subservient to the force of custom in cases in which general usage
has not varied from the primitive signification. Moreover, let the
advocates of a mere philosophical investigation of the language,
extend their system as far as a radical analysis will warrant them,
and, with Horne Tooke, not only consider adverbs, prepositions,
conjunctions, and interjections, as abbreviations of nouns and
verbs, but, on their own responsibility, apply them, in teaching the
language, _in compliance with their radical import_, and what would
such a course avail them against the power of custom, and the
influence of association and refinement? Let them show me one
grammarian, produced by such a course of instruction, and they will
exhibit a "philosophical" miracle. They might as well undertake to
teach architecture, by having recourse to its origin, as
represented by booths and tents. In addition to this, when we
consider the great number of obsolete words, from which many now in
use are derived, the original meaning of which cannot be
ascertained, and, also, the multitude whose signification has been
changed by the principle of association, it is preposterous to
think, that a mere philosophical mode of investigating and teaching
the language, is the one by which its significancy can be enforced,
its correctness determined, its use comprehended, and its
improvement extended. Before what commonly passes for a
philosophical manner of developing the language can successfully be
made the medium through which it can be comprehended, in all its
present combinations, relations, and dependances, it must undergo a
thorough retrogressive change, in all those combinations, relations,
and dependances, even to the last letter of the alphabet. And before
we can consent to this radical modification and retrograde ratio of
the English language, we must agree to revive the customs, the
habits, and the precise language of our progenitors, the Goths and
Vandals. Were all the advocates for the introduction of such
philosophical grammars into common schools, at once to enter on
their pilgrimage, and recede into the native obscurity and barbarity
of the ancient Britons, Picts, and Vandals, it is believed, that the
cause of learning and refinement would not suffer greatly by their
loss, and that the good sense of the present age, would not allow
many of our best teachers to be of the party.
The last consideration which I shall give a philosophical manner of
investigating and enforcing the English language, is, that by this
mode of analyzing and reducing it to practice, _it cannot, in this
age, be comprehended_ as the medium of thought. Were this method to
prevail, our present literal language would become a dead letter. Of
what avail is language, if it can not be understood? And how can it
be accommodated to the understanding, unless it receive the sanction
of common consent? Even if we admit that such a manner of unfolding
the principles of our language, is more rational and correct than
the ordinary, practical method, I think it is clear that such a mode
of investigation and development, does not meet the necessities and
convenience of ordinary learners in school. To be consistent, that
system which instructs by tracing a few of our words to their
origin, must unfold the whole in the same manner. But the student in
common schools and academies, cannot afford time to stem the tide of
language up to its source, and there dive to the bottom of the
fountain for knowledge. Such labor ought not to be required of him.
His object is to become, not a philosophical antiquarian, but a
practical grammarian. If I comprehend the design (if they have any)
of our modern philosophical writers on this subject, it is to make
grammarians by inculcating a few general principles, arising out of
the genius of the language, and the nature of things, which the
learner, by the exercise of his _reasoning powers_, must reduce to
practice. His own judgment, _independent of grammar rules_, is to be
his guide in speaking and writing correctly. Hence, many of them
exclude from their systems, all exercises in what is called _false
Syntax_. But these profound philological dictators appear to have
overlooked the important consideration, that the great mass of
mankind, and especially of boys and girls in common schools, _can
never become philosophers;_ and, consequently, can never comprehend
and reduce to practice their metaphysical and obscure systems of
grammar. I wish to see children treated as _reasoning_ beings. But
there should be a medium in all things. It is, therefore, absurd to
instruct children as if they were already profound philosophers and
logicians.
To demonstrate the utility, and enforce the necessity, of exercising
the learner in correcting _false Syntax_, I need no other argument
than the interesting and undeniable fact, that Mr. Murray's labors,
in this department, have effected a complete revolution in the
English language, in point of verbal accuracy. Who does not know,
that the best writers of this day, are not guilty of _one_
grammatical inaccuracy, where those authors who wrote before Mr.
Murray flourished, are guilty of _five_? And what has produced this
important change for the better? Ask the hundreds of thousands who
have studied "Mr. Murray's exercises in FALSE SYNTAX." If, then,
this view of the subject is correct, it follows, that the greater
portion of our philosophical grammars, are far more worthy the
attention of literary connoisseurs, than of the great mass of
learners.
Knowing that a strong predilection for philosophical grammars,
exists in the minds of some teachers of this science, I have thought
proper, for the gratification of such, to intersperse through the
pages of this work under the head of "PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES," an
entire system of grammatical principles as deduced from what appears
to me to be the most rational and consistent philosophical
investigations. They who prefer this theory to that exhibited in the
body of the work, are, of course, at liberty to adopt it.
_In general, a philosophical theory of grammar will be found to
accord with the practical theory embraced in the body of this work.
Wherever such agreement exists, the system contained in these NOTES
will be deficient, and this deficiency may be supplied by adopting
the principles contained in the other parts of the work_.
* * * * *
OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL CLASSIFICATION OF WORDS.
According to the method in which philosophical investigations of
language have generally been conducted, all our words should be
reduced to two classes; for it can be easily shown, that from the
noun and verb, all the other parts of speech have sprung. Nay, more.
They may even be reduced to one. Verbs do not, in reality, _express_
actions; but they are intrinsically the mere _names_ of actions. The
idea of action or being communicated by them, as well as the
_meaning_ of words in general, is merely _inferential_. The
principle of reasoning assumed by the celebrated Horne Tooke, if
carried to its full extent, would result, it is believed, in proving
that we have but one part of speech.
_Adnouns_ or _adjectives_ were originally nouns. _Sweet, red,
white_, are the _names_ of qualities, as well as _sweetness,
redness, whiteness_. The former differ from the latter only in their
_manner_ of signification. To denote that the name of some quality
or substance is to be used in connexion with some other name, or,
that this quality is to be _attributed_ to some other name, we
sometimes affix to it the termination _en, ed_, or _y;_ which
signifies _give, add,_ or _join_. When we employ the words wood_en_,
wooll_en_, wealth_y_, grass_y_, the terminations _en_ and _y_, by
their own intrinsic meaning, give notice that we intend to _give,
add, or join_, the names of some other substances in which are found
the properties or qualities of _wood, wool, wealth_, or _grass_.
_Pronouns_ are a class of nouns, used instead of others to prevent
their disagreeable repetition. Participles are certain forms of the
verb. Articles, interjections, adverbs, prepositions, and
conjunctions, are contractions of abbreviations of nouns and verbs.
_An_ (_a, one_, or _one_) comes from _ananad_, to add, to heap.
_The_ and _that_, from the Anglo-Saxon verb _thean_, to get, assume.
_Lo_ is the imperative of _look_; _fy_, of _fian_, to hate; and
_welcome_ means, it is _well_ that you are _come. In_ comes from the
Gothic noun _inna_, the interior of the body; and _about_, from
_boda_, the first outward boundary. _Through_ or _thorough_ is the
Teutonic noun _thuruh_, meaning passage, gate, door. _From_ is the
Anglo-Saxon noun _frum_, beginning, source, author. He came _from
(beginning)_ Batavia. _If_ (formerly written _gif, give, gin_) is
the imperative of the Anglo-Saxon verb _gifan_, to give. I will
remain _if_ (_give_ or _grant that fact_) he will (_remain_.) _But_
comes from the Saxon verb _beon-utan_, to be-out. I informed no one
_but (be-out, leave-out)_ my brother.
This brief view of the subject, is sufficient to elucidate the
manner in which, according to Horne Tooke's principles, the ten
parts of speech are reduced to one. But I am, by no means, disposed
to concede, that this is the _true_ principle of classification; nor
that it is any more _philosophical_ or _rational_ than one which
allows a more practical division and arrangement of words. What has
been generally received as "philosophical grammar," appears to
possess no stronger claims to that imposing appellation than our
common, practical grammars. Query. Is not Mr. Murray's octavo
grammar more worthy the dignified title of a "Philosophical
Grammar," than Horne Tooke's "Diversions of Purley," or William S.
Cardell's treatises on language? What constitutes a _philosophical_
treatise, on this, or on any other subject? _Wherein_ is there a
display of philosophy in a speculative, etymological performance,
which attempts to develop and explain the elements and primitive
meaning of words by tracing them to their origin, _superior_ to the
philosophy employed in the development and illustration of the
principles by which we are governed in applying those words to their
legitimate purpose, namely, that of forming a correct and convenient
medium by means of which we can communicate our thoughts? Does
philosophy consist in ransacking the mouldy records of antiquity, in
order to _guess_ at the ancient construction and signification of
single words? or have such investigations, in reality, any thing to
do with _grammar_?
Admitting that all the words of our language include, in their
_original_ signification, the import of nouns or names, and yet, it
does not follow, that they _now_ possess no other powers, and, in
their combinations and connexions in sentences, are employed for no
other purpose, than _barely_ to _name objects_. The _fact_ of the
case is, that words are variously combined and applied, to answer
the distinct and diversified purposes of _naming_ objects,
_asserting_ truths, _pointing out_ and _limiting_ objects,
_attributing qualities_ to objects, _connecting_ objects, and so on;
and on this _fact_ is founded the _true philosophical principle of
the classification of words_. Hence, an arrangement of words into
classes according to this principle, followed by a development and
illustration of the principles and rules that regulate us in the
proper use and application of words in oral and written discourse,
appears to approximate as near to a true definition _of
philosophical grammar_, as any I am capable of giving.
_Nouns_, or the names of the objects of our perceptions, doubtless
constituted the original class of words; (if I may be allowed to
assume such a hypothesis as an _original_ class of words;) but the
ever-active principle of association, soon transformed nouns into
verbs, by making them, when employed in a particular manner,
expressive of affirmation. This same principle also operated in
appropriating names to the purpose of attributing qualities to other
names of objects; and in this way was constituted the class of words
called _adjectives_ or _attributes_. By the same principle were
formed all the other classes.
In the following exposition of English grammar on scientific
principles, I shall divide words into seven classes; _Nouns_ or
_Names, Verbs, Adjectives, Adnouns_, or _Attributes, Adverbs,
Propositions, Pronouns_, and _Conjunctions_ or _Connectives_.
For an explanation of the noun, refer to the body of the work.
* * * * *
PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.
Plausible arguments may be _advanced_, for rejecting _neuter_ and
passive verbs; but they have been found to be so convenient in
practice, that the theory which recognises them, has stood the test
of ages. If you tell the young learner, that, in the following
expressions, The church _rests_ on its foundation; The book _lies_
on the desk; The boys _remain (are)_ idle, the nouns _church, book_,
and _boys_, are represented as acting, and, therefore, the verbs
_rests, lies, remain_, and _are_, are _active_, he will not believe
you, because there is no action that is apparent to his senses. And
should you proceed further, and, by a labored and metaphysical
investigation and development of the laws of motion, attempt to
prove to him that "every portion of matter is influenced by
different, active principles, tending to produce change," and,
therefore, every thing in universal nature is _always_ acting, it is
not at all probable, that you could convince his _understanding_, in
opposition to the dearer testimony of his senses. Of what avail to
learners is a theory which they cannot comprehend?
Among the various theorists and speculative writers on philosophical
grammar, the ingenious Horne Tooke stands pre-eminent; but,
unfortunately, his principal speculations on the verb, have never
met the public eye. William S. Cardell has also rendered himself
conspicuous in the philological field, by taking a bolder stand than
any of his predecessors. His view of the verb is novel, and
ingeniously supported. The following is the substance of his theory
OF THE VERB.
A verb is a word which expresses _action;_ as, Man _exists_; Trees
_grow_; Waters_flow_; Mountains _stand_; I _am_.
All verbs are active, and have one object or more than one,
expressed or implied. The pillar _stands_; that is, it _keeps
itself_ in an erect or standing posture; it _upholds_ or _sustains
itself_ in that position. They _are_; i.e. they _air_ themselves, or
_breathe_ air; they _inspirit, vivify_, or _uphold_ themselves by
inhaling air.
Many verbs whose objects are seldom expressed, always have a persona
or verbal one implied. The clouds _move_; i.e. move _themselves_
along. The troops _marched_ twenty miles a day; i.e. marched
_themselves_. The moon _shines_: - The moon _shines_ or _sheds_ a
_shining, sheen, lustre_, or _brightness_. The sparrow
_flies: - flies_ or _takes_ a _flight_. Talkers talk or speak _words_
or _talk_; Walkers walk _walkings_ or _walks_; The rain rains
_rain_; Sitters sit or hold _sittings_ or _sessions_.
To prove that there is no such thing as a neuter verb, the following
appear to be the strongest arguments adduced.
1. No portion of matter is ever in a state of perfect quiescence;
but the component parts of every thing are at all times "influenced
by different, active principles, tending to produce change." Hence,
it follows, that no being or thing can be represented in a _neuter_
or _non-acting state_.
This argument supposes the essential character of the verb to be
identified with the primary laws of action, as unfolded by the
principles of physical science. The correctness of this position may
be doubted; but if it can be clearly demonstrated, that every
particle of matter is always in motion, it does not, by any means,
follow, that we cannot _speak of_ things in a state of quiescence.
What is _false_ in fact may be _correct_ in grammar. _The point
contested, is not whether things always_ act, _but whether, when we
assert or affirm something respecting them, we always_ represent
_them as acting_.
2. Verbs were _originally_ used to express the motions or changes of
things which produced obvious actions, and, by an easy transition,
were afterward applied, in the same way, to things whose actions
were not apparent. This assumption is untenable, and altogether
gratuitous.
3. Verbs called neuter are used in the imperative mood; and, as this
mood commands some one to _do_ something, any verb which adopts it,
must be active. Thus, in the common place phrases, "_Be_ there
quickly; _Stand_ out of my way; _Sit_ or _lie_ farther."
It is admitted that these verbs are here employed in an _active_
sense; but it is certain, that they are not used according to their
proper, _literal_ meaning. When I tell a man, _literally_, to
_stand, sit_, or _lie_, by _moving_ he would disobey me; but when I
say, "_Stand_ out of my way," I employ the neuter verb _stand_,
instead of the active verb _move_ or _go_, and in a correspondent
sense. My meaning is, _Move_ yourself out of my way; or _take_ your
_stand_ somewhere else. This, however, does not prove that _stand_
is properly used. If we choose to overstep the bounds of custom, we
can employ any _word_ in the language as an active-transitive verb.
_Be, sit_, and _lie_, may be explained in the same manner.
4. Neuter verbs are used in connexion with adverbs which express the
manner of _action_. They must, therefore, be considered active
verbs. The child _sleeps soundly_; He _sits genteelly_; They _live
contentedly_ and _happily_ together.
The class of verbs that are never employed as active, is small. By
using adverbs in connexion with verbs, we can fairly prove that some
verbs are _not_ active. It is incorrect to say, I am _happily_; They
were _peacefully_; She remains _quietly_; The fields appear
_greenly_. These verbs in their common acceptation, do not express
_action_; for which reason we say, I am _happy_; They are
_peaceful_; &c. But in the expressions, The child sleeps _soundly_;
She sits _gracefully_; They live _happily_ and _contentedly_; we
employ the verbs _sleeps, sits_, and _live_, in an active sense.
When no action is intended, we say, They live _happy_ and
_contented_.
If, on scientific principles, it can be proved that those verbs
generally denominated neuter, _originally_ expressed action, their
present, accepted meaning will still oppose the theory, for the
generality of mankind do not attach to them the idea of _action_.
Thus I have endeavored to present a brief but impartial abstract of
the _modern_ theory of the verb, leaving it with the reader to
estimate it according to its value.
To give a satisfactory definition of the verb, or such a one as
shall be found scientifically correct and unexceptionable, has
hitherto baffled the skill, and transcended the learning, of our
philosophical writers. If its essential quality, as is generally
supposed, is made to consist in _expressing affirmation_, it remains
still to be defined _when_ a verb _expresses_ affirmation. In
English, and in other languages, words appropriated to express
affirmation, are often used without any such force; our idea of
affirmation, in such instances, being the mere _inference of
custom_.
In the sentence, - "_Think, love_, and _hate_, denote moral actions,"
the words _think, love_, and _hate_, are nouns, because they are
mere _names_ of actions. So, when I say, "John, _write_ - is an
irregular verb," the word _write_ is a noun; but when I say, "John,
_write_ - your copy," _write_ is called a verb.
Why is this word considered a noun in one construction, and a verb
in the other, when both constructions, until you pass beyond the
word write, are exactly alike? If write does not _express_ action in
the former sentence, neither does it in the latter, for, in both, it
is introduced in the same manner. On scientific principles, _write_
must be considered a noun in the latter sentence, for it does not
_express_ action, or make an affirmation; but it merely _names_ the
action which I wish John to perform, and affirmation is the
_inferential_ meaning.
The verb in the infinitive, as well as in the imperative mood, is
divested of its affirmative or verbal force. In both these moods, it
is always presented in its _noun-state_.
If, after dinner, I say to a servant, "_Wine,"_ he infers, that I
wish him to bring me wine; but all this is not said. If I say,
_Bring_ some _wine_, he, in like manner, understands, that I wish
him to bring me wine; but all that is expressed, is the _name_ of
the action, and of the object of the action. In fact, as much is
done by _inference_, as by actual expression, in every branch of
language, for thought is too quick to be wholly transmitted by
words.
It is generally conceded, that the termination of our verbs, _est,
eth, s, ed_, and, also, of the other parts of speech, were
originally separate words of distinct meaning; and that, although
they have been contracted, and, by the refinement of language, have
been made to coalesce with the words in connexion with which they
are employed, yet, in their present character of terminations, they
retain their primitive meaning and force. To denote that a verbal
name was employed as a verb, the Saxons affixed to it a verbalizing
adjunct; thus, _the_ (to take, hold) was the noun-state of the verb;
and when they used it as a verb, they added the termination _an_;
thus, the_an_. The termination added, was a sign that _affirmation_
was intended. The same procedure has been adopted, and, in many
instances, is still practised, in our language. _An_, originally
affixed to our verbs, in the progress of refinement, was changed to
en, and finally dropped. A few centuries ago, the plural number of
our verbs was denoted by the termination, _en_; thus, they _weren_,
they _loven_; but, as these terminations do not supersede the
necessity of expressing the _subject_ of affirmation, as is the case
in the Latin and Greek verbs, they have been laid aside, as
unnecessary excrescences. For the same reason, we might, without any
disparagement to the language, dispense with the terminations of our
verbs in the singular.
In support of the position, that these terminations were once
separate words, we can trace many of them to their origin. To denote
the feminine gender of some nouns, we affix _ess_; as, heir_ess_,
instructr_ess. Ess_ is a contraction of the Hebrew noun _essa_, a
female. Of our verbs, the termination _est_ is a contraction of
_doest, eth_, of _doeth_, _s_ of _does_. We say, thou _dost_ or
_doest_ love; or thou _lovest_; i.e. _love-dost_, or _love-doest_.
Some believe these terminations to be contractions of _havest,
haveth, has_. We affix _ed_, a contraction of _dede_, to the present
tense of verbs to denote that the action named is _dede, did, doed_,
or _done_.
_To_ and _do_ from the Gothic noun _taui_, signifying _act_ or
_effect_, are, according to Horne Tooke, nearly alike in meaning and
force; and when the custom of affixing some more ancient verbalizing
adjunct, began to be dropped, its place and meaning were generally
supplied by prefixing one of these. When I say, "I am going _to
walk,"_ the verbal or affirmative force is conveyed by the use of
_to_, meaning the same as _do_; and _walk_ is employed merely as a
verbal name; that is, I assert that I shall _do_ the act which I
name by the word _walk_, or the act of _walking_.
Perhaps such speculations as these will prove to be more curious
than profitable. If it be made clearly to appear, that, on
scientific principles, whenever the verbal name is unaccompanied by
a verbalizing adjunct, it is in the _noun-state_, and does not
express affirmation, still this theory would be very inconvenient in
practice.
I shall resume this subject in Lecture XI.
* * * * *
QUESTIONS ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.
What has usually been the object of philosophical investigations of
language? (page 32.) - Do the syntactical dependances and connexions of
words depend on their _original_ import? - Is the power of association
and custom efficient in changing the radical meaning of some
words? - Have words intrinsically a signification of their own; or is
their meaning _inferential_; i.e. such as _custom_ has assigned to them?
(page 38.) - On what _fact_ is based the true, philosophical principle of
classification? - Define philosophical grammar. - Which is supposed to be
the original part of speech? - How were the others formed from that? - How
many parts of speech may be recognised in a scientific development and
arrangement of the principles of our language? - Name them. - What
testimony have we that many things do not act? (page 43.) - Repeat some
of the arguments in favor of, and against, the principle which regards
all verbs as _active_. - In what moods are verbs used in their
_noun-state?_ (page 48.) - Give examples. - What is said of the
terminations _est, eth, s,_ and _en_, and of the words _to_ and _do?_
REMARKS ON VERBS AND NOUNS.
You have already been informed, that verbs are the most important part
of speech in our language; and to convince you of their importance, I
now tell you, that you cannot express a _thought_, or communicate an
_idea_, without making use of a verb, either expressed or implied. Verbs
express, not only _the state_ or _manner of being_, but, likewise, all
the different _actions_ and _movements_ of all creatures and things,
whether animate or inanimate. As yet I have given you only a partial
description of this sort of words; but when you are better prepared to
comprehend the subject, I will explain all their properties, and show
you the proper manner of using them.
A word that is generally a _noun_, sometimes becomes a _verb_; and a
verb is frequently used as a _noun_. These changes depend on the sense
which the word conveys; or, rather, on the office it performs in the
sentence; that is the _manner_ in which it is applied to things. For
instance, _glory_ is generally a noun; as "The _glory_ of God's throne."
But if I say, I _glory_ in religion; or, He _glories_ in wickedness, the
word _glory_ becomes a verb. The _love_ of man is inconstant. In this
sentence, _love_ is a _noun_; in the next, it is a _verb_: They _love_
virtue. He _walks_ swiftly; Scavengers _sweep_ the streets; The ship
_sails_ well. In these phrases, the words _walks, sweep_, and _sails_,
are verbs; in the following they are nouns: Those are pleasant _walks_;
He takes a broad _sweep_; The ship lowered her _sails_.
Thus you see, it is impossible for you to become a grammarian without
exercising your judgment. If you have sufficient resolution to do this,
you will, in a short time, perfectly understand the nature and office of
the different parts of speech, their various properties and relations,
and the rules of syntax that apply to them; and, in a few weeks, be able
to speak and write accurately. But you must not take things for granted,
without examining their propriety and correctness. No. You are not a
mere _automaton_, or _boy-machine_; but a rational being. You ought,
therefore, to _think_ methodically, to _reason_ soundly, and to
_investigate_ every principle critically. Don't be afraid to _think for
yourself_. You know not the high destiny that awaits you. You know not
the height to which you may soar in the scale of intellectual existence.
Go on, then, boldly, and with unyielding perseverance; and if you do not
gain admittance into the temple of fame, strive, at all hazards, to
drink of the fountain which gurgles from its base.
EXERCISES IN FALSE SYNTAX.
NOTE 1, TO RULE 12. A noun in the possessive case, should always be
distinguished by the apostrophe, or mark of elision; as, The _nation's_
glory.
That girls book is cleaner than those boys books.
Not correct, because the nouns _girls_ and _boys_ are both in the
possessive case, and, therefore, require the apostrophe, by which they
should be distinguished; thus, "_girl's, boys'"_ according to the
preceding NOTE. [Repeat the note.]
Thy ancestors virtue is not thine.
If the writer of this sentence meant _one_ ancestor, he should have
inserted the apostrophe after _r_, thus, "_ancestor's"_; if more than
one, after _s_, thus, _"ancestors'_ virtue;" but, by neglecting to place
the apostrophe, he has left his meaning ambiguous, and we cannot
ascertain it. This, and a thousand other mistakes you will often meet
with, demonstrate the truth of my declaration, namely, that "without the
knowledge and application of grammar rules, you will often speak and
write in such a manner as not to be _understood."_ You may now turn back
and re-examine the "illustration" of Rules 3, 4, and 12, on page 52, and
then correct the following examples about _five_ times over.
A mothers tenderness and a fathers care, are natures gift's for mans
advantage. Wisdoms precept's form the good mans interest and happiness.
They suffer for conscience's sake. He is reading Cowpers poems. James
bought Johnsons Dictionary.
RULE 4. A verb must agree with its nominative in number and person.
Those boys improves rapidly. The men labors in the field. Nothing
delight some persons. Thou shuns the light. He dare not do it. They
reads well.
I know you can correct these sentences without a rule, for they all have
a harsh sound, which offends the ear. I wish you, however, to adopt the
habit of correcting errors by applying rules; for, by-and-by, you will
meet with errors in composition which you cannot correct, if you are
ignorant of the application of grammar rules.
Now let us clearly understand this 4th Rule. Recollect, it applies to
the _verb_ and not to the noun; therefore, in these examples the verb is
ungrammatical. The noun _boys_, in the first sentence, is of the third
person _plural_, and the verb _improves_ is of the third person
_singular_; therefore, Rule 4th is violated, because the verb dues not
agree with its nominative in _number_. It should be, "boys _improve_."
The verb would then be _plural_, and agree with its nominative according
to the Rule. In the fourth sentence, the verb does not agree in _person_
with its nominative. _Thou_ is of the _second_ person, and _shuns_ is of
the _third_. It should be, "thou _shunnest_," &c. You may correct the
other sentences, and, likewise, the following exercises in
FALSE SYNTAX.
A variety of pleasing objects charm the eye. The number of inhabitants
of the United States exceed nine millions. Nothing but vain and foolish
pursuits delight some persons.
In vain our flocks and fields increase our store,
When our abundance make us wish for more.
While ever and anon, there falls
Huge heaps of hoary, moulder'd walls.
LECTURE III.
OF ARTICLES.
An article is a word prefixed to nouns to limit their signification; as,
_a_ man, _the_ woman.
There are only two articles, _a_ or _an_, and _the. A_ or _an_ is called
the indefinite article. _The_ is called the definite article.
The _indefinite article_ limits the noun to one of a kind, but to no
particular one; as, _a_ house.
The _definite article_ generally limits the noun to a particular object,
or collection of objects; as, _the_ house, _the_ men.
The small claims of the article to a separate rank as a distinct part of
speech, ought not to be admitted in a scientific classification of
words. _A_ and _the, this_ and _that, ten, few_, and _fourth_, and many
other words, are used to restrict, vary, or define the signification of
the nouns to which they are joined. They might, therefore, with
propriety, be ranked under the general head of _Restrictives, Indexes_,
or _Defining Adjectives_. But, as there is a marked distinction in their
particular meaning and application, each class requires a separate
explanation. Hence, no practical advantage would be gained, by rejecting
their established classification, as articles, numerals, and
demonstratives, and by giving them _new_ names. The character and
application of _a_ and _the_ can be learned as soon when they are styled
_articles_, as when they are denominated _specifying_ or _defining
adjectives_.
The history of this part of speech is very brief. As there are but two
articles, _a_ or _an_ and _the_, you will know them wherever they occur.
A noun used without an article, or any other restrictive, is taken in
its _general_ sense; as, _"Fruit_ is abundant;" "_Gold_ is heavy;"
"_Man_ is born to trouble" Here we mean, fruit and gold _in general;_
and _all men_, or _mankind_.
When we wish to limit the meaning of the noun to _one_ object, but to no
_particular_ one, we employ _a_ or _an_. If I say, "Give me _a_ pen;"
"Bring me _an_ apple;" you are at liberty to fetch _any_ pen or _any_
apple you please. _A_ or _an_, then, is _indefinite_, because it leaves
the meaning of the noun to which it is applied, as far as regards the
person spoken to, _vague_, or _indeterminate_; that is, _not definite_.
But when reference is made to a _particular_ object, we employ _the_,
as, "Give me _the_ pen;" "Bring me _the_ apple, or _the_ apple." When
such a requisition is made, you are not at liberty to bring any pen or
apple you please, but you must fetch the _particular_ pen or apple to
which you know me to refer. _The_ is, therefore, called the _definite_
article.
"_A_ star appears." Here, the star referred to, may be known as a
_particular_ star, _definite_, and distinguished from all others, in the
mind of the _speaker_; but to the _hearer_, it is left, among the
thousands that bedeck the vault of heaven, _undistinguished_ and
_indefinite_. But when the star has previously been made the subject of
discourse, it becomes, in the minds of both speaker and hearer a
_definite_ object, and he says, "_The_ star appears;" that is, that
_particular_ star about which we were discoursing.
"Solomon built _a_ temple." Did he build _any_ temple, _undetermined
which?_ No; it was a _particular_ temple, pre-eminently distinguished
from all others. But _how_ does it become a definite object in the mind
of the _hearer_? Certainly, not by the phrase, "_a_ temple," which
indicates _any_ temple, leaving it altogether _undetermined_ which; but
supposing the person addressed was totally unacquainted with the fact
asserted, and it becomes to him, _in one respect only_, a definite and
particular temple, by means of the associated words, "Solomon built;"
that is, by the use of these words in connexion with the others, the
hearer gets the idea of a temple distinguished as _the one erected by
Solomon_. If the speaker were addressing one whom he supposed to be
unacquainted with the fact related, he might make the temple referred to
a still more definite object in the mind of the hearer by a farther
explanation of it; thus, "Solomon built _a_ temple _on mount Zion_; and
that was _the_ temple _to which the Jews resorted to worship_."
"_The_ lunatic, _the_ poet, and _the_ lover,
Are of imagination all compact."
"_The_ horse is a noble animal;" "_The_ dog is a faithful creature;"
"_The_ wind blows;" "_The_ wolves were howling in _the_ woods." In these
examples, we do not refer to any particular lunatics, poets, lovers,
horses, dogs, winds, wolves, and woods, but we refer to these
_particular classes_ of things, in contradistinction to other objects or
classes. The phrase, "Neither _the_ one nor _the_ other," is an idiom of
the language.
REMARKS. - This method of elucidating the articles, which is popular
with Blair, Priestley, Lowth, Johnson, Harris, Beattie, Coote,
Murray, and many other distinguished philologists, is discarded by
some of our modern writers. But, by proving that this theory is
exceptionable, they by no means make it appear, that it ought,
therefore, to be rejected.
Exceptionable or not, they have not been able to supply its place
with one that is more _convenient in practice_. Neither have they
adopted one _less_ exceptionable. The truth is, after all which can
be done to render the definitions and rules of grammar comprehensive
and accurate, they will still be found, when critically examined by
men of learning and science, more or less exceptionable. These
exceptions and imperfections are the unavoidable consequence of the
imperfections of the language. Language, as well as every thing else
of human invention, will always be _imperfect_. Consequently, a
_perfect_ system of grammatical principles, would not suit it. A
_perfect_ grammar will not be produced, until some _perfect_ being
writes it for a _perfect_ language; and a perfect language will not
be constructed, until some _super-human_ agency is employed in its
production. All grammatical principles and systems which are not
_perfect_, are _exceptionable_.
NOTES.
1. The article is _omitted_ before nouns implying the different
virtues, vices, passions, qualities, sciences, arts, metals, herbs,
&c.; as, "_Modesty_ is becoming; _Falsehood_ is odious; _Grammar_ is
useful," &c.
2. The article is not prefixed to proper nouns; as, _Barron_ killed
_Decatur_; except by way of eminence, or for the sake of
distinguishing a particular family, or when some noun is understood;
as, "He is not _a_ Franklin; He is _a_ Lee, or of the family of
_the_ Lees; We sailed down _the_ (river) Missouri."
3. An _adjective_ is frequently placed between the article and the
noun with which the article agrees; as, "A _good_ boy; an
_industrious_ man." Sometimes the adjective precedes the article;
as, "As _great_ a man as Alexander; _Such_ a shame."
4. In referring to many individuals, when we wish to bring each