diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/64554-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/64554-0.txt | 13239 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 13239 deletions
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. |