concord, the government, and the -collocation, generally termed the <em>syntax</em> of words, it cannot be considered -an appropriate name for that part of grammar, which teaches merely inflection -or verbal termination. Analogy is the leading principle, on -which every grammatical rule is founded; and those, who have employed -the term for etymology, it would be easy to show, have not been observant -of strict consistency.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_139" href="#FNanchor_139" class="label">[139]</a> The reader is requested to observe, that under “solecism,” I have -included several phraseologies, which, though not consistent with syntactical -propriety, may be justly called by the softer name of “inaccuracies.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_140" href="#FNanchor_140" class="label">[140]</a> See Canon I., <a href="#Page_229">p. 229</a>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_141" href="#FNanchor_141" class="label">[141]</a> We perceive intuitively the error of Milton, when he calls Adam -“the comeliest of men since born,” Eve also “the fairest of her daughters,” -and we laugh, perhaps, when the Cork almanack-maker gravely -tells us, “that the principal republics in Europe, are Venice, Holland, -and America;” yet the error here reprehended is precisely of the same -species, though it passes frequently unnoticed. See <a href="#Page_74">p. 74</a>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_142" href="#FNanchor_142" class="label">[142]</a> It has been already offered as the opinion of the writer, (see <a href="#Page_47">p. 47</a>,) -that the English word <em>other</em> is the Saxon <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">oðeꞃ</span>, and that this word with -the Arabic <em>ahd</em>, the Hebrew <em>had</em> or <em>ahad</em>, the Saxon <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">oððe</span>, the -Teutonic <em>odo</em>, the Swedish <em>udda</em>, and probably the Latin <em>aut</em>, have all -sprung from the same source, or that one of these is the parent of the -rest, denoting <em>unus</em> or <em>singulus</em>, “one,” or “one by itself.” Of the origin -of the Saxon <em>other</em>, Lye has hazarded no opinion. It appears to me to -be a comparative from <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">oððe</span>. To those who have carefully examined, -and have approved the theory of Mr. Tooke, it will furnish no valid objection -against this opinion, that the word <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">oððe</span> is uniformly found in -Saxon, signifying <em>aut</em>. Such can have little or no difficulty in perceiving, -not only from the similarity of the elements, but from the affinity in point -of sense, that <em>had</em>, <em>ahd</em>, <em>aut</em>, <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">oððe, oðeꞃ</span>, <em>other</em>, <em>or</em>, are all members of -one and the same family.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_143" href="#FNanchor_143" class="label">[143]</a> In French the article and the adjectives admitting a plural termination, -the expression “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">les uns et les autres</span>” joined to a plural verb is in -perfect consistence with analogy. So also, in Latin, are <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">utrique</i> and -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">alteri</i>, referring to a plurality. But <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">unus</i> was never in this sense used as -a plural.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_144" href="#FNanchor_144" class="label">[144]</a> “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Utrumque fecisse, dicimus, si et hic et ille fecerit divisim; ambos -fecisse dicimus, si duo conjunctim aliquid fecerint.</span>”—<cite>Stephan.</cite> This -distinction, however, as the learned critic acknowledges, is not uniformly -observed.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_145" href="#FNanchor_145" class="label">[145]</a> “The truth is, that <em>as</em> is also an article; and however and whenever -used in English, means the same as <em>it</em>, or <em>that</em>, or <em>which</em>. In the German, -where it still evidently retains its original signification and use, (as <em>so</em> also -does,) it is written <em>es</em>.”—<cite>Tooke’s Diversions.</cite></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_146" href="#FNanchor_146" class="label">[146]</a> The error here involved suggests a few observations, which it may -be useful to offer, concerning the distinctive character of active and neuter -verbs. A neuter verb has been defined to be that, which denotes neither -doing nor suffering. An active verb, as its name imports, denotes, that -the subject is doing something. Johnson, however, in his Dictionary, -gives every active verb the designation of <em>neuter</em>, unless followed by an -objective case, that is, unless the object or subject of the action be expressed. -In the following instances, for example, he considers the verbs -as neuter. “’T is sure, that Henry <em>reads</em>;” “so I <em>drank</em>; and she made -the camels <em>drink</em> also;” “if you <em>plant</em> where savages are;” “the priests -<em>teach</em> for hire;” “nor feel him where he <em>struck</em>;” “they that <em>sow</em> in -tears, shall <em>reap</em> in joy.” These are a few out of numberless examples, -which might be produced. Indeed, Johnson’s idea seems to be, as has -been just now observed, that the verb must be regarded as neuter, unless -followed by an objective case. This is certainly a great inaccuracy, and -tends to introduce perplexity and confusion. The verb surely does not -the less denote action, because it expresses it absolutely, or because the -subject acted upon is not particularly specified. In the examples now -quoted, can it be questioned, when we say <em>he struck</em>, that <em>he</em> was active; -or when we say, <em>they that sow shall reap</em>, will it be affirmed that <em>they</em> are -not active? This would be to confound distinctions not merely acknowledged -in theory, and adopted in definition, but also founded in the -very nature of things. This matter, I conceive, may be shortly explained, -and very easily understood. It is admitted by every grammarian, -that an active verb denotes, that the subject is acting, and that a neuter -verb signifies that the subject is neither doing nor suffering. Now, of -active verbs there are two kinds, transitive and intransitive. The latter -is that which denotes immanent action, or that which does not pass from -the agent to anything else, as, <em>I walk</em>, <em>I run</em>. Transitive verbs are such -as denote that the action passes from the agent to something acted upon, -as, “Hector wounded him,” “Cain slew his brother.” But the subject -to which the energy passes, may not always be expressed; the verb, -however, is not the less active. Whether we say, “the drummer beats -his drum,” or “the drummer beats every day,” it surely will not be contended, -that there is less of action implied in the one case than in the -other. The reader, then, is requested to observe, that it is not necessary -to the active transitive verb, that the subject acted upon should be expressed. -The active verb may predicate of its subject merely the action -generally and absolutely, as, “he reads in the morning, and writes in the -evening;” or with the action may be expressed the subject or object, as, -“he reads Homer in the morning, and writes letters in the evening;” or -the object or subject may be implied, and not expressed, as, “the -drummer beats at night,” namely, his drum. But in all these cases the -verb is equally active.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_147" href="#FNanchor_147" class="label">[147]</a> In justice to this respectable sect, it is incumbent on me to observe, -that the Quakers are not Deists, nor does their religious creed approach -to Deism.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_148" href="#FNanchor_148" class="label">[148]</a> A similar ambiguity sometimes occurs in Latin by the indiscriminate -use of <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quod</i>. This may be prevented by employing <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quoniam</i> when the -succeeding member of the sentence expresses the cause of the preceding -subject. Thus, “Nec consilium eo minus erat firmum, quoniam secretum -cum perpaucis adhuc erat communicatum,” where the <em>eo</em> refers to a preceding -circumstance. “Nec consilium eo minus erat firmum, quod” -where the <em>eo</em> refers to the subsequent clause. The former phraseology -affirms, the latter denies, the influence of the circumstance subjoined.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_149" href="#FNanchor_149" class="label">[149]</a> In our penal statutes, which should be precisely worded, because they -are literally interpreted, much ambiguity frequently arises from the loose -and incorrect manner in which this conjunction is used.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_150" href="#FNanchor_150" class="label">[150]</a> The issue of a question, respecting a contested election at Rochester -in 1820, depended on the construction of this designation, “a peer, or -lord of parliament.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_151" href="#FNanchor_151" class="label">[151]</a> The superior ductility of the Greek, above every other language, must -appear from its singular aptitude to form new words by composition or -derivation, so as immediately to communicate any new idea. Hence the -names of most of our modern discoveries and inventions are of Greek -extraction. Thus we have the terms “microscope,” “telegraph,” -“panorama,” “odometer,” and many others.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_152" href="#FNanchor_152" class="label">[152]</a> </p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry" lang="la" xml:lang="la"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent8">“Cui lecta potenter erit res,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Nec facundia deseret hunc, nec lucidus ordo.</div> - </div> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur.”</div> - <div class="verse indent26"><cite>Hor. de Art. Poet.</cite></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -</div> -</div> - - -<div class="transnote p4 pg-brk"> -<a name="TN" id="TN"></a> -<p><strong>TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE</strong></p> - -<p>The braces in the table on <a href="#Page_142">page 142</a> have been removed; they were -confusing and unnecessary.</p> - -<p>Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been -corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within -the text and consultation of external sources.</p> - -<p>Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, -and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.</p> - -<p> -<a href="#tn-44">Pg 44</a>: ‘primary preception’ replaced by ‘primary perception’.<br /> -<a href="#tn-46">Pg 46</a>: ‘hartez, illa’ replaced by ‘ha’aretz, illa’.<br /> -<span class="screenonly">Pg 46 <a href="#Footnote_24">Footnote [24]</a>: ‘ארצ’ replaced by ‘ארץ’.<br /></span> -<span class="screenonly">Pg 46 <a href="#Footnote_24">Footnote [24]</a>: ‘הארצ’ replaced by ‘הארץ’.<br /></span> -Pg 87 <a href="#fn-45">Footnote [45]</a>: ‘eo-ed, dede’ replaced by ‘do-ed, dede’.<br /> -<a href="#tn-102">Pg 102</a>: missing subheading ‘OF THE PARTICIPLE.’ added.<br /> -<a href="#tn-115">Pg 115</a>: ‘I written’ replaced by ‘I have written’.<br /> -<a href="#tn-150">Pg 150</a>: ‘siginifies against’ replaced by ‘signifies against’.<br /> -<a href="#tn-155">Pg 155</a>: ‘I did confess”...’ replaced by ‘I did confess...”’.<br /> -Pg 173 <a href="#fn-123">Footnote [123]</a>: ‘Athough he was’ replaced by ‘Although he was’.<br /> -<a href="#tn-191">Pg 191</a>: ‘the arrrangement is’ replaced by ‘the arrangement is’.<br /> -<a href="#tn-209">Pg 209</a>: ‘The bridegrooms its’ replaced by ‘The bridegroom sits’.<br /> -<a href="#tn-246">Pg 246</a>: ‘I know.” Addison.’ replaced by ‘I know.”—Addison.’.<br /> -<a href="#tn-249">Pg 249</a>: ‘being accasioned’ replaced by ‘being occasioned’.<br /> -<a href="#tn-262">Pg 262</a>: ‘οἱ duo’ replaced by ‘οἱ δύο’.<br /> -<a href="#tn-297">Pg 297</a>: ‘before you feet’ replaced by ‘before your feet’.<br /> -</p> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. -</div> - -<div style='margin:0.83em 0; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE<br /> -<span style='font-size:smaller'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br /> -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</span> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person -or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most - other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions - whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms - of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. -</div> - -</div> - -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/64554-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/64554-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index ec8abd6..0000000 --- a/old/64554-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null |
