Cheap Book Store, OF THE UNxVERSnT ^;^/:lIFO: JIDOCATIOH XXM; / ' ^^ GBl' /0>/-' J i4^. ■^L^. .... m. ^ .^*% ^^* ^ / ^ -ii ^^ Digitized by tine Internet Archive in 2008 witii funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http:'//www.arGliivfe.org/(jetails/englislisyntitholOOenglrich ii^Vf "-""rfE AN ENGLISH SYNTITHOLOGY, IN THREE BOOKS, DEVELOPIIfO THE CONSTRUCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, BY APPROPRIATE POLYMORPH TERMS, USED IN THIS SCIENCE ONLY; EACH FORM OF THE SAME WORD HAVING BUT ONE MEANING. BY JAMES BROWN. Is it more difficult to teach truth tlxan error "i and is it more useful to learn error than truth I In Grammar, aa well as in other sciences, technical terms appropriate in them- selves, having but one specific meaning, and that accurately defined, are much more convenient and useful than any other terms can be. — Rev. P. Bullions, D. D., Pro- fessor of Languages in the Albany Academy ; .Author of Principles of English Qram- mar ; Principles of Latin Orammar ; and Principles of Chreek Grammar. BOOK III. Second Edition . PHILADELPHIA : PUBLISHED BY HENRY GRUBB, AND SOLD BY W. A. LEARY, No. 158 N. SECOND ST. 1847. srocATioi Msa; BOTH SYSTEMS ILLUSTRATED. I. The technical terms of the Old Theory, as is demonstrated in the Appeal. II. The principles of the Old Theory, as is demonstrated iii the Appeal. I. The technical terms of the New System, as is demonstrated m the Appeal. II. The principles of the New System, as is demonstrated in the Appeal. n [Entehed according to act of Congress, in the year 1847, by JAMES BROWN, In the Clerk's Office of the district Court, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.] From the Camden DemdiiM. ' ^ «AN ENGLISH SYNTITHOLOGY IN THREE BOOKS Bif ^' JAMES BROWN, PUBLISHED BY H. GRUBB, AND SOLI BY W. A. LEARY. No 158, N. Second Street. This work, as the title page indicates, is a complete " develop- ment of the constructive principles of the English Language," and taken in connection with the author's " Appeal from the old British theory of English Grammar," will be esteemed by every intelligent, and disinterested teacher, as the most luminous, and intelligible view ^, which has ever been presented of this important subject All the "' absurdities of the Murray theory as amended, and patched by Kirk- ham, Greenleaf, Goold Brown, John Frost, B. Frazee, John S. Hart, &c., &c., are fully exposed — the metajAysical nonsense in which these compilers have enveloped the subject of English Grammar, is entirely exploded, and that which, by their clumsy manipulations, is rendered a mass of confusion, and unintelligible jargon, odious and even frightful to the pupil, and vexatious to the conscientious teacher, has been, under the plastic operations of a comprehensive mmd, presented in these books, in a new, beautiful, and perfect form, well worthy of the name of System. To this new production Mr. Brown has given the appropriate, and significant title of "Polymorph System," to distinguish it from ,.the old English Grammar which he denominates the " Monomorph Theory." This distinction will strike those who examine it, as ^judicious, and convenient. And the entire change in the nomencla- ture will appear but a natural result of Brown's perfect develop- ment of the constructive principles of the English Language, which are not reached by the old technicals. The arrangement of these principles into a beautiful, and harmonious system, renders the new nomenclature not only expedient, but essential. And, as Mr. Brown has made it " appropriate, brief, and easy," there can be no just ground for its rejection. To obviate any objection that may arise in the mind of one attach- ed to the old absurd terms, the author has given the definitions of the Murray "Parts of Speech," and a " Technical Concordance," in which the old, and the new nomenclature, are placed in juxta posi- tion ; so that it seems impossible for a pupil to become acquainted with Mr. Brown's system, and remain ignorant of that which it should by all means supersede. We commend this work to the early, and diligent attention of teachers, and School directors in New Jersey. W. A. Learv adver- tises to fiimish any teacher who wishes to examine it, with ^ipy of the "Abridgement of Books I. and II, together with a she'et^ con- cisely, and clearly illustrating the first principles of the work, and the method of prosecuting the study. L February 24th. 1847. BROWFS ENGLISH SYNTITHOLOGY, IN THREE BOOKS.— BOOKS I, AND II ABRIDGED. CHAMBER OF THE CONTROLLERS OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, FIRST SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia, September 15th, 1842. At a meeting of the Controllers of Public Schools, First School District of Pennsylvania, held at the Controllers' Chamber, on Tues- day, September 13th, 1842, the following resolution was adopted ; Resolved, That permission be given to such of the Teachers of the Public Schools as desire it, to form classes for the purpose of instruc- tion in Brown's System of English Grammar, as an experimental trial; the books to be supplied at the cost of the pupils of said classes.f Certified from the Minutes, THOMAS B. FLORENCE, Secretary. To James BRowifr, Esq. « Philadelphia, January, 1835. « Bitter complaints are made by critics and philosophers, in Great Britain, of the insufficiency of their English Grammars. ' They are compilations,' says the Edinburgh Review, * silly rules, crowding the memory, and debasing the understanding of the pupil — a jargon of nickname definitions, the learning of which is a mere ad captandum ceremony, making a parrot of the pupil to delight his grandmother, and to give notoriety to his schoolmaster and academy.' * * * * « Brown is, emphatically, a grammarian. He has invaded this pro- vince of philosophy, and made it his own by conquest. "JOHN SANDERSON," Late Professor of Languages in the Philadelphia Central High School. Extract from the Franklin School Committee. BosToir, February 1st, 1842. " The quarterly examination of the Franklin School was made by all the members of the Sub-Committee, on the 27th of January. « The condition of the school is highly satisfactory. Both depart- ments are under excellent discipline, and a great degree of interest is manifest by all the scholars, particularly by those of the higher classes. t- "The introduction of Brown's First Book of his System of Eng- lish Syntithology, it is thought by the grammar master, has been attended with very beneficial results, and so far as your Committee can judge from a brief examination, they fully concur with the mas- ter, ^le scholars verily believe that it has made grammar as inter- esting^ any other study of the school. « All of which is respectfully submitted. OTIS A. SKINNER, Chairman. Read and accepted. — A true copy. Attest— S. F. M'CLEARY, Secretary:' t This Resolution is 0till in force. Stereotyped by R. P. Jdoffridge, Philad'a.'] [J. Van Court, Printer^ m introduction I - Introduction II. Introduction III. - ■* Syntithology Parts iir Book I. - - Parts in Book II. " Parts in Book III. Syn-di-col-o-gy Limitation of monos ^ Induology of Monos Antilogue Indutory Ap-o-logue Indutory Grad-u-logue Indutory Ca-this-e-logue Indutory Op-to-logue Indutory Hy-per-logue Indutory Ec-pho-ne-logue Indutory €rno-me'logue Indutory An-a-logue Indutory Am-il'logue Indutory Gno-mo-logue Indutory Pan-te-logue Indutory Me-ro-logue Indutory I-ron-i-logue Indutory Sy-an-a-logue Indutory Ne-them-e-logue Indutory Specimen of analysis CONTENTS. Page. 3 9 18 . 47 48 49 50 52 52 57 62 63 64 65 65 66 66 67 67 G8 69 70 71 W 72 ^72 72 74 CHAPTER III. CONDICTION - - - Division of cordiction - - Rudiction^ E-diction, Ex-e-diction Specimen in the appropriation of monos Nepoeclad condiction - - About - - - - Above . - _ . After 78 84 84 87 88 88 (1) 11 CONTENTS. Across - - - ^ - - - 90 Amidf amidst ------ 90 Amongf amongst -^ - - - - - 91 Aroundf round - - . - , - - - 91 At ------ 91 Athwart ------ 93 behind - - - - - - - 94 Below - -.'-- - - 96 Beneath - - -- - - -96 Beside, besides - - - - - 96 Beyond -------98 By - - - - - - 99 Down - - - - - - - 105 From - - ----- - - 105 In - - - - - - - 106 Into ' - - - - - - 110 Of 1-112 On - - - - - - - 112 Over - - - . - - - - 112 Past - - . - , - - - 122 Through ------- 123 Throughout - - - . - - - 126 To, unto - - - . - - - - 126 Toward, towards - - „ - - - 133 Under - - - - - - - 134 Underneath - - . - . - - - 141 Up - - i - - - - - 141 Upon, on - - - . - - - 142 Within ------- 151 Atween, atwixt ----- 153 Between, betwixt ------ 154 Against - -..-.-- - 154 For ------- 156 Of - - - - - - - 166 With 194 Without - - . - . - . 212 Exercises in the condictions of monos - - - . 215 '^ INTRODUCTION I The study of Syndicology is an excellant discipline for the mind : the student is here constantly comparing, contrasting, reasoning, and judging. In these exercises, he is unremittingly examining the retor- tion of ideas. And, as this relation is the true basis of all just con- clusions, whatever tends to^ the attention upon it, must hold a high rank as a means of maturing the mind. To one who desires to become thoroughly acquainted with the true relation of ideas, the study of Syndicotogy is interesting, and invalua- ble. But, to him who has no wish to become deeply skilled in this relation, the beauties of Syndicology are mere colors to the blind man. In the study of Syndicology, the attention of the pupil is given, not so much to the mere framework relation of word with word, and mono with mono, as to the rtietorical, and logical connection of idea with idea. Hence Syndicology not only begets a taste for the study of Language, but it gives a capacity to understand, and use it : it employs all the faculties of the mind to their full extent. And, while it may be clearly comprehended even by children, it is not unworthy of the close atten- tion of men, of scholars, of philosophers. But the study of Syndi- cology is not the work of a day. To become familiar with this branch of Syntithology, demands a practice induced by a philological affec- tion which nothing but Syndicology itself can beget, nourish, and mature. A capacity to distinguish the different parts of speech in English, the different cases, and genders of nouns, and the different modes, and tenses of verbs, never has enabled a man to use the English Language with propriety. The tenability of this position may be placed beyond all doubt by the many gross errors which all the old-school gram- marians commit even in their studied productions. No man can use this Language aright, without a critical knowledge of the exact rela- tion of ideas. And, as Syndicology is the only medium through which a critical knowledge of this relation can be acquired, the study of this part of English Syntithology, becomes important to all. I have long been satisfied that the old Murray theory of English grammar, renders little, or no aid in the use of any Language. To prove this, I deem it my duty to embrace every opportunity to make exposures of the numerous solecisms which mar the writings of the most distinguished old-school grammarians of this, and other coun- tries. Under this impression, I embrace the opportunity afforded by the publication of this book, to make a few reflections upon some of the many errors which pervade the writings of Joseph R. Chawu- lER, Editor of the U. S. Gazette. This gentleman is distinguished 4 INTRODrCTlON. in Philadelphia for his knowledge of English Grammars. And, if I am not under a wrong impression, there are individuals among us, who verily believe that he is deeply skilled in English grammar itself. But while I freely admit that he is familiarly acquainted with many Grammar books, I feel constrained to deny that he has much know- ledge of grammar itself. And to sustain this position, I have here exposed a few of the many errors which deform his writings. Mr. Chandler is the author of the following notice : "New Books. — Mr. Leary, southwest corner of Se- cond and New street, has recently published an edition of Mr. James Brown's English Grammar, a work that bears testimony to its author's deep and successful re- search, and to his ability as a grammarian. We have used more than one occasion to speak of Mr. Brown's philological attainments ; and though we cannot agree with him in his nomenclature, we do justice to his abili- ties and to the results at which he arrives." — United States Gazette, 1847. After a critical analysis of this notice, I have come to the con- clusion that it exhibits much evidence of a want of capacity in Mr. Chandler to write with grammatical precision. As Mr. Leary is not a wetu book why should he be treated of imme- diately after the head, "New Books 1" As Mr. Chandler does not intend to give a notice of Mr. Leart/, but of a book published by him, why should he be made the first, and central object of attention? It does not seem to me that this arrangement is either grammatical, or logical. The following is something better : New Books. — James Brown's English Grammar has recently been published by Mr, Leary, Southwest corner of Second and JVew street. Under this arrangement, the Grammar has its proper place, and legitimate rank. ^ "a work that bears testimony to its author's deep and successful research, and to his ability as a grammarian." " bears testimony to its author's deep and successful research, and to his ability as a grammarian." «' Testimony'^ is here improperly used for evidence. This is ren- dered quite obvious from the consideration that ''testimony" is from the Latin, testis, a witness. Where the subject is moral or intellectual, evidence, not testimony, should be used ; as, " Of Swift's general habits of thinking, if his letters can be supposed to afford any evidence, he was not a man to be INTRODUCTION. 5 either loved or envied." — JoHsrsoif. "All that our Saviour did and said were evidences of his Divine character." — Crabb. The substitution of testimcni/ for evidence would be an obvious sole- cism : All that our Saviour did and said were testimonies of his Divine character. " bears testimony to its author's deep and successful research." As there is nothing in bear, which demands to, this particle should give place to of. To bear testimony is to show, exhibit, or utter testi- mony. Hence the idea expressed by Mr. Chandler is this : a work that shows, exhibits, or utters testimony to the author's research ! ! ! The substitution of of for to will show that Mr. Chan- dler has worn the regal tonsure somewhat unworthily : "a work which bears testimony of its author's deep research." That is, which bears testimony in favour of its author's deep research. " Hence a person makes another a present, or performs any other act of kindness as a testimony of (not te) his regard." — CrAbb. Persons, or things personified, bear testimony in favor of persons. — Cbabb. V " The same came for a witness to bear witness of the light." (not to.) "He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness o/that Light." (not to.) But Mr. Chandler may attempt to justify this use of to by showing that other writers have committed the same error ! I presume that the authority of Dryden himself may be found on the side of this solecism. But the sins of Dryden will never sanctify the eniquities of Mr. Chandler! If Mr. Chandler can show that to utter testimony to a person, is synonymous with, to utter it of a person, he can justify the use of to, without the blunders of others. **a work that bears testimony to its author's deep and successful research, and to his ability as a grammarian." The use of to before his, is a repetition of the error which makes Mr. Chandler say that the testimony in favor of the research was addressed to the research ! The word "ability'' is improperly used for capacity. Capacity, says Crabb, is a mental endowment, and always supposes something ready to receive or hold: 1* 6 INTRODUCTION. The object is too big for our capacity when we would comprehend the circumference of a world. — Addisox. We say an able commander — but a capacious mind. A ^vedii capacity of thought. — Crabb. Sir Francis Bacon's capacity (not ability) seemed to have grasped all that was in books before. — Hughes. That '^ability" may be applied to the mind in the sense of capacity^ is not denied. But when it is so applied, it should generally be plural : "As for me, my abilities, if ever I had any, are not what they were." — Atterbury. But I consider the clause, **and to his ability as a grammarian," a pleonasm. "a work that bears testimony to its author's deep and successful research, and to his ability as a grammarian." (Nineteen words.) Corrected, a work which awards evidence of deep grammatical research. (Ten words — nine redundant words.) The next, which is the concluding part of this notice of my book, reads as follows : "We have used more than one occasion to speak of Mr. Brown's philological attainments; and 'though we cannot agree with him in his nomenclature, we do justice to his abilities, and to the results at which he arrives." A want of space prevents me from making many comments. I shall confine my attention, therefore, to the mere correction of the several errors which render this sentence strikingly analogous to its predecessor. " We have used more than one occasion.''^ Was the occasion used by these gentlemen 1 Who used the occa- sion 1 We use pens, dishes, money, &c. But we speak on occasions. The word, occasion, however, is improperly used for opportunity. What Mr. Chandler intends to say, is. We have embraced more than one opportunity to speak of Mr. Brown's philological attainments. But if Mr, Chandler is unwilling to exchange occasion for opportunity, the sentence may read as follows : We have spoken of Mr. Brown's philological attainments on more than one occasion. Or, We have spoken, on more than one occasion, of Mr. Brown's philological attainments. It is a fact, then, that Mr. Chandler who has for years worn the Royal robes in the kingdom of grammar, employs "used" for on /// But the use of occasion is bom- bastic, and redundant. The sentence, therefore, may be improved by the omission of on and occasion : INTRODUCTION. ^ 7 We have spoken more than once of Mr. Brown's philological attainments. and though we cannot agree with hirn in his nomenclature, we do justice to his abilities, and to the results at which he arrives. We have used more than one occasion to speak" of Mr. Brown's philological attainments ; and we do justice to his abilities, and to the results at which he arrives!! I am under the impression that all who wish to comprehend the connection between these two members of this sentence, will be com- pelled to seek the gratification of their desires through Mr. C.'s late Grammar ! ! ! Is it possible that Mr. Chandler has undertaken to express in the preceding sentence, what is conveyed in the following: We have used more than one occasion to speak of Mr. Brown's philological attainments, and on each,we /tauc endeavored to do justice to his abilites, and to the results at which he arrives. Mr. Chandler speaks of results as objects which can be approached like trees, houses, rocks, ships, 4-c. From his manner of speaking, no one who is ignorant of the nature of a result, would infer that a result is that which is produced by the exertions of him who, according to Mr. C. arrives atiil From this part of the sentence the reader must infer that the result is a thing which may be far ahead of him who produces it ! Besides, the word, result, conveys the idea oi aiermina- lion, 2. final stop — but arrives at imports a mere temporary pause ! ! By the use of "arrives at" in the following expression, the speaker indi- cates that his journey does not terminate at Philapelphia, and that he expects to continue it from this city : " I arrived at Philadelphia last evening." Now, if the word, Philadelphia, implied the termination of the speaker's journey, with what propriety could "arrived af^ be used with this proper name 1 **and we do justice to his abilities, and to the results at which he arrives.''^ Corrected: and we do justice to his abilities, and to the results of his labor. " though we cannot agree with him in his nomencla- ture." Is not the nomenclature one of the results 1 Certainly. And Mr. Chandler does justice to this result by pronuncing against it, without conveying the slightest allusion to any defectiveness in iti ! "we cannot agree with him in his nomenclature." This condemnation which is rendered absolute from its source, bears a striking analogy in its grammatical character, to the other parts of this notice. In it, the writer says that he cannot agree in nomencla' ture ! Although this notice by Mr. Chandler, abounds with mistakes, the most striking one is found in the fact that the author of it should 8 INTRODUCTION. set himself up as a. Judge of nomenclatures. Even the very sentence in which he gives judgment against the technical terms of my system, demonstrates that he is totally incompetent to form a just opinion of any part of grammar. He says that he cannot agree in nomenclatvre with me. A common man would say, We cannot agree with himrespecting tea. But the Bashaw himself says, We cannot agree with him i7i tea . . We cannot agree with him in his nomenclature. Corrected. We cannot agree with him respecting his nomenclature. I. The notice in its original form. " New Books. — Mr. Leary, Southwest corner of Se- cond and New street, has recently published an edition of Mr. James Brown's English Grammar, a work that bears testimony to its author's deep and successful research, and to his ability as a grammarian. We have used more than one ofccasion to speak of Mr. Brown's philological attainments ; and though we cannot agree with him in his nomenclature, we do justice to his abili- ties, and to the results at which he arrives." [Seventy- nine words.] II. In its revised form. New Books. — Mr. James Brown's English Grammar. (Leary, Southwest corner of Second and New street.) We think well of the philological attainments of Mr. Brown, and verily believe that his works afford evidence of deep research; but we do not like his nomenclature. [Forty-three words.] As the difference between seventy-nine, and forty-three, is thirty-six, and, as the notice in both forms is the same in substance, Mr. Chandler has employed thirty-six redundant words ? What would Mr. C. think of a tailor, who, in making him a coat, should use double the quantity of cloth which his size requires? And what would Mr. C do with this coat, if, while some of its parts should be made of improper materials, others should be placed in improper positions!? Would he refuse to accept of the garment, or would he receive it ! 1 and, if he should take it, would he keep it as a curiosity, or would he wear it as an ornament .' ? Was such an article to fall into my hands, I readily admit that I should esteem it highly — I should wish to keep it for the accuracy with which it would portray the construction of hundreds of Mr. C.'s other paragraphs. But I should feel a greater interest in the tailor himself— I should endeavor to couple i\ns prince of the shears with the king of grammar, and exhibit the two as a brace of phenomena in the climax of curiosities ! INTRODUCTIONII. Within a few weeks, several new works on the art of Eng- lish grammar have been published in this city. It has fallen to my lot to examine them all, and from the impression which they have left on my mind, I feel somewhat prepared to appre- ciate the paragraph which the editors of the Ledger apply to the numerous compilers of English grammars. " The grammarians of our language, some of whom know little, and others nothing of the philosophy of any language, divide but into two parts of speech, a preposition and a conjunc- tion. They then define a preposition to be a word, without independent signification, placed before another word, showing some connection between it and some other word in the same sentence ; and they define a conjunction to be a word without independent signification, used to denote some relation between two other words or members of a sentence. With these lights they leave their pupils to find their way ; and considering the brightness of the lights, we need not wonder at the mistakes of the poor pupils." — Ledger. Within a few hours a book has been placed in my hands, of which the following is the title page : " English Grammar : or an exposition of the principles and usages of the English language. By John S. Hart, A. M., Principal of the Philadelphia High School, and member of the American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia, published by E. H. Butler & Co., 1845." That the Principal of the Philadelphia High School is em- barrassed by the darkness v/hich the Ledger ironically calls lights is obvious from the numerous errors which mar this title page. As the phrase " English Grammar'^ is the name of the science itself, it should not be applied to the book which treats of this science. An English Grammar means a book ; but " English Grammar^^ signifies, not the book, but the science on which the book treats. 3 4 INTRODUCTION. "The principles and usages of the English language." Are not the usages of the English language its principles ? "In language, usage is the foundation of all rules,'''' — Webster, Does not the word 'principles^ then, embrace as much as principles, and usages ? Has Mr. Hart even attempted to show the difference between the principles and the usages of the English language ? Perhaps by " usages" he intends to dis- tinguish between the true principles of the English language and the manner in which he uses it ! If so, the difference between principles and usages is strikingly illustrated through his whole book, " An exposition of the principles and usages of the English language." Can the word usage, be applied to the thing used ? Does the usage pertain to the instrument used, or to the agent that uses it ? Can we speak of the usages of knives, and forks ? Mr. Webster defines usage as follows : "Usage, treatment, use, or long continued use; custom practice.'* The substitution of the word practice, for usages, will clearly show that Mr. Hart's use of usages is very ill usage ! "Principal of the Philadelphia High School, and member of the American Philosophical Society." By the omission of a before member, Mr. Hart indicates that the relation which he bears to the American Philosophical Society is similar to that which he bears to the Philadelphia High School. " Principal of the Philadelphia High School, and member of the American Philosophical Society." As principal is without a, and imports an official relation, so member, when used without this particle, and in connection with principal, must express the same species of relation ! Principal of the High School, and President of the Philoso- phical Society. Henry Clay was then Secretary of State, not a Secretary. Principal of the High School, and teacher of the Model Grammar School. Does not the omission of a before teacher clearly indicate T- INTRODUCTION. 5 hat the Principal of the High School is the only teacher of the Model Grammar School ? By the omission of a, then, before member, Mr. Hart has not only represented himself as an officer of the American Philosophical Society, but he has repre- sented himself as the only member of the Society ! ! ^^ English Grammar, by John S. Hart- — Principal of the Philadelphia High School, and member of the American Philoso- phical Society." By the omission of an before English, Mr. Hart uninten- tionally makes himself the author of the very science of Eng- lish Grammar — and by the omission of a before member, he makes the American Philosophical Society to consist solely of himself!! That these philological displays are not the true principles, but the mere usages, of the Enghsh language, cannot be doubted by any enlightened member of this community. The following substitute is constructed according to the 'prin- ciples, not the usages, of the English language : An Enghsh Grammar — By John S. Hart, A. M., Principal of the Philadelphia High School, and a member of the American Philosophical Society. Are the numerous solecisms which pervade the periods of those who use the English language, ascribable to an ignorance of the old theory of English Grammar, or are they attributable to the unsoundness of the theory itself? In Mr. Hart's ^'Exposition of the principles and usages of the English language," I find the following definition of Grammar : — " Grammar is the science of language^ Now, if the old theory of English Grammar is a full devel- opment of the science of the English language, why do they who adopt this theory entirely disregard the true genius of the English language in their writings ? The following is the first sentence of the preface of Mr. Hart's English Grammar : — " Four kinds of type are used in the following pages to indi- cate the portions that are considered more or less elementary." The ill arrangement of the several parts of this sentence, renders it clumsy. The following is something better : — To indicate the portions that are considered more, or less elementary, four kinds of type are used. INTRODUCTION. " Four kinds of type are used in the following pages to indi cate the portions that are considered more or less elementary. The use of indicate indicates that Mr. Hart does not know the difference between the words indicate^ and distinguish. "To indicate is to point out, to show. Thus, fermentation indicates a certain degree of heat in a liquor. A heavy swell of the sea in calm weather, often indicates a storm at a dis- tance." — Webster. But to distinguish is to separate one from another, or §ome from others : The farmer distinguishes his sheep by marking their ears. — Webster. But does the farmer indicate his sheep by marking their ears ? " Four kinds of type are used in the following pages, to indi- cate the portions that are considered more or less elementary." The use of portions indicates that Mr. Hart does not distin- guish between a portion, and a part. " A page, a line, or a word, is a part of any book. Portion, and share are particular species of divisions, which are said of such matters as are assignable to individuals." — Crabb. That portion is not synonymous with part, may be seen by a substitution oi portion for part in the following instances : 1. The apple was divided into two parts. ' • - 2. The apple was divided into two portions / 1. " All the parts were formed in his mind into one harmoni- ous body." — Locke. 2. All the portions were formed in his mind into one har- monious body ! 1. " The component parts of a fossil." 2. The component portions of a fossil ! 1. The people stood at the nether part of the mount. — Ex. XIX. 2. The people stood at the nether portion of the mount .^^ 1. He visited various parts of America. 2. He visited various portions of America. " Four kinds of type are used in the following pages to indi- cate the portions that are considered more or less elementary." INTRODUCTION. 7 .r Four kinds of type are used to distinguish the yarts which are considered more or less elementary. [In, the, follovnng, pages — indicate, portions.) A substitute. — The parts which are considered more, or less elementary, are distinguished by different kinds of type. The following is the second sentence of the same preface : " The most important rules and definitions are printed in large type, italicized." Do we print in, or on type ? Do we italicize type ! The omission of ^^ printed^'' would improve the sentence: " The most important rules and definitions are in large type, italicised." Italicise, to distinguish a word by printing it in Italic charac- ters. — Dr. Parr. — Todd's Johnson. The substitution of characters for type, will not only correct this gross error, but will demonstrate that Mr. Hart does not understand that science which he defines to be the science of language : The most important rules, and definitions are printed in large characters, italicised. A substitute. — The most important rules and definitions are in large italic characters, (pririted, type, italicised,) From the same preface. " By this arrangement the author has been enabled to enter more at length than is usually done, upon difliicult and important points." Who is the author ? John S. Hart, A. M. And who is John S. Hart, A. M. ? He is the author of English Grammar, Principal of the Pliiladelphia High School, and Member of the American Philosophical Society ! As Mr. Hart is all this — and, as he understands not only the principles but the usages of the English language, I presume that he may be asked to parse the word "is," which follows "i/mn/" " By this arrangement the author has been enabled to enter more at length than is usually done, upon diflicuh and import- ant points." The nominative to "u'" can be found neither in nor out of this sentence! The nominative case to "is," is not — it does not exist! This use of "is" is one of the usages 8 INTRODUCTION. of the English language ! ! If the old theory of English gram- mar is good for any thing, why does not its worth appear in the writings of those who understand it ? That Mr. Hart under- stands this old theory cannot be doubted for a moment. What! the author of a science not understand it ? It cannot be. A sculptor in Lisbon was visited in his dying moments by a monk, to confess him. As the monk held the crucifix before the dying sculptor's eyes, he exclaimed, " See, here is God, whom you have so often offended — do you Itnow him?^^ " O, yes," replied the sculptor, "for I made him myself/" Had I the strength of him who bore away the gates of Gaza, I would exert it, not to harm Mr. Hart, but to benefit my fellow men. I am satisfied that the old theory of English grammar is a preventive against the acquisition of the true constructive principles of the English language. To sustain this position 1 have undertaken to demonstrate that they who understand this theory hesf ■,wnie the worst, A man writes well in proportion to the degree of attention which he has given to the true struc- ture of the language in which he writes. That Mr. Hart has given much more attention to the old theory of English grammar than to the true structure of the English language is obvious from his incapacity to use this language with grammatical pro- priety. In the following sentence there are several errors which no one who understands the true constructive genius of our language would be liable to commit, and which no one who understands the old theory of English grammar only, is able to correct :— • " The distinction here insisted on is as old as Aristotle, and should not be lost sight of." To rid this sentence of its unnecessary prolixity, this should be substituted for " the ;" This distinction is as old as Aristotle, and should not be lost sight of. (Redundant words — here, insisted, and on.) The next solecism which I shall notice, lies in connecting should with is: " The distinction here Insisted on is as old as Aristotle, and s/iow/t? not be lost sight of." To repair this infraction nothing is necessary but to give the sentence a natural construction : INTRODUCTION. «&--. 9 This distinction, which is as old as Aristotle, should not be lost sight of. " The distinction here insisted on, is as old as Aristotle, and should not be lost sight of." The main proposition is, the distinction should not be lost sight of. But Mr. Hart, although " member of the American Philosophical Society," so constructs the sentence that the main proposition is degraded to a mere minor, and a mere minor is promoted to the major ! ! The distinction here insisted on, is as old as Aristotle, and should not be lost sight ofJ*^ The phrases, " here insisted on,^"* and " lost sight of,^^ are prominent blemishes. That is bombast; this is contortion. Perhaps the following sentence, although not a paragon of excellence, is quite as good as that under consideration : — Of this distinction, which is as old as Aristotle, the gram- marian should never lose sight. Or, The grammarian should never lose sight of this distinction, which is as old as Aristotle himself. " The distinction here insisted on, is as old as Aristotle, and should not be lost sight ofJ'^ " The distinction is as old as Aristotle." The expression of was after " Aristotle," must somewhat diminish the pleasure which the advocates of Hart's Grammar feel in recommending this work to popular favor : The distinction here insisted on, is as old as Aristotle was! ! I presume that the Aristotle of whom mention is here made, must be he who was a disciple of Plato, and who founded the sect of Peripatetics. This distinguished philosopher was born 384 years before Christ. He died at the age of 63. This distinction, therefore, which Mr. Hart thinks he has represented to be as ancient as the days of Aristotle, turns out, by the use of old for ancient, to be but 63 years of age ! ! The distinction, then, was first made in 1782 ! This important "distinction," consequently, is not quite so hoary as the author of English gram.mar has attempted to make it! " The distinction here insisted on, is as old as Aristotle {was,) and should not be lost sight of." 2 10 INTRODUCTION. A Substitute. — Of this distinction, which is as ancient as Aristotle, the grammarian should never lose sight. This sentence, which is a ray of light from the very top of the High School, is sufficient to show every man his duty. Words are artful things— to prevent them from playing off their tricks upon him who uses them, they must be watched with great care and skill. They have hoaxed even the Principal of ihe High School in his very title page — they have deceived him in every sentence of his Preface — and even in the very paragraph before me, these hypocrites, if I may so call them, have, by concealing their real characters, trifled with his learn- ing, his philosophy, and even his station, with the utmost im- punity. I apprehend that the words in the English language will continue to be edge tools in the hands of children, till some one who is thoroughly acquainted with the ^^ usages^ ^ of them shall have invented what, for the want of a name, I must call a Logrometerj by which their real characters can be measured with exactness. It has long been a contested point whether language is a human production, or a Divine revelation. And, although I do not pretend to know which side has the preponderance, either of numbers, or logic, yet I prefer to range myself with the advo- cates of the doctrine, that language is an emanation from men. Was language an emanation from God, nothing but an ignorance of this fact, could expiate the crime of sacrilege, which Mr. Hart would commit in the following sentence : " What is the difference of meaning between the short and long forms of this word ?" The following construction will show that " of" before *' meaning,''^ is improperly used : What is the difference between the short and long forms of this w^ord, of meaning ?! I The use of in for of would expurgate this noxious part of the sentence : What is the difference in meaning between the short and long forms of this word ? That in is the proper word for this place, is rendered clear by the construction which proves that of is an improper one : What is the difference between the short and long forms of tliis word, in meaning ? *. ?; INTRODUCTION. 1 1 Now, if language is a direct emanation from the Divine Being, what a gross infraction is this philological blemish ? But lan- guage has little of the sacredness which it would have, was it a direct gift from God to man. Language may be abused — and Mr. Hart, although the author of" English Grammar ,'''' seems* made to abuse it ! " What is tlie difference of meaning between the short and long forms of this word ?" " The short and long forms." By the omission of the before long, Mr. Hart has made each form both short, and long ! ! This may be illustrated so clearly that even Mr. Hart liin)- self can comprehend it : 1 . The hlack and white ox. Here there is but one ox. 2. The black, and the white ox. Here there are two — one is black— the other white. The seven black, and white oxen. ^ Here each ox is partially black, and partially white. Mfi But, if we say — The seven black, and the white oxen, -we have seven which are entirely black, and two, or more which are entirely white. 1. The seven black, and white oxen. 3. The seven black, and the white oxen are sold. The old and new testament. That is, the testament which is both, old and new. He has read the old, and the new testament. Here there are two testaments — one is old — the other, new. " What is the diff'erence of meaning between tlie short and long forms of this word ?'* i. " The «^or< and Zon^ forms." 2. The hlaclc and white oxen. 1. The hlack and white ox. 2. The short and long form ! ! That an ox can be hlack and whiter is quite generally admitted — but that the same form can be both short and long^ is not so generally conceded ! ! To one who is not member of a 12 INTRODUCTION^. Philosophical society, the rationale of this phenomenon, is not so obvious. " What is the difference of meaning between the short and long forms of this word ?" A Substitute, What is the difference in meaning between the short, and the long form of this word. Under the same page I find the following ; " In course of time it became abreviated into its present form." " In course of time it," &c. Is this English ? If so, the following is English : In course of a year, he became ill ! I do not think that the use of the before course, would be contrary to any of the ^jrinciples of the English Language — but I am somewhat apprehensive that it might contravene some of the usages of it ! In the course of time, it became abreviated into its present form. " It became abreviated into its present form." To speak of abreviating a thing into form, is to employ lan- guage in a very singular form ! Would it not be somewhat better to say — In the course of time one became a. Or, In the course of time, it assumed its present form. Under the same page I find the following : " One expresses the idea of unity with emphasis." ** A ex- presses the same idea, only without emphasis." I should be much pleased to see a technical disposition of the word, onhj ! What can this word be called ? It is not an ad- verb. Under page 90, Mr. Hart gives the following definition of an adverb : " An adverb is a word used to qualify a verb, adjective or adverb." But does only qualify a verb, an adjective, or an adverb ! t He that can parse the word, only, as here used, deserves a medal for his meed ! INTRODUCTION. 13 " One expresses the idea of unity with emphasis." " A ex- presses the same idea, onli/ without emphasis !" The following is something better : One expresses unity with emphasis ; but a expresses it without emphasis. Let me now say a word, or two upon the doctrine of these periods. " One expresses the idea of unity with emphasis." " A ex- presses the same idea, only without emphasis." 1. " One man followed me several miles." 2. " A man followed me several miles." In the first, the idea is that one man only, followed me. In the second, the idea is that a maUf not a dog, not a lionj not a beary followed me. In the first, the leading idea is the number of animals that followed — in the second, the leading idea is the kind of animal that followed. That a has no reference to unity, is obvious from the answer to the following question : How many hats have you, John ? I have a hat ! ! When the idea in the question turns upon the number^ one must be used in the answer. How many hats have you ? I have one hat. But where the idea in the question, turns upon the kind of thing, a must be used in the answer ; as. What have you in this case ? I have a hat. " The diflTerence (between one and a) is this." " One ex- presses the idea of unity with emphasis. A expresses it, only without emphasis ! !" " Could one man carry this weight ? No — but a man could carry it !" In the first, says Mr. Hart, there \a unity with emphasis.— - In the second, there is unity without emphasis ! ! This, says he, is the difference between a and one ! ! ! Could one man carry this weight ? No^ — but a horse could. 2* 14 INTRODUCTION. A is so entirely destitute of number, that where unity is found in the major part of the sentence, a can not be used in the minor. This is obvious from tlie incongruity that is produced by the use of one, and a in the above sentence which should be as follows : Can one man carry this weight ? No — but two can. Or, Can a man carry this weight? No — but a horse can. I have already attempted to make a partial exposition of the several errors which have found their way into the following sentence : " What is the difference of meaning between the short and long forms of this word?" I shall now undertake to expose the few solecisms that appear more occult than they of which I have already relieved this sentence. " What is the difference of meaning between the short, and the long form, of this word?" " The short and long forms." The word, ybrm, as here used, means shape. Hence a sub- stitution of shape for form, will have a tendency to show the eccentricity of the idea which Mr. Hart here expresses ; The short and long shapes! The notion of a short shape, is certainly sui generis ! Nor do I know to what species, or genius, that of a long shape, belongs ! Had Mr. Hart employed primitive, and derivative, instead of short ■a.ndi long, he would have used words which have some relation to forms : What is the difference of meaning between the primitive, and derivative forms of this word ? That a short shape is a singular one, must be obvious to all. But whether men, in general, can so readily see that " owe" is 2. form of a, is not so clear ! On page 32, Mr. Hart says, " ^ or an was originally ae, ane or one. These words ae, ane and one are the long form of a. And a is the short form of ae, ane and one ! Mr. Hart wishes to express the parent relation which ae, ane and one bear to a. But can this relation be expressed by INTRODUCTION. 1 5 the word, '•^form I ?" Does the word, /orm, convey any allusion to the relation which a mother, as such, bears to her offspring ! ? Mr. Hart is not speaking of ihe forms, but of the etymology, of a. The word, a, has two forms — One is a ; the other is an. Can we speak of the Latin, verbum, as a form of the English word, ve7'b ? Can it be said that " verbum^^ is the long form of " »er6" — and that " verb" is the short form of verbum ! ? A scholar would say that " verbum'^ is the etymon of " verb." But would a scholar say that one is the long form ofa/f ? As well may it be said that an ox is the large form of a calf — and that ^ calf is the small form of an ox ! ! " What is the difference of meaning between the short and long forms of this word ?" A substitute. What is the difference in meaning between the etymon of a, and a itself? Or — wherein does the meaning of a differ from that of its etymon ? The following is the title page of another work by Mr. Hart. " Class Book of Poetry, consisting of selections from dis- tinguished English and American Poets from Chaucer to the present Day. By John S, Hart, A. M., Principal of the Philadelphia High School, and member of the American Philosophical Society." (1845,) " From Chaucer to the present Day.^^ I have read of Chaucer ; and I have some knowledge of his works — but of Mr. Day I am totally ignorant ! That he, and his works exist somewhere is obvious from the fact that Mr. Hart mentions him in connection with Chaucer himself ! Still, in Mr. Hart's whole Book, I have not been able to find a line in prose, or verse, written by this honored individual ! ! " From Chaucer to the present Day." It may be that the Mr. Day whom Mr. Hart has here placed by the side of Chaucer, is he who generally passes by the title of Monday, Wednesday^ Age, Century, rm. Now, let it be supposed that in pro- cess of time the Romans met with instances in which the ideas to be expressed, are, in fact, similar to those of the sentence, « Fructum mi hi," but that from a want of proper attention, they do not discover the similarity, 2lX{A consequently, employ a different /brm of speech for the expression of these similar ideas. Would this obliquity be usage,— ^ or a departure from usage ? In other words, would not this new form of expression, arising from an ignorance of the true character of the ideas, be a violation of the principles on which the sentence, " Fructum mi /«, is constructed 1 « Fructum mi hi." That is, give me fruit. Let it be supposed that one Roman desired to say to another, give thou to me apen. But from an ignorance of the analogy between these ideas, and those which are expressed in " Fructum mi hi," he used, not pennam mi hi, but, mi hi pennam ,- and that mi hi pennam became a common form of speech within the Roman dominions. Must not mi hi pennam be the offspring of ignorance, and a departure from the principles which enlightened usage had already sanctioned 1 Again. Let it be supposed that in 1840, the Supreme court of Penn- sylvania from a partial ignorance of the exact legal character of a particular case, departed from their numerous, and just decisions in all similar cases. Would this unsound decision become the law of the land 1 Would a Philadelphia lawyer urge this decision before a lower court, as the law of Pennsylvania 1 He might, but he would do it with a very ill grace, and to very little purpose. He would be met by his opponent brother at the bar with the paramount argument that this particular decision, is a departure from the great principles of law on which all similar cases had been decided prior to 1840, by the same tribunal. The Judge in his charge to the jury, would sustain the rejoinder, and here would be an end of the question. Let me now make an application of this principle to the case of X. Brown says that, " / and he are" is not in accordance with the principles which usage has established ; but an obvious departure from them. What are the principles which usage has established in regard to the form of the verb ? They are expressed in the following Rule. " The verb must agree with its nominative case in number and per- son" as, I am thou art, he is, they are. "I and he are." He is here placed in the nominative case to are. But as are isplural, it does not agree with he which is singular. We ure, you are, and INTRODUCTION. XVH they are, is English. But neither I are, nor he are, is English. It is a gross obliquity from English. This departure from the true genius of the language, has arisen from the presumption that two singular nouns, or pronouns, between which and is placed, are equal to one plural noun, or pronoun. Under this false notion of the subject, gram- marians use the plural verb with two singular nominatives, which have and between them ; as, " /, and he are.'* The ground taken by the old school grammarians, is that I, and he are connected by and — hence they are taken together — and, as they are taken together, they constitute 3l plural nominative. X. is plain upon this point. — He says that « His (Brown's) error arises from a disregard of the mental operation of grouping objects. When it is said that — this chair, and that chair, are good chairs, the mind, before it has employed words to express the thought, has con- sidered them together, and has regarded them as two chairs." (X.) I hope the readers of the Ledger, will do X. the justice to under- stand, fully, this reasoning. There is certainly a high degree of inge- nuity in the argument. What! is it necessary for the mind to bring two chairs together, to make them two chairs ? ! Hear, hear — " The mind, before it has employed words to express the thought, has con- sidered them together, and has regarded them as two chairs ! ! " Were there not two chairs before this very logical process ! 1 Did the bringing of the chairs together multiply them from unity \o plurality ? But why does X. resort to philosophy to sustain this form of expres- sion ■? Does he not expressly declare that there is nothing but usage which can make one form right, and another one wrong ! ] Hear, hear. — " I have always thought that there was no appeal from the set- tled usages of a language !" " There is nothing bat usage which makes it proper to say in English, 1 love them, and in French, I them love! /" (WhatFrtjncA.///) But how does this doctrine of usage comport with ihe view which he expresses in the very first sentence of his first article ] « It is highly important that we should fully understand the princi- ples on which the English Language is constructed ! !" Language, then, is formed upon principles. Let us read X. with a substitution of usage ior principles : It is highly important that we should fully understand the usage on which the English Language is constructed! ! "We are indebted to Murray and others for what they have done towards reducing the dis- order oil usage to system, but we ought to feel more indebted to James Brown for his deeper exploration of this subject." What subject 1 Why, the disorder of usage !.' ! Language has principles — and usage should conform to them; but it never has taken, nor do I believe it ever will take, the 77/ace of them. Upon what does X. attempt to sustain the use of are after he in the period — ^I, and he are? It is the curious doctrine that two chairs, or other objects, are made two by taking them together. In other words, 4 XVlll INTRODUCTION. that plurality becomes plurality, because the mind groups the objects t But that the position, that, where two single objects are taken together, the verb should be plural, can. not be sustained, is obvious from the consideration that where with occurs the verb is singular. 1. John with his brother is coming, (not are.) Does not with indi- cate that John is taken with his brother] Are not the two, then, taken together ! ? 2. A watch with its chain haji been lost, (not have.) But does not the mind take the watch, and the chain together ! ? Is it in the power of X. to tell why this verb should not be plural 1 He says that are should be used because the mind considers I and he toge- ther ! Can he show that the mind does not take the watch and its chain together ! ? I deny the doctrine that and indicates that the objects are taken together. For instance : He purchased salt, and meai. Is there any thing here which indicates that he purchased the salt with the meati Nothing. He might have purchased the salt in 1812, and the meat in 1844 ! . But where with is employed, we are compelled to take the articles together. He purchased salt with meat. It seems, then, that where we are compelled, from the nature of the expression, to take the single things together, the verb is singular ! As the character of the word, awrf, has an olavious bearing upon this question, it may be well to undertake a particular development of it in this place. Grammarians denominate and a conjunction. But as the letter X. conceals the identity of my opponent, so does the word, conjunction^ conceal the true character of and. ^'^And" says Webster, "is a conjunction connective, or conjoining word." That the conjunctive character of and, may be well under- stood, he gives the following illustration: « John, and Peter, and James rode to New York. — that is, John rode to New York ; add or further, Peter rode to New York ; add James rode to New York." According to this illustration, and means more, further, addition. How, then, can it be a con/omzw^ word ? Was aW a conjunction in character, it would exert as much influence over the preceding member of the sentence, as it does over the succeeding one. But Mr. Webster's explanation makes and exert all its influence over the member of the sentence, which follows and: "John, and Peter, and James rode to New York:" That is, says Mr. Webster, John rode to New York; add or further, Peter rode to New York ; add James rode to New York." The word, and, has nothing to do with the first member of the paragraph, — ^'John rode to JSew York." The first and is employed to subjoin, to add, to aflix, the second member to the first — and " Peter rode to New York." The second and is used, not to conjoin the second and the third member of the sentence, but to aflix, subjoin, add the third to the INTRODUCTION. ^ XIX second. Andy ihe^^is b. subjoining wox^. — not 2l conjoining one. What! is the chain which drags a log to a standing tree, a conjunction P To be a conjoining chain, it must drag the firmly fixed tree as well as the log, till it brings them together. The first proposition is always fixed — it cannot be moved by and; as, " John rode to New York" A second proposition may be dragged to the first by and; as "John rode to New York; and Peter rode to New York." Fancy that the Bible is before you. Does the hand which moves Trego's Geography of Pennsylvania up to this Bible, exert any influ- ence over the Bible 1 Mr. Webster has well illustrated one trait in the character of and; but he has not illustrated any part of the char- acter of a conjoining word ! The main trait in the character of and, which Mr. Webster, in common with other old school grammarians, has not attempted to give, is the expression of harmony in character, with the preceding matter. For instance — " John, and Peter, and James rode to New York." Here John, Peter, and James ride to the same place — in this they harmonize, agree — in this they are homogeneous. John rode; but Peter walked to New Nork. The ^.gent character of Peter does not harmonize with that of John, hence and cannot be used before Peter. John rode to New York ; but Peter rode to Boston. The character which Boston gives Peter does not accord with that which New York gives John — hence and can not be used. « And " signifies harmony in character. " A certain man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a place for the wine-vat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country," These five acts have the same agent — in this they harmonize — hence and is properly used before the words, sety digged, built, let, and went. In the following and is properly used : A certain man planted a vineyard ; and his brother set a hedge about it. The setting of the hedge is in harmony with the planting of the vineyard : the setting results naturally enough from the planting. In the following and can not be used. John built a house; but it did not stand long. There is no harmony between the implied intention of the builder, and the ruin of the house ; it was built, not for destruction, but for duration. In the following, and should be used: John makes money and he keeps it. The keeping of the money is in harmony with the implied purpose for which John makes it. In the following, and cannot be used with any propriety. John makes money ; but he wastes it. XX INTRODUCTION. The wasting of the money is not in harmony with the implied pur- pose for which it is made. In the following and should be used : " Henry has purchased a horse, and John has sold an ox to-day." As these two acts are business transactions, they are in harmony one with the other. In the following and can not be used : The Alderman heard the witness; hut he had not sworn him. The not swearing of the witness is so much out of harmony with the hearing of his statement, that the use of and would be as great a mockery in grammar, as such a proceeding would be in the adminis- tration of justice. The following is good in grammar, as well as in law. The Alderman swore the witness, and, then, heard his statement. And signifies that the character of the matter which follows it, is in harmony with that of the matter which precedes it. The word but, and several other nepoeclids (conjunctions) signify the reverse. Why, then, is and used in the following] " John, and Thomas are honest men." X. says that and is employed because these two persons are taken together. But Brown says that and is used because the character of Thomas is in harmony with that of John. If and is used because these two persons are taken together, the following is bad English : John as well as Thomas is an honest man. Are they not here taken together ? As well as, and and, are the same in character, which may be seen from the following : Henry is healthy as well as strong. Henry is healthy and strong. Let me now ask why must are be used when and occurs 1 « John and Thomas are honest men." X. says are must be used because the mind takes John and Thomas together ! But does not the mind take Thomas with John in the fol- lowing 1 John as well as Thomas is honest ! ^hy do we not say, — John as well as Thomas are honest ! ! To answer this question X. must show that the writer does not intend to affirm the same thing of Thomas which he affirms of John ! The doctrine of X. is that wherever the same predicate is ascribed to two singular subjects, the subjects must be taken together ! He further teaches that as they are taken together, are must be used instead of is ! But here are two singular subjects which the mind takes together, and to which the same predicate is ascribed — yet is, is employed in- stead of are ! John as well as Thomas is honest ! ! Here is the altar — X. is the victim which must be sacrificed upon it. : " ■■■ - .^ INTRODUCTION. ^^ XXI But what has thrown X. upon this burning pile of words? His " disregard of" the fact that two singular nouns can not make a.plural one. Book may be repeated a thousand times, — yet each repetition de- notes a single book — Book, book, book, is not plural. Books is the plural of fiooA/ The j9/wra/ number is the direct expression of more than one thing, in the same word ; as man, men. I hope the readers of the Ledger will fully understand me here. Mr. Webster says — " Plural, containing more than one, designating two or more ; as, a. plural word." «7, and he are." (X.) Is J a plural word ? Is he a plural word ? Why then is are used with he ? X. says that "are " is used because the plural number is found in the nominative. How, pray, is the plu- ral number made out 1 Why, by taking the person denoted by he, with him who is expressed by // / Ah ! and does the taking of the real persons denoted by the words J, and he, infuse the plural number into the word /, and into the word, he ! 1 This is surely a curious way of rendering a word plural ! I have always understood that we is the plural of /, and they, of he. But X. says the plural of the words I, and he, is the taking of the per- son whom he denotes, with the one whom 1 denotes ! ! ! Mr. Webster says, — " In grammar, the plural number is that which designates more than one." Mark — it is the plural number of the word itself, which expresses the plurality of objects ; as, books, we, they. In what way does X. get a plurality of objects 1 By taking the real person denoted by he, with the real person denoted by 1/ / ButMr. Webster says that in grammar, the plurality of objects must be got by means of the plural number of the word; as, We. They. «I and he are." That here are two persons is not denied. Nor can it be denied that there are two persons in the following : " /, as well as he is !" X. derives the plurality from the expression of two distinct single things by means of two distinct pronouns of the singular number ! But in grammar the dominant principle is that the plurality must be expressed, not by the singular number of two distinct nouns, but by the plural number of the same noun ! What ! can it be said that the singular number of a noun, which is the same thing wherever found, is really the j^/wra/ number because it is found in 1, and he / P As well may it be said that one drop of water is two drops because it is found at one time in the tributary stream, and at another in the mighty ocean ! The same singular number which is found in /, is found in he. There is but one singular number : The singular num- ber of I is the capacity of this pronoun to denote but one person. This same numeral capacity is the singular number of he. There is but one plural number — the plural number is the capacity .of the word to express more than one thing; as, we. they. This same numeral capacity which is in we, is in they. 4* XXU INTRODUCTION. " There can be no doubt," says X. " that it is proper to say, four and one are five. In accordance with our author's theory, we should say, four and one is five, and by applying his test we should find that we would say, four is five, and one is five." 1. « Four, and one are five." 2. «• Four is five, and one is five." The predicate is that which is said of the subject. Here are two subjects — viz. /our and one. What is the predicate 1 The predicate in both periods, is Jive. What is the predicate in the following 1 John, and his brother are sick : That is, what is said of John, and his brother? It is said of them that they are Sick. Sick, then, is the predicate of both. In other words, it is predicated of John, and his brother, that they are sick. "Four, and one are five." Here five is the predicate. But of what is Jive the predicate ? Five IS the predicate o^four ! Now X., is any thing predicated oifour? O, yes. What is it which is predicated of four? If any thing is predicated of four, it must he Jive ; for five is the only predicate in the proposition. It is here said, then, that /our is Jive I / / But X. says that it is correct to say, '^four and one zxejivey — ^but incorrect to say, four is five, and one is Jive. If, however, X. is at all expert in the process of simple reasoning, he will see with perfect clearness, that his form of expression is liable to the same objection which he makes to Brown's. * <« Four, and one are Jive." Is any thing here affirmed 1 Yes. — What is it ? It is here affirmed thsit four are Jive ! Is any thing predicated of oric? Surely. What is the predicate of one? It is Jive J Five is the only predicate in the sentence — hence, if any thing is predicated of oncy it must he Jive / What advantage, then, has the form of X. over that of Brown 1 None at all ! 1. « Four, and one are Jive." 2. « Four is five, and one is five." But is this Brown's construction 1 It is not, — it is the invention of X. himself! The following is Brown's : Four with one are five. That is, when you withe, tie, or add one to four, you have five. Brown's principles, then, not only do not produce absurdity, but they remove it! But X. could not examine these principles which are presented in Book I. p. 75. And which are contained in the follow- ing extract : [•'The man;] (and the woman bear the conjugal yoke.") [The man] ; (and the woman bears the conjugal yoke.) The import of and is that of add. First, it is affirmed in an imple- nary mono, that the man bears the conjugal yoke — and, secondly, it INTRODUCTION. XXlll is affirmed in a plenary mono, that the woman bears it. The true sense is this: the man bears the conjugal yoke, add that the woman bears it. That is, add to the fact that the man bears this yoke, the fact that the woman also bears it. ["The man ,,,,]; (anc? the woman bears the conjugal ^ INDUOLOGY OF MONOS. 57 " The sun shines" a plenary unbroken trone, of the exoteric limitory. That is, the sun which is the great source of heat, and light. 1. "TAe sun shines'' — of the exoteric limitory. 2. " Upon all men " — of the esoteric hmitory. 3. ''Who will receive his rays'' — of the esoteric hmitory. {Who is taken with men.) 4. ''Which he sends" — of the esoteric hmitory. ( Which is taken with rays.) 5. "From the heavens " — of the self hmitory. " From the heavens''* does not seem to be used to limit the rays. That is, to distinguish these rays from others which the sun may send from another place. Did this mono suggest the idea that there are rays which the sun sends from another place, the clad, " who will receive his rays^'' would be of the diteric limitory. But there is no appearance that the author of the sentence intends to identify the rays of which he speaks, by showing whence the sun throws them. This mono might be omitted without the loss of one idea : [The sun shines] (upon all men) (who will receive his rays.) 6. " Which are" — of the esoteric limitory. (from the heavens) {which are.) The clad, which are^ is not designed to distinguish the heavens from which the sun sends his rays, from any other heavens. Hence this sub can exert no limiting influence upon its super, "from the heavens.''* Which are seems to be perfectly redundant ; for in this case there is no propriety in continuing the sentence : there is no call for any distinction. 7. " Jihove us''^ — of the exoteric limitory. This mono also is redundant : it cannot be intended to distinguish the heavens that are above us, from any which are helow us. This mono is of the exoteric limitory because the beings alluded to by m«, are ascertained by the word, men^ or by the syllabane, human family. CHAPTER II. Induology. Induology is that part of Syndiecology, which respects the doctrine of the induements of monos with special embellishments, brevity, strength &c. 58 INJO^OLOGY OP MONOS. {Induo, to put something on, and Logos, doctrine.) Indulogue, the word, or mono, which is indued. REMARKS. The word, rhetoric, is made from the Greek, rheo, to speak, and fccAntcos, technically, hence means to speak technically! That the application of this word to the doctrines of the induements with which certain monos are imbued, has produced a vast amount of embarrassment to the learner of the English Language, is obvious from the utter inapplicability of the term. Nor is the use of the word, figure, as applied in Rhetoric, pro- ductive of any less difficulty to the learner than is the yNovA, rhetoric. The word, figure, in Greek, is schema ; in Latin, hahitum, vestitum, and signifies the apparel of the body! But is there any analogy between a man's apparel, and the following sentences which are called ^^tt res : 1. " The sword is without/^ 2. " T/iei/ have Moses, and the prophets " In the APPEAL I have attempted to show that those who have written upon induology, have produced a state in this part of Synti- ' thology, which would be styled anarchy, and misrule, in any political government that has ever been known to man. Syndiecology, among other things, respects 1. The limitation which one word, or one mono, produces by the restrictive influence which it exerts over another, — 2. The vivacity, dignity, special force, strength &c. with which some monos are indued, — 3. The want, or destitution, of all these indue- ments in other monos. Remarks. The verbal materials of which, and the particular manner in which, some monos are constructed, enable them to express their ideas with a high degree of vivacity, dignity , force, strength, brevity &c. — But the materials of which, and the manner in which, others are con- structed, prevent them from expressing their ideas with any of these graceful induements : 1. [" Can we find out the Lord fully ?''] 2. [" Can we acquire God] (to perfection ?") These monos are indued with a considerable vivacity, and much force. But the following which express the same ideas, are without these graces. 1. [" We cannot find out the Lord fully .^''\ INDUOLOGY OP MONOS. £9 2, [" TVe cannot comprehend God] (to perfection.) The vividness, forccj strength, dignity, special brevity, and the em- bellishments which arise from imputing the import of one word to another, from introducing one thing as a mere index to another, from taking a part for the whole, or the whole for a part, from inverting the meaning of words, from extravagant exaggerations, from intro- ducing a series of things, or circumstances which gradually rise or fall, in dignity, upon a climactic scale, from contrasting contraries, from emphatically, and abruptly, introducing something which is not connected with the main thing, from converting mere things into per- sons, from adding metaphor to metaphor, from bringing past events back into pheinic time, from methodical stately arrangements of the words of a mono, or the monos of apoetroneand from various other things, may be considered the graces of speech. These induements are to speech, what turns, trills, and shakes are to music. Upon the basis of being imbued with these special virtues, these special graces, and upon the basis of being destitute of these extra induements, monos are divided into two great classes. Division of monos upon the basis of their char^ acters as derived from their possession, or from their want, of the graceful induements of speech : 1. Indutory, and 2. Zerotory, {Zeros, empty, destitute.) I. INDUTORY. The indutory is a class, composed of those monos which are indued with some of the graces of speech • 1. [" Can we find out God] (to perfection?^') 2. [" Can the flag grow] (without water?") 3. [" The kettle boils,''] 11. ZEROtORY. The zerotory is a class, composed of those monos which are destitute of all the graceful induements of speech : 1. [" We cannot find out God] {to perfection'') 2. [" The flag cannot grow] {without water,") 3. p The water boils."] Subdivision of these classes, 1. The mG?i«/ory is subdivided into 1. Jlntilogue Indutory. 2. Apologue Indutory. 3. Gradulogue Indutory, 60 INDUOLOGY OF MONOS. 4. Cathiselogue Indutory. 5. Optologue Indutory. 6. Hyperlogue Indutory, 7. Ec-pho-ne-logue Indutory. 8. Gno-me-logue Indutory. (No.) 9. An-a-logue Indutory. 10. Jim-il-logue Indutory. 11. Gnom-o-logue Indutory. (nom.) 12. Pan-te-logue Indutory. 13. Me-ro-logue Indutory. 14. Ei-ron-i-logue Indutory. 15. Sy analogue Indutory. 16. Ne-them-e-logue Indutory. Explanation of the terms. The main part of each of these technicals, is made from the word, logos. This word signifies doctrine, principle, reason, a discourse, a word, or a syllabane, a mono. 1. The principal part, the basis, of these new names, is logue. This part signifies the word, or the mono, which is indued with some of the graces of speech. As this part has a fixed meaning, it follows that all the sig- nification that any technical has, which logue does not possess, is brought into the word by the prefix part of it. The parts which are prefixed to logue : 1. ^nti which means, against, contrary to. 2. ^po which means from, a turning from. 3. Gradu which is from gradus, a step. 4. Cathis-e which is from kathisemi, to establish, confirm. 5. Op'to which is from optomai, to see. 6. Hyper which means above, exaggeration. 7. Ec-pho-ne which is from ecphonesis, an excla- mation. 8. Gno-me which means a thought, intelligence. 9. Analogue which is from analogia, analogy among thmgs. 10. Am-il which is from amilla, to emulate, to try to equal. INDUOLOGY OP MONOS. gj 11. Gnom-o which is from gnomon, an index, pointer. 12. Pante which means all, the whole. 1 3. Me-ro which is from meros, a part. 14. Ei-roni which is from eironia, to deride. 15. Sy which is from syn, with, or together, 16. Ne-themi. JVe, not, and themelion, a basis, a foundation principle. Illustration, 1. Antilogue indutory : \^He saw life'] {in death,) 2. Apologue indutory: (O,) (ye,) (kings,) [be in- structed.] 3. Gradulogue indutory: [I think him honest, moral, pious.'] 4. Cathiselogue indutory: [Can the deaf hear?] 5. Optologue indutory: [Yes, he murders his brother] (for revenge.) 6. Hyperlogue indutory : [Saul was swifter] (than an eagle.) 7. Ecphonelogue indutory: (O,) (Jerusalem,) (Je- rusalem.) 8. Gnomelogue indutory : [The ivorm harangued him thus.] 9. Analogue indutory : [ That man is a fox.] 10. Amillogue indutory: [He stands like] ( , a tower.) 11. Gnomologue indutory: [He addressed the chair] (an hour.) 12. Pantelogue indutory: [Jephthah was buried] (in the cities) (of Gilead.) 13. Merologue indutory: [The ox knoweth his owner.] 14. Ironilogue indutory: [Nero was a virtuous prince indeed.] 15. Syanalogue indutory : [Stop the current,] (young men,) (the meadows have drunk sufficiently.) 16. Ne-them-e-logue indutory : [The water runs.] 6 62 INDUOLOGY OF MONOS. The new. The old. 1. ANTILOGUE. ANTITHESIS. 2. AP-O-LOGUE. APOSTROPHE. 3. GRAD-U-LOGUE. CLIMAX. 4. CA.THIS.E.LOGUE. EROTESIS. 5. OPTOLOGUE. VISION. 6. HY-PER-LOGUE. HYPERBOLE. 7. EC-PHO-NE-LOGUE. ECPHONESIS. 8. GNO-ME-LOGUE. PROSOPOPOEIA. 9. AN-A-LOGUE. METAPHOR. 10. AM-IL-LOGUE. SIMILE. 11. GNOM-O-LOGUE. METONYMY. 12. PAN-TE-LOGUE. SYNECDOCHE. 13. ME-RO.LOGUE. SYNECDOCHE. 14. I-RON-I-LOGUE. IRONY. 15. SY-AN-A-LOGUE. ALLEGORY. 16. NE-THEM-E.LOGUE. 17. THEM-E-LOGUE. ♦ 2. Subdivision of the Zerotory. The zerotory is divided into two classes : 1. induable, and 2. uninduable. 1. The induahle zerotory is a class, composed of those monos which can be readily indued with some of the graces of speech: 1. [" We cannot find out God'] (to perfection.) 2. [" The flag cannot grow] (without water,") 3. [« The water boils,'''] 2. uninduable. The uninduable zerotory is a class, composed of those monos which cannot be readily indued with any of the graces of speech : 1. " Can we find out the Lord (to perfection V ) 2. "Can the flag grow (without water 7'' ) 3. "The kettle boils {from the heat) {of the fire,'') {to perfection) {without water) {from the heat) {of the fire.) 1. Antilogue indutory. The antilogue indutory is a class, composed of those monos which are indued with vivacity, and force by the introduction of contraries : INDUOLOGY OF MONOS. 69 1. [" The stork knoweth her appointed time;'] {but my people know not the judgments) (of the Lord.") 2. [" He saiv life] {in death,) ( , , exaltation) {in debasement,) { , , glory) {in shame,) { , , a king- dom) {in bondage,) {and , , light) {in darkness.'^) 3. [" The foxes have holes-,] {but the son {of man) hath not where to lay his head.^^) 2. Ap'Ologue indutory. The ap-ologue indutory is a class, composed of those monos that are indued with that hfe which springs from a strong desire in the speaker to express the dislike, or aversion which he feels to what he has seen in the main subject : 1. (« O,) {Israel,) thou hast destroyed thyself.^' Hos. 13. 9. Israel had long displeased the Lord — and he had long expostulated with them through his prophet, Hosea, for their high provocations against him. At length, the Lord turns from them as his them, as his subject, but to them as his audience : ' (" O,) {Israel,) thou hast destroyed thyself," but in me is thy help." • Before this, he had spoken of this people, but to Hosea. But a strong aversion which the Lord felt to their course, caused him to break off abruptly from speaking of them, and to turn to them to express the dislike which he felt to it, and the surprise which he felt at it. 2. [Be wise now, therefore,] ( O,) {ye) {kings,) (be instructed,) {ye) {judges) (of the earth.") Psalm ii. 9, 10. The speech from which David turns to the above instance, is this: " Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron &c. David is here speaking to God, but of the kings, and judges of the earth. David had long denounced the judgments of God against the rulers of the earth ; but perceiving little, or no reform, he turns from speaking to God, and addresses the above words of admonition to the rulers themselves. " Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron ; thou ihalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." 64 INDUOLOGT OP MONOS. "Be wise now, therefore, O, ye kings; and be in- structed, ye, judges of the earth !" 3. ["Hear,] (O, {heavens,) (and give ear) (O,) eai'th ;) (for the Lord hath spoken,) (I have nour- ished,) (and brought up children ;) (and they have re- belled) (against me.") Isaiah 1. 2. Isaiah had long complained of Judah for her rebellion. He had long exhorted her to repentance, first with promises, then with threatenings. And, under the excitement of sore disappointment, and dislike, he turns abruptly /rom them, and addresses the heavens^ And the earth. 4. [Death is swallowed up] (in victory.) (O,) (Death!) [where is thy sting?] (O,) (Grave,) [where is thy victory ?] Paul here abruptly breaks off from speaking of death, and turns to death, and the grave which he addresses in terms of taunt, and reproach: " 0, Death, where is thy sting 7 0, Grave^ where is thy vixitory ? In other phrase — Death, thou shalt be put to deep shame when the saying shall have been brought to pass, " Death shall he swallowed up in victory" O, death, it will then be demonstrated that thy boasted sting which is sin, hath been extracted from thee by the atonement of Christ. And O, grave, it shall then appear that thy vaunted powers to hold, in eternal dominion, the redeemed of the Lord, are the subject of a vain boast. 3. Gradulogue indutory. The gradulogue indutory is a class, composed of those monos that are indued with that exornation which springs from gradually ascending from the least to the greatest, or from gradually descending from the greatest to the least : 1. \^''Jidd (to your faith) virtue f^^ (to your virtue) ( , , knowledge,) (to your knowledge) ( , , tem- perance,) {and (to your temperance) , , patience,) {and (to patience) , , godliness,) {and (to godliness) , , brotherly kindness,) {a7id (to brotherly kindness) , 5 charity J) 2. [« The head (of every man) is Christ ;] {and INDUOLOGY OF MONOS. gg the head (of the woman) is the man ;) [and the head (of Christ) is God:') 3. [^' His arm gave blows ,'1 {his blows gave wounds;) [and his wounds gave death.) 4. (In the beginning) [was the word;] (and the word was) (with God;) (and the word was God.'^) 5. [" Hope Cometh] from experience ;) (experience , ) (from patience ;) (and patience , ) (from tri- bulation:*) 6. [" Tribulation worketh patience ;'\ (and patience , experience ;) (and experience , hope^') 4. Cathiselogue indutory. The cathiselogue indutory is a class, composed of those monos that are indued with power to estabUsh, or confirm, the idea by a construction which seems to imply that the thing stated, is an axiom : 1. ["t/fre not Jive sparrows sold] (for two far- things ?'*) 2. [« Can the blind see .?"] 3. [" Have I not seen Jesus Christ] ( , , our Lord?") 4. I" Doth God pervert judgment ?*'"} 5. Opiologue indutory. The optologue indutory is a class, composed of those monos that are indued with vivacity, and force from the bringing past events back into phemic time : 1. [".^?ic? immediately the spirit driveth him] (into the wilderness.") 2. [Yes^ (Gentlemen) (of the jury,) the monster (at the Bar) plunges this dagger] (into the heart) (of his own brother) (for no better reason) (than that) (of revenge.") Where a speaker wishes to make a deep impression, he often em ploys a inono of the epanaleptic class. By the use of the phemic chronodex, he brings back the whole scene, into the time of speaking By this means those whom he addresses, are made to see, the deed to which he is directing their attention. 6* 66 INDUOLOGY OP MONOS. 6. Hyperlogue indutory. The hyperlogue indutory is a class, composed of those monos that are indued, from the use of par- ticular words, with powers greatly to exaggerate^ or diminish the degree to which the objects spoken of, have the qualities, ascribed to them : The object of this Indulogue is to give the reader a just idea of the remarkable degree to which the objects possess the attributes, imputed to them. 1. [" The flowers (in yonder meadow) are stars J^~\ 2. [« He is Lucifer."] 3. [" She is an angelJ''] 4. ["He owned a piece] (of ground) {which was not larger) [than a Lacedemonian letter.''^) 5. [" He was so gaunt] ( , , , that) {the case of a flagelet) was a inansion) (for him.") 6. [" Man is a mere ivorm.*'] [f' Saul was swifter] {than an eagle;) {and, , stronger) {than a Hon.") 7. Ecphonelogue indutory. The ecphonelogue indutory is a class, composed of those monos which are indued with the vehement emotions, the exclamatory emotions, of the speaker : 1. (" O,) {Lord,) [how excellent is thy name?"] 2. (" O,) {wretched man) (that I am) [who shall deliver me] (from the body) (of this death !") 3. (" O) {Jerusalem.,) {Jerusalem,) (which killeth the prophets.") 4. [^- How is the golden city spoiled f^^] 5. ("' O,) tyrant heaven,) (and {traitor earth,) how is this done ? how is this suffered ? Hath this world a government ? On seeing the innocent Philoclea beheaded, Pyrocles burst forth into these exclamations. Monoized : (" 0,) tyrant heaven,) [how is this done] {and how- ls this suffered ?) {and (how is this done,) {and how is INDUOLOGY OF MONOS. 67 this suflfered,) (tyrant earth?) [Has this world a government ?"] 8. Gnomelogue indutory. The gnomelogue indutory is a class, composed of those monos which are indued with special impress- iveness, and animation, by imputing intelligence to subjects which are without mind : 1. ["Behold] {this stone shall be a witness) (unto us ;) (for it hath heard all the words) (of the Lord) (which he hath spoken) (unto us.") The intelligence which is ascribed to the stone, is implied in V3itne88 and heard. 2. [" Let the floods clap their hands ;] Clet the hills rejoice together." J The indulogue words are hands^ clap^ and rejoice. 3. [" Wisdom crieth] (at the gates.'*) " crieth." 4. ["And he cried] {against the altar) (in the words) (of the Lord,) (and , said, (0,) (Altar,) (*dltar,) (thus saith the Lord.") (against Altar^ Altar.) ' 9. Analogue indutory. The analogue indutory is a class, composed of those monos which are indued with special dignity, perspicuity, and brevity, by illustrating the qualities of their subjects in one word, by a substitution of analagoUs attributes : 1. [" Washington was the pillar^ (of our country:) The attributes which Washington exhibited in relation to our country, are illustrated in the one word, pillar. The qualities of a pillar are substituted for those which Washington manifested in reference to our country in the revolutionary struggle. But instead of expressing these qualities in language unindued with any of the graces of speech, the writer indues his mono with special vividness^ and strength. Unindued : Washington sustained our country. The unindued language enables us to understand — but the indued makes us see our country placed upon Washington to be preserved in the whirlwind of faction, and tempest of war. 68 INDTTOLOGY OP MONOS. ^. [" The Queen (of Sheba) saw the wisdom] (of Solomon.) The attribute of seeing is here put for the quality of proving, and understanding. 3. [" The neighing (of horses) is heard] (from Dan.") The quality of Aeartn^ is substituted for the attribute of foreseeing The neighing of horses, is foreseen by the prophet. 4. [" That man is ajbx.'*'} The craftiness of that man is illustrated by the cunning of the foz The stratagem of the fox is substituted for the craftiness of that particular man. 5. [" These soldiers were lions] (in combart.") 6. \^' A prudent man bridles his anger. ^^'l The quality of controlling the horse with the bridle, is substituted for the attribute of restraining the anger of the man. {Every action is a quality.) 6. [Opposition Jires courage] (in all.) . What^re is to matter, opposition is to courage. 10. Amillogue indutory. The amillogue indutory is a class, composed of those monos which are indued with that impressive ness, and perspicuity, that spring from representing the qualities of their subjects as emulating the qualities of other things which are known to possess the same attributes in a remarkable degree ; (ilmt7Za, to try to equal.) 1. [" He Stands like] ( , a tower.") 2. [« Faith (in affliction) is like] ( , light) (in darkness.) 3. ["As the door turneth] (upon its hinges,) {so doth the slothful) (upon his bed.") This indulogue is called by the old school grammarians, a simile. But so laxly have writers, in general, treated this subject that it is hardly possible to decide whether the whole sentence is denominated a simile, or whether a mere part of it falls under this denomination In a work, compiled by Goold Brown, however, I find a precision of wluch others are destitute. He says. INDUOLOGY OF MONOS. 69 '•A simile is a simple and express comparison; and is generally introduced by like, as, or so : as, " At first, like thunder^s distant tone^ The rattling din came rolling on." " Like thunder^s distant tone,''^ is marked as the simile portion of the sentence. But, as a simile is a comparison are not all the things which are compared simile things ? If there is any comparison in this example it is instituted between the *^ thunder's tone," and the rattling din. Why, then, is not the rattling din as much a simile portion of the sentence as the thunder^ s tonef When John and Joseph are compared one with the other does not the simile character of the sentence which makes the comparison, infuse itself into both!? ^'John is as old as Joseph" Is not this a simple, and an express, comparison ? If so this is a simile ! ! Which part of the comparison is a simile ! ? •' Dentihia aVba,^'* is as much a simile as is '* like thunder"*^ distant tone .'" 11. Gnomologue indutory. The gnomologue indutory is a class, composed of those monos that are indued with that grace which springs from using one thing as a mere index to another : 1. [« Mr. Adams addressed the chair] (an hour.") 2. [" The kettle boils.''] 3. [" They have Moses ;] {and , , the prophets.") - 4. [" The house is building.^'] 5. [" The Lord loveth righteousness.''] 1. The chair is mentioned as a mere index to him who occupied it And much brevity is derived from the use of the chair as a gnomon, an index, with which to point out the president of the meeting. 1. He addressed the chair. 2. He addressed the president of the meeting. 2. The kettle bears an index relation to the liquid which it contains. Hence the kettle is mentioned as an index to the water which boils in it. 3. Moses, and the prophets bear an index relation to their works. Hence, he and they are introduced as gnomons to these works. 4. " The house is building." They who reject this expression upon the ground that the house itself does not build, must also reject the following, ,, . '< The kettle boils," « He addressed the chair an hour," " We have Moses, and the prophets." 70 INDUOLOGY OP MONOS. Does the kettle itself boil ? No, Have we Moses himself? No. Have we the prophets themselves ? No, verily. The house advances under the act of building. This act however, is not done by the house^ but by the builder. But, as the house advances toward a finish, so to speak, under the influence of this act, this act bears an index relation to this advancement — hence, in speaking of the advancement of tlie house, this act is mentioned as a mere gnomon, a mere index, to this advancement. He that can wrest this, and its kindred expressions, fi-om our language, may deride the cathiselogue, " Canst thou draw out Leviathan with a hook ?" 5. " The Lord loveth righteousness.' ' Righteousness bears an index relation to good men — Whence right' eousness is used as the means of referring to righteous men. 12. Pantelogue indutory. The pantelogue indutory is a class, composed of those monos which are indued with that brevity, ease, and embellishment which spring from taking the whole for a part : 1. [" Whereby the world (that then was) ( , being overflowed) (with water,) , perished."] 2 Peter 6. The « worW is the pantelogue^ the whole world, taken for the earth, a mere part of the world. 2. [" Till thou return"] (to the ground.'^) « T^iott" includes the whole man, soul, and hody. And, as the body only, is to return to the ground, ^'^tkoiC'* is a pantelogue — a word which takes the whole for a part. 3. [" These are the sons] (of Jacob) {which were born) (to him) (in Padanaram.") Gen. xxxv. 2Q. In verses 22, 23, 24, 25, there is an enumeration of the twelve sons of Jacob. Verse 26, declares that all of them were born in Padan~ aram. Yet Benjamin was born on the way near Ephratk, which is declared in verse 16. 4. [" These all died] (in faith.") These— that is, all whom the apostle had enumerated, died in &ith. A.mong them, however, was Enoch who, as is declared m verse 5, did not die at all ! **By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death.''* Verse 5. ** All these died,* the whole mono is the pantologue. If there is any one word in it, which can be considered the pantelogue, it is all. 5' ["And Jephthah was buried] {in the cities) (of Gilead.") INDUOLOGY OF MONOS. 71 6. [" The thieves also (which were cracifit d) (with him,) upbraided him.^^'\ Both are mentioned for the one who actually did upbraid him. 7. [" We deceived the people,'] {and , seemed or at or s.^^) Cicero here speaks of himself When an editor says we for himself only, he employs a. pantelogue. 13. Merologue indutory. The merologue indutory is a class, composed of those monos which are indued with that brevity, ease, and embellishment, which spring from taking a part for the ivhole : 1. [" The horse is a noble animaU''\ 2. [" Therefore we conclude that] {man is justified by faith.") One man is here taken for many, for all men. 3. [« Then Abraham took Sarah] ( , , his wife,) {and , , the souls.") (&c.) SouU — a mere part. The whole— -mc??, and women. 4. [" The Roman was victor'] (in battle.'^) 5. ["I am not worthy] ( , that) (thou shouldst come) {under my roof?^) The roof which is a mere part, is here taken for the whole house. Thou shouldst come into my house. 6. ["And it was told] (the house) (of David) (Saying,) (Syria is confederate) {with Ephraim.^') Isaiah vii. 2. Ephraim is put for the ten tribes of Israel. 7. ["Because Syria, {Ephraim , , , , ) (and the son , , , , ) (of Remalia) have taken evil counsel) (against thee.") Isaiah vii. 5. Ephraim is put for the ten tribes of Israel. 8. [" But blessings shall be] {upon the head) (of him) (that selleth it.") 9. [".^ man shall eat good] (by the fruit) (of his mouth.") One man is put for all 72 INDUOLOGY OP MONOS. 14. Ironilogue indutory. The ironilogue indutory is a class, composed of those monos which are indued with that derision, taunt, and contrariety, which are derived from using words in direct opposition to their true import : 1. [" Cry aloud ;] {for he is a god.) 2. [" Nero was a virtuous prince indeed."] 3. [" Pope Hiidebrand was remarkable] {for his meekness.'^) That is, he was remarkable for his want of this Christian grace. 15. Sy analogue indutory. A syanalogue is a sentence embellished with a series^ of analogues upon the same subject: 1. [^« Stop the current^ (young men,) {the meadows have drunk sufficiently.") The two monos, ["Stop the current;] (the meadows have druuk sufficiently^^) are a synalogue. These two monos are analogues. They come together — they are within the same poetene — hence they are a syanalogue. {Sy from «yn, together.) These two analogues are the component parts of the syanalogue. These monos, then, may be referred to an indutory upon the basis of that syanalogue character which they derive from constituting a syanalogue. The syanalogue indutory is a class, composed of those analogues which aid in the formation of a syanalogue : 1. l'^ Bub not the scar.'\ {lest you open again the tvound) {that is"" healed,) {and cause it to bleed afresh.' ') These four analogues form one syanalogue. 16. Ne-theni-e-logue indutory. Greek. iVe, not, themelioUy foundation, basis, principle. — Not having a foundation, not having a basis principle. Indulogues may be divided into themelogues^ and Ne-them-e-logues. When the induement has a sound basis in the property of the thing whicii is mentioned in the syllabane, the mono is a themelogue ; as, I have read Blackstone. * The word, series^ signifies, a succession of things. A series of analogues, then, is two, or more that come together which is the import of the prefix, sy. INDUOLOGY OP MONOS. 73 When the induement has not a sound basis in the property of the thing which is mentioned in the syllabane, the mono is a Ne-tkem e- logne ; as, " The water runs.''* The nethemelogue indutory is a class, composed of those monos which pass as English, though their induement has not a foundation in the properties of the things which the monos denote : 1. [" The water r«/w."] • That which has no feet cannot, with strict propriety, be said to rniu 2. [" Let my right hand forget her cunning." It can hardly be said of that which has no mind^ that it forgets. 3. [" The sword shall devour, , ] (and , shall be satiate,) (and , , be made drunk) (with their blood.^^) Jeremiah xlvi. 10, 1. As a sword is not a living creature, and as it has no teeth^ bow can it devonr ? 2. As a sword has nothing answering to a stomachy it is far-fetched indeed to speak of this weapon as being filled to satiety. 3. He that is drunk, is stupefied by the action of spirits on the stomachy and bruin. A sword has nothing analagous to these organs — hence the induement of the third mono, is too far-fetched to be sanctioned by the laws of induology. It is a nethemelogue. 4. Had blood any thing analagous to the stupefying power of spirits, the induement of the foiurth mono, might be sanctioned by induology. But, as blood has no such powers, the fourth mono also is a netheme- logue. 4. ["Enoch was translated] ( , that) (he should not see death.") Heb. xi. 5. " He should not see death," is a nethemelogue. The phrase, " see death,''* is used for die : Enoch Was translated that he should not die. In the above nethemelogue^ it is intimated that a dead body can see. But as a corpse has no power to enable it to see, Enoch would never have seen death, even had he remained on the earth till he had died like other men. 5. [" This man has a beautiful voice."] As a voice has nothing which comes to the mind through the me- dium of the eye, it cannot be denominated beautiful. 6. [" They build a horse] by Pallas art divine." Mechanics do not build horses — farmers raise them. The analogy between the raising of a horse, and the construction of a house, is loo alight to justify the application of the v/ord, build, even to the act of forming the famous Trojan horse. 7 74 INDUOLOGY OF MONOS. 7. [" The elbow (of his nose) is disproportionable,**'\ The crook in some noses, is not enough like the elbow of the arm, to justify this iuduement. 8. [" And I will cut down your images] (and , , cast your carcasses) {upon the carcasses) (of your idols.") Levit. xxvi. 30 The induement which is given to the italic mono, is not justified by induology. The carcasses, mentioned in this nethemelogue, are mere pieces of images. 9. [" For the Lord hath heard the voice"] (of my weeping.") As nothing which has not the organs of articulation, can have a cotcc, it is difficult to see upon what principle in induology, the in- duement of this mono can be sustained. " The Lord hath heard my weeping^'' interdicts this induement, and improves the language: it is better to use language un indued with any of the graces of speech than to employ that which is improperly indued. Specimen. 1. [" The murmuring (of the water) is music."] 1. " The murmuring is music^^ A plenary broken trone of the esoteric limitory, analogue indutory. 2. '^ of the water /' A plenary unbroken clad of the exoteric limitory^ uninduable zerotory. This clad is of the exoteric limitory : all water does not murmur—- hence the idea is that the murmuring of the water which does murmur at all, is music. 2. [" He learned his arguments] (from Aristotle,) (and , , his eloquence) (from Tully.") 1. " He learned his argu?nents," A plenary unbroken trone of the exoteric limitory, induabl^ zerotory. 2. '''from Aristotle^^ A plenary unbroken clad, exoteric limitory, gnomologue indutory. This clad is of the exoteric limitory because the word, Aristotle, must be associated with the syllabane, Aristotle's works. Indeed the word, Aristotle, is used for this syllabane. But even was this clad not thrown into the exoteric class of monos upon this principle, it would still be of this limitory. For the question which would naturally arise respecting the identity of the Aristotle to whom INDUOLOGY OP MONOS. 75 allusion is here made, must be answered by something which i3 out of the poetrone. From what Aristotle did he learn his arguments 1 He learned them from Aristotle who was an ancient Greek philosopher, 3. and , , his eloquence" An implenary unbroken clad, of the esoteric limitory, uninduablc zerotory. 4. of Tulii/y" A plenary unbroken clad, of the exoteric limitory, gnomologue indutory. 3. [" It is not my sword] (that can help me.'*) 1. " // is not my sword^^ A i^enary unbroken trone of the esoteric limitory, merologue indutory. The sword is a mere part of the weapons of defence in war — and this part is here put for aU. 2. " that can help me" A plenary unbroken clad of the diteric limitory, induable zerotory. This mono is limited, in part, by sword^ in the cormotene. 3. [" Canst thou draw out Leviathan"] (with gi hookP^O 1. " Canst thou draw out Leviathan," A plenary unbroken trone of the exoteric limitory, cathiselogue indutory. 2, ^^with a hook^^ A plenary unbroken clad of the esoteric limitory, unindwMt zerotory. 5. [<)( > 5 J > 5 ? )( J shame , ) (to the proud , ,) (and , , , , , )( , good laws , ) (to the wicked , .") 1. " What , is more odious," An implenary unbroken trone of the self limitory, antilogus indutory. 2. " than labor , ) An implenary unbroken clad of the self limitory, antilogue indutory 76 INDUOLOOY OF MONOS. 3. " to the idle" j )> An imfrfenary unbroken elad of the self limitory, uninduM^ zcrotory. •( ^* ( > J > > ? ^ ) A plenary unbroken clad of the self limitory, antilogue indutory, 5. ( , fasting , ), All implenary unbroken clad of the »«!/ limitory, a»fifog7#« indutory. Learner, Give the Syndiecology of the following rnonoi according to the preceding specimen. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. TVhat , is more odiousj than labor , ), to the idle , ), > , fasting to the glutton,) > } 9 9 , want , ), to the covetous , ), y y } y > > / , shame , )» to the proud , ), and , 9 , y ,.. ,, \ to the wicked , ), , good laws , .) REMARKS. Before referring the pupil to Exercises in other books, I deem it a duty to say that nothing but a thorough drilling in syndiecology, can give that knowledge of the English Language, which is abso^ lutely necessary to enable one to use it with ease, and propriety. Exercises in Syndi cology. *''"' ^' * •^• 1. Take the various Exercises in book i. 2. Take the following portions of the scriptures ; 1. Kings xvii. 1. 1. Samuel xvii. 6, 7. Gen. vii. * The noetons are, and what thing h more odiou*. INDUOLOGT OF MONOS. 77 7. Isa. iv. 1. Matt. x. 30, 24, 20. Acts xxiv. 26. Matt. xxvi. 15. 1. Kings xii. 10. Isa. ii. 9. Luke vii. 44. Matt. xxi. 3. John xi. 3, 12, 28. Matt. viii. 20. and ix. 6. Gen. xlviii. 16 Exodus iii. 2. Isa. Ixiii. 9. Gen. xxxi. 2. Dan. xi. 22. Gen. iii. 15. Hebrews xxii. 24. I Kings x. 4. Hagg. i. 9. Jer. viii. 15. Ecclesiastes i. 8. Hab. ii. 11. Lam i. 4. Matt. iii. 11. Ps. Ixxx. 8. 7* .j^ CONMCTION. CHAPTER III. COKDIGTIOIf. Condiction is that part of Syndicology, which respects the injport of monos. (Con, together^ and Dictio, speech.) Diction is the expression of thoughts. There is a difference between the diction of words, a»d the sig- nificaiion of words. Signification respects the mere pouter of a word to raise an idea in the mind; but diction respects the «rer- Hon of that power in the act of raising an idea in the mind. For instance, a certain word has the significant power to raise a par- ticular idea in the mindy but, then, this power is not exerted, in the raising of this idea, till the certain word which has this power, is written, or spoken. Let this be illustrated in the expression of some word which you have not in your mind at the this moment: for instance, ear. This word had the power of raising in your mind, the idea of the organ of hearing, before you saw the word — but it did mil exert this power till you saw the word. The poxver itself is significa- tion : but the eaeertion of the power is denominated diction. Diction is the expression of thoughts. Or, Diction is the expression of separate thoughts, and eon- fleeted thoughts, and finally of information, intelligence. There are three kinds of diction ; namely, 1. .^^diction ; 2. Condiction ; and, 3. Cardietion.* 1. w^6diction is that act of words, which presents thoughts as separate^ as, pen, moon, ice, new, reads, walks, in, at, to, 2. Candiction is that act of words, which presents thoughts as connected^ as, new pen, in ice, moon light night, at church. 3. Cordietioa is the information, the inteUigenee, which the mono gives ; a?, 1. [John went] [to Boston.) 2. [Go thou} (to Boston,) (John.) 3. (Gentlemen,) [will John go] (to Boston ?) 4. [John will see his friends,] (if he goes) (fe> Boston^) 5. [Forgive thou our sins.] * A cordiction differs from a poefene .* a cordiction embraces the poetene, and the information given by means of the poetene. But a poetene embraces the mere abstract affirmation, the abstract in- ierrogation, the abstract command^ the abstract petition, or the a^ struct subfirmation^ '^ICONDICTION OF NBPOECLADS. 79 1. [John went] (to Boston.) Cordiction is the information which the mono gives. The cordictioii of this sentence, then, is confined to the trone. The trone not only informs the reader that John wenfj but it informs him that he went to Boston, From a slight glance at this subject, however, it may seem to some that the nepoeclad gives information, and that, therefore, the diction of this mono also is cordiction, information dic- tion. But what information does this nepoeclad impart? It does not, as from a first view it seems to do, inform the reader where John went. The word, Boston, raises in the mind of the reader, the idea of a place, a town, a city ; but it does not inform the reader that any person ever went to this place, this town ! This may be seen from the omis- sion of the trone : [ ] (to Boston.) The philosophy of the thing seems to be this : the word, Boston, denotes a place ; and the trone, " John went,^ in- forms the reader that John went to this certain place. The word, Boston, is employed to hold up this certain town before the mind; and the words, ^^John went,^^ are con- nected, and employed, to inform the reader of the fact that John visited this particular place. 2. [Go thou] (to Boston,) (John.) The information which is communicated in this sentence, is communicated to John. This information is the cordic- tion of the sentence, and is given in the trone, " Go thou.^* This mono informs John that he must go to Boston. The trone, then, is the only mono which contains a cordiction. That the two nepoeclads express thought3, and connected thoughts, is obvious. These connected thoughts, however, amount to nothing more than mere condiction which can never give information, intelligence. These two monos do not rise to cordiction, because they do not give informor tion which is the heart, the life, the sole object of speech. •** To Boston,^^ gives no information ; nor does the word, John, impart any intelligence. But the mono, " Go thou,^^ does give information : it informs John that he must not only go, but that he must go to Boston : [Go thou] (to Boston,) (John.) 3. (Gentlemen,) [will John go] (to Boston?) et) OONDICTION OP NEPOECLADS. The trone informs the gentlemen addressed, that the speaker desires them to inform him whether John will, or will not go to Boston. If the word, gentlemen^ should be omitted, all who read the sentence would be informed by the trone of the fact that the speaker desires to know whether John will, or whether he will not go, to Boston : ITVill John go] (to Boston ?) Here, whoever reads is informed that the speaker desires to know whether the act which now stands connected with Jahn and Boston^ in idea only, will have a future reality. The speaker may inform the readers of his desire in the following form : Reader, I desire to know of you whether John will go to Bjston. ITfill John go] (to Boston ?) There is another point which deserves particular atten- tion : and this point is the fact that the information, the in- telligence, given in the whole sentence, is imparted by the joint action of the two words, will and John. The word, go J gives no information : *' TVill John " raises the ques- tion which informs the reader of the fact that the speaker desires to know whether John will go to Boston. The in- formation which is communicated to the reader, is the fact that the speaker has this special desire. This fact is com' municated by the simple question which is raised by the two words, " Will John.^^ . " Go" is the sign of an action — and it is here used, not to inform the reader that the speaker has a desire of any kind, but simply to connect an action in idea, with John, and Boston. Yes, the condiction presents an action in idea, which extends from John to Boston — and the cordiction informs the reader that the speaker has a desire to ascertain whether this condiction of mere ideas will ever have a reality. The cordiction is not only confined to two words in the interrogative form of giving information, but in the affirma- tive form also : 1. [Will John go] (to Boston?) 2. [John will go] (to Boston,) In the first, information is given that the speaker desires to ascertain whether John will visit Boston. CONDICTION OP NEPOECLADS, 81 In the second, information is given that John will go to Boston. And both items of information are given by willf and John. The reader is informed respecting the speaker's desire by placing will before John, {Will John). And the speaker is informed respecting the fact which he desires to know, by placing ^^wilV^ after '■'• John.''^ 4. " [John will see his friends] (if he goes) (to Boston.") In the trone the speaker informs the reader that John will see his friends. John will. In the poeclad, " if he goes" the speaker informs the reader that, the condition upon which John will see his friends, is that he must go to Boston. 5. *' Forgive thou our sins.'* Here the being addressed is informed that we desire him to forgive our sins. This information is imparted by the two words, *' Forgive thou.'^ And as the cordiction is the information which the mono g^ives, the cordiction of this mono lies in the two words, " Forgive thou." But it may be said that '* our sins" are necessary to the giving of this information. This fact is admitted. But it does not follow that because these two words are necessary to the giving of this particular information, that these words give this infor- mation ; nor does it thence follow that they give any part of this information. A head is necessary to an eye — but it does not thence follow that a head sees, or that the head has the power of vision. Breath is necessary to life — yet it does not follow that breath is life. A pen is necessary to write — yet it does not follow that the pen itself actually writes. It may be well to repeat the sentence : *' Forgive thou our sins." What is the information imparted by this mono ?. The information communicated in this mono, is that we have a desire to have the being addressed, to forgive our sins. Upon a cursory glance at ihis sentence every thing appears so clear that no particular attention is necessary to a full appre hension of its entire philosophy. The sentence, however, is not so simple in its philosophy as it seems to be from such a glance. It becomes important, then, to give minute attention to it. In giving this attention, it may be well to consider words in the first place both in their general, and 82 CONDICTION OP NEPOECLADS. in their special^ or restrained application. For instance: The word, John, has its unrestricted, and its restricted application. Under its unrestricted application, the word, John, means every John in the universe ; as, John. But the word, John, under its restricted application, does not mean every John ; as, that John, my John, John Bacon. Where there is no word restrained in its application, speech is not even begun j as, hook, pen, kite, virtue, vice, red, black, in, my, forgive. This is mere addiction : a presentation of separate, un connected, thoughts. But where a word can be found which is in any degree restrained in its application, speech is begun : as, this hook, my pen, his kite, virtue of plants, vice of men, red ink, black ink, in water, my hat, io forgive Joseph. This is condiction. Speech has its commencement in condiction, but its perfection in cordiction, in — informa- tion; as. Forgive thou our sins. The word, forgive, as here used, is restricted : it means here a particular act. In the first place it is restrained to the forgiving act of the Supreme Being : the word as here used does not apply to the forgiving act of m,en — since men cannot forgive sins. The word, forgive, is farther re- strained in its application by the word, sins. The for giving act to which the word,forgive, is here applied, is confined to sins: the act is removed from debts, and from every other thing which can be forgiven. And this forgiving act is farther restrained by the word, our : this act of forgiving is removed from all sins except those which have been com- mitted by the very persons who make this petition : *' Forgive Thou our sins." Now, then, this very act — the act which is restricted to the Supreme Being as its agent, and to our sins as its sub- ject, is the act which we desire to have performed. And what is it which informs him who is addressed, of the fact that there is any desire in existence to have this special, this identical, act performed ? Is this information given by the condiction, *' our sins .^" " Our sins " aids in restricting the act — '* oursins,^^ however, does not give any intimation that there exists a desire to have this z.ct performed. rovUTCTION OF NEPOECLADS. 83 The information which this mono gives is the intelhgence of the fact of the existence of this desire. This intelligence is the cordiction, and is given by the joint action of the words, " Forgive Thou." 6. ''John is dead.'' 1. ** John '* denotes a human being — but this word gives no information. 2. ''Dead'' denotes a state — but this word gives no in- formation. But, '* John is dead " informs the reader that this state of dsat*, belongs to John. This information is the cordiction. 1. Condiction is found in every mono. 2. Cordiction is found in the trone, and poe- clad only. The nepoeclad can give no information : it consists of condiction only. Information, as the word cordiction indicates, {cor, the heart,) is the life, the heart of speech. From information. All speech emanates ; In information. All speech terminates. Condiction, without this, Could not to speech pretend ; Condiction, but for this. Is diction to no end. Body, without the heart, Could not to life aspire ; So words without this part Gould give no mind's desire, 1 . To dbdict is to express thoughts in an unconnected state ; as, hook, hand, in. 2. To condict is to express thoughts in a connected state ; as, my 600A:, in hand. 3. To cordict is to express information, the only thing which moves the mind to speak ; as, my hooik fell. All words have the addictive, and the condictive power But all have not the cordictive. f^.^M ' ■ "^^ 84 CONDIOTION OP NEPOECLADS. I. Division of the Cordiction. 1. Affirniative "^ 2. Subfirmative 3. Interrogative 4. Imperative 5. Petitionative^ >C0RDICTI0N. A DiCATORY. A dicatory, as has been said already, is a class to which monos are referred upon the basis of their diction. There are two general Dicatories, viz. Cordicatory, and Con- DICATORY. 1. A cordicatory is a class to which monos are referred upon the basis of their cordiction. 2. A condicatory is a class to which monos are referred upon the basis of their condiction. I. Subdivision of the Cordicatory. There are five kinds of cordicatorieSf namely, Affirma- tivCt Subfirmative, Interrogative, Imperative, Petitiona- tive. 1. The affirmative Cordicatory is that class which is com posed of monos that contain affirmative cordictions. 2. The subfirmative Cordicatory is that class which is composed of those monos that contain subfirmative cordic- tions. 3. The interrogative Cordicatory is a class which is composed of those monos that contain interrogative coxd^ic- tions. 4. The imperative Cordicatory is a class which is com- posed of those monos that contain imperative cordictions. 5. The petitionative Cordicatory is a class which is com- posed of those monos that contain petitionative cordictions. Division of Condiction. Condiction is divided into, 1. Rudiction. 2. E-diction. 3. Ex-e-diction. 1. Rudiction is that part of Condiction, which is the rudimental, the radical, idea, from which another thought springs, or upon which another thought de- pends. (Latin. Rudimentum, original, primary, root, first principle.) CONDICTION OP NEPOECLADS. 85 2. E-diction, E-diction is that part of Condiction, which, in some sense or other, springs from, or goes beyond Rudiction, (E, springing out of, or going beyond.) 3. Ea:-e-dictio7i, Ex-e-diciion is that part of Condiction, which, in some sense, or other, springs from, or goes beyond c-diction. [Ex, springing out of, or going beyond.) Illustration, 1. "He was troubled [at this report.^^) 2, "Henry is now (at the law") 1. The rudimental idea in the condiction of both nepoeclads, is that of place. He is at the door. This local idea is the Rudiction. 2. The idea of presence which is obviously a part of the condiction of both nepoeclads, not only springs from the rudiction^ but actually goes beyond it. The idea of presence is not necessarily connected with that o? place; as, "John is beyond the mark." (Here John is not in the presence of the mark.) John was {present) (at church.) "He was troubled {at this report.") That is, when this report came into his presence^ he was troubled. Or — while he was in the presence of this report, he was troubled. 3. The trouble which he had, sprang out of the presence of " this report." The presence of the report, was a cause : the presence pro- duced the trouble. The report would not have given him trouble, had it not come into his presence. This causative idea, then, is not only derived from the e-diction, the presence, but actually goes a step be- yond it. Hence this idea of cause, which springs from, and goes be- yond, the presence, is the jEx-e-diction. 1. Rudiction — the idea of place. 1 2. £-diction — the idea of presence. > {at this report.) 3. JSx-e-diction — the idea of cause. j 1. " He was troubled [at this report.^^) Remark. That the pupil may be exercised in the analysis of the condictions of nepoeclads, I shall give three places, or classes to which each ne- poeclad may be referred in the order, and upon the basis, of the three parts of its condiction. (The three parts — Rudiction, E-diction, Ex-e-diction.^ 8 8^t CONDICTION OP NEFOECLADS. These places, or classes are, 1. Rudicatory. 2. E-dicatory. 3. Ex-e-dicatory. 1. Rudicatory. The liudicatory is a class to which a nepoeclad is referred upon the basis of its rudiction. 2. E-dicatory The edicatory is a class to which a nepoeclad is referred upon the basis of its ediction. 3. Ex-e-dicatory, The exedicatory is a class to which a nepoeclad is referred upon the basis of its exediction. These three Dicatories are subdivided by the use of technicals which express the traits of Rudicative, E-dicative, and Ex-edicative, character. 1. The Rudicatory is divided into Local, •Adver- sative, Causative, Sotcrcitive, Conjunctive, Detrac- tive, Continuative, Themitive, Exclusive, Charac- teristic, Auditive, and Passionative. 2. The Edicatory is divided into Positional, Ap proximate. Presence, Themitive, Vocational, Frank, Independence, Plus 8fC. 3. The Exedicatory is divided into Elevative, Ex- cessive, Pride, Preferal, Superiority, Compensative, Contradictive, Preventive, Resistive, Conducive, Partial, Service, Procurative, Proprius, Sourcitive, Adversative, Positional, Minus, and Subjectional. (See the table in which the subdivisions of each Dicatory are methodically presented.) Specimen, 1. "He was troubled {at this report.'') (at this report,) A plenary unbroken nepoeclad of the Local RudicvLioxjy Presence Edicatory, Causative Exedicatory. CONDICTION OF NEPOECLADS. ' 87 APPKOPBIATIOIT OP IMOKOS. The appropriation of monos is the referring of the monos of a poetrone to their respective classes, or places, by applying to them their respective Syn-dic-o-log-ic-al namesv SPECIMEN. "(By grace) [are ye saved] ( , , ) (through faith.") 1. Are ye saved, A plenary unbroken trone, of the affirmative cordicatory. 2. by grace, A plenary, unbroken nepoeclad, of the local rudicatory, instrumen. tal edicatory. Gnometic reading ; [Ye are saved] {by grace. ) 3. which Cometh, A plenary, unbroken poeclad, affirmative cordicatory. Gnometic reading : (By grace) (which cometh.) 4, through faith, A plenary, unbroken nepoeclad, local rudicatory, medium edicatory. Gnometic reading: (which cometh) (through faith.) [Ye are saved] (by grace) (which cometh) (through faith Doctrine. — Grace is the instriunent or means by which ye are saved; s.nd faith is the medium through which the grace comes. We procure the instrument which is employed in this saving act, by another instrument whi^h is called faith. The idea may be better seen from the following : (By books) [are ye instructed] ( , > ) (through the press.) That is, (By books) [ye are instructed,] (which come) (through the press.) [Ye are instructed] (by books) (which come) (through the press.) 1. (By grace) [are ye saved,] (through faith.) 2. (By books) [are ye instructed,] (through the press.) 88 NEPOECLAD CONDICTION, NEPOECLAD CONDICTION. The condiction of those nepoe- clads which commence with uboutf is fully illustrated in the instances that follow " about.'' 1. The belt was - 2. " Bind them - 3. It was six feet 4. " Get you up from - 5. They were sitting - 6. " He went out 7. " Paul was - " To open his mouth' 8. « They were 9. They were then 1 0. Every thing - 11. They stood - 12. His knife was not - 13. My father is - 14. I was speaking 15. He was reading 16. «I must be - 17. James was then 18. John is now - 19. He is wandering 20. Why go ye - 21. Scatter the sands - Mout, L Local Rudicatory. II. PoSITIOISrAL E-DICATOBT. (about his waist.) (about thy neck.") (about the trunk.) II. Approximate E-dicatort. (about the tabernacle.") (about the fire.) (about the third hour.") (about to open his mouth.") the nepoecorm of about. (about to flee out) of the ship." (about sixty men.) (about you) is in order. II. Presence E-DiCAxoBr. (about the room.) (about him.) (about the house.) II./rHEMITIVE E-DICATORT. (about my brother's house.) (about General Washington.) II. VOCATIOHTAL E-DICATORT. (about my father's business.") (about his work.) (about his writing.) II. Erratic E-dicatort, (about , f) from place to place. (about , ,) to injure me. (about , ,) CO^DICTION OF NEPOECLADS. 89 The condiction of those nepoe- clads which begin with above, is illustrated in the instances which follow " above" Above. I. Local Rudicatory. E-DICATOKT. E- SICjLTOBT E-DICATORT. E-DICATOBT. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. II. Positional (above his head.) (above , , .) (above me.) II. Fkank (above boatd.) II. IXDEPEITDBITT (above board.) •II. Plus • (above an hour.) • (above the sun*s brightness.) • (above five hundred brethren.) • (above six pounds.) • (above many , .) *III. Elevative Ex-e-dic-a-tory. (above mean actions.) (above disguise.) *III. Excessive Ex-e-dic-a-tory. • (above measure.) *III. Pride Ex-e-dic-a-tory. ■ (above his business.) • (above himself.) *III. Preference Ex-e-dic-a-tory. • (above all other things.) - (above all , , .) *III, Superiority Ex-e-dic-a-tory. " The Lord thy God will set thee - . - (above all nations.") The law should be - - (above all men.) 1. My hand was 2. The powers which are 3. Henry then went - 1. His conduct was 2. They now live 3. They wrote copies - 4. The light was 5. He was seen by 6. The weight is now - 7. Hannaniah feared God 8. This man is - 9. A real gentleman is 10. They gave stripes - He is now Indeed he is almost Give me peace But The condiction of those nepoe- clads which begin with after, is illustrated in the monos which follow this nepoeclide. I. Local After. Rndicatory. 1. These men stood one 2. He came 8* II. POSITIONAI. (after another.) (after me.) E-DICATORT. Behind. Behind, ^^ •' 90 CONDICTION OF NEPOECLADS. 1. He was named 2. He made this machine 3. Did he cut his coat - 4. John, have you come 5. I will send an officer 6. I have now come - 7. " Ye shall not go - - 8. They walk - 9. They judge - 10. Does he consider things II. Imcitiative E-bicatobt. (after his uncle.) (after that model.) (after mine ?) II. Objective E-dica.tobt (after your book ?) (after you.) (after the papers.) (after other gods.*') II. ACCOKDAS-T E-DICATOaX. (after the flesh.) .^^ . , (after the sight.) ' (after their real value ?) II. The UiccLEAirsED Thitj-g E-niCATORT. U. Can you drink - - (after me?) That is, can you drink from the same glass from which I have drunk, without Jirst cleansing it. Note. — Where after denotes time, it is not a nepoclide, but a nepeo- ded; as, I will go after supper. That is, [I will go after] (supper is over.) ^ The condiction of those nepoe- clads which begin with acrossy is illustrated in the examples fol- lowing this nepoeclide. 1. He went 2. We looked - 3. There was a bridge Across. I Local Rudioatory, '-'* II. POSITIOKAI. E-]>ICATOHI« i across the street.) across the river.) (across the stream.) Note. — Across is never blank in its Rudiction. Illustration of the condiction of the nepoeclads which begin with amid, and amidst. 1. He is now - - - 2. I was - - - - 3. The shepherd was - 4. How could I comprehend Amid, Amidst. I. Local Rudicatory II. POSITIOBTAE E-DICATORT. (amid the waves.) (amidst the shade.) (amidst his flock.) (amid all this confusion ?) - CONDICTION OF NEPOECLADS. di Dlustration of the condictiou of the nepoeclads which begin with among, and amongst. ''^' 1. He is sending agents 2. " He sends his blessings - 3. He immediately went 4. And he is now Illustration of the condiction of the nepoeclads which begin with aroundy and round. 1. There was a belt - i: 2. They all sat •- - - V 3. He has sailed - 4. They then went 5. They were seated - 6. The mother called her children - - 7. They are now strolling - 8. They rove - - - 9. " They went - 10. They are fond of riding - Illustration of the condiction of the nepoeclads which begin with at. Among, Amongst. I Local Rudicatory. II. Distributive E-dicatobt (among his friends.) (amongst his enemies.") (amongst the people.) (among them.) Around, Round, I. Local Rudicatory. II. POSITIOITAL E-DICATOar. (aronnd his waist.) (round the fire.) (round the world.) (around the hill.) (round the table.) (around her.) n. Erratic E-dicatort. (around the country.) (round the world.) ^ (around , ,) about the camp. ''^ (round , , .) At, (^Presence.) I. Local Rudicatory. *Il. Presence E-dicatobt. (at church.) (at the trial.) (at home.) (at ease.) 1. John was 2. I was (^present) 3. My father is not 4. They are now That is, they are in the presence of ease. 5. They are now - - (at play.) 6. The pen is now - - (at hand.) 7. He was then - - - (at a loss) for words. A loss for words was present. 8. The bill was to be paid - (at sight.) 9. I told you this - - (at first , .) When the first time was present, I told you. 92 CONDICTION OF NEPOECLADS 10. He is a poor tool - - (at best.) When his best skiU is present, he is only a poor tool. 11. He made no reply - - (at all , ) to them. That is, he put no reply into their presence, to all that passed, or to all that was said. 12. He aims - - - (at this mark.) •That is, his aim, or direction is in iki^ presence of this mark - 13. I shall not be there - - (at all events.) That is, although all the events which are calculated to take me there, shmild happen, should be prestnU should come up before me, still I shall not be there. 14. He purchased the gloves - (at a small price.) A price is a mark of value : there are various price, marks, and sometimes for the same thing. The idea is, that these gloves were put into the presence of a small price mark. Where did the gloves stand at the time of his purchase 1 That is, against what price mark did they stand? They were in X\ie presence of a lovr price mark. 15. I am - - - - (at your service.) That is, I am in i)[iQ presence of your service — I am not absent from your service ; but present with it. 16. lam - - - - (at your command.) That is, I am in ihe presence of your command — ^I am in the presence of your command to yield obedience to it. The idea of obedience is inferred from the declared presence, 17. You shall return - - (at my cost.) That is, my cost, my money shall be present to pay the charges of your return. Or my money shall not shrink away, but shall be in the presence of the demand which may be made of you for your return. 18. It was done - - - (at his suggestion.) That is, his suggestion was present in the character of a caxtse, and produced this act. ^ 19. He deserves well - - (at our hands.) That is, while he is in the presence of us, for "our hands^^ means us, he deserves well. Presence here, is business, or concern with. *III. Cvusitive Ex-e-dic-a-tory, 20. He was surprised - - (at this statement.) That is, when this statement came into his presence, it caused surprise. CONDICTION OF NEPOECLADS. n 21. He was troubled 22. He was much pleased 23. 24. 25. 26. He is now He is a student He is good He was good - 27. He struck . r .^ - 28. They shot ^^^^1 - 29. He laughed - 30. They are - - - 31. They have long been 32. Texas is 33. He longs to be Illustration of the condiction of the nepoeclads which begin with athwart. 1. He advanced his mis- created front 2. The fleet stood Illustration of the condiction of the nepoeclads which begin with before. 1. He stood - - . 2. He is not behind, but 3. "Wherewithal shall I come 4. They are now 5. " Abraham bowed - 1. "The world was all That is, it was all at their choice. - (at this report.) ^^ A - (at this event.) *in. Vocational Ex-e-dic-a-tory. - (at the law.) - (at law.) - (at figures.) - (at engraving.) *ni. Hostile Ex-e-dic-a-tory. - (at me.) - (at him.) * (at them.) - (at variance.) - (at swords' points.) - (at war.) - (at him.) Athwart. I. Local Rudlcatory. II. Positional E-sicato&t. (athwart my way.) (athwart our course.) Before. I Local Rudlcatory. II. POSITIOKAI. E-1)ICAT011T. (before his desk.) (before me.) II. Preseitcb E-dicatobt. (before the Lord.") (before this court.) *ni. Respect Ex-e-dic-a-tory. (before the people) oftheland." *in. Choice Ex-e-dic-a-tory. (before them.") Milton here puts the entire world into the presence of our first parents, with the power to select such as would best suit them. • - / 94 CONDICTION OF NEPOECLADS. He that cometh after me, is preferred (before me,) [above me] for he was before me 1. " And he set Ephraim - 2. " He esteemed virtue 3. " Poverty is desirable Illustration of the condiction of the nepoeclads which begin with behind. The syntax of this verse is not correct. The word, after, denotes time, and is a nepoecled, not a nepoeclide, not a preposition. In the second instance, the word, before, means time, and is a nepoecled, not a nepoeclide. The plerocorme, me, then, should give place to 1: [He (that cometh after) (I come,) is preferred] (6e/ore me;) (for he was before) (1 was.) When before means place, preference, or supe- riority, it is a nepoeclide ; in other instances it is a nepoecled. II. Pkefiebitce E-dicatort. (before Manasseh.") (before gold.") (before torments.") Behind, I. Local Rudicatory. II. PoSITIOIfAI. E-DICATOaT. (behind me,) Satan.''^ (behind the table.) (behind that tree.) (behind me.) (behind , .) (behind , .) II. StTB-ATTAIUMEKT E-SICATORT. (behind his brother.) >* (behind my class.) II. StTBHAITK E'SieATOKT. (behind the very chiefest apos- tles.") •II. Slir-I-HEED E-DICATOHT. (behind their back.") Heb, xix. Without heed. Sin-i, without. n. Past E-dicatort. 1. « Get thee : hKiC', .1-., 2. The book lies 3. He sat - - 4. He rode - 5. He rode - 6. Look - — 1. In Syntithology John is 2. In history I am 3. " I was not a whit - 4. " They cast thy laws 5. Forgetting those things which are - - - 6. We should not forget what is - _ - - (behind , .) Phil, iii. (behind , .) CONDICTION OP NEPOECLADS. 95 » J i:ii ^u * 11' Future E-dioatoby 7 7. "And fill up that ^. . which IS - - (behind , , ) of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh." 8. Alas ! we do not know what is - - (behind , .) 9. Is there much evidence yet - - - (behind , ?) l(h We know not what evidence is - - (behind , .) II. Deficit E-dioatory. 11. There is a small sum (behind , , .J 12. There are sixty dollars (behind , , .) II. Antiabandonment E-dica- 13. He has gone, and left toby. us - - - (behind , .) 14. ^e went there, but left us - - - (behind , .) Note. — The omission of behind would convey the idea that he had abandoned us, totally deserted us. He has gone^ and left us. The word, behind, is a preventive against the idea of an abandonment — hence the class to which this mono is referred, is denominated antiaban- donment. The word, behind, in cases like the above, shows that there is not an abandonment of what is left, by the leaver; as, I have left my trunk behind. But, then, I have not abandoned it even so far as this journey is concerned ; for, by the word, behind, I show thai I expect the trunk will be conveyed to me. The trunk, then, is not abandoned by me^ I went to New York, where I left my trunk, and proceeded to Boston. The idea here expressed, is that, so far as regards my journey from New York to Boston, there is an abandonment of my trunk. If, however, the nepoeclide, behind, should be inserted after the poeclade, left, the sense would be that I left the trunk under the idea that it would, by some means or other, follow me to Boston. I went to New York, where I left my trunk behind, and proceeded to Boston. Behind puts the trunk on the way, on the road — and why should it be put upon the way if it is not to follow ? Let us illustrate the use, and power ofbehind, in putting things on their way to places : " Why did your father not come ?" He is just behind." "Ah! he is coming, then." Behind puts things on their way ; and consequently, prevents the notion of an abandonment. In illustrating the word, behind, Mr. Webster says, *'A man dies, and CfONDICTION OF NEPOECLADS. leaves his estate behind^' But as there is no Bible doctrine that a maai's property follows him into the other world; it is not right in ifAeo/o^i/, to express such an idea! A man dies, and leaves his estate. Illustration of the condicliott Below. of the nepoeclads which begin _ t «««.i i>»^j^»«^.». with below. ^ ^ocal Rudicatory. II. Positional E-DicAxoay. - (below the heavens.) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. The earth is - The chin is - Man lives Man is the fairest one He hit - - - The water is - The water is - He purshased it This note is - (below the mouth.) (below , , .) (below , , .) (below the mark.) *II. Minus E^dicatokt (below the mark.) (below the banks.) (below the first cost.) (below par.) *III. Subrank Ex-e-dic-a-tory. (below me) in the class. (below a captain.) He is - - - A lieutenant is He appealed from the court - - - (below , , .) [He appealed] (from the court) (which is) (below this court.) Illustration of the condiction of the nepoeclads which begin with beneath. 1. He stood - - - 2. The earth is - 3. He had a cushion - 4. The earth from 5. Has he conducted - 6. This act is - 7. He was 8, They will sink 9. Did Milo sink Beneath. I. Local Rudicatory. II. Positional E-dicatory. (beneath the branch.) under. (beneath the heavens.) under. (beneath him.) under. (beneath , .) II. Unwoutht-of E-bicatort (beneath his station ?) (beneath a gentleman.) (beneath her notice.) *II. Onkrous E-dicatort (beneath their burden.) (beneath the ox) which he car ried on his back ? CONDICTION OF NEPOECLADS. 97 li. SUBRANK E-DICATORY. 10. An ox ranks - - (beneath a man.) 11. Man is - - - (beneath angels.) * III. Oppression Ex-e-dic-a-tory. 12. "Our country sinks (beneath the yoke.") 13. We have sunk - (beneath this taxation.) 14. He was borne down (beneath the burden) of hU sins. Illustration of the condic- Beside. tionofthe oepoeclads which I. Local Ru-dicatory. begin with beside. U^ Positional E-dicatory. 1. He sat - - - (beside me.) 2.They were seated - (beside the stream.) n. Addition E-dicatory. 3. - - - - (Beside all this), there is a great gulf between «s, and you. The rich man makes application to father Abraham for mercy ; and in the application he desires Abraham to send Lazarus that Lazarus may dip the tip of his finger into water, and cool the rich man's tongue. In verse 25, Abraham gives a reason to the rich man for not complying : " Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy -good, things; and likewise Lazarus evil things : but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented." In verse 26, father Abraham says, along with, or by the side of all this excuse, ** for my non-compliance, you must place the fact that there is a great gulf between us and you, which prevents all intercourse." And as this last reason for the noncompliance is placed beside the first, the last is added to the first — hence the idea of addition which is so prominent in this nepoeclad. Beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed. That is, in addition to all this reason for my noncompliance there is a great gulf between us and you. II. FOREIGN-FROM E-DICATORY. 4. *' It is - - - (beside my present purpose) to en- large upon this subject.^* How is it shown that " to enlarge upon this subject'^ is not my present purpose 1 By taking this act out of, or away from, my present purpose. And how is this act taken out of my present purpose 1 Simply by remov- ing the act out from the purpose to the side of the purpose. It is beside my present purpose to enlarge upon this subject. " To enlarge upon tfus subject" is not my present purpose. I show this fact by removing the act from my present purpose. How far do I remove it from my present purpose] Just out on the side way of my present purpose—just far flDough to show that this act ia foreign to the purpose. 9 915 CONDICTION OF BIEPOECLADS II. Loss E-DICATORY. 5. John is - - - (beside himself.) 6. " Paul, thou art - (beside thyself.'*) Whatever becomes useless is generally cast aside. Thus a broken, uae- fess vehicle is often seen beside the street, or highway in which it was wont to be used. So it is with human beings who have become useless from the loss of their reason, or virtue. They are removed from themselves, and placed on the sideway of themselves: beside themselves. To show that John has lost his reason, and is consequently useless, he is taken out of him- self, and put beside himself. ' This is one of the many ingenious contri- vances with which nepoeclads abound. II. Exclusive E-dicatory. 7. To all - - - (beside , ) as much an empty shade. To all beside. . That is, to all beside this, to all except this ; to all but this; to all exclusive of this. r. 8. I saw nothing - - (beside this book.) niat IS, I saw nothing except this book. In other words, except, ex- clude, take away this book, and I saw nothing. It may be well to make a remark, or two upon the source of this import of beside. This application of beside springs most naturally from the primary, the local import, of this nepoeclide. Beside under its primary meaning, under its general significa- tion, denotes a side place, or a place on \h.e side; as, James stood beside the street Here, James is excluded from, kept out of the street by the word, be- nde. This word places James on the side of the street — and thus it ex- cludes him from the street. Should the word, in, be used instead of beside, the position of James would be quite different ; as, James is in the street. In is inclusive ,• beside is exclusive. From the general capacity of be- side to move one thing out from another in place, this nepoeclide has ac- quired the special power of denoting the exclusion, separation of one thing from another where there is no idea of place in the mind ; as, I have no property beside this lot. That is, exclude this lot from my property, and I have no property. The word, beside, howev&T m^y mean addition, instead of subtraction, exclusion ; as, I have a lot beside this lot. That is, I have a lot in addition to this- lot. , Where beside is exclusive, but, except, or excepting can be substituted for it ; as, I have no property except this lot. Where beside is additory, except can not be substituted ; as, I have a lot except this lot ! Illustration of the condic- SJeyOTlCl. tion of the nepoeclads which I. LOCal Ru-dicatory« begin with beyond. n. Positional E-dicatort, , I. He went - - (beyond that tree.) CONDICTION OF NEPOECLADS. 99 2. He travelled far 3. My stick reached 4. "Let no man go brother. ^^ (beyond that river.) (beyond his , .) (beyond , , ) and defraud hh * III. Future Ex-e-dic-a-tory. ) (beyond us) even before our death.* POJB. * III. Infeasible Ex-e-dic-a-tory. beyond my power.) beyond human comprehension.) beyond his power.) * III. Super Ex-e-dic-a-tory. 9. Washington was great (beyond any other man.) 5. ["A thing] ( 6. To comprehend this is 7. This doctrine is 8. To pay this note is - (beyond all others.) (beyond what , ) ( )( 10. This matter is myste- (beyond any other rious * - - 11. This night is dark - 12. Let no man think that he is wise is written.) Illustration of the condio tion of the nepoeclads which begin with 6y. 1. He came 2. There have been great battles - - - (by water.) on water. 3. We shall return - (by wateh) on water. t. Local Ru-dicatory. ■Oy. (near to.) I. Local RuHiicatory. n. Positional E-dicatory. (by land.) on land. (by mine (by the fire.) •) 4. His house stands 5. 1 was sitting - 6. I stood - 7. The man had come - (by this time.) That is, the coming of the man was bi/, or at this period of time: the coming is represented as being as near to this particular period of time as I am to the fire, in the fifth example: I stood by the fire. **By this time the man had come.'* 8. He just passed 9. Who passed - 10. A gentleman was 11. Was any one - (by the river side.) (1 ■ ■ ■ !by the window.) by . ?) * n. Presence E-dicatort. the time, the time? (by , )at (by , }at 100 CONDICTION OF NEPOECLADS* ; 12. Joseph remained there *' (by the space) of seven years/*} : That is, he remained in the presence of this amount of time. Th» may be illustrated by the following instance : " John remained by a pile of thirty logs." Here there is a pile which is made up of thirty logs ; and John remained in the presence of this pile. In the case where Joseph is represented as remaining in the presence of a pile, the pile is not composed of logs, but of years. Seven years are rolled together; and, as John remained in the presence of the pile of logs, so Joseph remained in the presence of this pile of years. It is worthy of remark that in order to use by in cases like that in the 1 2th instance, the time must be made into a pile, a mass ; for we can no4 say, he remained there by seven years. This word, in such instances as the above, is not, as Mr. Webster, and others say, synonymous with dur- ing f for we can say, He remained during seven years. * III. Obligation Ex-e-dic-a-tory . Obligation is the binding power of a vow, an oath, a promise, an of" Jirmation, or a contract And to secure this power, the vow is made, oi the oath taken by witnesses. That is, in the presence of witnesses. 13. He swore - - (by heaven) to be just. That is, in the presence of heaven. 14. He affirmed - - (by all) that is sacred. That is, he affirmed in the presence of every thing sacred. Or in other words, he called every thing which is sacred into his presence to witness against him if he should disregard his affirmation. I affirm in the pre- sence of men, and angels that this was not so. Again. — He declared before his God that he would tell the truth. That is, he declared in the presence of his God. He called God into his pre- sence to witness against him should he not tell the truth. I swear by earth. That is, I swear in the presence of earth that you may have a host of witnesses against nw if I do not speak the truth. I swear by all that is good and bad. That is, I swear in the presence of every thin^ that there may be nothing which will not be able to testify against me if I swerve from truth in my statement. Or I go into the presence of every thing, that every thing may cry shame, shame, if I open my mouth to utter a lie upor» this subject. Because God could swear by no greater, he swore by himself. That is, because God could swear in the jM-esence of no being greater than him- self, he swore in the presence of himself that he himself might be a wit- ness against himself in case of a failure to fulfil that which he bomid himself by an oath to accomplish. That by denotes presence in the above instances, is obvious from its sense in several compound words; as, bystander. When the oath is taken, beings, and things are called up as bystanders to witness the act * III. Criterion Ex-e-die-a-tory. 15. The stick is too long (by an inch.) '^ CONDICTION OP NEPOECLADS. 101. That is, the overplus expressed by the words, too long, occupies the en« tire presence of an inch. The philosophy of the process is this : We first express a redundancy, " too long" — and, because this is indefi- nite, we lay down, or bring forth a definite measure, inch. And to bring this overplus alongside of this inch to measure it, we place bi/, which means in the presence of, before this criterion. This is an ingenious ope- ration, yet it is as simple as is that of measuring a board by a rule. The only difference between the two, is this : in measuring a board the carpen- ter carries the rule into the presence of the board,- but in measuring an overplus in speech, the speaker brings the overplus into the presence of the rule. (overplus.) criterion. 16. The tea is too heavy (by six pounds.) Here the writer is presumed to know the exact amount of the overplus ; and to communicate this amount to the reader, he, the writer, carries thi« overplus into the presence of the measure, six pounds, by means of by. As much as to say — ^reader, there is too much tea — and if you will take this too much, and place it alongside of this standard, this measure, six pounds, you will learn the exact amount of this overplus. In what way is the reader informed that this overplus is to be carried into the pre- sence of this measure, six pounds ? By the word, bi/. This word means presence, or presence of; as, was any one by when he told you 1 Was any one present whejn it happened 1 Was there any bystander ? * III. Terms Ex-e-dic-a-tory. The monos which fall under the Terms Ex-e-dic-a-tory, are by the percJi, by the yard, by the pint, &c. From a slight glance at these nepoeclads it may seem that Quantity is better calculated to express the leading idea of these monos than Terms. The word, quantity, is certainly well calculated to denote the addiction of the cormes in such monos. But the abdiction of a word, and the condiction of a mono, are different things. The idea of quantity is the mere abdiction of the word, pint, perch, yard. But quantity is not the condiction of the nepoeclad in the following sentence : " He works (by the perch.") ■ The point is not what does the word, pcrcA, mean ; but what does the mono, by the perch, import. This nepoeclad fixes one of the ternUt one of the conditions on which the contract is made between the parties. " He sells brandy (by the pint.") The word, pint, means a certain quantity ; and the mono, by the pint, converts this certain quantity into one of the conditions on which the peif- Bon sells this liquid poison. By the day, by the year, by the job are all of the Terms ex-e- dic-a-tory. 17. He works - - (by the perch.) That is, hb labour, \aa price, his attention, and his contract is brought up, not into the presence of the whole road, the entire distance, but simply into the presence of a perch. He is there, his presence is confined to a perch at i» time. 9* ' ■ . 102 CONDICTION OF NEPOECLADS. *I1I. Conformity Ex-e-dic-a-tory, \%. This fact appears - (by John's own statement.) That is, this fact appears even while we remain in ihe presence of John's own statement. Hence it is not necessary to leave John's statement for that of another person in order to make out this particular feet. 19. Does he live - - (by any fixed rules ?) That is, does he keep in the presence of any fixed rules in living. There may be fixed rules which he may leave by living contrary to them. But, when he adheres to fixed rales he remains by them. That fey m theii presence. It may be well enough to remark that great attention should be paid to the difference between abdiction and condiction. The abdiction of the word, ruk, ami the condiction of the mono, " by ruk,'^ are very different. The idea which "ru/e" raises in the mind, is that of ai guide in action. Ba4 the idea which the mono, "by rule" raises in the mind, is that of conform-' ity tov To be in the presence of a rule unplies a conformity to it — hence the idea oi conformity expressed in the monto, " by ruk.^^ * III. Immediate-Pos&ession Ex-e-dic-aHory, 20. He has a cask of wine (by him.) 21. He had thirty dollars (by him.) That is, the v ) to good. 5. He looked down - (from , , ) , , above. -That is, (from the place) (which is) above. 0. He came - - (from , , ) beyond. That is, he came (from a place) (which is) beyond the river, or beyond any other thing which the sense will justify. 7. Call the dog - - (from , , ) , , under the table. That is, call the dog ((rom the place) (which is) (under the table.) * III. Sour citive Ex'S-dic-a-tory 8. Light proceeds ^ - (from the sun.) 9. Men have all sprung (from Adam.) 10. Water springs - (from the earth.) 11. Money is acquired - (from industry.) 12. He descended - (from a noble race.) 13. All things sprung - (from God.) 14. This light is - - (from that lamp.) 15. *'And - - - (from this , ) it seems that he , is not dead." 16. This yarn v^ras spun (from that wool.) 17. Can any good thing come - - - (from Nazareth.) That is, can Nazareth be the source, the parent of any good thing ? Illustration of the condiction /^^ of the nepoeclads which be- I. LOCal Ru-dicatory. gin with in. * Ij^ Positional E-dicatory. 1. The horse is - - (in the stable.) 2. The horse is - - (in the harness,) 3. The horse is - - (in the carriage.) 4. The fork is - - (in the knife case.) 5. Henry is good - (in deed.) That is, Henry is not only good in repute, but he is good in his deeds, in his acts. In other words, let Henry remain within his deeds, and he is a good man. You need not drag him out of his deeds into his reputation to make him good — standing in his deeds he is good. There are many men who, to be made goodf must be removed from their deeds into their reputation. The mono, ''in deed," means truth, and that too with much ease, and with striking propriety ; for, if a man is good in deed, in act, he must be good in truth. CONDICTION OP NEPOECLADS. 107 6, Washington was great (in fact.) That is, he was not only great in reputation, but he was so in fact. The post-position of this mono is important to the expression of this exact idea ; for, if this mono should be placed before the trokb the distinguish- ing peculiarity of the idea would be lost. In fact, Washington was great. This sentence conveys no allusion to what he was in reputation. The word fact, strictly speaking, means a deed done — ^hence we see why the mono, " in fact," is synonymous with the mono, in truth. " Washington was great in fact." Many are great when you measure them in their reputation, but quite small when you measure them in truth, in fad;, iii deed. Washington, however, was great in both places — in reputation, and in fact. 7. These balls are alike (in size.) That is, the similarity between the two balls, lies in the size. If you go out of the size, no similarity is found. They are alike. But where is the likeness T It is within the limits, the boundaries of the size. Outside of these limits, no likeness is found. The likeness, then, is in, or within the size. 8. God will judge all - (in that hour.) That is, the act of judging all will fall into this specified point of time In other words, this act will come within this measure of time. We put apples into baskets, but events into hoursj days, weeks, ice.-' 9, One - - - (in five.) The mono, " in five" as here used, means a family of five individuals The expression, one out of five, is sufficient to show the local import of the mono in five. 10. He is - - - (in that office.) That is, his province falls within the circle of duties, which that ofiice comprises. 11. John is - - - (in sight.) " In sight" means that space over which the eye may extend m the act of seeing : and John is within or in this space. 12. John did right - (in replying) to me. That is, he did right in the act of replying. Every person is either in or out of acts: he who does acts, is in them — and he that does not do them, is out of them. There is, then, an in, and an out to an act ; and these places are large enough to hold the agent, whether he is a fly, or an e/e- ,phant. The in is just as large as the agent himself — and the out is as large as the universe ! * III. Condition Ex-e-dic-a-tory* 13. The horse is - - (in a good case.) 108 CONDICTION OP NEPOECLADS. In is the name of a place: the m of a room, is all that space which fallg tvithin the walls that divide this in, this in space, from all other spaces. The in of a stable is that place which falls within the walls of the stable. It is easy to see that a horse may occupy the in of a stable : nor is it hard to see that a horse may occupy the in of a harness. But to see in what way a horse can be said to occupy the in of a good case, the zV* of a good condition, demands thought. Nor is this the only point which demands reflection, for it is not easy even to find the in of a good condition. The in place of a stable is obvious, but the in place of a good case is obscure, " The horse is in a good case, ^^ That is, he has a good coat of flesh on him — ^he is enveloped in a good eoat of flesh. This envelope of flesh in which the horse is wrapped, is called a case. The fork is in the knife case. It may be said, however, that the two monos, " in a good ease," and "in a knife case" differ in condiction. One mono, it may be said, marks the condition of the horse ; the other, the place of the fork. In what way does the writer mark the condition of the horse ? By putting him into a good case. From knife cases, we have formed condition cases ; and to indicate the condition of an animal, we exhibit him in one of these condition cases. " In a knife case" marks in what case the fork is : and " in a good case" marks in what case the horse is. One great difference between these two kinds of cases, springs from the different mechanics by whom they have been formed : one is con- structed by the mind, the other by the hands. The knife case is made from wood, and by the hands : the condition case is constructed out of thought, and by the mind. But does it follow, because the condition cases are made of different materials, and by different workmen, that a horse can not be in them just as much as a fork can be in a knife case ? If a house is constructed in the m,ind only, has it not an in place ? and can not a man that is created in the mind only, be made to occupy the in place of this imaginary temple 1 14. John is kind - - (in sickness.) That is, if cases of sickness surround him, he is kind. In other words, where John's fellow-beings are in the condition of sickness, he shows his kindness, exhibits, manifests his kindness within this condition. 15. He is " , -. - (in good spirits.) That is, he stands in the coiiditibn of mind, which is denominated "good spirits." 16. He is - - - (in good health.) That is, he is in that state, or condition of body, which is called, "good health. 17. Henry is - - (in pain.) CONDICTION OP NEPOECLADS. 109 Is Henry in the- pain, or is the pain in him 1 the pain is certainly in Henry. Hence Henry is in a painful condition. *^In pain" does not mean pain, but this mono means a condition arising frorn pain. Now, it is not the joatn which is in this painful condition, but it is Henry himself: hence to say that " Henry is in pain," is both according to truth and Syn- tax. There is, then, a difference between the addiction of the word pain, and the condiction of the mono in pain. " Pain" means the sensation itself — " in pain" denotes the condition, which the sensation produces in the animal, or part in which the pain is. 18. The man is - - (in a severe fit.) 19. John is kind - - (in sickness.) 20. He is - - - (in good spirits.) 21. Henry is - - (in a high fever.) 22. He is - - - (in good heart.) 23. He is - - - fin good courage.) 24. He did it - - (in good faith.) 25.. He was - - (in his right reason.) 26. He is - - - (in the darkness) of the night. 27. He is - . - (in doubt.) 28. He was - - - (in fear.) To the upright there ariseth light (in darkness.) 29. I command you - (in the name) of the people of Pennsylvania. 30. I got the wine - (in John's name.) In the first place, it seems important to arrive at the exact condiction of the mono, in the name, as found in the above instances. " In the wawe" b a .merologue for it is apart put for the whole. The simple mono, " in the name," stands for the entire paper of commission. It is the name, the signature of him who imparts power, which renders the paper specifying the powers imparted, valid, efficient. Hence his name is used as the entire commission. " In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, I command you to rise up, and walk." That is, in the commission of Jesus Christ, &c. I command you. Why is the mono, *' in the name," used 1 because the efficiency of the entire letter of commission, lies in the name, in the signature. What is a commission ? 1. A commission is, "letters patent, or any writing from proper authority, given to a person as his warrant for exercis- ing certain powers, or for the performance of any duty, whether civil, ecclesiastical, or military." 2. The state of that which is entrusted ; as, *' The great seal was put into commission.'" 10 110 CONIUCTION OF NEPOECLADS. It may be well for you to take particular notice of the fact that the word, commission, in the above, and in the following, means a state, a condition .• . 3. The state of being authorised to act, or to perform ser-. vice ; as, the ship is put into commission. The power of the commission puts the ship into a state, or condition to act — ^hence this condition is called commission. The ship is put into com- mission. That is, she is put into a state to act in buying, or selling, or in exporting, and importing, in the name of another person. Now, as we say, the ship is put into commission ; so we say, the ship is in commission. And, as "in the name," means that state, or condition which the commis- sion produces, it is obvious that " in the name" is just as much local, and positional in its condiction, as is, " in the state," " in the condition." 1 . John is in a bad state. 2. Joseph is in a bad condition. A state, n condition, is that which surrounds him, — that in which he is — hence we say m a state, in a condition. If, then, you consider that " in the name" means a commission, and that commission means a state, a con- dition, you will understand why it is that in is used instead of Z>y. A man does not command 6y his condition, but he commands in his condi- tion. A man receives power, authority to command — this authority puts him into a condition to act ; and, in this condition, not by it, he does act. I got the wine (in John's name.) " In John's name" means that condition, or state into which John's commission puts me to act. 31. The apple is - - (in three pieces.) * III. Belonging-to Ex-c-dic-atory. 1. There is carbonic acid (in coal.) 2. Latent heat is - (in air.) 3. There is nourishment (in bread.) 4. We find the fishes - (in the water,) 5. and the birds - - (in the air.) 6. There are 1000 pages (in the book.) 7. There are three pieces (in the apple.) Illustration of the condiction In tO. (in, and to.) of the nepoeclads which be- I. Local Ru-dicatory. gin with into. ^ 11^ Positional E-dicatorv. 1. He went - - - (into the house.) 2. I put the knife - - (into my pocket.) not in. 3. " Water enters- - (into the fine vessels) of plants.'* 4. I looked - - - (into the room.) 5. «* Put these ideas - (into other words.") GONDICTION OP NEPOECLADS. HI *III. Immersion Ex-e-dic-a-tory. 6. One river runs - - (into another.) 7. " They went down - (into the water.") ^ 8. He plunged - - (into the snow.) 9. He turned some water (into wine.) * in. Conversion Ex-e-dic-a-tory, .10. " He turned water - (into wine.") 11. "Command that these stones be made - (into bread.") 12. Make this leather - (into boots.) 13. Reduce all these sub- stances - - - (into one mass.) *III. Infusion Ex-e-dic-a-tory. 14. *' Put more animation (into your composition.") 15. The instillation of ar- dour - - . (into the mind.) 16. There is an infusion of zeal - - - (into the mind.) 17. I dislike the infusion of Gallicisms - - (into English.) * HI. Mixture Ex-e-dic-a-tory. 18. "Put other ingredients (into the compound.") 19. How many ingredients have been put - - (into this medicine.) 20. You should not put horses, and sheep - (into the same drove.) *ni. Condition Ex-e-dic-a-tory, 21. The child was fright- ened - - - (into fits.) 22. Evidence puts us - (into a belief) of truth, 23. " We reduce many distinct substances - (into one mass.") 24. Men are often enticed (into the commission) of crime. 25. "We are all liable to be seduced - - (into error.") 26. The cup was broken (into several parts.) 27. The land was divided (into six lots.) The whole land was placed in the six lots. 112 CONDICTION OF NEPOECiADS. Illustration of the condiction ^JU' of the nepoeclads which be- I« XjOC£il Ru-dicatory* gin with off. II. Inoccupancy E-dicatory. 1. James is now - - (off his seat.) 2. James is not - - Toff his bed.) 3. James was - - (off his guard.) " On his guard" is a common expression. "Off his guard '^ and " on his guard*^ are opponents in condiction. What is the import of the word, guard ? This word must mean something which a person can be on, — and, if it means something which a person can be on, it means something which a person can be off of. " He is on his guard." " He is off his guard." Men saw that a book which is on a table, is sustained, held up, kept from felling by the table. From this result they have learned to place them- selves on whatever they seek to support, to sustain, or protect them. Hence they have come to place themselves on care, not at care, on care, not under care, on care, not over care, when they seek care to sustain them, to keep them up from danger, or trouble. The word, guard, means that care, that heed, Uiat watching, that vigilance, which is exercised to prevent surprise, or attack. The analogy between the table in sustaining the book, and the guard, the vigilance, in sustaining, in protecting men from danger, is so obvious that it is easily seen why men place themselves on their guard. A house rests on, not at, not under, its foimdation : a man in dan- ger rests on his guard. As the house is saved by being on the foundation; £0 a man is saved by being on his guard. II. Neighbourhood E-dica- TCRY. 1. "They were seen - (off the Cape) of Good Hope.''^ That is, they were in the neighbourhood of the cape, near the cape. Illustration of the condic- L/Tl. tion of the nepoeclads which I, Local Ru-dicatory ■ begm with on. H^ Positional E-dicatory. 1. The paper is - - (on the desk.) 2. Some fell - - (on good ground.) 3. The ball rolled - (on the carpet.) 4. He plays - - - (on the drum.) 5. Joseph plays - - (on the violin.) A violin is a musical instrument — from this fact it would seem to be proper to use with instead of on. We do not say, he saws on a saw, he cuts on a knife ; but he saws with a saw, he cuts with a knife. A violin is as much an instrument as is a saw, or a knife. Yet, we say, he plays on a violin j and he cuts with a knife. And to understand why on, and not with, is used in agnomeclads which are founded upon a certain class of instruments, the subject of the relation of one thing to another. CONDICTION OF NEPOECLADS. 113 must receive considerable attention. A nepoeclad may be constructed, formed, upon a thing which bears two different relations to the thing on which the trone, or the poeclad to which the nepoeclad is con- jected, is formed. For instance: industry may be a source, and an instrument, or means. Hence we may say with propriety, /row indus- try, and hy industry. 1. "These men accumulate money fiofn industry." 2. " These men accumulate money by industry." In the first instance, industry is taken as the source whence the money springs — in the second, it is taken as the instrument, or mea»s employed by these men in procuring money. The relation that the thing on which the nepoeclad is built, bears to the thing in the super mono, is a subject on which he who desires to become a good writer, should bestow much attention. It is from a clear comprehension of the exact relation which the nepoeclad thing bears to the Trone, or to the poeclad thing, that one is able to form the nepoe- clads of proper materials. The relations which the nepoeclad things bear to other things, are too subtle for the comprehension of him who has no powers of reflection, and for him, also, who has these powers, but who will not exert them. 1. "The fingers of his hand, are familiar with deeds qf charity." (Cy his hand.) 2. " The fingers on his hand^ are familiar with deeds of charity." {On his hand.) Both of these nepoeclads are correct. The fingers bear a possessive, a /jroperfy, relation to the hand — Xhey belong io the hand. Hence o/ may be used. And the fingers bear a local relation also to the hand — they are on the hand. Hence on may be used. In the following instance, the nepoeclad basis bears but one relation to the trone : He cuts (with a knife.) The knife is the nepoeclad things or the nepoeclad basis ; and, as it has an instrumental character only, some nepoeclide which denotes the idea of instrumentality, or means, is the only one with which this mono can be commenced. In general, the nepoeclad beeis bears but one relation to other things ; and, in erecting a superstructure upon this basis, we must commence with a nepoeclide which will express this relation. To this principle, however, there are exceptions; for there are instances in which the relation that the nepoeclad thing bears to the action in the super mono, must be en- tirely disregarded in constructing the nepoeclad mono. This is the case where a particular nepoeclad is founded on a musical instrument : for instance, the drum. The drum is an instrument which is employed in the production of music — yet we do not commence the nepoeclad which is founded on this instrument, with a nepoeclide that expresses the relation 10* 114 CONDICTION OP NEPOECLADS. which this instrument bears to the act of producing the music. We do not say John plays with the drum; but we say, John plays on the drum. Men seem to have been so struck with the peculiarity of the fact that, in making music by the instrumentality of these instruments, the hand, or lips, the bow, or sticks are uniformly placed on the instrument, that they commenced the mono with a ne/?oec/tca/.' " My chair is (in the, moon.") * 116 CONDICTION OP NEPOECLADS. Can it be argued that " in the moon" does not mean in the moon be cause the thing which is represented to be in this planet, is not in it ] Surely they who said to Pilate, *'His blood be on us, and on our children," did not believe tbiat Pilate had the power to spot, to mark, them and all their present, and future children with the blood of Christ! But does this justify the position that "on us" does not mean on us— and that "on our children" does not mean on our children T The Jews require the cruci- fixion of Christ at the hands of Pilate ; but Pilate manifests a want of courage, or a want of desire to gratify them. But the people, to indicate their courage, and desire to perpetrate this deed, inform Pilate that they are willing to do the act in the very faces of the most indubitable, and lasting proofs of their guilt. Pilate says, "I am innocent of the blood of this just pierson ; see ye to it:' ' They reply, - ** His blood be on us, and on all our children." , > - That is, Pilate, you may show to the world that you are innocent of his blood by marking us as his executioners. How mark them i By putting his blood on them. What, put the blood actually on them 1 So is the representation which is sufficient to settle the condiction of the mono. The preceding remarks proceed on the ground that the import of the language, " His blood be on us, and on our children," is that the blood is to be put on the Jews as a teken, as the means of identity, as a proof thai the people, and not Pilate, put Christ to death. I have taken this par- ticular ground, not because I think it the theological idea, but becau>;e i wished to examine the doctrine oi reality, and representation, as a cri- terion in deciding on the condiction of monos. Having shown that -it is the representation, and not the reality, of the thing represented, which decides the condiction of monos, I shall now attempt to establish the condiction of this mono, " oti ms," upon the theological basis. ^ 17. " His blood be {on us,) and {on our children.") That is, 4et the consequences of putting Christ to death, rest on us, and on our children. Put the consequences of his crucifixion into the sustain- ing position: we will pledge ourselves to sustain, to bear up, to support, all the bitter results which you think will flow from the sacrifice that we intend to make. Put these consequences, therefore, o?i us. " On us be all the blame." *n. Contact E-dicatory 18. " They will have compassion (on him.") DocTBjNE. — They will touch him with compassion ; or they will bring their compassion in contact with him. The idea of position does not seem to enter into the condiction, for there is no intimation that the compassion is to be applied to the upper part of the person. The prominent idea is that of locating, of placing, compassion in contact with him. Dr. Webster says that on means. CONDICTION OP NEPOECLADS. 117 " Being in contaet with the surface or nppsr part of a thing ; as, my book is on the table." This is his first definition of on, and although it is lax, it may answer the purpose of a Dictionary. But, although it may answer the purpose of a Dictionary, it will not accomplish the object of a Syntax. The word, on, is the name of a certain place which belongs to a great variety of objects. Thete is one^lace which belongs to a table, that is named on. There is another place which belongs to a table, that is named under, A book may occupy both of these places ; hence we may say, 1. The book is 07i the table, and 2. The book is under the table. Now, book is the name of a thing ; and tahU ia-the name of a thing—' but on as well as under is the name of a place. And, as a noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, on and under are as much nouns as are book, and table / Dr. Webster says on is the sign of a contact. "On," however, is the name of a certain place the occupying of which produces a contact. The word, on, is not the name of the contact — on is the name 6f the place itself. It is true, however, that contact is a prominent trait in the condic- tion of many agnomeclads which begin with on. But this idea is a derived one : As the occupancy of the place of which on, under its primary mean- ing, is the name, always produces contact, the idea of position, the idea of upper, is lost, and the notion of contact acquired ; as, he appears on pub- be occasions. That is, he does not remain at home, but comes out, and connects himself with public occasions — he comes up to the occasions — he puts himself in actual contact with the occasions as much as does he who occupies the on of a stage, in contact with the stage. But, then, there is no upper to the public occasions — hence the positional idea is lost. The local idea, however, is still prominent, for he is placed up to the occasion. 19. He preached - - (on last Sabbath.) Doctrine. — His act of preaching was in contact with that portion, with that block of time, which is denominated, " last Sabbath." Or his action was so placed, so heated, that it came in contact with last Sabbath. We place matter in contact with matter, but events, in contact with time. He spake on the stage on last night. He on stage ,- spake on night. His action was on last night. That is, his action was in contact with the piece of time, which is here called, last night. He was on the stage. That is, there was nothing between him, and the stage, to separate him from the stage — hence he was on the stage. The speaking was on last night. That is, there was neither a thin, nor a thick portion of time which pre- 118 COiffDICTION OF NEPOECLADS. ' rented the speaking irom coming in contact with the n/g-/*^ here men- tioned. In reference to the places of things f we use ivheri; as, where is the bookl on the table, ^ But, in relation to the place of events, we use when; as, tuAen was the book placed on the table ] on last night. When, then, signifies place in time — and where, place in. reference to things. {English Syntascope, page \&Q.) -.'../ -r"^- - v 20. John retired - - (on your approach.) " * DocTHiiTE. — The act of retiring came in contact with the act of ap- proaching. That is, no portion of time fell between the two acts. The act of retiring was so soon after the act of approaching, that not a parti- cle of time fell between the two events: one came in ^d^ac/ with the other. - '' : ■'; _ ■ --^ /• '''■',.- •-/■■;■ ■ - - ;■ 21. "He was , - -^(on |he look out)jroi^ /iiwi.*' 22. They were - - (oc^lie alert.) 23. He is - - - (pi ^ 24. He was - - - Ton gu|r|k) 25. They were - - (on th^ir guard.) ^ ;.';.' / , * . ' 26. He appears - -• (on public o6casibns.) ;' '^ ; Doctrine. — Whenever there i^ any public occeisitwh he cohnes in con- tact with it — he comes out to it — he connects himself ^ith it. But Jio keeps himself detached from all other occasions.- ^-^ • . T,i r. V ' • ; ■' -. ■ ''-- '-1 }. . 27.. We find ruin - - (on ruin.) ' >' ^ : 28. Men nieet with loss - (on loss.) 29. He suffered affliction (on affliction.) 30. The thunder came peal (on peal.) 31. He saw heap - - (on heap.) ^ , Doctrine. — Ruin was so frequent that nothing fell between one s|lne of ruin, and another — hence ruin came in contact with ruin. ' , V v • ' ' One peal of thunder came so close to another that the second came in contact with the first. "Heap on heap." That is, heap stood so close to heap that t|tiere was a contact among the heaps. If the idea, however, is, that one heap stood on the top of aiiother, the minocondiction is not contact, but positional : He heaped one heap on, or upon another. ^ 32. He came - - - (on a sudden.) '' 33. He came- - - Ton an errand) o/* 7pt;e. > ) ^ *■ 34. The ship is - - (onshore.) . ''"^^^f/ 'DocTRiifE. — His coming came in contact with our want of preparatHqi^ ^ — or his appearance came so near our state of unexpectedness that ms i appearance came in contact with our state of unexpectedness. C CONDICTION OF NEPOECLADS. 119 2. The errand was his business ; and he had come to that business — ^he was at that business— yea, more, he was engaged in it — hftnce he was in contact with it. Can a man be in water, and not be in contact vi'wh water '? How, then, can he be in business^ and not be in contact with business 1 .' 3. « On shore" That is, aground. ^\\\. Progression Ex-e-dic-a-tory. 35. He is now - - (on his way.) Doctrine. — He^is now in contact with his way, with his journey, with his aet of traveUingr And as he is in contact with his way, he makes pro- gress in his Af ay. ' 36. He-^as then - ^ (on the road.) DocTjiiNE. — The word, road, may be considered, here, as meaning jour ney, or way. In this case the doctrine' of the condiction is that he was then .in contact with his traA)elllng. That is, there was not such a pause, mich a cessation of action as is necessary to break one off from his jour- ,ney, or to produce a Want of contact bei^i;5eu him and his journeying act. A 3ay 's rest Bt a friend's house, is not aWe to destroy the contact of the traveller with his jou^CTjir^in short'he is in constant contact with it till his place of destinaUo|i?ip reached, y - ^ But, if the word, roac/, as here used, means the highway over which he travelled, the doctrine of the condiction is that he was in contact with the fdghivay : he was on his road to Boston. That is, he had left home, and entered the road with which he was in contact when I saw him. 37. He is -^ - '• ion the road) to fame. 38. They are -* ' - (on their way) home. 39. Henry was / - - (on his way) to ruin. 40. He is always - - (on the wing.) 41, He was - - - (on the alert.) Where the idea is action ,- on the alert falls into the Progression Ex-e- dicalory. But where the idea is that of vigilance only, this mono's con- dition is exhausted at the E-dic a-tory. , Class t^e agnomeclads in the following gnomod * ^ 1. Tlie house was - {on fire.) -!^. He is bent - - {on mischief .) ■> . II. Contiguous E-dicatory. 42h The ship was - - (on Galveston Island.) 43.^ Jefferson City is - (on the Missouri river.) 44. Vandalia stands - (on the Kaskaskia river.) 45. The British fleet - (was on the American coast.) That is, near the American coast. / . " The ship is on shore. That is, aground : contact^ • 120 CONDICTION OP NEPOBCLADS. Illustration of the condiction \JV6T. . \ of the nepoeclads which be- I. LOCal Ru-dicatOry. gin with over. II. Positional E-dicatory.*- 1. He held the umbrella Tover his head.) 2. The smoke rose - (over the city.) 3. The flag was waving (over our heads.) 4. «* The mercy-seat - (over the testimony.") 5. There was a window (over the door.) 6. The hat hung - - (over the table.) * III. Meta* Ex-e-dic-a-tory.' 7. The cat jumped - (over the table.) 8. The deer jumped - (over the stream.) 9. TheVater ran - - (over the dam.) 10. The horse jumped - /over the fence.) 1 1 . The lad stepped - (over the pin.) 12. He went - - - (over , , ) to England. ^ 13. He went - - - (over , , ) to the other party, 14. ** He remained - - (overnight.") * Meta, from one side to the other. *1II. Contact Ex-e-dic-a-tory. 15. He sailed - - (over the lake.) 16. They travelled- - (over all the earth.) 17. The cap was - - (over his face.) 18. We put cloths - - (over his hand.) 19. Spread a counterpane (over us.) *III. Emersion Ex-e-dic-a-lory* 20. The water was - (over his head.) 21 Thesnovvwas- - (over his boots.) * HI. Causative Ex-e-dic-a-tory. 22. "Devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great la- mentation - - (over him.") They were looking down upon him — hence they were over him as much as the clouds are over our heads — and he was the cause of the lamentation — hence the positional, and the causative traits in the condictive character of this mono. CONDICTION OF NEPOECLABS. 121. - - II. Meta E-dicatorv. 1 He remained with me (over Sunday.) . 2. ** He kept it fresh - (over winter.") 3. Will you stay - - (over night?) 4. *' They prepared for ' ' each day- - - - (overnight.") DocTniJfi:.— ^The things prepared passed from the beeinning to the end of the night. Or, th« prepared state began on one side of the night, and went over to the other side. ' They went over the river. That is, they went from one side to the other. The prepared state did not go over a stream of water, but it -passed over a stream of time. , I have placed this kind of mono under the Zoca/ Gefnecon- dicatory. But, from an apprehension that some might not see the local trait in its condictive character, I have placed it under the Blank Local. (See Meta E-dicatory, under Lo4iat Hu-dicatory. * 11. Superiority . E-dicatory. u',-\ . '^IW, Excellence Ex-e-dic-a-tory. 1. Christianity has ad- vantages - - - (over every other religion.) 2. Has John an advan- tage - _ - (over Joseph ?) r 3. '* Young Pallas shone conspicuous - - (o'er the rest.") 4. What advantages has learning - - - • (over ignorance ?) 5. What advantages has Texas - - - (over the United States ?) *III. Authority Ex-e-dic -a -tory. 6. Who put thee - - (over us ?) 7. "I will make thee ruler - - - (over many things.") 8. "Thou shalt be - (over my house.") ^ III. Guardian Ex-e-dic-a-tory, ~ 9. " Parents Avatch - (over their children.") 10. *' His tender mercies are- - - - (over all his works.") 11. " Dost thou not watch (over my sin ?") 11 122 C0NDICTION OF NEPOECLADS. Over is frequently a nepoeekd, an adverb ,• as, He will pay over the money to you. In many instances, however, where from a slight glance, over appears to be a nepoeded, it is a nepoedide,- as. How shall I get over? That isi How shall I get over the ice, the river, the lake. Will you appropriate the nepoeclad in the following 7?oe UfltO. {end.) of the nepoeclads whidi be- I. Local Ru-dicatOry. gpin with to and with urhto. n. Final E-digatohy. 1. John went - - (to church.) DocTRXKB. — ^There are various places which belong to a church: there is the under of a church, the in of a church, the on of a church, the over of a church, the to of a church, the at of a church, the from of a church, &c. &c. Now, there is one of these places which is called by three, or more different names : these are to, at, from, and in. When the act ends at this place, the place is called to ,- as, he went to church. When the act begins in this place, the place is called from ,• as, he came from church. And when the superior mono speaks, not of one's going to, nor of his coming from church, but simply of bi« being there, this certain place is called at; as, he is at church. There is a place about a door, which is called by the name of to, at, and from. When the door is approached, this place is called to ; as, he went to the door. When the door is kft, thievery place js cilied from ,- as, he went from the door. When a person remains in this ^w place, ai>d this from place, this place is called at, or by,- as, he is at the