THE PHILOSOPHICAL TEST OF ENGLISH COMPOSITION; WRITTEN FOR THB Assistance of Teachers and Satisfaction of Learners, BY GERALDjMURRAY. Price, Bound, Four Shillings. LONDON: PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR, BY DARTON AND CO. HOLBORN HILL. SS. r- Copies without the Author's written signature infringe his right. LONDON: PRINTED BY AV. AND R. WOODCOCK, WARWICK LANE, CITY. PREFACE. THE Author's aim in publishing the present work, is to excite in youth a passion for gramma- tical knowledge, to facilitate its acquisition, to multiply the number of those who study the English language critically and with pleasure, to raise learners from the degradation of being mere senseless parrots, to the dignity of rational youth, by substituting the exercise of reason for the slavish abuses of the memory. How the work will an- swer the design teachers will decide. The author knows their independence and impartiality, and confidently submits his humble efforts to their unbiased decision. He owns no man's gramma- tical infallibility, and is convinced that the present work must have its imperfections. The author of a school book, who familiarizes learners with the misapplication of words, who sterilizes their minds by unmeaning assertions, poisons genius, renders ignorance impregnable, knowledge inaccessible, and prepares victims for imposition in later years. As the interests of learners will be best promoted by the earliest exposure of the errors in all books for their 2123128 PREFACE. instruction, the author invites the strictest inves- tigation into the truth of what he has written. Much of the argumentative matter, and many of the quotations from other grammars, which the establishment of his system renders indispensable in this edition, will, after a short time, be unne- cessary. He can then supply schools with a small, cheap, and useful book. He flatters himself the present work will prove, that its title is appro- priate, and that he is not unworthy of the very kind encouragement which he has received from the Noblemen, Ladies, and Gentlemen, who have honoured him by adding their names to his list of subscribers. The reader, whose veneration for the old classi- fication of words, renders any change disagreeable, may use the old names ; yet, in this work, he has the advantage of rational definitions and rules which he perfectly understands, while the pupil has considerably less than half the work, which other grammars require. THE AUTHOR. 5, Rue d'Angouleme, Faubourg St-Honore. Paris, May 1st, 1847. SUBSCRIBERS. Copies. Lord Cowley, late British Ambassador at the Court of France The late Right Reverend Bishop Luscomb 2 Monsieur le Comte das Alcavith future time ; as, "He will write." A complex assertive, of which will is the only auxiliary, is used; 1st. To assert the speaker's future free-agency ; as, "I will write; we will go." 2ndly. To assert or ascertain the future free- agency of personal subjects of the second or third person; as, "You willivrite; Will you write? He will go ; Will lie go ? " SECOND PART. 43 3rdly. To assert the speaker's conjectural pre- dictions; as, "This horse will suit me; James will succeed." 4thly. To ascertain the conjectural predictions of others ; as, * ' Will you have time. " * ' Will the packet arrive before 12 o'clock." The complex assertive, formed by prefixing will to the auxiliary have, coincides with the future transit; as, "He will have done at four o'clock." WOULD. Would is used as a modification of will. It implies volition, but coincides with a different time or transit. Will always coincides with a future time or transit ; and ivould with a past, when properly applied. The complex assertive, formed by prefixing would to the primitive form of the assertive, coin- cides with the detached past time ; as, "He would write yesterday." When it is prefixed to the auxiliary have, the compound assertive coincides with the passed transit; as, "She ivould have written at her brother's departure, if she was not prevented." SHALL. Shall differs from will, and intimates that the subject is influenced by some cause. Every complex assertive, of which shall is the only auxiliary, coincides with future time ; as, "I 44 ENGLISH GJUMMAR. shall repay you five pounds on Sunday." "If he go, I shall slop at home." A complex assertive, of which shall is the only auxiliary, is used, 1st. To predict the speaker's influenced agency ; as, "If he go, 1 shall stop at home." 2nd. To assert or ascertain the future influenced agency of personal subjects of the second or third person ; as, "You shall write; shall he come?" 3. To assert the speaker's positive predictions of things; as, "If equals be added to equals, the sums shall be equal." "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire." Matt. vii. 19. etc. 4. To ascertain the positive predictions of others; as, "What shall I do to be saved?" "When shall I come?" The complex assertive, formed by prefixing shall to the auxiliary have, coincides with the future transit ; as, V Shall 1 have done when you come ? I shall have finished at four o'clock." SHOULD. Should has the same relation to shall, that would has to will. Every complex assertive, of which should is an auxiliary, coincides with the same time or transit, as if the same complex assertives had the auxiliary would instead of should. EXPOSITIOX OF ASSERTIVES. The exposition of an assertive is a methodical SECOND PART. 43 arrangement of its different forms which coincide with its varied significations, subjects, times, and transits. The following forms of the assertive to write, indicate an imperfect requisite, and coincide with the prefixed significations, subjects, limes, and transits. The requisite in each of the examples in the following exposition is a letter, and it is called an imperfect requisite, because it cannot be finished when we are only in the act of writing it, which is the thing asserted in each of the examples following : EXPOSITION OF THE ASSERTIVE, To Imperfect participle, writing. Perfect parti- ciple written. PRIMITIVE UNFINISHED SIGNIFICATIONS. PASSING TRANSIT. 1. I am writing \ , 1. We \ \ ^ 2. Thou art writing > <| 2. You > are writing > j~ 3. He is writing ) ? 3. They) } ? * All our writers on Grammar tell us that, I write, thou writest, or he writes, is the present of the verb active to write. We insist that " I write a letter to my uncle new, thou writest a letter to my uncle now, or he writes a letter to my uncle now," is bad English ; and that " I write, thou writest, or he writes," is not the present of the verb active to write ( as they call it ), but the passing transit of the inactive verb to write. When we say, " I write, tliou writest, or he writes," we do not assert that the subject is in the act of writing, we only assert that the subject is capable of writing, or is in the habit of writing. Hence, to assert of the subject he, the habit or capability of writing, we say, he writes, but to assert of the same subject the act of writing, we must say, he is writing. The preceding observation shows why you can correctly say, he writes English now, and whyyoucanuot say, he writes a letter now. 46 ENCLISH CHAM MAR. 1. I write 2. Thou writest 3. He writes :L 1. We S 2. You 3 3. They write This form of the assertive is used to express a habit, custom, or general truths, but not particular acts. 1. I was writing 2. Thou wast writing 3. He was writing DETACHED PAST TIME. i 1. We ~ 5. You 3 3. They were writing ATTACHED PAST TIME. 1. I have been writing 2. Thouhast been writing 3. He has been writing 1 Wf> '\ =T I' Y have been I 3'.Theyi wrltin * FUTURE TIME. 2. Be writing thou } i. 2. Be writing ye or you or I S or Do thou be writing ) 3 Do you be writing AUXILIARY SIGNIFICATIONS. FUTURE TIME. 1 . I will be writing 2. Thou wilt be writing 3. He will be writing ^ 1. We \ H 2. You > will be writing 3 3. They) DETACHED PAST TIME. 1. I would be writing J fl 1 . We \ !L 2. Thou wouldstbe writing > |- 2. You would be writing > s 3. He would be writing ) 3 3. They ) 3 Shall, may, can, should, might, could, can be employed in the same manner as will and would in the last t\\o ex- amples. LINK SIGNIFICATIONS. PASSING TRANSIT. 1. Ifl am writing 2. If thou art writing 3. If he is writing 1. If we } 2. If you > are writing 3. If they) SECOND PART. 47 DETACHED TIME. 1 . If I was writing 2. If thou wast writing 3. If he was wri.ing 1 1. Ifwe 5 2. If you 3 3. If they ATTACHED PAST TIME. 1. If I have been writing 2. If thou hast been writing 3. If he has been writing SL 1 . If we 5 2. If you 3 3. If they were writing > j; have been writing Thefutureof the primitive signification cannot be converted into the link significations, as it is only used to command, en- treat or exhort. The auxiliary significations can be converted into link signi- fications as well as the primitive, by prefixing the link if, or any other that destroys the assertion, and converts the sen- tence into a species of sentence-descriptive, explanatory of the signification of the other assertive which the link unites ; as, FUTURE TIME. Person. Individual. Person. Plural. 1. If I be writing* ) . 1. Ifwe 2. If thou be writing 3. If he be writing I 2. If you ? 3. If they DETACHED PAST TIME. 1. If I would be writing 2. If thou wouldst be writing 3. If he would be writing ^ 1. Ifwe 3. If Ihey be writing would be writing The following forms of the assertive to icrite, denote a per- fect or finished requisite, and correspond to the prefixed signi- fications, subjects, times, ad transits. A finished requisite cannot be united in construction with the passing transit. PRIMITIVE FINISHED SIGNIFICATIONS. DETACHED PAST TIME. 'I.I wrote 2. Thou wrotest 3. lie wrote 1. We '2. You 3. They wrote The auxiliary will is understood in this time. ENGLISH GRAMMAR. ATTACHED PAST TIME. Person. Individual. Person. Plural. 1. I have written ) ^ 1. We ) 2. Thou hast written 3. He has written 1. I had written 2. Thou hadst written 3. He had written You \ have written 3. They) PAST TRANSIT. SI 1. We S 2. You 3 3. They had written FUTURE TIME. 2. Write, write thou or Do thou write 2. Write, write ye or you l SI or > Do you write ) ? AUXILIARY SIGNIFICATIONS Denoting a perfect or finished requisite. 1. I will write 2. Thou wilt write 3. He will write FUTURE TIME. . 1. We ) B 2. You | r 3. They* FUTURE TRANSIT. will write 1. I will have written ) JL 1. We } 2. Thou wilt have written [ will have written 3. He will have written 5 5 3. They 1 DETACHED PAST T!ME. 1. I would write 2. Thou wouldst write - 3. He would write t. 1. We ) S 2. You [ 3 3. They) PAST TRAJSSIT. 1 . I would have written "\ ^ i. We 2. Thou wouldst have written > 5 2. You 3. He would have written ) p> 3. They would write would have f shall be going. 3. He shall be going 3. They) DETACHED PAST TIME. 1. I should be going 1. We 2. Thou shouldst be going 2. You 3. He should be going 3. They should be going. AUXILIARY FINISHED SIGNIFICATIONS 1 . I shall go 1 . We 2. Thou shall go 2. You 3. He shall going 3. They FUTURE TIME. e shall go. DETACHED PAST TIME. 1. I should go 1. We \ 2. Thou shouldst go 2. You > should go. 3. He should go 3. They) Instead of ''He should have gone ," we more properly say, " He ought to have gone." The foregoing finished and unfinished, primitive and auxi- liary significations of the assertive to go, except, "Do thou be going," arid " Do you be going," are converted into link significations, by merely prefixing the link if, as has been already shown in displaying the significations of the assertive to write, which see. The subject assertive to be, is modified or varied in the fol- lowing manner to coincide with the prefixed meanings, sub- jects, times, or transits. TO BE. Imperfect or continuous participle, Being. Perfect or finished participle, Been. Compound participle, Having been. SECOND PAUT. 51 PRIMITIVE UNFINISHED SIGNIFICATION. Person. Individual. 1. I am happy 2. Thou art happy 3. He is happy PASSING TRANSIT. Person. Plural. 1. We 2. You arc happy. 3. They PRIMITIVE FINISHED SIGNIFICATIONS. 1. I was happy 2. Thou wast happy 3. He was happy DETACHED PAST TIME. 1. We 2. You 3. They 1. I have been happy 2. Thou hast been happy 3. He has been happy ATTACHED PAST TIME. 1. We 2. You 3. They were happy. have been happy. To say, I had been sick, I had been sorry, I had been angry, is not good English ; consequently, the assertive to be, has no form to coincide with the passed transit. FUTURE TIME. 2. Be thou content 2. Be you content or or Do thou be content Do you be content. AUXILIARY SIGNIFICATIONS. FUTURE TIME. 1. I shall be able 2. Thou shall able 3. He shall be able 1. We 2. You 3. They DETACHED PAST TIME. 1 . I should be happy 1. We 2. Thou fhouldst be happy 2. You 3. He should be happy 8. They shall be able. should be happy. All the foregoing significations of the assertive to be, can be converted into link significations, the same as the various signi- fications of the assertive to write, and to go; yet as it has ENGLISH GK \MM.\U. some peculiarities which do not belong to any other assertive in the language, we think a full display of its primitive and auxiliary link significations, is indispensable. PRIMITIVE LINK SIGNIFICATIONS. 1. If I am happy 2. If thou art happy 3. If he is happy PASSING TRANSIT. \, If we 2. If you 3. If they 1. If I was happy 2. If thou wast happy 3. If he was happy DETACHED PAST TIME. 1. If we 9. If'you 3. If they 1. If I have been happy 2. If thou hast been happy 3. If he has been happy ATTACHED PAST TIME. 1. If we 2. If you 3. If they are happy. were happy. have been happy. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE AUXILIARY LINK SIGNIFICATIONS. FUTURE TIME. 1. If I shall be happy 1. If we 2. If thou shall be happy. 2. If you 3. If he shall be happy. 3. If they shall be happy. 1. If I be 2. If thou be 3. If he be 1. If we be 2. If you be 3. If they be that is, if I shall be. The assertive to be, and a few others, have no forms coin- ciding with the past or future transit, or with the detached past time of the link auxiliary signification. Every one properly sajs, I will be there at one o'clock; and not, I will have been there at one o'clock. PECULIARITIES OF THE ASSERTIVE 10 Be. 1st. It is the only assertive in the language of which the pri- mitive form, and the form coinciding with /, in the passing transit of the primitive signification are not the same. Be is SECOND PART. 53 the primitive form, but \ve cannot say, / be; we must use the passing transit, and say, / am. 2nd. It is the only one of which any form coinciding with the subject /, is not the same, as the form coinciding with a plural subject of the same time, transit, and signification. Thus, we say, / am, but we cannot say, we am, we must say, we are. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE IRREGULAR ASSERT! VES. Passing transit. Detached past time. Perfect participle. Abide Am abode was abode been Arise arose arisen Awake awoke R* awaked Bear, to bring foiib. Bear, to carry Beat bore bore beat born borne beaten Begin Bend began bent begun bent Bereave bereft bereft Beseech Bid, for- besought bid or bade besought bidden or bid Bind, un- Bite bound bit bound bitten or bit Bleed bled bled Blow blew blown Break broke broken Breed bred bred Bring Build, re- brought built brought built Burst burst burst Buy Cast bought cast bought cas Catch Chide caught chid caught R chidden or chid Choose chose chosen * Assertives having regular forms are marked R. 54 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. Passing transit. Detached past time. Perfect participle. Cleave, to adhere R R Cleave, to split clove or cleft cloven or cleft Cling clung clung Clothe clothed clad, R Come, be- came come Cost cost cost Crow crew, R crowed Creep crept crept Cut cut cut Dare, to venture durst dared Dare, to challenge R Deal dealt, R dealt, R Dig dug,0 du:r, R Do, mis- un- did done Draw, with- drew drawn Drink drank drunk Drive drove driven Dwell dwelt, R dwelt, R Eat eat or ate eaten Fall, be- fell fallen Feed ed fed Feel felt felt Fight fought fought Find found found Flee, from a fo< fled fled Fling flung flung Fly flew flown Forbear forbore foreborne Forget forgot forgotten, forgot Forsake forsook forsaken Freeze froze frozen Get, be- for- got gotten or got Gild gilt, R gilt, R Gird girt, R girt, R Give, for- mis- gave given Go went gone Grave, en-R graved graven SECOND PART. Passing transit. Detached Past Time. Perfect Participle. Grind ground ground Grow grew grown Hang hung hung Hang, to deprive of/ R R life ( Have had had Hear heard heard Hew hewed hewn, a Hide hid hidden or hid Hit hit hit Hold, be- with- held held Hurt hurt hurt Keep kept kept Knit knit, R knit or knitted Know knew known Lade laded laden Lay, in- laid laid Lead, mis- led led Leave left left Lend lent lent Let let let Lie, to lie down lay lain Load loaded laden, a Lose lost lost Make made made Mean meant meant Meet met met Mow mowed mown, R Pay, re- pre- paid paid Put put put Quit quit or quitted quit Read read read Bend rent rent Rid rid rid Ride rode ridden or rode Ring rung or rang rung Rise rose risen ENGLISH GRAMMAR. Passing transit. Detached past time. Perfect participle. Rive rived riven Run ran run Saw sawed sawn, R Say said said See saw seen Seek sought sought Seethe seethed or sod sodden, R Sell sold sold Send sent sent Set, be- set set Shake shook shaken Shape, mis- shaped shapen, R Shave shaved shaven, R Shear sheared shorn Shed shed shed Shine shone, R shone, R Shoe shod shod Shoot shot shot Show showed shown Shrink shrunK or shrank shrunk Shred shred shred Shut shut shut Sing sung or sang sunk Sink sunk or sank sunk Sit sat sat Slay slew slain Sleep slept slept Slide slid slidden Sling slung slung Slink slunk slunk Slit slit or sliUed slit, R Smite smote smitten Sow sowed sown, R Speak, bc- spoke spoken Speed sped sped Spend , mis- .pent spent Spin spun spun SECOND PAUT. 57 Passing transit. Detached past time. Perfect participle . Spit spit or spat spit or spitten Split split split Spread spread spread Spring sprung or sprang sprung Stand, with- stood stood Steal stole stolen Stick stuck stuck Sting stung stung Slink stunk or stank stunk Stride strode or strid stridden Strike struck struck or stricken Strung strung strung Strive strove striven Strew strewed strewed Strow strowed strow n or strowed Swear swore sworn Sweat sweat, R sweat, R Swell swelled swollen , R Swim swum or swam swum Swing swung swung Take took taken Teach taught taught Tear tore torn Tell told told Think thought thought Thrive throve, R thriven Throw threw thrown Thrust thrust thrust Tread trod trodden Wax waxed waxen or R Wear wore worn Weave wove woven Weep wept wept Win won won Wind wound wound Wring wrung wrung Write wrote written ENGLISH GRAMMAR. REMARKS ON WHAT ENGLISH GRAMMARIANS CALL MODES OR MOODS. Vie will introduce our remarks by citing Mr. Locke's observations on the use of scientific expres- sions. In his epistle to the reader, he observes: " The commonwealth of learning is not, at this time, with- out master-builders, whose mighty designs, in advancing the sciences, will leave lasting monuments to the admiration of posterity : but every one must not hope to be a Boyle or a Sydenham ; and in an age that produces such masters as the great Huygenius and the incomparable Mr. Newton, with some others of that strain, it is ambition enough to be employeJ as an under labourer in clearing the ground a little, and re- moving some of the rubbish that lies in the way of knowledge; which certainly had been very much more advanced in the world, if the endeavours of ingenious and industrious men had not been much incumbered with the learned but frivolous use of uncouth, affected, or unintelligible terms, introduced into the sciences, and then made an art of to that degree, that philosophy, *hich is nothing but the true knowledge of things, was thought unfit, or uncapable to be brought into well-bred company and polite conversation. Vague and in- significant forms of speech and abuse of language, have so long passed for mysteries of science, and hard and misapplied words, with little or no meaning, have by prescription, sut-h a right to be mistaken for deep learning and height of specula- tion, that it will not be easy to persuade, either those who speak, or those who hear them, that they are but the covers of ignorance, and hindrance of true knowledge. To break in upon the sanctuary of vanity and ignorance, will be, I sup- pose, some service to human understanding; though so few are apt to think they deceive or are deceived in the use of words ; or that the language of the sect they are of, has any SECOND PART. 59 faults in it, which ought to be eiamined or corrected, that I hope I shall be pardoned, if I have in the third book dwelt long on this subject, and endeavoured to make it so plain, that neither the inveterateness of the mischief, nor the pre- valence of the fashion, shall be any excuse for those who will not take care about the meaning of their own words and will not suffer the significancy of their expressions to be inquired into." To find English grammatical works which stand high in public estimation, not only differing in their definitions of the same thing, but contradicting each other, naturally creates our astonishment, and awakes our suspicion that all is not correct. We in vain try to reconcile these differences, but instead of being able to do so, every effort discovers still greater incon- sistencies, and contributes to confirm Mr. Locke's observations. Indeed, so jarring and frivolous is all that has been written on the English moods, that one can hardly help thinking Mr. Locke must have had on his mind, when he wrote these observations all that has been written on the Enylith moods since his time, as well as all that teas written before it, on the same subject. If the writers from whose works we have taken the following extracts, were to write a description of the Phoenix, that they would agree better and have fewer incongruities than they have, in what they wrote on the moods, is more than probable. What inference must we draw ? Must we believe in the non-existence of the English moods, as we do in that of the Phoenix ; or must we infer these writers had an imperfect knowledge of the moods? We must believe either the one or the other, when we test what they have written, by what I consider a good definition, namely : A good definition of any thing is a direct, full, and perspicuous reply to the question, what is that thing? We cannot be'.ieve that any respectable author can write badly, carelesslr, or unintelligibly, on a subject which he per- fectly understands ; particularly when he is fully aware at the 60 " ENGLISH GRAMMAR. time of writing, that the correctness of his ideas, and the ar- curacy with which he delineates them, can alone establish an enviable reputation, insure public gratitude, and enable him to leave to posterity a name and memory to be revered. However great may be our respect for an author or his me- mory, that respect is overruled by our public duty, which im- peratively demands that the truth of everything written for instructing youth in the principles of their language should first be strictly investigated, and that these investigated truths should be imparted in the manner best calculated to relieve masters and teachers, and facilitate the acquisition of knowl- edge. We have two motives in giving the following long extracts; first, to save our readers the trouble of seeking or purchasing the works from which we quote; second, to enable them by reading before and after the disputed passage to determine the author's spirit and exact meaning, without which they cannot decide with any degree of certainty whether we have wrested the signification, or acted honourably towards these authors or not. HARRIS'S HERMES, Chapter VIII., page 140. " We have observed already that the soul's leading powers arc those of perception, and those of volition, which words we have taken in their most comprehensive acceptation. We have observed also, that all speech or discourse is a publishing or exhibiting some part of our soul, either a certain perception, or a certain volition. Hence, then, according as we exhibit it, either in a different part or in a different manner, hence, I say, the variety of modes, or moods. " If we simply declare, or indicate something to be, or not to be (whether a perception or volition, it is equally the same), this constitutes that mode called the declarative or in- dicative. " If we do not strictly assert, as of something absolute and certain, but of something possible only, and in the number of contingents, this makes that mode, which grammarians call SECOND PART. 61 the potential; and which becomes on such occasions the leading mode of the sentence. " Yet sometimes it is not the leading mode, but only sub- joined to the indicative. In such case, it is mostly used to denote the end, or final cause; which end, as, in human life, it is always a contingent, and may never perhaps happen in despite of all our foresight, is therefore expressed most natu- rally by the mode here mentioned. For example ; Thieves rise by night, that they may cut men's throats. " Here that they rise, is positively asserted in the declara- tive or indicative mode; but as to their cutting men's throats, this is only delivered potentially, because how truly soever it may be the end of their rising, it is still but a contingent, that may never perhaps happen. This mode, as often as it is in this manner subjoined, is called by grammarians, not the potential, but the subjunctive. " But it so happens, in the constitution of human affairs, that it is not always sufficient merely to declare ourselves to others. " We find it often expedient, from a consciousness of our inability, to address them after a manner more interesting to ourselves, whether to have some perception informed, or some volition gratified. Hence, then, new modes of speaking , if we interrogate, it is the interrogative mode; if we require, it is the requisitive. Even the requisitive itself hath its subor- djnate species; with respect to inferiors, it is the imperative mode ; with respect to equals and superiors, it is a precative or optative. " And thus have we established a variety of modes; the in- dicative or declarative, to assert what we think certain, the po- tential, for the purposes of whatever we may think contingent; the interrogative, when we are doubtful, to procure us infor- mation, and the requisitive, to assist us in the gratifications of our volitions. The requisitive too appears tinder two distinct species, either as it is imperative to inferiors, or precative to superiors. Page Ho. " As therefore all these several modes have their foundation in nature, so have certain marks or signs of them C5 ENGLISH GttAMMAP,. been introduced into language, thatve may be enabled by our discourse to signify them one to .mother. And hence, those various modes or m"ods, of \\hich we find in common grammars, so prolix a detail, and which are in fact no more than so many literal forms, intended to express these natural distinctions." Page 150. " And hence, if we be permitted to digress, we may perceive the near affinity of this interrogative mode with the indicative, in which last its response, or return, is mostly made. So near indeed is this affinity, that in these two modes alone the verb retains the same form, nor are they otherwise distinguished, than either by the addition or absence of some small particle, or by some minute change in the collo- cation of the words, or sometimes only by a change in the tone or accent." Note. Page 149. " But for these, and all other speculations, relative to the genius of the English language, we refer the reader, who wishes for the most authentic information, to that excellent Treatise of the learned Doctor Lowth, entitled, A Short Introduction to English Grammar." Doctor Lowth informs us, in page 33 of his Grammar, " That mode is the manner of representing the being, action or passion. When it is simply declared, or a question is asked concerning it, it is called the indicative mode; as, " I love, lovest thou ;" when it is bidden, it is called the impe- rative; as, " Love thou." When it is subjoined as the end or design, or mentioned under a condition, a supposition, or the like, for the most part depending on some other verb, and having a conjunction before it, it is called the subjunctive; as, "If I love, if thou love;" where it is barely expressed without any limitation of person or number, it is called the infinitive; as, " to love;" and when it is expressed in a form in which it can be joined to a noun, as its quality or acci- dent, partaking thereby of the nature of an adjective, it is called the participle; as, "loving." Note. Same page. "A mode is a particular form of the verb, denoting the manner, in which a thing is. does, or suf- fers; or e>prcssing an intention of the mind concerning such SECOND PART. 63 being, doing, or suffering. As far as grammar is concerned, there are no more moods in any language, than there are forms of the verb, appropriated to the denoting of such different manners of representation. For instance; the Greeks have a peculiar form of the verb, by which they express the subject, or matter of a wish; which properly constitutes an optative mode. But the Latins have no such form; the subject of a wish in their language is subjoined to the wish itself, either expressed or implied, as subsequent to it, and depending on it, they have therefore no optative mode ; but what is expressed by that mode in Greek, falls properly under the subjunctive mode in Latin. For the same reason, in English the several expressions of condition, will, possibility, liberty, obliga- tion, etc. belong to the indicative mode: it is their condition- ally, their being subsequent and depending upon something preceding, that determines them to the subjunctive mode. And in this grammatical model form, however they may dif- fer in other respects, logically or metaphysically, they all agree. That will, possibility, liberty, obligation, etc., though expressed by the same verbs that are occasionally used as sub- junctive auxiliaries, may belong to the indicative mode, will be apparent from a few examples : " Here we may reign secure." " Or of the eternal co-eternal beam " May I express thee unblam'd?" 'Firm they might have stood, " Yet fell" MILTON. " \Vliat we would do, ' \Ve should do, when we would. SEAKSPEARE. Hamlet. " Is this the nature " Which passion could not shake? Whose solid virtue " The shot of accident, or dart of chance, " Could neither raze, nor pierce 1" IBID. Othello. " These sentences are all either declarative, or simply inter- 64 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. rogative; and however expressive of will, liberty, possibility, or obligation, yet the verbs are all of the indicative mode. It seems therefore, that whatever other metaphysical modes there may be in the theory of universal grammar, there are in English no other grammatical modes than those above de- scribed. " That the participle is a mere mode of the verb is mani- fest, if our definition of a verb be admitted ; for it signifies being, doing, or suffering, with the designation of time su- peradded. But if the essence of the verb be made to consist in affirmation, not only the participle will be excluded from its place in the verb, but the infinitive itself also, which cer- tain ancient grammarians of great authority held alone to be the genuine verb, denying that title to all the other modes." See HEKMES, p. 164. We find the following definitions and observa- tions in Mr. Lindley Murray's Grammar : " Mood is a particular form or state of the verb, showing the manner in which the being, action, or passion is repre- sented. " The nature of a mood may he more intelligibly explained to the scholar, by observing, that it consists in the change or inflection which the verb undergoes, to signify various inten- tions of the mind, and various modifications and circumstances of action: which explanation, if compared with the following account, and uses of the different moods, will be found to agree with and illustrate them. " There are five moods of verbs, the indicative, the impe- rative, the potential, the subjunctive, and the infinitive. "The indic.itive mood simply indicates or declares a thing: as, 'he loves, he is loved;' or it asks a question: as, ' does he love ? is he loved ?' ' The imperative mood is used for commanding, exhorting, entreating, or permitting; as, ' depart thou; mind ye; let us stay ; go in peace.' " The potential mood implies possibility or liberty, power, SECOND PART. 65 will, or obligation: as, 'It may rain; he may go or stay; i can ride; he would walk; they should learn.' " The subjunctive mood represents a thing as contingent or uncertain, as under a condition, motive, wish, supposition, etc., and is preceded by a conjunction expressed or under- stood, and attended by another verb : as, ' I will respect him, though he chide me; were he good, he would be happy ;' that is, ' if he were good.'" See also Fifth Edition of the Octavo Grammar, p. 113. " The infinitive mood expresses a thing in a general and un- limited mariner, without any distinction of number or person; as, 'to act; to speak; to be feared.' " The participle is a certain form of the verb, and derives its name from its participating not only of the properties of a verb, but also those of an adjective : as, 'I am desirous of knowing him. Admired and applauded he became vain. Having finished his work, he submitted it.' " There are three participles, the present or active, the per- fect or passive, and the compound perfect: as, ' loving, loved, having loved.' " In page 102, we find this note : " As the participle in this mode of conjugation performs the office of a verb, through all the moods and tenses; and as it implies the idea of lime, and governs the objects e case of nouns and pronouns, in the same manner as verbs do ; is it not ma- nifest, that it is a species or form of the verb, and that it can- not be properly considered as a distinct part of speech?" Page 103. "Some grammarians apply, what is called the conjunctive termination, to the persons of the principal verb, and to its auxiliaries, through all the tenses of the subjunctive mood. But this is certainly contrary to the practice of good writers. Johnson applies this termination to the present and perfect tenses only. Lowlh restricts it entirely to the present tense; and Priestley confines it to the present and imperfect tenses. This difference of opinion amongst grammarians of such eminence, may have contributed to that diversity of prac- tice, so observable in the use of the subjunctive mood. Uni- formity in this point is highly desirable. It would materially 3. 60 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. assist both teachers and learners ; and would constitute a con- siderable improvement in our language. On this subject, we adopt the opinion of Dr. Lowth; and conceive we are fully warranted by his authority, and that of the most correct and elegant writers, in limiting the conjunctive termination of the principal verb, to the second and third persons singular of the present tense. " Grammarians have not only differed in opinion, respect- ing the extent and variations of the subjunctive mood; but a few of them have even doubted the existence of such a mode in the English language. These writers assert, that the verb has no variation from the indicative; and that a conjunction added to the verb, gives it no title to become a distinct mood ; or, at most, no better than it would have, if any other par- ticle were joined to it. To these observations it may be re- plied: " 1st. It is evident, on inspection, that, in the subjunctive mood, the present tense of the principal verbs, the present and imperfect tenses of the verb to be, and the second and third persons in both numbers of the second future tense of verbs in general; often require a variation from the forms which those tenses have in the indicative mood. So much difference in the form of the verb, would warrant a correspondent distinction of mood, though the remaining parts of the subjunctive were, in all respects, similar to those of the indicative." In Page 109 he candidly tells us, "The English tongue is, in many respects, materially different from the learned lan- guages. It is, therefore, very possible to be mistaken our- selves, and to mislead and perplex others, by an undistinguish- ing attachment to the principles and arrangements of the Greek and Latin grammarians. Much of the confusion and perplexity which we meet with in the writing of some English grammarians, on the subject of verbs, moods, and conjuga- tions, has arisen from the misapplication of names. \V'e are apt to think, that the old names must always be attached to the identical forms and things to which they were anciently attached. But if we rectify this mistake, and properly adjust the names to the peculiar forms and nature of the things in our SECOND PART. 67 own language, we shall be clear and consistent in our ideas; and consequently, better able to represent them intelligibly to those whom we wish to inform." Page 197, he tells us, " Almost all the irregularities in the construction of any language, have arisen from the ellipsis of some words, which were originally inserted in the sentence, and made it regular; and it is probable, that this has gene- rally been the case with respect to the conjunctive form of words, now in use; which will appear from the following examples: 'We shall overtake him though he run;' that is, ' though he should run ,-' 'unless he act prudently, he will not complete his purpose,' that is, 'unless he shall act pru- dently.' ' If he succeed and obtain his end, he will not be the happier for it:' that is, ' if he should succeed, and should ob- tain his end.' These remarks and examples may be useful to the student, by enabling him, on many occasions, to trace the words in question to their proper origin and ancient con- nexions. We shall, however, add a few observations on this subject. " That part of the verb which grammarians in general call the present tense of the subjunctive mood, has a future signi- fication. In cases of this nature, the terminations of the se- cond and third persons singular, are varied from those of the indicative; as will be evident from the following examples: 'If thou prosper, it will be a source of gratitude ;' 'unless he study more closely, he never will be learned.' Some writers, however, would express these sentiments, without those varia- tions; if thou prosperest, etc.' 'unless he studies, etc.'; and as there is great diversity of practice in this point, it is proper to offer the learners a few remarks, to assist them in distinguish- ing the right application of these different forms of expression. It may be considered as a rule, that the changes of termination are necessary, when those two circumstances concur. "1st. When the subject is of a dubious and contingent na- ture ; and 2nd. When the verb has a reference to future time. In the following sentences, both these circumstances will be found to unite: 'If thou injure another, thou wilt hurt thy- self,' 'he has a hard heart ; and if he continue impenitent, he C8 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. must suffer;' ' he will maintain his principles, though he lose his estate: whether he succeed or not, his intention is laud- able;' if he be not prosperous he will not repine ;' 'if a man smite his servant and he die,' etc., Exodus xxi. 20. Jn all these examples, the things signified by the verbs are uncer- tain, and refer to future time; but in the instances which fol- low, future time is not referred to; and therefore a difference takes place; 'if thou livest virtuously, thou art happy;' 'un- less he means what he says, he is doubly faithless;' ' if he alloics the excellence of virtue, he does not regard her pre- cepts ;' page 202. It is proper here to observe, that the po- tential mood, as well as the indicative, is converted into the subjunctive, by the expression of contingency being applied to it: as, 'if thou canst do anything;' 'have compassion,' etc. "That tense which is denominated the present of the sub- junctive, may be considered as having two forms of the prin- cipal verb: first, that which simply denotes contingency: as, 'if he desires it, I will perform the operation ;' that is, 'if he now desires it:' Secondly, that which denotes both contin- gency and futurity : as, 'if he desire it, I will perform the ope- ration; that is, if he should hereafter desire it.' " The imperfect tense of the verb to be, in the subjunctive, has likewise, according to the practice of good writers, two variations, namely, ' if he were present, he was highly cul- pable; it' lie was present, he was highly culpable." " The varied forms of the verb to be, which refer to present time, and also the variations in the imperfect, are often used indiscriminately. When it is proper to do so, and when im- proper, general usage and correct taste must determine." Mr. Harris, in his " Hermes," gave us a chapter of 33 pages, octavo, on mode or mood, but the most intelligent and acute English reader cannot, from anything therein stated, glean what is mode or mood. What is the origin of this paradox? Have not Englishmen sufficient intellect to comprehend a well written English sen- tence, paragraph, or chapter? Certainly they have. The origin of this paradox is not any natural or general defect in the comprehension of Englishmen, SECOND PAFIT. 69 occ.iuse there is no nation of the earth more advanced in use- ful and profitable knowledge. It is the natural conseque-ce of writing on a subject, of which the writer had confused or imperfect ideas. We may be considered presumptuous in as- serting that Mr. Harris, who had so general a knowledge of other languages, had an imperfect knowledge, or confused ideas of his own. A great critic, on language has judiciously observed, that a person may study all the languages of Europe in a few years, but to study one perfectly, is more than the business of a man's life? That Mr. Harris, according to the fashion of the respectable in his time, instead of occupying himself in studying English, employed himself in studying Greek and Latin, and that he devoted much of his time to the study of the modern or living languages, is very probable. In what lime, then, did he study that which is more than the business of a man's life ? He say-; (see our first extract, p. 60), " Hence, then, according as we exhibit it, either in a diffe- rent part, or after a different manner, hence I say the variety of modes or moods." Peruse the preceding sentence with an earnest desire to up- hold its correctness, and then tell us what is the antecedent of the word it. Is not it substituted for the soul or a part of the soul, and must not the different part, be also a different part of the soul? Let us replace 'the soul,' or 'a part of the soul,' instead of the word it, and supply the different, which must evident'y be a different part of the soul, and th^n see what sense the sentence \\ ill make, which must run in either of the two following forms. "Hence, then, according as we exhibit the soul either in a different part of the soul, or after a different manner; hence I say, the variety of modes or moods." Or thus: "Hence, then, according as we exhibit a part of the soul, in a different part of the soul, or after a diffe- rent manner, hence, I say, the variety of modes or moods." The sentence admits only of these two constructions which we have given it, and certainly neither of them is calculated to corroborate the opinion which Doctor Lowth expressed of "Hermes," in the preface to his Grammar, namely: "Those 70 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. who would enter more deeply into this subject, will find it fully and accurately handled, with the greatest acuteness of in- vestigation, perspicuity of explication, and elegance of me- thod, in a treatise, entitled 'Hermes,' by James Harris, Esq., the most beautiful and perfect example of analysis that has been exhibited, since the days of Aristotle." The foregoing is an incontrovertible proof of the manner in which truth and public duty are sometimes sacrificed to kind- ness, interest or ambition. The Doctor, knowing how much importance Mr. Harris's approbation must add to his " Short Introduction to English Grammar," appears to have bestowed this unlimited praise to obtain it. The calculation proved to be correct, as may be seen in the 6th extract from ''Hermes;" in which he in return says of Lowth's Introduction: "But for those, and all other speculations, relative to the genius of the English language, we refer the reader who wishes for the most authentic information to that excellent treatise of the learned Doctor Lowth, entitled A Short Introduction to English Gram- mar." Both, evidently, thought more of returning mutual obligations, than of investigating each other's work. Home Tooke was much more faithful in the discharge of his duty as a public writer, than either Mr. Harris or Doctor Lowth; and his opinion of Harris's "Hermes," is strongly opposed to the Reverend Bishop's, as may be seen in many parts of the "Di- versions of Purlcy." EXAMPLE 1. Diversions of Purley, Part 7. "The recommendation, no doubt, is full, and the authority great ; but I cannot say that I have found the performance to correspond ; nor can I boast of any acquisition from its perusal, except indeed of hard words, and frivolous and unintelligible distinctions." EXAMPLE 2. In page 275, Home Tooke says, "Mr. Harris's logical ignorance most happily deprived him of a sense of his misfortunes. And so little, good man, d'd he dream of the danger of his situation, that whilst all others SECOND I'AP.T. 71 were acknowledging their successless, though indefatigable labours, and lamenting their insuperable difficulties, he pre- faces his doctrine of connectives with this singularly confident introduction : ' What remains of our work is a matter of less difficulty; it being the same here as in some historical pictures ; when the principal figures are once formed, it is easy labour to design the rest.' " The sentence to which we have already alluded namely, "Hence, then, according a$ we exhibit it, either in a diffe- "rent part, or after a different manner," wants both perspi- cuity and common sense. Mr. Harris could declare nothing more incomprehensible to man's understanding, than the exhi- bition of the whole in its part, or the exhibition of one part of any thing in a different part of the same. If any person was to announce, that he could exhibit a perfect human being in his shin, or that he could exhibit the knee in the eye, or the eye in the knee, he should justly be considered as a fit subject for a mad-house. What is it but exhibiting the whole in a part, or one part in another? Hence we say, that the nature and origin of modes or moods, cannot be ascertained from \\hat Mr. Harris wrote on the subject. Doctor Lowth gives us the three following different defini- tions of mode in the same page. (See first and second extract, p. 71.) 1st. "The mode is the manner of representing the being, action or passion." 2nd. "A mode is a particular form of the verb, denoting the manner, in which a thing is, does, or suffers. 3rd. " A mode is a particular form of the verb, expressing an intention of the mind concerning such being, doing, or suffering." We have here three different definitions of the same thing, of which two at least must be wrong; because, if any one of them is right, the other two which are different must be wrong. Let us examine them, and try to discover which of them is right. In the first of them, he says, that "A mode is the manner of representing the being, action or passion." What 72 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. i* the manner of representing the being, action, or passion? The only' manner of representing the being, action, or passion, having any connexion with grammar, is by the application of words. Hence mode is (lie application of words. (!an anything be more vague or unmeaning tli-m this? No won- der, indeed, he attempted to define it better; with what suc- cess we shall see. 2. "A mode is a particular form of the verb, denoting the manner in which a thing is, does, or suffers." Let us test this definition. I can correctly say, / am of that family, bat I cannot say, I am that family ; because the family must consist of two or more persons; therefore, I cannot say, I am that family, neither can you say with any propriety, that a mood is a par- ticular form of the verb, which we shall prove by the Doctor's own words. In the 37th and 38th page of his Grammar, 1 2 he gave us the ten following forms of the verb; I am, thou art, 34 56 789 he is, we are, thou beest, I was, thou wast, we were, / shall be, 10 thou shalt be. Now, if each of these ten different forms is of the indicative mood, can you say that the indicative mood is any one of them? You can say it, but then you say as perfect nonsense as, I am the family, or, the family is I. Am is of the indi- cative mood, but it is not the mood, nor is the mood am, because the indicative rnood consists of ten different forms, according to Lowth, and any one of them cannot be the ten ; the same as, / am of the family, but / am not the family : therefore, mode is not a particular form of the verb, but a plurality of different forms, which appears from the Doctor's own classification of the forms of the verb, according to the different moods to which he makes them belong. His defini- tion of mood, and his conjugation are dangerously opposed to each other. If his definition of mood be admitted, we must admit eighty moods ; or else there must be some forms of the verb, that are of no mood, which we believe no grammarian SECOND PART. 73 has yet ventured to assert. That there are eighty moods accor- ding to the definition, may be thus proved. Every verb in the language, except the defective, has at least eighty forms, which may be seen in page 31 ; that is, there are thirty-eight forms corresponding to the subject /, and thirty-eight different forms corresponding to the subject thou, which make seventy-six; add to this the four forms, he writes, he is writing, he has written, he has been writing; and ve have eighty different forms of the verb. We ask which of these eighty different forms of the verb does he mean in the definition, when he says, that a mode is a particular form of the verb. Which of the eighty is the particular form? He tells us, after the last definition (see 2nd extract p. 63), that "as far as grammar is concerned, there are no more modes in any language than there are forms of the verb appropriated to the denoting of such different manner of representation." We have shown that the English language has eighty forms to denote these different manners of representation, and con- sequently, according to the learned Bishop's definition and observation, we must have eighty modes! Therefore, this definition which leads to so gross an absurdity cannot be cor- rect. We shall examine his third definition, which is this: 3rd. "A mode is a particular form of the verb, expressing an intention of the mind, concerning such being, doing, or suffering." To the inconsistency of the second definition the Doctor adds, in the third definition, the ridiculous absurdity of an intention of the mind concerning such being, doing, or suffe- ring. How Doctor Lowth who made so many useful remarks on the writings of others, could himself write anything so un- meaning and ridiculous as this definition, is ditlicult to con- ceive. Let us test it by a few examples : " The grass grows, the wind blows, the trees bud, the dogs bark, Mary is sick, who spilled the milk?" etc. In the sentence, "the grass gro\\s," grows is the verb, and by the definition, it expresses an intention of the mind. We k 74 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. ask of whose mind does the word grows express an intention? Certainly not of the mind of ihe grass, which has no mind, and the speaker's mind has nothing to do with the growth of the grass. The definition applied to the verb blows and bud, makes similar nonsense. To speak of the intention of the dog's mind, is not more rational, than to speak of the inten- tion of the grass to grow, or of the intention of the trees to bud! In the sentence, "Mary is sick," is is the verb, and by the definition, it expresses an intention of Mary's mind ! I\Iary must indeed be insane to have any intention to be sick. In the sentence, "who spilled the milk?" spilled is the verb. As we do not know who spilled the milk, how can we say there was any intention of the mind to spill it? Might it not be spilled by accident, and without an intention of the mind? As the signification of Mr. Lindley Murray's definition of mood is the same as Doctor Lowth's second definition, from which it is evidently copied, our objections to both are the same. Mr. Murray's definition is, "Mood or Mode, is a par- ticular form of the verb, showing the manner in which the being, action, or passion is represented." We shall henceforth take occasional notice of Doctor Crom- bie's Etymology and Syntax, and Mr. John Grant's Grammar, which are more modern works than those we have already cited. These authors by wandering from English to ancient and modern languages, have shown their own superior learn- ing, which is the dearest object of some men's ambition; but they ought not to have forgotten, that pupils merely studying English, for whom English grammars are exclusively written, fan derive no benefit from their Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Saion, Celtic, French, and Italian quotations. We ask any thinking English teacher, who has the least experience in conducting the education of youth, what is the use to tell a pupil who has no knowledge of those languages, that be in the English language means bi in the Celtic; that than is derived from the Saxon thonne; that irem ti vellem, expresses present liberty and inclination? We find almost every page of both works, so speckled with inferences from other languages that a person can hardly SECOND PART. 75 believe that they were written as guides to conduct students to a critical knowledge of English composition. If the accuracy of an English grammatical definition, or the truth of an English grammatical rule, does not appear from the genius and structure of the English language, are we to admit its accuracy, or its truth, because Doctor Crombie, or Mr. John Grant, tells us that the definition is perfectly accu- ra'e when applied to the Celtic ; and the rule is philosophically tru^ when applied to the Hebrew or Saxon? By no means; we have no faiih in the grammatical infallibility of either, nor in the infallibility of any other person who has written on the subject: consequently we cannot rationally be required to receive as truth, that which is not within the limits of our understanding. Doctor Crombie himself declares, in his preface, that "no language whatever can be critically learned, but by careful study of its general structure and peculiar principles." If this is true, why did the learned Doctor unnecessarily write so much of his English grammar on other languages? Where is the Doctor's consistency? We find the following in Mr. Grant's preface: "Has the English language a passive voice, a subjunctive and potential mood, a future tense, and similar other tenses, without defi- nite number? The very terms, indeed, would never have been introduced into English grammar, but from a servile and unwarrantable imitation of the grammars of languages widely differing from the English in their genius and structure." He adds, in a note at the bottom of the 8th page of his preface, that Mr. Lindley Murray forgets that the premises must be proved, to render the conclusion legitimate. To the truth and justness of the foregoing observation we gladly subscribe. We ask both Doctor Crombie and Mr. Grant, why have they themselves continued that imitation, which they so justly condemned in others? We ask them, how do cases, mood, and voice appear from the genius and structure of the English language? What necessity are we under to admit this imaginary trinity into our English grammars? What inconvenience can or must arise from their rejection, or 76 FKGL1SII CHAMM.VR. Avbat advantage from their admission? We ask why has not he, in the beginning of the 3rd section, defined what is the English grammatical meaning of the word case ? The learned Doctor substituted the subsequent nonsense for the defluition. See page 34 of his Grammar. OF CASES. "The third accident of a noun, is case, (casus or fall) so called, because ancient grammarians (it is said) represented the cases as declining or falling from the nominative, which was represented by a perpendicular, and thence called casus rectus, or upright case, while the others were named casus obliqui, or oblique cases. The cases, in the language of Greece and Rome were formed by varying the termination; and were intended to express a few of the most obvious and common relations. In English there arc only three cases, the nominative, genitive, and objective, or accusative case. In substantives, the nominative case and the objective have, like neuter nouns in Greek and Latin, the same form, being distin- guishable from each other by nothing but their place, thus : Norn. Obj. " 'Achilles slew Hector, "'Hector slew Achilles;' where the meaning is reversed, by the interchange of the nouns, the nominative, or agent, being known by its being placed before the verb; and the subject of the action by its following it. Pronouns have three cases, that is, two inflexions from ihe nominative, as /, mine, me; thou, thine, thee." We lind the following in a note in page 71, which we tran- scribe, as it relates to the present subject: "It may be asked, what is the difference between a man's head and a human head? If 'man'*' be deemed a noun, \vhy should not human be deemed a noun also ? It may be answered that man's does, in fact, perform the office of an adjective, expressing not only the individual, but conjunc- tion also ; and that Mr. Wallis assigns to the English genitive, SECOND PART. 77 /he name of adjective. Besides, does not Mr. Tooke himself maintain 'that case, gender, and number, are no parts of the noun?' and does it not hence follow, that the real nouns are not man's and human but man? for such certainly is their form, when divested of those circumstances which, according to Mr. Tooke, make no part of them. If the doctrine, there- fore, of the learned author be correct, and if the real noun exclude gender, case, and number, as any part of it, neither man's nor human can, with consistency, be called nouns." He adds, in page 73, " it is true, if we are to confine the term noun to the simple name of the subject, we shall exclude the genitive singular from all right to this appellation; for it denotes, not the subject simply, but the subject in conjunc- tion the inflexion being equivalent to 'belonging to.' This indeed is an inconsistency which can in no way be removed, unless by adopting the opinion of Wallis, who assigns no cases to English nouns, and considers man's, king's, etc., to be adjectives. And were we to adopt Mr. Tooke's definition of our adjective, and say, 'It is the name of a thing which is directed to be joined to another name of a thing,' it will follow, that king's, man's, are adjectives. In short, if the question be confined to the English language, we must, in order to remove all inconsistency, either deny the appellation of noun to the adjective, and with Wallis, call the genitive case an adjective; or we must first call man's, king's, etc. adjectives; secondly, we must term happy, extravagant, mer- cenary, etc., nouns, though they are not names ; and thirdly we must assign the appellation of noun to the verb itself. "From this view of the subject, the reader will perceive that the whole of the controversy depends on the meaning which we annex to the tern\noun. If by this term we denote simply the thing itself, without any accessary circumstance, then nothing can be called a noun, but the name in its simple form. If to the term noun, we assign a more extensive signi- fication, as implying not only the thing itself, simply and abso- lutely, but also any accessary idea, as conjunction, action, passion, and so forth, then it follows, that all words may be termed names." 78 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. Why not confine the question to the English language? Why not remove all inconsistency? Why not deny the name of noun to adjectives? and why not with Doctor Wallis, who was so great a favourite of Doctor Crombie's, call man's and king's adjectives? Why call anything a noun or name but what is a noun or name? He tells us, in the last page, that "this indeed is an inconsistency which can in no way be removed, unless by adopting the opinion of Wallis, who as- signed no cases to English nouns, and considered man's, king's, etc. to be adjectives;" yet in page 35 of his (Crom- bie's) Grammar we find, "In English, there are only three cases, nominative, genitive, and objective, or accusative case." What consistency!! I On what a dangerous foundation did the Doctor erect the structure of his cases ! In imitation of whom did the Doctor write a section on case and not com- mence it by defining what is the English grammatical meaning of the word case? In imitation of whom d;d he tell us, instead of defining the subject of the section, that "The third acci- dent of a noun is case (casus, or fall), so called, because an- cient grammarians (it is said) represented the cases as decli- ning or falling from the nominative, which was represented by a perpendicular, and thence called casus rectus, or upright case, while the others were named casus obliqui, or oblique cases." The foregoing stale jargon has been written in imitation of Mr. Harris's chapter on the moods, and has been nearly copied from the 277th and 278th page of the same work, which for the reader's satisfaction we shall here transcribe. "The Peri- patetics held it to be no case, and likened the noun, in this its primary and original form, to a perpendicular line, such for example as the line, A B. SECOND PART. 79 "The variations from the nominative, they considered as if A B were to fall from its perpendicular, as for example, to A c or A D. Hence, then, they only called these variations casus, cases, or fallings. The Stoics, on the contrary, and the gram- marians with them, made the nominative a case also. Words they considered (as it were) to fall from the mind, or discur- sive faculty. Now, when a noun fell thence in its primary form, they then called it casus rectus, an erect or upright case, or falling, such as A B, and by this name they distin- guished the nominative, whenit fell from the mind under any of Us variations; as, for example in the form of a genitive, a dative, or the like, such variations they called casus obliqui, oblique cases, or sidelong fallings (such as A c or A D) in oppo- sition to the other (that is A B) which was erect and perpen- dicular.* Hence, too, grammarians called the method of enu- merating the various cases of a noun declinatio, a declension, it being a sort of progressive descent from the noun's upright form through its various declining forms, that is, a descent from A B to A c, A D, etc." Here we are informed that case and fall are synonymous terms, that the ancients represented the upright fall by a per- pendicular, and represented the oiher falls, as falling from the upright fall. Has anything ever fallen away so very far from common sense as this? Who has ever heard of an upright fall'. What master-mind can comprehend it? Yet the ancients and Dr. Crombie made this incomprehensible upright fall, the source and parent of the other falls, which they call oblique falls. If the ancients had only two falls, the upright and the oblique fall, why have not we the same number of falls? How did the Doctor convert them into three falls, namely, the nominative, the genitive, and the objective fall? Why did not the Doctor add the illustration of the upright fall to his valuable illustrations? We have copied the following account of the Cases from Mr. Grant's Grammar, p. 16 : * See Amman, in Libra de Interpr., p. 35. 80 ENGLISH GUAMMAU. "Or CASE. " Case serves to express certain relations of one thing to another. "A case is a variation in the termination of a noun or pro- noun. The variation of cases is termed inflexion, or declen- sion. "In English there are three cases; the nominative, the ge- uitive, or possessive, and the accusative, or objective. "The nominative and accusative of nouns are always alike, being distinguishable from each olher only by their place in a sentence. "The nominative is the noun in its simple form, and is the name of the agent, or the subject of a verb; as, man speaks, Jo.'.n is loved." 1st. Tf case is only the variation in the termination of a noun, or pronoun, when there is no change in the termination of the noun, or pronoun, there can be no case, because case is not (by the definition) a change of words, but a change of termination only. Hence in the sentence, "John found a diamond;" John and diamond are in no case, because there is no variation in the termination of either. This is not a solitary exception, but one that extends to all the nouns in the language; conse- quently no noun can be in the nominative or accusative case, according to Mr. Grant's definition. 2ndly. How can we vary the termination of the pronoun /, which consists of one letter? We cannot change the termina- tion without changing the entire word, and by the definition, a change of words does not constitute a case; consequently we rannot say according to the definition, that /, or me, is in any case; because / is the pronoun in its simple form, and has no variation in its termination; and me is not formed by chan- ging the termination of /, but is a different word. He must be clever indeed, >>ho can show that me is formed by chan- SECOND PART. 81 ging the termination of /, that us is formed by changing the termination of ice, and that her is formed by changing the ter- mination of she. If every noun in the English language had three forms, its simple form, and two others, formed by two variations of the termination of the simple form, still, accord- ing to Mr. Grant's definition, there can only be two cases as the simple form has no variation in its termination, it cannot be in any case by the definition. We are sure that if Mr. Grant and Dr. Crombie closely studied the English language, and critically examined its structure and genius, instead of amusing themselves, and their readers, with what is only re- ported of the Peripatetics, the Stoics, and the ancient gram- marians,' they would not have given case as an accident of an English noun, or pronoun, or have written the foregoing con- tradictory inconsistencies. What the Peripatetics, Stoics, and ancient grammarians said concerning cases, is as applicable to the nouns and pronouns of the English language, as the laws of China to Her Majesty's dominions. The ancients, and Dr. Crombie, no doubt, attracted public attention to their perpendicular absurdities, but Mr. Grant has surpassed them when he says, "in which the perpendicular coincides with the horizontal line, or with lines formed by * Mr. Grant also, like Doctor Crombie, borrowed the same perpendicular nonsense concerning the cases, from " Harris's Her- mes." See note, Grant's Grammar, page 61. " It may not be improper to add a few words respecting the origin of the term case. The Peripatetics did not consider the nominative as a case ; but likened the noun in this state to a perpendicular line. The varia- tions of the word from the nominative they compared to other lines drawn from the same point, in which the perpendicular coincides with the horizontal line, or to lines formed by considering the per- pendicular to fall with different degrees of obliquity; and these they termed the noun's cases or fallings. But the Stoics and ancient grammarians considered the nominative also as a case. When the noun fell from the mind in its simple primary state, they termed it the upright case. When it fell under any of its variations, such as genitive, dative, etc.; they termed it an oblique case." 82 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. considering the perpendicular to fall with different degrees of obliquity." Mr. Grant, by ths above, has put science to the blush, and snatched the laurels from Mr. Harris, the ancients, and the Doctor. We do not presume to impeach the profound- ness of Mr. Grant's geometrical knowledge, but we are cer- tainly at a loss to conceive how a perpendicular can fall, to coincide with a horizontal line! Or how a perpendicular can fall with different degrees of obliquity ! Mr. Grant has presented the scientific world with an extra- ordinary and hitherto unknown perpendicular, which coin- cides with a horizontal line, or with a line formed by con- sidering the perpendicular to fall with different degrees of obliquity ! If Mr. Grant was asked by any of his young ma- thematical friends, When is a straight pole perpendicular to a horizontal plane? He no doubt would reply, when the pole stands on, or in the plane, so as to make equal angles, or right angles, with the plane, in every direction. Jf his young friend next asked him, What is a horizontal line ? Mr. Grant, we presume, would tell him, that any straight line drawn on a horizontal plane, or parallel to that plane, is a horizontal straight line. His young friend takes the pole, and lays it on the plane, and asks Mr. Grant, Is not the pole now perpendi- cular to the plane? Mr. Grant replies, that it is not; that there are no lying, or reclining perpendiculars; that every perpen- dicular to a plane must be standing, and make equal angles with the plane in all directions. The youth observes, Sir, according to the ideas you have just given me, I do not un- derstand, how a perpendicular can coincide with a horizontal line; how a perpendicular can fall with different degrees of obliquity, or any obliquity whatever; or how a perpendicu- lar can coincide with any line forming oblique angles ! To the truth of the youth's inferences Mr. Grant could not object. We hope he will reconsider the propriety of allowing case to be an accident of an English noun or pronoun. In his pre- face he asks, "Has the English language a passive voice, a subjunctive and potential mood, a future tense, and similar other tenses, without definite number?" He replies, in the next sentence, that "The very terms, indeed, would never have SECOND PART. 83 been introduced into English grammar, but from a senile and unwarrantable imitation of the grammars of languages widely differing from the English in their genius and structure." We tell him, that case could never have been introduced into English grammar, but by a "servile and unwarrantnble imi- tation of the grammars of other languages, widely differing from the English in their genius and structure." We now return to the subject of the moods, after the fore- going retrospective digression, into which we have been driven by the manner in which Messrs. Crombie and Grant blended mood and case together. Ere we proceed to examine the concord of English gram- marians, respecting the number and names of the moods, we must first give a few extracts from the last named authors. We find the following in Mr. Crombie's Grammar, page 94. "The English verb has but one voice, namely, the active. Dr. Lowlh, and most other grammarians, have assigned it two voices, active and passive. Lowth has, in this instance, not only violated the simplicity of our language, but has also advanced an opinion inconsistent with his own principles. For, if he has justly excluded from the number of cases in nouns, and moods in verbs, those which are not formed by in- flexion, but by the addition of prepositions and auxiliary verbs, there is equal reason for rejecting a passive voice, if it be not formed by variety of termination. Were I to ask him why he denies from a king to be an ablative case, or, / may love, to be the potential mood, he would answer, and very truly, that those only can justly be regarded as cases or moods which, by a different form of the verb, express a different relation, or a different mode of existence. If this answer be satisfactory, there can be no good reason for assigning to our language a passive voice, when that voice is formed not by inflection, but by an auxiliary verb. " Doceor is truly a passive voice ; but / am taught, cannot, without impropriety, be considered as such. Besides, as it is justly observed by Dr. Ash, our author, when he parses the clause, ' I am well pleased,' tells us, that am is the indicative mood, present tense, of the verb to be; and pleated, the pas- 84 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. sive participle of the verb to please. Now in parsing, every word should be considered as a distinct part of speech : whether, therefore, we admit pleased to be a passive participle or not (for this point I shall afterwards examine), it is obvious on the principles now laid down, and acknowledged by Dr. Lowth, am pleased, is not a present passive, nor has the au- thor himself parsed it in this manner. Into such inconsisten- cies do our grammarians run, from a propensity to force the grammar of our language into a conformity with the structure of Greek and Latin. " The same reason will also account for my assigning to English verbs no more than two tenses and one mood. For, if we consider the matter, not metaphysically, but grammati- cally, and regard those only as moods which are diversified by inflexion (and, as Lowth himself observes, as far as grammar is concerned, there can be no others), we find thatourlanguage has only one mood and two tenses. Page 96 "This doctrine, in respect to the cases, is gene- rally admitted. For, though the Greeks and Romans expressed their different relations by variety of inflexion, which they termed cases, it does not follow that we are to acknowledge the same number of cases as they had, when these relations are expressed in English, not by inflexions, but by preposi- tions, or words significant of these relations. The Latins would not have acknowledged absque frnctu, without fruit, as forming a seventh case, though they acknowledged fruciu, by fruit, as making an ablative, or sixth case. And why? because the latter only was formed by inflexion. For this reason, I consider giving the name of dative case to the combi- nation of words to a king, or of ablative case, to the expres- sion fromaking,. to be a palpable impropriety. Our language knows no such cases ; nor would an Englishman, unacquainted with Greek or Latin, ever dream of these cases, though per- fectly master of his own language. Page 97." In truth, we may as reasonably contend that our language has all the tenses that are to be found in the Greek and Latin, because, by the aid of auxiliaries and defi- nitives, we contrive to express what they denote by one word, SECOND PART. 85 as to contend that we have a potential, an optative, or im- perative mood, or a passive voice: because by auxiliaries, or variety of arrangement, we can express the circumstances of power, liberty, duty, passion, etc. No grammarian has, as yet, gone so far as to affirm that we have in English a paulo post future, because our language by definitives, or auxiliaries, is capable of expressing that time. Or, what should we think of that person's discernment, who should contend that the La- tins had an optative mood, because utinam legeres signifies ' I wish you would read.' It is equally absurd to say, that we have an imperfect, preterpluperfect, or future tense; or, that we have all the Greek varieties of mood, and two voices, be- cause, by the aid of auxiliary words and definitive terms, we can contrive to express these accidents, times, or stales of being. I consider, therefore, that we have no more cases, moods, tenses, or voices in our language, as far as its gram- mar, not its capacity of expression, is concerned, than we have a variety of terminations, to denote these different accessary ideas. " If, as Doctor Crombie informs us, in the first extract, Doc- tor Lowth violated the simplicity of our language, by assign- ing two voices to it, namely, active and passive, that is a suf- ficient reason for not receiving his grammatical opinions, with- out first strictly examining their truth, and next their appli- cability to the English language. We cannot disguise our opinion, that Doctor Crombie and Lindley Murray made simi- lar use of Lowth's grammar, that is, when either found him- self embarrassed by a diversity of opinions on any gramma- tical point, instead of investigating the origin of that diversity, and industriously endeavouring to write something less ob- jectionable, or incontrovertible on that subject; lo ! he yields to a most unaccountable and affectionate veneration for Lowth, which suddenly takes possession of his soul, and makes the mere name of I.owth a sufficient authority ! By this means,, they escaped the danger, and avoided the disagreeable neces- sity, of writing on a subject of which they themselves had neither clear nor consistent ideas. Of the truth and justice of this impeachment, we can cite innumerable proofs, but 86 ENGLISH GIUMMAR. our limits will not permit us to notice more than the two fol- lowing. See our 2nd extract from Lindley Murray's grammar, in which you shall find a great diversity of opinion concerning what Mr. L. Murray calls the extent of the subjunctive termi- nation. He, without the shadow of either reason or argu- ment, conceives he is fully warranted in adopting the opinion of Lowth, and concludes his sentence, by excluding Johnson, Priestley, and all who differ with Lowth from the class of cor- rect and elegant writers ! How glorious to be always sup- ported on right and left by the most correct and elegant writers ! Poor Lowth, whose authority is a sufficient warrant, in page 103, to exclude all who dissented from his grammatical views, from the class of correct and elegant writers, is him- self excluded, in page 18, of the same work, from the best grammarians, because he differs with Lindley Murray, in not making initial w, a vowel. Doctor Crombie seemed to vie with L. Murray in inconsistency, and was wonderfully suc- cessful in his endeavours. See our first extract from Doctor Crombie's Grammar, in which he says, that " the English verb has only one voice, namely, the active. Doctor Lowth, and most other grammarians, have assigned it two voices, active and passive. Lowth has in this instance, not only violated the simplicity of our language, but has aho advanced an opinion, inconsistent with his own principles. For if he has justly ex- cluded from the number of cases in nouns, and moods in verbs, those which are not formed by inflexion, but by the addition of prepositions and auxiliary verbs, there is equal reason for rejecting a passive voice, if it be not formed by variety of termination. Were I to ask him why he denies from a king to be an ablative, or / may love, to be the potential mood, he would answer, and very truly, that those only can be justly regarded as cases, or moods, which by a different form of the noun or verb, express a different relation, or a different mode of existence." Truth, uniformity, and a retentive memory, are the best friends of consistency. Does Doctor Crombie's Grammar show, that he was assisted by a retentive memory? does it declare SECOND PART. 87 that he adhered to truth, and observed uniformity? We ap- prehend the following observations will sufficiently prove the contrary. If, as Doctor Crombie informs us, Doctor Lo\vth violated the simplicity of our language, by assigning two voices to it, what proof have we, that he did not also violate it, by excluding cases, and moods formed by the addition of auxiliary verbs? Any thing said by Lowth that seemed to prop up Crombie's views, was justly and truly said, and every difference in opinion violated the simplicity of our language. What reason did Lowth or Crombie give us, that cases and moods can only be formed by inflexion? Lowth gave us three cases and four moods, and of the cases, one only is formed by inflexion, and of the four moods, not one of them is formed by inflexion! What inconsistency! For Crombie's consist- ency with respect to the cases, see our observations on the cases, in page 77, 78, and 79; and compare the following, with the foregoing doctrine. In page 35, he says, " that in sub- stantives, the nominative case and the objective, have, like neuter nouns in Greek and Latin, the same form, being distin- guishable from each other by nothing but their place ; thus, Nom. Obj. 'Achilles slew Hector. 'Hector slew Achilles.' Where the meaning is reversed, by the interchange of the nouns, the nominative, or agent, being known by its being placed be- fore the verb, and the subject of the action, by its following it." Here is a proof of the great inconsistency of Doctor Crom- bie's views, and that he was notassisied by a retentive memory. He at one time der lares, that the cases of nouns and moods of verbs, can only be formed by inflexion; and at another, as if with a design to be inconsistent, he tells us, that the no- minative or objective case of nouns is not formed by inflexion, that nouns have no inflexions to distinguish these two cases, and that they have the same form for both cases; that the one can only be known from the other by its place in the sentence. In page 210, note 2, we find that substantives have no ob- jective case! These are his words: "As substantives have 88 ENGLISH GTUMMAR. no objective case, the subject, or object of the energy, or af- fection, is distinguished by its place, which is after the verb." Is not the nominative case of substantives known by its place, as well as the objective? Why allow the nominative case, and deny the objective? According to Crombie's Grammar, there is but one voice, the active, consequently, each of the verbs in the following examples, must be in the active voice ; I respect you, J am old, I sleep, I am respected, etc. As respect is an active verb, you may say, without either shocking the understanding, or complimenting Mr. Crombie's grammatical knowledge, that it is of the active voice : but why say, it is a verb of the active voice, after you declare it to be an active verb. If he calls am and sleep, neuter verbs, and am respected, a verb passive, and in the same breath, declares them to be verbs of the active voice; we cannot restrain our astonishment. If / write, is the indicative mood, what inflexion of the word write declares the indicative. If you cannot show it, you cannot say that write is the indicative mood, because he positively asserts in page 132, "that no language, grammatically examined, has more cases, tenses, or moods, than are formed by inflexion." According to this declaration, we have in the English language, no mood, and but one tense, because no verb in the language has any inflexion to denote mood ; nor has it more than one inflexion to denote time. Walk is the verb in its simple form, without inflexion, consequently, according to his doctrine, it cannot be called a tense, or be said to denote one; but walked is an inflexion of walk, and, according to Crombie, represents the only tense of an English regular verb. If Doctor Crombie's doctrine is true, we have many verbs that cannot be used to denote or mark any^tense; as put, go, burst, see, etc.; because put has no inflexion to mark past time. Go is the verb in its simple form, and went is no inflexion of go, but a different word, there is not one letter common to the word go and went. How can went be called an inflexion of go? According to Crombie's Grammar, it cannot be in any mood or tense, be- cause it has no inflexion to express either. Why did he not define the grammatical meaning of the word SECOND PART- 89 voice, and then let the reader decide whose opinion is correct? Why did he obscure the subject of the voices, by introducing case and mood into it? Perhaps his love of simplicity led him to this confusion. Did he show that case depended on mood, or mood on case? What necessity was there to mix them to- gether? We shall only say of Grant's Grammar, with respect to the voices, moods, and tenses, that it gives the same account of them, as Crombie's, consequently, we have the same ob- jections to both. We shall conclude our remarks on the Jioods, by a brief sketch of the discord of grammarians, respecting the names and number of the moods. In Harris's Hermes, page 144, we find four moods, namely: 1. "The indicative, to assert what we think certain. 2. "The potential for the purposes of whatever we think contingent. 3. "The interrogative, when we are doubtful, to procure us information. 4. ' And, the requisitive, to assist us in the gratification of our volitions." In Lowth's Grammar, page 33, we find four moods, name- iy:- 1. "The Indicative, when we simply declare or question. 2. "The Imperative, when we bid. 3. " The Subjunctive, to express conditions or suppositions. 4. "The Infinitive, to express a thing, without limitation of numb* r or person. In Lindley Murray's Grammar, page 72, we find five moods. 1. "The Indicative, to indicate or declare a thing. 2. "Thelmperative.tocommand, exhort, entreat, orpermit. 3. "The Potential, to imply possibility, liberty, power, will, or obligation. 4. "The Subjunctive, to express a contingency, motive, wish, supposition, etc. 5. "And the Infinitive, to express a thing without distinc- tion of number or person. In Crombie's Etymology and Syntax, page 96, w r e find only one mood, the indicative; yet in his conjugation, w find two L. 90 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. moods, the indicative, and infinitive. In Grant's Grammar, page 60, we find thathe only admits one mood, the indicative; but to our surprise, in page 72, we find he admits three moods, namely, the indicative, the imperative, and the infinitive. The note in page 60 informs us, that the infinitive mood is evidently a verbal noun ! If it is a noun, why call it a verb? How can a noun be in the infinitive mood? This is the first time that we have heard of nouns in the infinitive mood! If the infinitive mood is evidently a verbal noun, Mr. Grant evi- dently misled his readers! Let us imagine Harris, Lowth, Lindley Murray, Crombie, and Grant, met for the purpose of reconciling their jarring opinions, respecting the names and number of the moods. Let us suppose the sentence If you go, may I accompany you? under consideration. Each writer, according to the name and number of his moods, calls the verbs thus : Harris calls go a verb of the potential mood, and may accompany a verb of the interrogative. Lowth calls go a verb of the subjunctive mood, and may accompany a verb of the indicative. Lindley Murray calls go a verb of the subjunctive mood, and may accompany a verb of the potential. Crombie calls go and may verbs of the indicative mood, and accompany a verb of the infinitive ; notwithstanding he in- forms us, in page 94, " In English there is only one mood, namely, the indicative;" and in page 101 he says, "For the same reasons I concur decidedly with the grammarians who are so far from considering the infinitive as a distinct mood, that they entirely exclude it from the appellation of a verb." Yet, in page 99, he very strangely calls to be a verb of the infi- nitive mood! How are we to know his opinion, when he con- tradicts himself in this manner? Grant calls go and may verbs of the indicative mood, and accompany a verb of the infinitive: see first eitract from Grant's Grammar, in which he says, "There is, strictly speak- ing, but one mood the indicative;" consequently, accordicg to this view, go, may, and accompany, must be of the indi- cative mood; but a note in page 116 shows that he has chan- SECOND PART. 91 god his first opinion, and must make go and may verbs of the indicative mood, and accompany a verbal noun. The follow- ing is the note : " To term, in the usual way, / have walked, I may walk, I may be walking, I shall walk, etc. tenses, is not, in reality, parsing, but phrasing. Such words as have, may, shall, ought to be considered as verbs, and leading or principal verbs, too, rather than auxiliaries, in present time ; be and walk, as infinitives depending on the verbs ; walked, as a perfect parti- ciple, or a participial, supplying the place ef a noun in the objective case, and denoting a finished action ; and walking, an imperfect participle, referring to the nominative I. In I do murder,! do write, I did murder, 1 did write, I can consider murder and write as nothing else but verbal nouns, merely the specific names of action, governed by do and did, and capable themselves of governing an accusative." According to this note, in the sentence, "If you go, may I accompany you?" accompany must be a verbal noun. Stronger proofs of irreconcilable discord and contradictory absurdities cannot be produced than are to be found in the opinions of these writers, concerning the verbs of one simple sentence! Harris divides the verbs of all assertive sentences into three classes, namely, the indicative, the potential, and the requisi- tive ; but, strangely enough, he indiscriminately calls any one of these three classes, when used interrogatively, a verb of the interrogative mood. Doctor Crombie and Mr. Grant ask Mr. Harris, why does not he call all verbs used to assert or affirm, verbs of the assertive, or indicative, mood, as well as he calls all verbs used to interrogate, verbs of the interroga- tive? Harris replies, "Gentlemen, I shall answer your question after you inform me, why have you not called all verbs used in asking questions interrogative verbs, as well as you call all verbs used in asserting anything, verbs of the indicative mood ? You, Doctor Crombie, tell us, in page 83 of your Grammar, ' ihat the verb essentially expresses affirmation.' I ask you to poiut out to me any affirmation in the sentence, ' If you 92 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. go, may I accompany you?' The clause, ' If you go,' is not an affirmation, but a supposition; and ' may I accompany you?' is an interrogation, and not an affirmation; hence, go, "may, or accompany, cannot be called a verb, according to the 83rd page of the learned Doctor's grammar, which declares that the verb essentially expresses affirmation, without which there could be no communication of sentiment." Crombie and Grant have (by the foregoing question) given a death-blow to Harris's doctrine of the moods, and Harris, in his turn, has most effectually overthrown their pretensions, either to philosophical accuracy or to grammatical consistency. Crombie and Grant feeling themselves humbled by the fatal interrogations of Harris, decide on attacking Lowth and Lind- ley Murray, in hopes of better success. Accordingly they ask them, first, "What authority or reason have you for uniting may and accompany, and calling them one verb, after you both defined a verb to be a word that signi- fies to be, to do, or to suffer?" secondly, " Why does not your definition of a verb, show that two, three, or four words can be sometimes taken as one verb?" Lastly, turning to Mr. Lindley Murray, they ask, "Is not may I accompany you the indicative mood, according to your definition of it, as well as / accompany you? Do you not declare the possibility of ac- companying in the one as well as you declare the fact of ac- companying in the other? That is, you declare a thing in each of the two sentences ; consequently each of the verbs is a verb of the indicative mood, which proves your definition of both, moods to be wrong, inasmuch as your indicative mood compre- hends all verbs of what you call the potential mood, and makes the potential a useless incumbrance." Lindley Murray replies, " Gentlemen, I shall follow your own fashionable example; that is, instead of answering your questions, I shall propose you some others. If there is but one mood, as you say, what necessity is there of designating it by the word indicative? Is not every adjective used to pre- vent the possibility of mistaking one name or thing for ano- ther : but how can there be any possibility of mistaking one mood for another when there is but one ?" SECOND PAP.T. 93 Notwithstanding the intended limits of this work, and the already exhausted patience of our readers, do riot permit us to pursue the critical investigation of all the absurdities which arise in consequence of admitting the existence of cases and moods in the English language, yet we have sanguine hopes that what we have already written on the subject, if rigidly examined, forms a sure train to these absurdities, that must for ever explode them from the English language. REMARKS ON WHAT GRAMMARIANS CALL TENSES, OR TIMES. We presume that no person of common sense will deny, that the sovereign, and the pocket that contains it, are different things, that is, the pocket is not the sovereign, nor is the sovereign the pocket ; therefore, nobody calls a sovereign a pocket, nor a pocket a sovereign. INeither is time action, nor action time, nor does any writer confound one with the other, except those grammarians whose confused ideas and contra- dictory opinions render them incapable of writing common sense. May we not call a melon a horse with as much propriety as call time by any name that does not imply it? Some of those writers may perhaps object, that there is an inseparable con- nexion between action and time, that does not exist between the sovereign and pocket, or between the melon and horse, and that the cases are therefore dissimilar. We reply, that connexion of any kind, whether separable or inseparable, cannot convert time into action, nor action into time. The connexion between action and the actor is as inseparable as 94 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. that between time and action, and so is that between matter and space equally inseparable, yet no one will venture to assert, that the action is the actor, or that matter is space ; conse- quently such objections are futile. We find the following definitions in Lindley Murray's Gram- mar, page 80. "Section 5, of the TENSES. "Tense being the distinction of time, might seem to admit only of the present, past, and future, but to mark it more ac- curately, it is made to consist ofsii variations, viz., the pre- sent, the imperfect, the perfect, the pluperfect, and the first and second future tenses. "The present tense represents an action or event, as pas- sing at the time in which it is mentioned ; as, ' I rule, I am ruled, I think, I fear,' etc. "The imperfect tense represents the action or event either as past and finished, or as remaining unfinished at a certain time past; as, 'I loved her for her modesty and virtue; they were travelling post when he met them.' "The perfect tense not only refers to what is past, but also conveys an allusion to the present time ; as, 'I have finished my letter ; I have seen the person that was recommended to me.' "The pluperfect tense represents a thing, not only as past, but also as prior to some other point of time specified in the sentence; as, 'I had finished my letter before he arrived.' "The first future tense represents the action as yet to come, either with or without respect to the precise time when; as, ' the sun will rise to-morrow ; I shall see them again." " The second future intimates that the action will be fully accomplished at or before the time of another future action or event; as, ' the two houses will have finished their business when the king comes to prorogue them; I shall have dined at one o'clock.' That the definition of tense given by Mr. Lindley Murray is not direct, full, or perspicuous, and that it cannot, strictly speaking, be called a definition, may be thus proved. "Tense being the distinction of time, might seem to admit SECOND PART. 95 only of the present, past, and future; but to mark it more ac- curately, it is made to consist of six variations, viz., the pre- sent, the imperfect, the perfect, the pluperfect, and the first and second future tenses." The only part of the above attempt to define tense, that has any resemblance to a definition, is tense being the distinction of time, or tense is a distinction of time, consequently, to-day, to-morrow, yesterday, are tenses, because each of them is a distinction of time. The name of each day in the week, and month in the year, is a tense, because each of them is a distinc- tion of time; so is every year since the Creation a tense, also, because each of them distinguishes time. The answer to the question, "What o'clock is it?" at any hour, minute, or second since the creation up to the passing instant, is a distinction of time, and consequently a tense; but as we have had some millions of hours, minutes, and seconds since then, hence we have had some millions of tenses. Are not lately, formerly, hereafter, etc. distinctions of time; consequently they are tenses by the definition. Let the reader judge the correctness of this definition. "Tense might seem to admit, etc., and it is made to consist of six variations, etc.," are answers to the questions, what might tense seem to admit of? and what is it made to consist of? and not to the question, what is tense? hence they cannot be the definition of tense. If the definition of every other English grammatical term is as vague, confused, and obscure, as that here given of tense, the English language is the most difficult as well as the most imperfect living language. The contrary is universally admit- ted. All foreigners who have studied the English and other languages, acknowledge, that the construction of our language is pre-eminently simple and consistent ; and, that it is at least as perfect as any other, is unquestionable, from the fact, that the poetical and prose works of our English authors, namely, Shakespeare, Milton, Pope, Dryden, Addison, Hume, Sir Wal- ter Scott, Lord Byron, Thomas Moore, etc., have as powerfully attracted the admiration of the literary world, as those of any other country. 06 ENGLISH GRAMMATl. "The present tense represents an action or an event, as passing at the lime in which it is mentioned; as, ! rule, I am ruled, 1 think, I fear.'" With as much common sense might he have told us, thtit black represents white, or that tlie distinction of apples represents an elephant, as to tell us, that the distinction of time represents an action. "The imperfect tense represents the action or event, either as past and finished, or as remaining unfinished, at a certain time past; as, 'I loved her for her modesty and virtue.' If tense is a distinction of time, the imperfect tense must be a distinction of time imperfectly, or badly made ; but any distinction of lime, whether perfectly or imperfectly made, cannot represent an action or even'. " The perfect tense uol only refers to whal is past, but also conveys an allusion to the present time; as, 'I have finished my letter,' etc." In this definition, the perfect tense is the subject of the assertive refers ; and refers, according to Lindley Murray's Grammar, and all others, is called an active verb; but, that time, or any of its distinctions can eilher refer us, or per- form an action, is almost too gross an absurdity to deserve refutalion. As a reference or an allusion, is ihe offspring of language and reason, and as ihese joint endowments are only bestowed on the members of the human race, none bul persons can refer ; therefore, we cannot say, Ihut time or any of iis dis- tinctions refers. You can with as much propriety say, thut space, coat, or horse refers, as say that time refers. Why does not the perfect tense represent an action, as well as the present or imperfect tense? " The pluperfect tense represents a thing, not only as past, but also as prior to some other point of lime specified in the sentence; as, 'I had finished my letter before he arrived.'" The definitions of the other tenses which we have examined, strongly declare, that Lindley Murray wrote, without critically investigating the truth or Accuracy of his own writings or those which he copied; bul Ihe definition of the pluperfecl lenso shows an unpardonable indifference to perspicuity, consistency, and SECOND PART. 97 common sense. We first refer the reader to our remarks on the present and imperfect tenses. We are of opinion, that his imperfect and pluperfect relate to the same time, that is, to a time that is entirely passed. And, that the example, "/ had finished my letter before he arrived," is bad English, accord- ing to his own definition and observations, which may be thus proved: He tells us, that " The imperfect tense represents the action or event, either as past and finished, or as remaining unfinished at a certain time past." He also tells us, in page 81 , " that the perfect tense and imperfect tense, both denote a thing that is past ; but that the former denotes it in such a manner, that there is still actually remaining some part of the time to slide away; whereas, the imperfect denotes the thing or action past, in such a manner, that nothing remains of that time in which it was done. If we speak of the present cen- tury, we say, philosophers have made great discoveries in the present century ; but if wo speak of the last century, we say, philosophers made great discoveries in the last century." When I say, / had finished my letter before he arrived, is not the time in which I finished my letter a past time, that has no part of it remaining unfinished or unexpired? Is not it the imperfect tense according to Mr. Lindley Murray's defi- nition of that tense and the observations we have just quoted? Therefore, to say, 'I had finished my letter be fore he arrived,' is bad English. We ought to say, I finished my letter before he arrived, because the time in which I finished my letter, is a past time that totally expired at his arrival, the same as the last century is a past time that totally expired at the commence- ment of this century ; therefore, if the one is the imperfect tense, so is the other. I can say with propriety, " I had finished writing my let- ter at twelve, at twenty minutes before twelve, at half past eleven," or at any past instant, because, what I assert, is not the writing of the letter, but the completion or finishing of the letter, which is as instantaneous as the completion of any past time. When we only want to assert something that is past, and that does not require duration, we can use what Mr. Lindley Murray calls the pluperfect tense or time, which in 5 98 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. reality is no time. It is only a transit from one past time into another. The following interrogations and observations may throw some light on this subject. 1st. Are the two following sentences good English? "I wrote to him before twelve o'clock this morning." "I had written to him before twelve o'clock this morning." Both cannot be good English, because to believe, that our ancestors uselessly incumbered us with two forms of every asser- tive to mark the same lime is absurd ; therefore, one of the two sentences is bad English. / wrote to him before twelve o'clock this morning, is good English, and / had written to him be fore twelve, is bad. Is not before twelve o'clock the same as in the forenoon, which after twelve is as perfectly a past time, as yesterday or 1840. Who has any knowledge of English says, " I had written to him yesterday, I had written to him in 1840, or I had written to him in the forenoon," that is, before twelve o'clock. Every correct writer says, I wrote to him in the forenoon, I wrote to him in 1840. If you say, I wrote to him in the forenoon, or this forenoon, how can you ay, I had written to him before twelve, that is, tn the forenoon! Are the two following sentences good English? "I had written my letter at twelve o'clock." " I wrote my letter at twelve o'clock." The propriety or impropriety of had icritten, and wrote, in the above sentences, can only be determined by the meaning we attach to the clause, at twelve o'clock. If at twelve o'clotk, means the boundary between the fore and afternoon, "1 had written my letter at twelve o'clock," is good English, and " I wrote my letter at twelve o'clock," is an absurdity, because a letter cannot be written instantaneously, that is, in the boundary between the fore and afternoon. But if we at- tach to the clause, at twelve o'clock, the same meaning that we do, when we say, "We breakfasted at twelve o'clock yes- terday," that is, we commenced breakfast at twelve o'clock, without any respect to the duration of the time which we took to breakfast : according to this meaning of the clause, at SECOND TAUT. 99 twelve o'clock, "1 had written," is bad English, because I cannot say, I had written in a past time having duration, whatever may be its beginning, end, or the time that comes after it; we must say, I wrote in every past time, which is detached from the future. Ere we conclude these observations on the past transit, which might advantageously be continued, if the fear of being prolix did not deter us, we cannot refrain from observing, that whenever the auxiliary had is employed, the speaker's object is to mark the point of time at which the thing was either commenced or finished, and not to assert of the subject the signification of the assertive used, which may be thus proved: 'I had written my letter at twelve o'clock;' that is, I had finished my letter at twelve o'clock ; ' I had done one half my work at four o'clock,' that is, I had finished one half my work at four o'clock. As I could not with any propriety tell a person, that I had finished my letter at twelve, who knew nothing previously about it, consequently, to as- sert or communicate the circumstance of writing, which must have been previously known to the person addressed, is not so much the speaker's object, as to assert or communicate the pointo of time at which it was finished. The foregoing observation shows why the two following forms must be different, notwithstanding each event is instan- taneous and relates to the same point of time. "He had finished his letter at twelve o'clock." "He dropt down dead at twelve o'clock." Here I cannot say, he had dropt down dead at twelve o'clock, because I do not suppose the person addressed knows any thing of the death, consequently, my object is to commu- nicate that event, and not to mark the instant of its commence- ment or completion. As the whole event was so sudden, to mark either its commencement or completion, is unnecessary, therefore we cannot say, " He had fallen dead at twelve o'clo'k;" we must say, " He fell dead at twelve o'clock." All the other grammatical works that we have seen, which have been published since Lindley Murray's first edition ex- cept Crombie's and Grant's, in what relates to the tenses), are 100 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. mere copies of his theory, consequently, our objections to (hem are the same as to his. According to Crornbie's theory of the tenses or limes, see page 96 of his Grammar, there are only two tenses, namely, the present and the preterite ; but to our great astonishment, \ve find the following inconsistent and contradictory catalogue (,f lenses in his conjugation, page 113, 118, and 119. 41 1. Present, I write. "2. Prelerperfect, I wrote. "These are the only two tenses in our language formed by ^al^ing the termination ; the only two tenses, therefore, which properly belong to it." If these are the only tenses that properly belong to the English language, to what language do the following ad- ditional tenses which he introduced into his conjugation be- long? Why admit into his English Grammar, what does not belong to the English language? ! ! " 3. Prefer Imperfect, I have been writing. " 4. Prefer Pluperfect, I had written. "This tense denotes, that an action was perfected before another action was done. "5. Plusquam, Preterite, Imperfect, I had been writing. "This tense, in respect to time, is more than past, and in respect to action, is imperfect. It denotes that an action was going on, or in a state of progression, before another action took place, or before it was perfected, as, 'I had been writing before you arrived. " What refined nonsense to say a time is more than past! IIow can it be more than past ? "G. Future Indefinite, I shall write. '7. Future Imp. Progressive, I shall be writing. " 8. Future Perfect, I shall have written. In page 120, he says, that " Duration, like space, is con- tinuous and uninterrupted. It is divisible in idea only. It is past or future, merely in respoct to some intermediate SECUX1) TART. 101 point, which the mind fixes as the limit between the one and the other. Present time, in truth, does not exist any more than a mathematical line can have breadth, or a mathemati- cal point be composed of parts. This position h/s. indeed, been controverted by Dr. Beattie; but in my judgment, with- out the shadow of philosophical argument.* * "Dr. Beattie observes, 'that the fundamental error of those philosophers who deny the existence of present time is, that they suppose the present instant to have, like a geometrical point, neither parts nor magnitude. I5ut as nothing is, in respect of our senses, a geometrical point, (for whatever we see or touch, must of neces- sity have magnitude,) so neither is the present, or any other instant, wholly unextended.' His argument amounts to this, that as a mathematical point is not an object of sense, nor has any real existence, so neither has a metaphysical instant. It is granted. They are each ideal. But does this prove the author's position, that philosophers have erred in asserting their similarity? or does it evince that no analogy subsists between them? Quite the reverse. The truth is, a geometrical point is purely ideal; it is necessary to the truth of mathematical demonstration, that it be conceived to have no parts. Finding it convenient to represent it to the senie, we therefore give it magnitude. A metaphysical instant, or pre- sent time, is in like manner ideal; but we find it convenient to as- sume as present, an extended space. The Doctor observes, that sense perceives nothing but what is present. It is true ; but it should be remembered that no time, but objects which exist in time, are perceived by the senses. It may enable a person to form a correct idea of this matter if he will ask himself, what he means by the present time. If it be the present hour, is it not obvious, that part of it is past, and part of it future? If it be the present minute, it is equally clear, that the whole of it cannot be present at once. Nay, if it be the present vibration of the pendulum, is it not obvious, that a part of it is performed, and a part of it remains to be performed? Nor is it possible to stop in this investigation, till present time, strictly speaking, be proved to have no existence. Did it exist, it must be extended, and if extended, it cannot be pre- sent, for past aud future must necessarily be included in it. If it 102 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. "Harris, Reid, and several others, have incontrovertibly proved it. But though present time, philosophically speak- ing, has no existence, we find it convenient to assume a cer- tain portio^ of the past and the future as intermediate spaces between these extremes, and to consider these spaces as present; for example, the present day, the present week, the present year, the present century, though part of these several periods be past, and part to come. We speak of them, however, as present; as, this monih, this year, this day. Time being thus in its nature continuous, and past and future being merely relative terms, some portion or point of time being conceived where the one begins and the other ends, it is ob- vious, that all tenses indicative of any of these two general divisions must denote relative time, that is, time past or fu- ture, in relation to some conceived or assumed space; thus it may be past or future, in respect to the present hour, the present day, the present week." If there is no present time, as Harris, Reid, and many others, and as Dr. Crombie himself proves in this extract, what necessity is there to assume an absurdity, that is, to as- sume a certain portion of the past and future, as an intermediate space between these extremes. Between what extremes? Be- tween the past time and future time, which are continuous and inseparable. This false hypothesis, like every other, if examined, must necessarily lead to an absurdity or impossi- bility. Let us test it. If the three following sentences, / write well to-day, I have written well to-day, I shall write well to-day, are good English, which none will deny, and if to-day is present time, as the Doctor assumes, consequently, should be answered, that this proves time, like matter, infinitely divisible, and that the most tedious process will still leave some- thing capable of division, I reply, that as whatever may be left in the one case, must be figure, and not a point, so the remainder, in the other, must be a portion of extended time, how minute soever, and not an instant. The process, therefore, must be continued, till we arrive, in idea, at a point, and an instant, incapable of division, being not made up of parts." SECOND PART. 103 write, have written, and shall write, are forms of the assertive which correspond to to-day ; that is, to the present time. Ac- cording to this theory, each of them is the present tense ; but in page 113 of his Grammar, he calls I write the present tense, in page llo, he calls, I have written the preterfrct tense, and tells us, "This tense expresses time as past, and the action as perfect. It is compounded of the present tense of the verb denoting possession, and the perfect participle. It signifies a perfect action, either newly finished, or in a time of which there is some part to elapse, or an action whose consequences extend to the present. In short, it clearly refers to present time. This, indeed, the composition of the tense manifestly evinces. Thus, / have written a letter, means, / possess at present the finished action of icriting a letter. This phra- seology, I acknowledge, seems uncouth and inelegant; but how awkward soever it may appear, the tense is unquestion- ably thus resolvable." The Doctor had no occasion to draw the reader's attention to the apparent awkwardness of his attempt to illustrate the simple sentence, / have written a letter. If I have written a letter means, / possess at present the finished action of writing a letter, common sense means nonsense; because / have icritten a letter, is common sense, and I possess at pre- sent the finished action of writing a letter, is nonsense. We can confidently assert, that there is not one native of Great Britain or Ireland, who can read English, that does not know the meaning of the sentence, / have icritten a letter, and we can as safely assert there is not one of them who understands the Doctor's illustration, namely, / possess at present the fi- nished action of writing a letter. We have always been of opinion, that every action is as transitory as the time in which it is performed, and we must confess, that the Doctor's illustra- tion is by no means calculated to change that opinion. Is not the sentence, / have written a letter, easier to understand, than what is a finished or perfect action ? Is not one action as perfectly an action as another? By what extraordinary means did he get potsession of a past action, and by what supernatural power did he manage to keep that possession! 104 ENGLISH CIUMMAR. H, in speaking of have irritten, says, " This tense expresses time as past:" consequently, the action performed in that past time, is a past aD for which we join one word to another, is not defining the word joined, hence what Mr. Liudley Murray wrote on the adverb, is no de- finition of it. As the definition given by Crombie, Grant, and Lennie, is the same as that given by Lowth, or Lindley Murray ; conse- quently, our observations on the latter, are equally applicable to the former. 128 ENGLISH GHAMMAR. We cannot imitate our numeron* predecessors who have uselessly divided upwards of three thousand sentence-descrip- tives, which the language contains, into classes, varying in number from twelve to twenty-five. To distinguish each of which by its appropriate name, is a task that discourages and fatigues the learner, and shamefully encroaches on the mas- ter's time, without the loa-U advantage to either. All that is necessary for the master or pupil to know, is, the word's acceptation, its correct application and that it is a sentence-descriptive. When he knows these, he knows all that is really useful. Beyond utility, mere precedent shall never tempt us. That the meaning of almost every sentence-descriptive in the language can be expressed by a link and its explanatory requisite; which sometimes has adjuncts, and sometimes not, is remarkable. Sentence- descriptives Links Adjuncts Explanatory objects Abed in bed Abjectly in a mean manner Aboard in or on a ship Abominably in a hateful manner Abortively in an unseasonable time About {on in all every sides, or direction Abreast by each other's side Abroach in a rum, ing out posture Abroad in another country Abruptly in a sudden manner Absolutely without restriction Abstemiously without indulgence Actually in reality Acutely in a keen manner Additionally by addition Adequately in an adequate manner Adjectively in an adjective manner Adieu to God Admirably in an admirable manner SECOND PAftT. 129 Seutence- descriptives Links Adjuncts Explanatory objects. Admiringly wiih admiration Adrift in (a floating or random ] manner Advantageously in an advantageous manner Adverbially in the manner of an adverb Adversely in an unfortunate manner Advisedly in ,a prudent or de- ' signed ) manner Adulterously in an adulterous manner Affably in an affable manner Affectedly in an affected manner Those who have time and inclination, may readily continue the above list of sentence-descriptives alphabetically, from any good dictionary. Our limits will only permit us to give a few more of those which are in common use. Almost with few exceptions Apart by itself Asunder in separate places Already in a past time Well in a good , state or ( manner III in an inferior /state or ' manner Verily without /uncertainty (or doubt Perhaps by chance Nay by no means (a word used to reverse the signification of Not . v a sentence Namely for example Nowise in no manner Together in a collective state Rather wi:h more inclination Here in this place There to or in that place 130 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. Sentence- descriptives Links Adjuncts Explanatory objects Where to or in what place Hither to this place Thither to that place Whither to what place Hence from this place or cause Thence from that place or cause Whence from which place or cause Now at the passing instant Before in a previous time Heretofore in a remote past period Hitherto up to this time Lately in a time which has ^recently ' expired Hereafter in a future time Presently io |a time soon after * the passing ] transit Immediately in ilhat future which shall soonest be- come past Hime Afterwards after that time Frequently in /many, or conse- ^cutive } times Often in many instances Seldom in few or rare instances Once at one time Twice at two times Thrice at three times First before any other /inference or ( thing Secondly after the first inference Thirdly after the second inference, etc. Much in a great degree Little in an insufficient degree SECOND PART. 131 ON THE REQUISITE-LINK, OR PREPOSITION The requisite link is a connective word, by which we join an explanatory requisite to an as- sertion or interrogation; as, "he sits on the sofa, " they came from Bath on Saturday," etc. Is not he siis an assertion, and have not we linked the ex- planatory requisite, sofa, to it by the word on? By the defi- nition, on is a requisite link. Hence comes the appellation which we have given it. They came is an assertion, and to it we link the explana- tory requisite Bath, by the word from, and again to the asser- tion they came from Bath, we join the explanatory requisite Saturday, by the word on ; hence from and on are requisite links by the definition. The meaning of a simple sentence is frequently so indefinite, as to excite desires which can only be gratified by words with which the sentence itself refuses to associate. For instance, the sentence, he went, must excite a desire to know the place from which he went, and also the place he went to. The first of these places is naturally required immediately after the thing asserted, and the second after the first; yet the sentence refuses to associate with them ; that is, the sentence with the names of the places, without requisite links, makes nonsense ; as, he went Bath Bristol, etc. Hence, we are obliged to use the requisite links, and say, " he went from Bath to Bristol." From the definition here given, and the observations we have made, both the necessity of the English link and its use are evident. The explanatory requisites, which a simple sentence requires, depend on what is previously known to the person addressed, which may be thus shown. If my neighbour, Captain Smith of London, told Mrs. Taylor and me, on Saturday last, that he 132 ENGLISH GIUMMAR. intended to visit Brighton the next day, she could correctly ask rne on the following Monday, did the Captain go, and I could as correctly answer, he went; because the explanatory requi- site, London, Brighton, and Sunday, are in each case known to the person here addressed ; consequently, to name them or link them to either of the sentences, did the Captain go? or he went, is unnecessary. If the Captain declared the place of his intended visit, but not the day, Mrs. Taylor could afterwards correctly ask me, when did the Captain go? I could reply, he went on Mon- day. If he fixed the time, and not the place, she could pro- perly ask me, where did he go? I could reply, he went to Liverpool. If the time was fixed, but the residence and desti- nation of the Captain unknown to her, she could ask me, where did the Captain go last week? I could reply, he went from Liverpool to Bath. The preceding examples fully prove that the explanatory re- quisites which a simple sentence requires, depend on what we believe the person addressed, already knows. We have found the following definitions of the requisite link, unmeaningly called a preposition, in the grammars here quoted. InLowth's, "Prepositions, so called, because they are com- monly put before the words to which they are applied, serve to connect words with one another, and to show the relation between them." In Lindley Murray's, " Prepositions serve to connect words \vilh one another, and to show the relation between them. They are, for the most part, put before nouns and pronouns; as, 'he went from London to York;' 'she is above disguise ;' 'they are instructed by him.'" In Doctor Crombie's " A preposition has been defined to be ' that part of speech which shows the relation that one thing bears to another.' According to Mr. Harris, it is a part of speech devoid itself of signification, but so formed as to unite words that are significant, and that refuse to unite or associate of themselves. He has, therefore, compared them to pegs or pins, which serve to unite those parts of the building SECOND PART. 133 which would not. by their own nature, incorporate or coalesce. When one considers the formidable objections which present themselves to this theory, and that the ingenious author, now quoted, has, in defence of it, involved himself in palpable con- tradictions; it becomes matter of surprise, that it should have so long received from grammarians an almost universal and implicit assent. This furnishes one of many examples, how easily error may be imposed and propagated by the authority of a great name. But, though error may be repeatedly trans- mitted from age to age, unsuspected and unquestioned, it cannot be perpetuated. Mr. Home Tooke has assailed this theory by irresistible arguments, and demonstrated, that in our language, at least, prepositions are significant of ideas, and that as far as import is concerned, they do not form a distinct species of words." The Doctor has saved us the trouble of giving Harris's defi- nition of the preposition. In Grant's "Prepositions are words generally put before their regimen, to express the relations of things ; as, ' He went to London;' 'it was done by him:' 'he is a man of wis- dom.'" In Lennie's "A preposition is a word put before nouns and pronouns, to show the relation between them; as, 'He sailed from Leith to London in two days." " Ere we commence the examination of the foregoing defini- tions of the preposition, we beg the reader to bear in mind, that a correct definition is a direct, full, and perspicuous reply to the question, What it a preposition? See the defi- nition extracted from Lowth's grammar. If they are called prepositions simply because they are com- monly put before the words to which they are applied, and no other reason is assigned, are not articles, adjectives, and the subjects of verbs, commonly put before the words to which they are applied? Are not they prepositions by the Doctor's 134 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. theory? which is absurd, if what is asserted in the preceding part of this definition, is only true of prepositions; yet it is not a direct, full, and perspicuous reply to the question, what is a preposition? and, consequently, it is not a defini- tion of it. The next part of the learned Doctor's diverting subterfuge fora definition is, "prepositions serve to connect words with one another, and to show the relation between them," that is, prepositions serve to connect words with one another and pre- positions serve to show the relation between the words which the prepositions connect. That prepositions serve to connect words with one another, we deny, but ihat a preposition serves to connect a detached word to a sentence we freely admit. That other words serve to connect words with one another we insist. Do not requisite assertives serve to connect words with one another; as, "James wrote a letter." Does not the word wrote connect the word James and the word a, which refuse to coalesce, as we cannot say James a letter. In the sentence, "James has money," does not the word has connect the word James and the word money. Do not adjectives serve to con- nect words w ith one another ; as, He is a tolerably good mu- lician. In the preceding sentence the word good, conntcts the word tolerably and the word musician, which refuse to coa- lesce, as we cannot say, "He is a tolerably musician," hence the assertion, that "prepositions serve to connect words with one another," is false, although true of other words, but whe- ther true of other words or not, it is not a direct, full, and perspicuous reply to the question, what is a preposition ? Consequently it is not the definition of a preposition. We shall now lest his last assertion, namely, that prepositions serve to show the relation between the words which they connect. That prepositions show, or serve to show, any relation be- tween the words which they connect, we must positively deny. Let any grammarian who maintains the Doctor's views, point out one sentence in the English language in which the prepo- sition shows any relation whatever between the words which it connects. If it shows a relation between the two words which it connects, let any of his numerous copyists name this SECOND PART. 135 relation. We fear much, that they must reply, as many others have, that although they cannot express this relation by any appropriate name, yet that the preposition shows a relation. There is, certainly, some relation between these, who thus reply, and Goldsmith's schoolmaster. The following interrogations and observations may help to expose the absurdity of that fairy relation, which writers on grammar inform us is shown by the preposition a relation that has not yet appeared to the human understanding, and that never will. Have every two words in the language a relation existing between them or not? That every two words in the language have not a relation existing between them may be thus proved. If possible, let every two words in the language have a relation existing be- tween them. As the number of words in the English language is about thirty-five thousand, the number of pairs in thirty-five thousand, that is ihe number of relations, far exceeds the num- ber of grains of sand in the sea. We have considerably less than a hundred prepositions in the language to show the entire of these relations, consequently the same preposition must show some millions of different relations, which is absurd, therefore there are words in the English language that have no relation existing between them, which was to be proved. That the relation shown by the preposition exists between the two words which it connects, appears from Lowth's defini- tion. Let us test the truth of this assertion by its application to the following examples : 1. " They are exactly of the same nature." Lindley Murray. 2. "The English language is, perhaps, of all the present European languages by much the most simple in its form and construction." Lowlh's Preface. 3. "Instead of saying, the Lord hath given, and the Lord hath taken away," etc. Lindley Murray. 4. " I am going to London." L Grant. 5. "We went to Spain." W. Lennie. 136 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. 6. " A verb agrees \viih its nominative in number and per- son." Dr. Crombie. In the first of the preceding examples, the preposition of, connects the adverb exactly, arid the article the; in the second example it connects the adverb perhaps, and the ad- jective all; and in the third example it connects the conjunc- tion instead, and the participle saying. In the fourth ex- ample the preposition to, connects the participle going, and the substantive London; in the fifth, to connects the neuter verb went, and the substantive Spain; and in the sixth ex- ample, the preposition in, connects the conjunction and, and the substantive person. As he who receives a bill in payment, and passes it in com- merce, by the act of passing it with his signature, binds him- self to the holder of that bill for its amount when payable; so does the author that writes for the instruction of youth, and publishes the opinions of his predecessors, by the act of pub- lishing with his signature, bind himself to the public for the truth of these opinions. The author is as justly responsible for the truth of his work as the other for the amount of the bill. We arraign Lowth's numerous followers and copyists, for the following false and absurd assertion, namely, a preposition shows the relation between the words which it connects. Until they prove that this relation exists between every two words that can be connected in construction by a preposition, and that the preposition shows this relation, the public have a just right to look on them as propagators of error and untruth. We ask them to point out, and name, in the preceding ex- amples, the relation that exists between the adverb exactly and the article the, between the adverb perhaps and the adjective all, between the conjunction instead and the participle say- ing, between the participle going and the substantive London, between the verb went and the substantive Spain, and between the conjunction and and the substanti\e person. Let them explain how the preposition of, shows three different relations in the first three examples, how the preposition to, shows a relation in the fourtli and fifth, and bow the preposition in, shows the relation between the conjunction and and the sub- SECOND I'AUT. 137 stanlive person, in the sixth example. If the use of a prepo- sition is to connect words, and show the relation between them, how very strange, every writer on grammar can show the connexion, and none can show or name the relation. As Mr. Lindley Murray's definition of the preposition is Low th's, of course we shall pass it without observation. Let us test Doctor Crombie's definition of a preposition, which see, by its application to a few examples: "James went to London ;" "give the book to Ellen," etc. If "a preposition shows the relation which one thing bears to another" in the preceding examples, the preposition to, shows the relation between some two things mentioned in the sentence. As there are only two mentioned in it, namely, James and London (unless he calls went a thing), the relation alluded to in the definition must exist between London and James, or between London and went. Let the reader, if he can, name the relation that exists either between London and James, or between London and went, and then explain how does the word to, show that relation. He tells us in page 158 of his Grammar, " the name of preposition has been assigned to them because they generally precede their regimen, or the word which they govern. What number of these words ancient and modern languages contain has been much disputed ; some grammarians determining a greater, and some a less number. This, indeed, of itself, affords a conclusive proof that the cha- racter of these words has not been clearly understood, for, in other parts of speech, noun, adjective, and verb, the discri- minating circumstances are so evident, that no doubt can arise concerning their classification." Why has not the character of the preposition been as clearly understood as the character of the noun or adjective? Because the preposition is not so well defined in the Greek or Latin grammars as the noun or adjective. Our first writers on En- glish grammar did not write from their knowledge of the En- glish language, but from their knowledge of Greek and Latin, consequently the imperfections in the Greek and Latin gram- mars were thus transfused into our language in its infancy. Nineteen in every twenty of those who have written on the sub- 6. 133 KXGLISII GRAMMAR. ject since that time, have been of the same character as the primitive writers. That many of these grammatical inconsis- tencies and imperfections still exist, cannot surprise us. Doc- tor Crombie, in alluding to Mr. Harris's definition of the pre- posiiion has justly observed: "This furnishes one of many examples how easily error may be imposed and propagated by the authority of a great name. But, though error may be re- peatedly transmitted from age to age, unsuspected and un- questioned, it cannot be perpetuated." The definition of the preposition which the Doctor selected, and to which he gave the authoiity of his great name, is another of the many ex- amples. Lennie's definition of the preposition is, "A preposition is a word put before nouns and pronouns, to show the relation be- tween them; as, ' He sailed from Leith to London in two days." Between what does the preposition show a relation? Be- tween nouns and pronouns between what nouns and pro- nouns? Of course between the nouns and pronouns which are the antecedents of the pronoun them, that is, the nouns and pronouns before which the preposition is put. According to this definition the nouns and pronounsbetween which the pre- position shows a relation, must follow the preposition, which, I believe, is not the meaning Mr. Lennie wanted to impart. Consequently the definition is badly worded. In the sentence he sailed from Leith, the only noun after the preposition from, is the word Leith, but we cannot say the preposition from, shows a relation between Leith. It must be between Leith and some other noun or pronoun after from, which is absurd, when Leith is the only word after it. We strongly recommend the learner to ask, what relation does every preposition show? Between what words the rela- tion exists, and how does the preposition show it. For instance, in the example given by Mr. Lennie, "He sailed from Leith to London in two days." What relation does the word from show? Between what two words does this relation exist? How does the word from show this relation? Perhaps Mr. Lennie may reply, that the word from shows the relation of departure, or sailing, between the word he and the word SECOND PART. 139 Leith. Neither Mr. Lennie, nor any other, can show tliatLeith has anything to do with the departure, or sailing. Leith did not depart, or sail! ! ! Between what two words docs the pre position to show a relation, and what is that relation? How does the word to show this relation? There is no relation existing between Leith and London that can be expressed by thu word to. What relation does the word in show? Between what two words does this relation exist? How does the word tn show it? According to Lennie the word days is one of the words between which the word in shows a relation, but ac- coiding 10 his definition what the other word is, no one can say. It may be, he, Leith, or London. To assert that a re- lation exists between the word days and the word he, Leith, or London, ami that the word in shows this relation, is us evident an inconsistency as to assert that virtue it vice. We present the reader the following rich specimens of Mr. Lennie' s puffing. See title page: "The principles of English grammar, com- prising the substance of all the most approved English Gram- mars extant, briefly defined and neatly arranged." Page 179. "The preceding Grammar, owing to the uncom- mon precision and brevity of the definitions, rules, and notts, is not only better adapted to the rapacity of children than the generality of these, styled introductory Grammars; but it is so extensively provided with exercises of every sort, that it will entirely supersede the use of "Mr. (Lindley) Murray's larger Grammar and exercises; for this is not a mere outline, like his Abridgment, which contains only about seven pages of exer- cises on bad grammar. This contains more than sixty. This contains a complete course of grammar, and supersedes the use of any other book of the kind." What a national jewel! I "In short, by abridging every subject of minor importance, by omitting discussion on the numberless points about which grammarians differ, by rendering the rules and definitions more perspicuous, and at the same time abridging them more than one-half, by selecting short sentences on bad grammar, by leaving few broken lines, and printing them close together as many exercises under each rule of syntax are compressed 140 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. into this epitome as there are in Mr. Murray's volume of Ex- ercises ; so that the use of his Abridgement, price Is. 3d. his larger Grammar, price 4s. and that of his Exercises, price 2s. 6d. are completely superseded by this little volume at Is. 6d. ; while, at the same time, the learner will acquire as much knowledge of grammar with this in six months, as with all these volumes in twelve." The last clause shows Mr. Lennie's refined taste and pure diction. It only contains four glaring errors: namely, the use are completely superseded, instead of, is superseded; and that, instead of and; with this, for by this; with all these, for by all these. Let us examine this puffing a little. How can Mr. Lennie's Grammar comprise the substance of all the most approved English grammars eitant, and omit the numberless discussions on subjects of the greatest gramma- tical importance on which grammarians have differed; as, moods, tenses, cases, etc. ? In one part of his Grammar, he tells us, that his is better adapted to the capacities of children than other grammars ; in page 54, he unblushingly acknow- ledges his incapability of writing a definition of a preposition, which will lead a child to distinguish it from the other kinds of words. Let the public judge his capability of writing a defi- nition of it for adults. To finish his bubble, he modestly in- forms the public, that "every page" in his rough-bound, 18-penny Grammar " wears an air of neatness and ease invitingly sweet." What Mr. Lennie means by wearing an air, we cannot imagine. Invitingly sweet, is a flagrant prostitution of words. See Lennie's grammar, page 142. " With and and. "When a singular noun has a clause joined to it by with, jt is often difficult to determine whether the verb should be singular or plural, especially as our most reputable authors use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other; for example, some would say, ' My uncle with his son, was in town yester- day.' Others would say, My uncle with his son, were in town yesterday.' SECOND PART. 141 "If we take the tense for our guide and nothing else can guide us in a case of this kind it is evident that the verb should be plural; for both uncle and son are the joint subject of our affirmation, and declared to be both in the tame state. 'When we perceive from the sense, that the noun before with is exclusively the real subject, then the verb should be singular; thus, 'Christ with his three chosen disciples was transfigured on the mount.' Here the verb is singular, because we know that none but Christ was transfigured ; the disciples were not joint associates with him, they were mere spectators. There seems to be an ellipsis in such sentences as this, Mhicb, if supplied in the present, would run thus: 'Christ (who was attended) with his three chosen disciples, was transfigured on the mount.' " With in the last sentence is bad English, and ought to be by. " Mr. Lindley Murray, however, thinks that the verb should be singular in the following and similar sentences. ' Prospe- rity with humility render* itt possessor truly amiable;' 'the side A, with the sides B and C composes the triangle.' In my opinion, on the contrary, the verb should be plural. For in the first sentence it is not asserted that prosperity alone renders its possessor truly amiable, but prosperity and humility united, and co-operating to produce an effect in their joint state, which they were incapahle of achieving in their individual capacity. "If true, as Mr. Lindley Murray says, that the side A, in the second sentence, is the true nominative to the verb, then it follows of course, thai the two sides, B and C, have no agency, or no share, in forming the triangle. It is obvious, however, that one side cannot form a triangle, or three-sided figure, and that the sides B and C are as much concerned in forming the triangle, as the side A, and, therefore, the verb should be plural. " Upon the whole, we may venture to give the two following general rules : "1. That wherever the noun or pronoun after with exists, acts, or suffers, jointly with the singular nominative before'\i, the verb should be plural; as, 'She with her sisters are well;' 'his purse with its contents u-ere abstracted from his pocket;' 142 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. ' the General with his men were taken prisoners.' In these sentences the verb is plural, because the words after with are as much the subject of discourse as the words before it. Her supers were well as well as she; the contents as well as the purse were abstracted ; and the men as well as the General were taken prisoners. If in the first example we say is well, then the meaning will be, she is well when in company with her sisters; and the idea that her sisters are well, will be en- tirely excluded. "2. When the noun after with is a mere involuntary or inanimate instrument, the verb should be singular; as, 'the Captain with his men catchet poor Africans and sells them for slaves;' ' the 'Squire with his hounds kills a fox.' Here the verb is singular, because the men and hounds are not joint agents with the Captain and 'Squire; they areas much the mere instruments in iheir hands as the gun and pen in the hands of he and she in the following sentences. 'He with his gun shoots a hare;' 'she with her pen writes a letter.'" Mr. Lennie says, "If we take the sense for our guide, and nothing else can guide us in a case of this kind, it is evident that the verb should be plural, for both uncle and son are the joint subject of our affirmation." He informs his readers, in page 83 of his Grammar, that the word with is sometimes used for and, and refers to the following examples under his first general rule (which rule see, in the extract we have already given): "'She with her sisters are well;' 'his purse with its contents were abstracted from his pocket;" " the General with his men were taken prisoners." In these sentences the verb is plural, because the words after with are as much the subject of discourse (we suppose he means as much the subject of the verbs) as the words before them." We insist that the word with cannot be correctly used for and; that Mr. Lennie's first general rule is erroneous, and that each of the sentences, " My uncle with his son were in town yester- day;" "she with her sisters are well;" "his purse with its contents were abstracted from his pocket;" "the General with his men were taken prisoners;" is bad English. They ought lo be, "She and her sisters are well;" "his purse and its con- SECOND PART. 143 tents were abstracted from his pocket;" " the General and his men were taken prisoners." If, in the examples given by Mr. Lennie, namely, "She with her sisters are well," etc., with is used instead of and, consequently with in these examples is a conjunction. Mr. Lennie tells us that the words after with are as much the subject of the verbs as the words before it, consequently the conjunction with, in these examples, com- bines the agency of the noun before it, with that of the noun after it; but he tells us in page 83, that "And is the only con- junction that combines the agency of two or more into one;'' which appears to us a manifest contradiction. Let us test the propriety of using with for and, by an ex- ample or two. " If my uncle with his son were in town yes- terday," is good English; " My father with his son were in town yesterday ;" that is, My father with I were in townyes- terday, is equally correct. I hope Mr. Lennie will not deny that I am my father's son, and that My father with I were in town yesterday, is bad English ; consequently, with cannot be used for and, which proves his flrst general rule is er- roneous. Lindley Murray says, " the side A with the sides B and C composes the triangle." Lennie says, that it ought to be, "the side A with the sides B and C compose the triangle." We say, that Lindley Murray and Lennie are both wrong, and that the sentence ought to be, the side A, B, and C form the triangle. As each of the three sides has a share in the formation of the triangle, consequently, they are the joint subject of the verb form; but the subjects of the same verb cannot be coupled or combined by a preposition. Therefore, Lindley Murray was wrong in using with to combine the side A with the side B and C, which are subjects of the same verb ; and he was also wrong in using compose*, which is the form of the verb coin- ciding with an individual subject. Lennie has only corrected one of Lindley Murray's faults, that is, he has properly used the plural form of the verb, but he has improperly used with instead of and. 144 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. When the singular noun before with is exclusively the sub- ject of the verb, as in the sentence, " My uncle with his son was in town yesterday," with, and the explanatory requisite his son, ought to come after the simple sentence; as, "my uncle was in town yesterday with his son." If the noun be- fore, and the noun after with are the subject of the verb, and must be used to combine them, and not with; as, the side A, B, and C form the triangle, and not, the side A with the sides B and C form the triangle. If the word with is sometimes used for and, that is, as a conjunction, why has not Mr. Lennie included it in the list of his conjunctions? or why has not he pointed out to the reader how to determine when the conjunction with is preferable to the conjunction and? ON THE LINK, OR CONJUNCTION. A Link is a connective word, by which we com- bine two sentences ; as, ' ' I shall go, if you please ;" " she improves, because she studies," etc. Is not, I shall go, a sentence? Is not, you please, another? Are not these sentences combined by the word, if? By the definition, if is a link. Is not, she improves, a sentence? Is not, she studies, another? Are not they combined by the word because'! By the definition, because is a link. English grammarians are not unanimous respecting the use of the conjunction. Lowth, Ruddiman, and some others, de- clare it is only used to link sentences. Lindley Murray, Crombie, Grant, and many others, assert, that in some ex- amples the conjunction does not connect sentences th;it it merely connects words. In support of these views, Lindley Murray makes the following observations, page 127.'' Though SECOND PART. 145 the conjunction is commonly used to connect sentences to- gether, yet, on some occasions, it merely connects words, not sentences; as, 'the king and queen are an amiable pair;' where the affirmation cannot refer to each; it being absurd to say, ' that the king, or the queen, only, is an amiable pair.' So in the instances, 'two and two are four;' 'the fifth and sixth volumes will complete the set of books.' " Crombie's grammar, page 237, note 2: Mr. Harris says " That the chief difference between prepositions and con- junctions is, that the former couple words, and the latter, sentences." This opinion is erroneous; for conjunctions fre- quently couple words, as in the following example: "A man of wisdom and virtue is a perfect character." "Here it is not implied, that a man of wisdom is a perfect character, but a man of wisdom, combined with virtue, or a man of wisdom and virtue. That conjunctions, indeed, do not couple at all, in that sense, at least, in which grammarians have understood the term, Mr. Tooke seems to have incontcsiably proved. That they sometimes couple sentences, or that instances may be produced, in which Harris's definition will appear correct, the following example will serve as an evidence:" 'You and I and John rode to town;' t. e. 'You rode,' and 'I rode,' and 'John rode.' But to assert, lhat this is their distinctive pro- perty, is to affirm what may be disproved by numberless ex- amples. If we say, 'two and two are four.' Are two four, and two four? A B, B C, and C A, form a triangle. Is A B a triangle? or B C ? or C A? ' John and Mary are a handsome couple.' 'Is John a couple? and Mary a couple? The com- mon theory, therefore, is false ; nor is it to be doubted, lhat conjunctions are, in respect to signification, and were origin- ally in regard to their regimen, verbs, or words compounded of nouns and attributives." Grant's grammar, page 210:" Conjunctions connect verbs or sentences, and sometimes like cases: as, 'He receives plen- tifully, and bestoii-s liberally,' 'I love him, and (I love her;' 'he and she are considered as a happy couple;' 'I consider him and her as a happy couple;' ' the quarrel was between John and William.' " 7 14G ENGLISH GRAMMAR. Explanation. " Conjunctions, we apprehend, generally connect verbs or affirmations; the copulative, however, con- necting sometimes these, and sometimes like cases of nouns and pronouns. In the two first examples, it is evident that the two verbs or sentences are connected. In the three last, it is equally evident that two sentences are not connected, but two cases couple and quarrel, being predicable, not of each indi- vidual, but of the two taken conjointly as parts of one and the same affirmation. When, therefore, Mr. Lindley Murray (Syntax rule 18) marks, 'The master taught her and me to write,' as an example, in which the copulative connects merely cases, he is incorrect; for, in truth, two distinct affirmations are implied, and connected; ' The master taught her to write,' and, ' the master taught me to write.' His other example, however, is pertinent: 'Z7e and she are school-fellows,' pro- vided the fellowship is intended to be confined to the two sub- jects of the verb; otherwise, as by adding 'of mine,' two af- firmations may be implied." I believe the opinion of Lowth, Harris, and Ruddiman, in this case, is correct and consistent, and the opinion of Lindley Murray, Crombie, and Grant, erroneous, as the latter can only produce plausible objections to particular applications of one solitary conjunction, while all the other conjunctions, in their universal application, and even the solitary conjunction and, in its general application, connect sentences and not words. If the objections made by Lindley Murray. Crombie, and Grant, were just ; yet ought not they to be considered as ex- ceptions, as they are all confined to particular applications of the word and, and do not apply to any other conjunction? Let us test a few of these examples, in which, according to these writers, conjunctions connect words and not sentences. Lindley Murray : "The king and queen are an amiable pair; where the affirmation cannot refer to each ; it being ab- surd to say, that the king or queen onhj is an amiable pair." I say, that the affirmation can and does relate to each of the words, king and queen. In every assertive sentence, do we not assert something of the subject of the verb? What is the subject of the verb are, in the sentence, the king and queen SECOND PART. 147 are an amiable pair? Are not the word king and the word queen, its subject? Consequently we assert something of the word king and queen; that is, we assert something of each ot the words, king and queen. I>t us admit Lindley Murray's position (if possible) that the affirmation does not relate to each of the words, king and queen; that is, the affirmation has no relation to the word king, and it has no relation to the word queen, and it has a relation to both the words, king and queen, which is truly ab- surd. How can it relate to both and not to each ? We assert nothing of the word king, and nothing of the word queen; that is, nothing and nothing are an amiable pair, according to Lindley Murray's position. If A and B owe twenty pounds, according to Lindley Murray's reasoning, you cannot say that A owes any thing ? Why cannot you say that A owes any thing? Because you cannot say, he owes twenty pounds ! For the same reason, B owes nothing, that is, A and B owe nothing ; and, at the same time, A and B cue twenty pounds! To as- sert that each of two persons, who jointly owe twenty pounds, at the same time owes nothing, is neither consistency nor com- mon sense. Lindley Murray had very little sagacity, if he could not dis- cern that the principal tiling asserted in the sentence, the king and queen are an amiable pair, is the amiability of the king and queen, and not that " the king and queen are a pair." We say that there is no difference in meaning between the king and queen are amiable, and, the king and queen are an amiable pair. Cannot we, with propriety, say, "the king is amiable," and "the queen is amiable?" that is, "the king and queen are an amiable pair." Who ever doubted, or wanted to be informed, that one and one are a pair?" In the sentence, two and three are five, the word two, and the word three, are evi- dently the subject of the assertive arc; and that we assert something of the entire subject, is equally evident. As the as- sertion relates to the word two, and the word three, conse- quently we assert something of the word two, and something of the word three, that is, we have two assertions combined by the word and, but an assertion, or interrogation, is a sentence; 148 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. therefore, in the sentence, two and three are five, the word and, connects two inseparable sentences, or assertions, and not two words. The sentence, "The fifth and sixth volumes will complete the set of books," is bad English, and ought to be, " the fifth and sixth volume w ill complete the set of books ;" which, in its corrected state, is similar in grammatical con- struction to the sentence, " tivo and three are five;" conse- quently the observations on the latter, prove that and connecis two assertions, or sentences, in the former as well as in the latter sentence. You can say, "The fifth volume, and the sixth volume;" but cannot, without impropriety, say, " The fifth volumes and the sixth volumes." The preceding observations show, that the word and con- nects sentences in each of the following examples: "Join and Mary are a handsome couple." Crombie. "He and she are considered a happy couple." Grant. The correctness of a sentence ought to be critically investi- gated before any inferences that may be drawn from its con- struction can be received as grammatical laws. We ought not to depart from the direct, honest simplicity, which distinguishes the English language, as well as the English character, with- out necessity. Every periphrasis is a departure from this di- rect simplicity. For instance, when I can clearly express my meaning by an adjective, to employ a preposition and sub- stantive in its stead, which do not more clearly indicate the meaning, is a periphrasis. Examples: He is a man of goodness, instead of he is a good man, He is a man of kindness, for he is a kind man, He is a man of wisdom, for he is a wise man, He is a man of justice, for he is a just man, He is a man of virtue, for he is a virtuous man, He is a man of honesty , for he is an honest man, He is a man of sickness, for he is a sick man, He is a man of hunger, for he is a hungry man, etc., etc. Some persons may object, that no correct speaker says, " He is a man of honesty ;" "he is a man of goodness ;" "he is a SECOND PART. 149 man of kindness ; he is a man of sickness?' etc. What im- propriety is there in saying, " He is a man of kindness," more than in saying, " He is a man oficisdom," or in saying, "He is a man of hunger," more than in saying, "He is a man of virtue." In a grammatical point of view, the one is as cor- rect as the other. Doctor Crombie gives the following example to show, that conjunctions sometimes connect words only : A man of wisdom and virtue is a perfect character, which, according to the foregoing observations, ought to be, " A wise, virtuous man, is a perfect character." Consequently, the inference drawn from the Doctor's construction, concerning the word and, cannot be received as a part of our grammatical code. See the extract from Crombie. His other examples are similar to those given by Lindley Murray, of which we have already taken notice. The Doctor tells us, " That conjunctions, in- deed, do not couple at all, in that sense, at least, in which grammarians have understood the term, Tooke seems to have incontestably proved." If Tooke's views of the sense in which conjunctions couple, are the offspring of truth, and the views of all other grammarians are the offspring of error; why did not the Doctor define for his readers the sense in which conjunctions truly couple, or why has not he given a defini- tion of a conjunction from which its real, or distinctive cha- racter, must appear? To prove that he has not done so, we need only refer the reader to the definitions given in the extracts: " A conjunction is that part of speech which connects words and sentences." Crombie. " Conjunctions couple words or sentences." Grant. " A conjunction is a part of speech that is chiefly used to con- nect sentences ; so as out of two or more sentences to make but one. It sometimes connects only words." Lindley Murray. " A conjunction is a word which joins words and sentences together." Lennie. There is no difference in meaning between Dr. Crombie's definition of a conjunction, and any of the three other defini- tions of it here cited. We find a little difference in the phra- 150 ENGLIS.I GUAMUAR. seology, but none whatever in the sense. Each of the four authors, asserts, that conjunctions couple either words, or sentences. What does the Doctor mean, then, by saying, that conjunctions do not couple at all? What does he mean by the sense in which grammarians have understood them? Is not the sense in which grammarians have understood them, the sense which is expressed by Lindley Murray, Grant, Len- nie, and the Doctor himself? Does the Doctor mean to say, that Home Tooke seems to have incontestably proved, that all grammarians have false views of the sense in which con- junctions couple, and, consequently, that all grammarians have given bad definitions? That Home Tooke himself was a grammarian, I presume, none will deny; consequently, Home Tooke seems to have incontestably proved, that conjunctions do not couple in that sense in which himself understood the term. Is not there something inconsistent and discordant in the terms, seems incontestably, and proved? How can a proof be only seeming, or how can that which is only seem- ing be a proof? It must be more than seeming to be a proof. Does not the word proof, imply an incontrovertible test*! Consequently, incontestably proved, is tautology. Every link couples two sentences. Every two simple sentences may be coupled by one link ; consequently, there is no necessity to employ links in pairs, as some grammarians assert. Many words used as links arc sometimes used for other purposes; consequently, when so employed, they cease to be links, and must be considered of the same class as the words whose duty they perform. The following examples of conjunctions used in pairs are taken from Lindley Murray's Grammar, page 203: "She is a* amiable as her sister." The first as is evidently a descriptive. " Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor." Though, in the above sentence, is superfluous, as the meaning is exactly the same without it as with it. For the same reason, either is su- perfluous in the following sentence, "I will either send it, or bring it myself." " Pompey was not so great a general as Cesar, nor so great a man." SECOND PART. 15t So, in the above sentence is a descriptive, a* and nor are links, because each of them couples two sentences. When two links appear to be used in coupling the same two sen- tences, if one of them is not superfluous, it is a sentence descriptive. And is the only simple link, that is, it is the only link by which we can couple two sentences, without changing the signification of either; as, " I shall go, and jou shall stop at home." The meaning of the sentence, " I shall go," is not changed or affected by the link and, nor is the meaning of the sen- tence, " You shall stop at home." And is grammatically what plus or the sign (4-) is arithme- tically, that is, the sign plus (-{-) implies the addition of the two numbers it couples, so does and imply the addition of the two assertions or interrogations which it unites. Because is an index that points out an origin; as, "You are healthy, because you are temperate;" "I esteem you, be- cause you have always been faithful and attentive." In the first of the preceding examples, because points out the origin of your health ; in the second example it shows the origin of my esteem. Because, not only unites the two sentences, / esteem you, you have always been faithful and attentive; but also con- verts the latter sentence into a kind of sentence descriptive or adverb, which is explanatory of the cause why / esteem you. Therefore, because is not like and, a simple link. Although is used to intimate that the thing asserted in the one simple sentence, is opposed to the natural consequences of what is asserted in the other; as, "Although I have overpaid him for his services, he has robbed me." " Although I have repeatedly succoured him, he now tries to injure me." In the preceding example, although links the two simple sentences, / have repeatedly succoured him, he now tries to injure me, and intimates that the present attempt to injure is opposed to the natural consequences of the repeated succours. If combines in its signification a contingency and a con- tingent condition. It imparts the contingency to the sentence 152 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. that immediately succeeds it, and the contingent condition it imparts to the other of the two sentences which it unites; as, " if he shall go, I shall stop at home." //"imparts its contin- gency to the sentence he shall go, which succeeds it, and its contingent condition it imparts to the sentence, " I shall stop at home." Each of the sentences, if read without the link if, will be found to be an independent assertive sen- tence; but when united by the link if, he shall go ceases to be a sentence ; and becomes a kind of sentence descriptive, explanatory of the clause, / shall stop at home. I shall stop at home, ceases to be an independent sentence, and becomes a dependent clause, of which the constructive meaning depends on the clause, if he shall go. Both clauses form but one contingent assertive sentence. When I say, if he shall go, I shall stop at home, I do not positively assert that / shall stop at home. I promise to stop at home under the conditional contingency which is expressed by the clause, if he shall go. I shall stop at home, is not less contingent than if he shall go, because my stopping at home depends on his going. How any grammarian, capable of cri- tically investigating the truth and accuracy of a sentence, could make shall go a verb of the subjunctive' mood, and shall slop a verb of the indicative, at the same time that both verbs are equally contingent, is difficult to conceive. Or, implies the existence of a contingent negative condition before it, and a dependent contingent assertion after it; as, " I shall go or send my son." If I do not go, is the con- tingent negative condition, and I shall send my son, is the dependent contingent assertion. I do not positively promise, that I shall send my son. The condition on which I promise to send him, is, if I do not go; consequently, / shall send my son, is a dependent contingent assertion. What difference is there between if and or, as each of them implies a contingency? Or is equivalent lo if not. When two assertive sentences are connected by or, then there is something positively as- serted; but when two assertive sentences are connected by if, there is nothing positively asserted; as when I say, if he SECOND PART. 153 will go, I shall stop at home, there is nothing positively as- serted. I do not positively assert that he will go, nor do I assert positively that / shall stop at home. But when I say, " I shall go, or send my son," I positively assert one of two things; that is, that I shall go, or send my son. Each of the other links may be defined from ihe effect it has on the sentences which it connects. ON THE EXCLAMATION, OR INTERJECTION. The exclamation is a word by which the speaker intimates that affection of his mind or feelings which arises from some circumstance or event ; as, ! what shall become of me ! " "Alas! fortune is not happi- ness." 0, in the first example, is used to intimate the speaker's dread of what shall become of him. Alas, in the second example, is used to intimate the speaker's desponding regret that fortune is not happiness. The questions after the assertive ought to be here renewed, and the following new questions added : 75. What is a sentence descriptive? 76. Why adopt the name sentence descriptive, and reject the old name adverb? 77. What is a requisite link? 78. Why adopt the name requisite link, and reject the old name preposition ? 79. What difference is there between a sentence descriptive and a requisite link? 80. What is a link? 81. Why adopt the name link, and reject the old name conjunction ? 82. What difference is there between a link and a requisite link? 154 ENGLISH GIUMMAR. 83. What is an exclamation? 84. Why adopt the name exclamation, and reject the old name interjection ? 85. What difference is there between an exclamation and a sentence descriptive? 86. What difference is there between an exclamation and a name descriptive? 87. What is a name? 88. Why reject the old name substantive or noun ? 89. What is a name substitute? 90. Why reject the old name pronoun? 91 . How many kinds of name substitutes? 92. What is a personal substitute? 93. What substitutes indicate sex? 94. Why do not substitutes of the flrst or second person, or plural substitutes of the third person, indicate sex? 95. What is sex? 96. How many sexes are there ? Almost all our English grammatical writers inform us there are three genders, and that gender is the distinction of nouns with regard to sex. 97. If gender is the distinction of nouns with regard to sex, how can there be three distinctions, that is, three genders, when there are only two things to be distinguished? 98. What name descriptives can be varied? 99. What name descriptives can be varied by a change of termination? 100. What name descriptives can be varied in signification by prefixing the word more or most? 101. What name descriptives are invariable in termination, and do not take more or most before them? 102. What is a mutable descriptive? 103. What is an immutable descriptive? 104. Why not class the links ? 105. Why not class the requisite links? 106. Why not admit articles in the English language? 107. Why not admit, or rather why have not we adjective SECOND PART. 155 pronouns, pronominal adjectives, adverbial conjunctions, or conjunctional adverbs in English ? 108. Why reject the singular number? 109. What necessity is there to consider, and distinguish the person of every name, and name substitute? 110. How many persons are there according to the gram- matical acceptation of the term person ? 111. What is the grammatical acceptation of the term person? 112. What is a subject? 113. What is a requisite? 114. How are we to know the form of the assertive that coincides with any subject, time, or transit? ANSWERS TO THE PRECEDING QUESTIONS. 75. See the definition of a sentence descriptive. 76. Because the name sentence descriptive, is expressive of the actual use made of the word. We reject the word advert, because there is no relation between it and the use we make of it. We have shown it is occasionally added to each of the dif- ferent kinds of words. If it is called an adverb because it is added to a verb, consequently, we can with equal propriety, call it an ad-adjective when added to an adjective, and an ad-preposition, when added to a preposition, etc. 77. See the definition of the requisite link. 78. Because the name, requisite link, is expressive of the use made of the word employed, and we reject the name pre- position, because there is no relation between it and the use we make of it. 79. The difference may be easily inferred by reading the definition of each. 156 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. 80. See the definition of the link. 81. Because the word link is shorter and a more simple and familiar expression lhan the word conjunction, 82. The requisite link joins an explanatory requisite or an explanatory object to a simple sentence, but the link con- nects two sentences. 83. See the definition of the exclamation. 84. Because it is more appropriate, general, and familiar than the word interjection, of which the meaning is entirely confined to grammarians. 80. An exclamation intimates the effect which the thing as- serted has produced on the speaker; but the sentence de- scriptive is explanatory of the assertion. 86. Repeat the definition of the exclamation and name de- scriptive, and their difference appears. 87. See the definition of a name. 88. Because the word name is more simple, familiar, and comprehensive than the word substantive or noun. If you ask a hundred persons who speak and write English, but who are not grammarians, what is a substantive or noun, ninety-nine of them will tell you, that a substantive is anything having substance ; the entire of them will tell you, that they do not know what a noun is. 89. See the definition of a name substitute. 90. For the same reason that we reject substantive or noun. 91. There are two kinds of substitutes; nami-ly, the personal and the name substitute. See the definition of each. 92. See the definition of a personal substitute. 93 He, him, she, and her. 94. Because these substitutes have no forms to denote sex. 95. See the definition of sex. 96. Two sexes. 97. As there are only two sexes, therefore every living thing must be either male or female: that is, in living things there are only two distinctions with regard to sex ; namely, male and female. To consider sex where it is not, that is, in inanimate objects, is too absurd. SECOND PAR.T. 157 98. Mutable name descriptive*. 99. Mutable name descriptives of one syllable. See the ex- ceptions under the mutable descriptives. 100. Mutable descriptives of two or more syllables. See the exceptions under the mutable descriptives. 101. Immutable name descriptives. 102. A mutable name descriptive is that of which the mean- ing is variable. 103. An immutable name descriptive is that of which the meaning is invariable. 104. Because ihe classification is no advantage to the pupil, and renders parsing both tedious and complex. 108. Because there is no diversity in the use we male of them. 106. Why should we admit that \vhich does not exist in the language ? If a or an is an article, why is not one an article? If the is an article, why is not this, that, these, those, or same, an article? 107. Because every word in a sentence belongs to some one of the classes into which the words of the language are di- vided, and cannot belong to two of them at the same time. If we admit pronominal adjectives, adjective pronouns, ad- verbial conjunctions, etc., we cannot say, that we have only eight or nine different kinds of words in the language; be- cause a person admitting this cannot deny that there is a dif- ference between an adjective and an adjective pronoun, be- tween an adjective and a pronominal adjective, and between an adjective pronoun and a pronon.inal adjective. If this grammatical diymislry is admitted, we have, instead of eight or nine kinds of words, at least forty ; to define each of which, and in parsing to distinguish them one from the other, has discouraged thousands of learners, and given them a fatal dis- like to grammar, which can be seldom removed. 108. Because no number can be singular. One of any kind cannot make a number of that kind. If a man has bui one horse, he cannot say, that he has a number of horses; if he has only one sovereign, how can he in truth say that he has a number of sovereigns? No less than two can form a collec- 158 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. lion or number ; consequently one is no number, as Malcolm justly observes. 109. Because the generality of assertives and name substi- tutes, have forms to indicate each of the persons; that is, the person speaking, spoken to, or spoken of. 110. Three: Grst, the person speaking; second, the person or persons, thing or things, spoken to; third, the person or persons, thing or things, spoken of. 111. Person is the place which names or substitutes occupy in the current of conversation ; which fully appears from the two preceding answers. 112. A subject is that of which we assert something, or about which we ask. H3. The explanatory object which the subject and assertive jointly require to form a definite assertion, is a requisite. 114. The form of the assertive coinciding with any subject, time, or transit, may be known by the exposition of the as- sertive. (See page 45.) THIRD PART. Ii>9 Ox TUB THIRD PART OF GRAMMAR. The third-part of Grammar is that which teaches how to arrange words into correct sentences. For which purpose the following Rules and Notes are the most important. RULE I. Every name in a sentence is a subject, or re- quisite, and so is every name substitute, as, "James has built a house for Mary, and she now lives in it." Explanation. In the preceding example, Jamet, house, and Mary, are the only names, and she and it are the name substitutes. James is the subject of the assertive built; a house is the requisite of the subject James, and the assertive built; and Mary is the requisite of the requisite link for. She is the subject of the assertive lives, and it is the requisite of the requisite link, in. NOTE 1 .When two names of the same thing are connected by an assertive, each is the subject of that assertive; as, 'James is a merchant;" "Henry has become a great man.''' In the preceding examples, James is the subject of the as- sertive is, and merchant is a name of the same subject, or person ; hence, although we have two names, yet we have but one subject, because the two names are names of the same sub- 160 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. ject, or person. The same may be said of Henry and the great man. NOTE 2. -The names connected by the assertive to be, when used to assert, or interrogate, are generally names of the same person or persons, thing or things, hence they are always sub- jects; and two substitutes connected by the assertive to be, are also subjects, and substitutes, for the same name; as, "/ am he whom they invited." In the preceding examples, / and he are substitutes for the speaker's name. The only exceptions which appear to rule the first, are names that only serve to awake the attention of the person addressed, and explanatory names; as, "Sir, you are right;" "My lord, what shall I do?" " William the Con- queror." In the preceding examples, neither is sir, nor my lord, a subject, or requisite, because sir is no part of the first sen- tence, nor is my lord, a part of the second : yet, strictly speak- ing, they are not exceptions to rule the first, because rule the first speaks only of the names in a sentence; but, sir, or my lord, is not a name in a sentence, therefore, it cannot be justly considered as an exception. The Conqueror is a name ex- planatory of William. RULE II. The form of the assertive used to assert or inter- rogate, must coincide with the subject and with the time or transit expressed or implied; as, ''He is writing ; " "they will go next week ; " "she wrote yesterday." In the preceding examples, am writing, is the form of the assertive that coincides with the subject he and the passing transit which is implied. Will go is the form of the assert- ive coinciding with the subject they, and the future time, next ircek. Wrote is the form coinciding with the subject she and the detached past time, yesterday. THIF.D PART. 161 NOTE 1. The part of a sentence before the assertive, is sometimes the subject; as, "To study a language perfectly requires many years;" "fo be temperate in eating ani drink- ing, and use exercise in the open air, are the best preservatives of health." In the first example, to study a language perfectly, is the subject of the assertive requires. To be temperate in eating and drinking is one of the pre- servatives of health, or part of the subject of the assertive are, and to use exercise in the open air, is the other preservative, or part of the subject of the assertive are. RULE III. Every subject assertive, used assertively, must have a subject expressed or implied, as, " They sleep;" "she sits; "go instantly," etc. Explanation. In the preceding examples, they is the subject of the as- sertive sleep. She is the subject of the assertive sits, and you implied, is the subject of the assertive go. RULE IV. Every requisite assertive used assertively, or interrogatively, must have a subject and requisite, expressed or implied ; as, He wrote a letter; James sees me ; she has been writing a letter, etc. Explanation. In the preceding examples, he is the subject of the assertive wrote, and the letter is the requisite, that is, the letter is what the subject he and the assertive wrote, require to form a definite assertion. James is the subject of the assertive sees, and me is the requisite of James sees, that is, me is what the subject James, and the assertive sees, require to form a de- finite assertion. She is the subject of the assertive has been writing, and a letter is the requisite of the subject she, and the assertive has been writing ; that is, the letter is what the 7. 162 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. subject she and the assertive has been writing, require to form a definite assertion. NOTE 1. When a subject or requisite assertive is not used to assert or interrogate, it does not coincide in form with any subject, and is always preceded by the word to expressed or implied; as. I intend to write, thou intendcst to write, he in- tends to write. Here the assertive to write, does not vary, to coincide with the indirect subject, /, thou, or he. NOTE 2. The part of a sentence that follows the subject and assertive, is sometimes used as the requisite; as, "He in- tends to write a long letter." In the preceding example, to write a long letter, is the re- quisite of the subject he, and the assertive intends. NOTE 3. An indefinite simple sentence containing a re- quisite, sometimes requires another requisite to limit the as- sertion and complete the sense; as, "They forced me to re' lire;' "she compelled them to sign their names." In the first of the preceding examples, they forcedme, is an indefinite simple sentence, because what they forced me to do is unknown, and yet requisite to limit the assertion and com- plete the sense ; consequently, to retire, which limits the sentence and completes the sense, is the requisite which the sentence, they forced me, requires. To sign their names, is the requisite which the sentence, she forced them, requires. RULE V. Every imperfect participle derived from a re- quisite assertive, must have a requisite expressed, or implied ; as, " He was sent to prepare the way by preaching repentance." Explanation. In the preceding examples, preaching is an imperfect par- ticiple derived from the requisite assertive to preach, and repentance is the requisite which preaching requires. THIRD PART. 163 RULE VI. Every requisite link must have a requisite, ex- pressed or implied; as, " He sits on the chair; " " they gave it to me." Explanation. In the preceding examples, on is a requisite link, and the chair is the requisite which on requires. To is a requisite link, and me is the requisite which to requires. NOTE 1. That part of a sentence after the requisite link; is sometimes the requisite of that link; as, "He was sent to prepare the way, by preaching repentance." In the preceding example, preaching repentance, which is the part of the sentence that follows the requisite link by, is the requisite which by requires. RULE VII. The requisite form of a name substitute cannot be used for the subject form, nor the subject form for the requisite; as, " Me love she;" "Jane saw he, " which ought to be, " /love her; " "Jane RULE VIII. A substitute must coincide in form with the name for which it stands ; as, " 1 have seen the children since they arrived; " Henry writes well, but he reads badly." Explanation. In the above examples, the substitute they, coincides in form with the name children, and the substitute he, coin- cides with the name Henry. The following notes may be useful to children. NOTE 1. When a name and its substitute are the subjects iCi ENGLISH GRAMMAR. of two assertivcs that follow them, the substitute is the sub- ject of the first assertive, and the name is the subject of the second ; as, " The boy who has brought this letter must wait for an answer." In the preceding example the substitute who, is the subject of the assertive has brought, which is the first assertive, and the name, boy, is the subject of the assertive, must wait, which is the second. NOTE 2. If two substitutes are subjects of two assertives that follow, the last substitute is the subject of the first as- sertive, and the first substitute is the subject of the last as- sertive; as, "He who has insulted you shall regret it." Here, who, which is the last substitute, is the subject of has insulted, which is the first assertive, and he, the first substi- tute, is the subject of shall regret, which is the second as- sertive. RULE IX A sentence beginning by a link, and merely used to define the precise meaning of the other sen- tence connected by the same link, is a sentence descriptive ; as, " Mary writes, as well as Jane;" if ifhe go, I shall stop at home. " Explanation. In the preceding example, if we ask, "How does Mary write?" the answer is, ' as well as Jane," that is, 05 well as Jane writes, is descriptive of the sentence, Mary writes; consequently, as it performs the duty of a sentence descriptive, it can with as much propriety be called a sentence descriptive as a part of a sentence can be called a subject, when it per- forms the duty of a subject. In the sentence, If he go, I shall stop at home, I do not positively and unconditionally assert, that / shall stop at home. If he go, is descriptive of the case in which I posi- tively assert that I shall slop at home, that is, if he go is de- scriptive or explanatory of the signification of the sentence, / THIRD PART. 1C5 shall stop at home; consequently, if he go is used as a sen- tence descriptive, and may with propriety be called one. RULE X. Every descriptive relates to a name expressed or implied; as, "I have seen my kind friends; " " few are happy. " Explanation. In the preceding examples, my and kind relate to friends expressed; but the descriptives, few and happy, relate to the name person*, implied. RULE XI. Every violation of grammar is a violation of common sense; as, "1 have written yesterday ;" " I wrote to-day ; " " I am the oldest of my bro- thers, " etc. Explanation. As wrote is the form of the assertive universally appro- priated by all grammarians to yesterday and to every other detached past time ; consequently, to say, "/ have written yesterday," instead of, "/ wrote yesterday," is as absurd as to call a knife a table. To use wrote instead of have written, is equally nonsensical. As one person cannot be another, I cannot be one of my own brothers ; consequently, to say, / am the oldest of my brothers, is absurd. RULE XII. Every word in a sentence that does not con- tribute to the signification, is superfluous, vitiates the construction, and must be rejected ; as, " Give me that there book; " " it was 1 that did it, " etc. Which ought to be, " Give me that book ; " " I did it." 166 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. RULE XIII. As perspicuity, purity, and brevity are the most important requisites in correct composition, words which do not clearly express the sense, or words not English, ought not to be used ; nor should the sense be expressed by a circumlocution ; as, " The present tense represents an action; " " she has received a billet doux; " '* the number of the inhabitants of Great Britain does not ex- ceed sixteen millions, etc. Explanation. Is not every material object contained in space; or is not space the universal container of all material objects? Do not all events occur in time; or is not time the container of events? As you cannot say space represents an object, neither can you say that time or any of its distinctions or divisions re- presents an action. Billet-doux is pure French, and means a love letter. Why not say, she has received a love-letter? None but pedants ever mix languages in this way. The number of the inhabitants is a circumlocution. The sentence ought to be, " The population of Great Britain does not ex- ceed sixteen millions," etc. RULE XIV. Every correct sentence must be a question, or an answer to some question that can be asked ; as, Have you written to Henry ? I wrote to Henry yesterday ; James has broken the glass. Explanation. Have you written to Henry? is a question. / wro'e to Henry yesterday, is an auswcr to the question, " Did you write to Henry yesterday." James has broken the glass, is an answer to the question "Who has broken the glass?" THIRD PART. 167 RULE XV. Every assertive sentence, which is not an an- swer to some question that can be asked, is bad English ; as, "I understood it to have been them;" " I believe it to have been her." Explanation. I understood it to have been them, or I believe it to have been her, is not an answer to any question that can be asked > consequently, each of them is bad English by this rule and the following note. NOTE. The meaning of any sentence in which a substitute of the third person is correctly used, is not impaired or chan- ged by rejecting the substitute, and placing the name for which it stands in its stead. What name or sentence is the substitute it placed instead of, in either of the two examples to the last Rule? No person can tell} that is, no person knows the meaning of either sentence. See the observations on Sentence 133, page 205. RULE XVI. In analyzing or parsing a sentence, the words which are omitled or understood must be supplied, and the natural grammatical order of the words re- stored ; as, " The master taught us to write;" * ' that warm climates accelerate the growth of the human body, is reasonable to believe." Explanation. "The master taught to us to write." "To believe that warm climates accelerate the growth of the human body, is reasonable. " The word to, is implied before the word us, in the first el- ample, because what the master did teach, was to icrite, or writing. As in the natural grammatical order of the prin- cipal parts of a simple sentence, the subject is first, the as- (G3 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. sertive second, and the requisite after the assertive; conse- quently, as the requisite of the assertive to believe, is the re- maining part of the sentence, to believe must precede its re- quisite; that is, to believe must take the lead in the sentence. As we have given an explanation of the different kinds of words, and their accidents, and given rules for the construc- tion and examination of a sentence, we shall here show the learner how to analyze, and after, how to apply, the preceding constructive rules in parsing. The learner ought not to be allowed to analyze or parse before he can read and write the following abbreviations quickly and without faults. The best manner of teaching the learner the use of the abbreviations after committing them to memory, is to read a few pages of the following parsing, and then write the same from dictation. Abbreviations. n. name. 3p. third person. d. descriptive. pt. passing transit. f. female. Pt. passed transit. in. male. At. attached passed time. ind. individual. Dt. detached passed time. pi. plural. ft. future time. ns. name substitute. Ft. future transit. St. subject. fa. female name. a. assertive. mn. male name. r. requisite. fns. i female name substi- ra. requisite assertive. \ tuie. sa. subject assertive. I male name substi- 1. link. mns. 1 lute. rl. requisite link. pins* i plural name substi- R. rule. l tute. ini. c. implied, coinciding PP. ip. perfect participle, imperfect participle. S(l. sentence descriptive. ps. per.-onal substitute. lp. first person. ex. exclamation. 2p. second person. When the sex of an individual name, or a name substitute of the third person is not mentioned in analyzing or parsing, the reader is to infer that it is of no sex. When the learner Tinnn PART. 169 first begins to analyze, or parse, he ought to be taught to mo- dify every principal assertive that occurs without the help of auxiliaries, then to name the transit with which the first form and the time with which the second coincides. He ought to be asked, when does he use each of the participles. He ought to define each class of words, and every time, transit, and person, which he mentions in analyzing, or parsing, until he can answer quickly and correctly. He ought to vary every mutable name descriptive, etc. ANALYSIS OF A SENTENCE. To analyze a sentence is to class its words, and name their accidents. In Mr. Lindley Murray's duodecimo grammar we find only eight sentences analyzed. We shall analyze the same eight sentences according to our system, and give his manner of analyzing two or three of them, that the reader may not only contrast the consistency of boih systems, but their brevity also. 1. "Virtue ennobles us." Virtue ind. n. Sp.and st. of the a. ennobles, Ennobles, ra c. with its st. virtue, and thept. im. Us pi. ps. Ip.r. of ennobles. " Virtue is a common substantive, of the neuter gender, the third person, the singular number, and in the nominative case. (Decline the name.) Ennobles is a regular verb active, indicative mood, present tense, and the third person singular. (Repeat the present, the imperfect tense, and the perfect parti- ciple.) Us is a personal pronoun of the first person plural and in the objective case. Decline it." We leave the brevity and comparative consistency of boti systems to the impartial judgment of the reader. 2 " Goodness will be rewarded." Goodness, ind. n. 3p. and st. of will be rewarded, which is a sa. c. with its st. and ft. im. " Goodness is a common substantive, of the neuter gender, the third person, the singular number, and in the nominative case (decline it) ; will be rewarded, is a regular verb, in the 8 170 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. passive voice, the indicative mood, the first future tense, and the third person singular. (Repeat the present tense, the im* perfect tense, and the perfect participle.") 3. " Strive to improve." Strive ra. c. >\ith its st. you im. To improve is the r. of strive. "Strive is an irregular verb neuter, in the imperative mood, and of the second person singular. (Repeat the pre- sent tense, etc.") To improve is a regular verb neuter, and in the infinitive mood. (Repeat the present tense, etc.) 4 "Time flies fust, 0! how swiftly." Time ind. n. 3p. and st. of flies. Flies, sa. c. with its st. and pt. im. Fast, sd. O ex. How sd. Siciftly sd. In Lindlcy Murray's grammar the analysis of the same sen- tence is nearly six lines. 5. " Groiitude is a delightful emotion." Gratitude ind. n. 3p. st. of is. Is sa. c. with its st. and pt. im. A d. Delightful d. Emotion ind. n. 3p. expli- cative of gratitude. In Liridley Murray's Grammar, nearly nine lines. 6. " They who forgive, act nobly." They pi. ps. 3p. st. of act. Who pi. ps. 3p. st. of forgive. Forgive ra. c. with its st. and pi. im Transgressors im. pi. n.3p.and r.of forgive. Act sa. c. with its sl.tliey, and pt. im. nobly, sd. In Lindley Murray, eight lines. 7. " By living temperately, our health is promoted.' By rl. Living ip. Temperately sd. Our d. Health ind. n. 3p. st. of is promoted. Is promoted *a. c. with its st. health, and pt. im. Lindley Murray parses it in eight lines. 8. " We should be kind to them who arc unkind to us." Should in this sentence is improperly used instead of ought, We pi. ps. Ip. st. of ought. Ought sa. c with its st. we, and pt. in. To be sa. Kind d. To rl. Them pi. ps. 3p. r. of to. TTT-o pi. ps. 3p. st. of are. Are sa. c with w:/o,andpt. im. Unkind d. To rl. Us pi. ps. Ip. r. of to. In Lindley Murray's Grammar there are fifteen lines. TIIK'.D TAUT. PARSING. To parse a sentence, is to analyze it, and test its correctness by the constructive Rules. The following seventeen sentences are parsed in Lindley Murray's Grammar. We shall parse the same sentences, ac- cording to our method, to enable the reader to contrast the two systems. We give his manner of parsing the first two sentences, and the number of lines in which each of the others is parsed. 1. " Vice produces misery." Vice ind. n. 3p. st. of produces. Produces ra. c. with its st. and pt. irn. R. 2. Misery ind. n. 3p.r. of produces, byR. <{. " Vice is a common substantive, of the neuter gender, the third person, the singular number, and in the nominative case. Produces is a regular verb active, indicative mood, present tense, and third person singular, agreeing with its nominative, vice, according to RULE I., which says: (here re- peat the rule}. Misery is a common substantive, of the neuter gender, the third person, the singular number, and in the objective case, governed by the active verb, produces, ac- cording to RILE II. which says, etc." 2. " Peace and joy are virtue's crown." Peace ind. n. 3p. and part of the st. of are. And 1. Joy ind. n. 3p. and part of the st. of are. Are sa c with its st. peace and joy, and w ith the pt. im., R. 2 and 16. Virtue's d. Crown ind. n. 3p. explicative of peace and joy. " Peace is a common substantive. (Rtptat the gender, person, number, and case.) And is a copulative conjunction. Joy is a common'substantive. (Repeat the person, number, and case.} Are is an irregular verb neuter, indicative mood, present tense, and the third person plural, agreeing with the nominative case, peace and joy, according to RULE I. which says: (Here repeat the Rule.) Virtue's is a common sub- stantive, of the third person, the singular number, and in the 172 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. possessive case, governed by the substantive, crown, agreeably to RULE X, which says, etc. Crown is a common substan- tive, of the neuter gender, the third person, the singular num- ber, and in the nominative case, agreeably to the fourth note of RULE XI." 3. " Wisdom, or folly, governs us." Wisdom ind. n. 3p. and st. of governs. Or 1. Folly ind. n. 3p. and st. of governs. Governs ra. c. with its st. wisdom, or folly, and with the pt. im. R. 2, and 16. Us pi. ps. 1p. and r. of governs, R. 4. In Lindley Murray's nine lines and a half. 4. ' Every heart knows its sorrows." Every d. Heart ind. n. 3p. and st. of knows. Knows ra. c. with its st. heart, and pt. im. by R. 2, and 16. Its d. Sorrows pi. n. 3p. and r. of knows, by RULE 4. In Lindley Murray's Grammar fourteen lines and a half. 5. " The man is happy who lives wisely." The d. Wan, ind. mn. 3p. and st. of is. Is sa. c. with its st. man, arid pt. im. by RULE 2, and 16. Happy d. Who ind. ps. 3p. and st. of Hies. Lives sa. c. with its st. who, by R. 2. Wisely sd. In Lindley Murray's Grammar twelve lines and a half. 6. " Who preserves us." Who ind. ps. 3p. and st. of preserves. Preserves, ra. c. with its st. who and pt. im. R. 2, and 16. Us pi. ps. Ip. and r. of preserves, by Rule 4. In Lindley Murray's eight lines and a half. 7. " Whose house is th.it? My brother s and mine. Who inhabit it? We." Whose d House ind. n. 3p. and st. of is. Is sa. c. with its st. house and pt. im. by Rule 2, and 16. That d. of house, im. by R. 16. My d. of house, im. Brother's d. And 1. Mine d. Who pi. ps. 3p. and st. of inhabit. In- habit ra. c. with its st. who, R. 2. It ind. ns. 3p. the r. of inhabit, by Rule 4. We pi. ps. Ip. and st. of inhabit, im. by Rule 16. In Lindley Murray's Grammar twenty-eight lines. 8. " Remember to relieve the distressed." THIRD PART. 173 Jlemember ra. c. with its st. you and ft. im. by Rule 2 and 16. To assist the distressed is the r. of remember, by Note 1, Rule 4. In Lindley Murray's Grammar, six lines. 9. " We are not unemployed." Why not? we are employed, We pi. ps. Ip. st. of are. Are sa. c. with its st. and pt. im. by Rule 2 and Ifi. Not sd. Unemployed d, of persons. In Lindley Murray's five lines. 10. " This bounty has relieved you and us, and gratified the donor." This d. Bounty ind. n. 3p. and st. of has relieved. Has relieved ra. c. with its st. and At. im. by R. 2 and 16. You pi. ps. 2p. and r. of has relieved, by Rule 4. And 1. Us pi. ps. Ip. and r. of has relieved, im. by Rule 16. And 1. Gratified pp. The d. Donor ind. n. 3p. and r. of has gra- tified. Rule 4 and 16. In Lindley Murray's grammar nineteen lines. 11. " He will not be pardoned, unless he repent." He ind. ra. ps. 3p. and st. of will be pardoned. Will be pardoned sa. c. with its st. he, and ft. im. by Rule 2 and 16. Not sd. Unless I. He ind. m. ps. 3p. and st. of repent. Repent sa. c. with its st. he and ft. im. RULE 2 and 16. In Lindley Murray's Grammar fifteen lines. In the preceding sentence, unless he repent is used as a sd. of he will not be pardoned. Rule 9. " Good works, being neglected, devotion is false." Good works in the preceding sentence is an example of what, in Lindley Murray's Grammar, is called the case abso- lute. If works, in the preceding example, is in the case ab- solute, we must have four cases in English, namely, the nomi- native, the possessive, the objective, and the case absolute; but in page 53, we find, " In English, substantives have three cases, the nominative, the possessive, and the objec- tive." The case absolute, like the other pretended or ima- ginary English cases, is a wanton deviation from the plain principles of the English language, as there is not a single in- stance of what they call the case absolute, that cannot be 174 EVC1ISH GP.AMMAR. dispensed with to advantage, which may be seen by compar- ing our construction with Lindley Murray's. He says, page 221, " Good works being neglected, devotion is false." We say, " Their devotion is false who neglect good works." He says, page 141, " Shame being lost, all virtue is lost. That having been discussed long ago, there is no occasion to resume it.' We say, "They who have lost their shame, have lost their virtue. As that subject was discussed long ago, we need not resume it." In parsing the sen- tence, "Good works being neglected," etc. He says, Good works being neglected is the case absolute, which is wrong; according to note the fifth, under his Rule 1, he ought to s.iy, " works is in the case absolute, because it is put before a par- ticiple independently of the rest of the sentence." 13. " The Emperor Marcus Aurelius was a wise and vir- luous prince." The d. Emperor Marcus Aurelius, ind. mn. 3p. and st. of was. Was sa. c. with its st. and the Dt. im. -R. 2 and J6. .4 d. Wise d. And 1. Virtuous d. Prince ind. inn. 3p. and st. of was, by Note 2, Rule 1. In Lindley Murray's Grammar, thirteen lines. 14. "To err is human." To err ind. n. 3|>. the st. of is, by Note 1, Rule 2. Is sa. r. with its st. and pt. im., by Rule 2 and 16. Human, d. of to err. In Lindley Murray's, six lines and a half. 15. " To countenance persons who are guilty of bad actions, is scarcely one remove from actually committing them." " To countenance persons who are guilty of bad actions, is an ind. st. of the 3p. and st. of is; by Note 1, R. 2. Is sa. c. with its st. and pt. im. Scarcely sd. One d. Remove ind. n. 3p. and st. of is ; by Note 1, Rule 1. From rl. Ac- tually sd. Committing ip. Them plus, 3p. and r. of com- mitting; by Rule 5. Actually committing them, is the r. of the rl. from, by Note 1. Rule ft. In Lindley Murray's Grammar, fourteen lines and a half. 16. " Let me proceed." THIRD PART. 176 Let is a ra. c. with its st. you and ft. im. by Rule 2 and 16. Me is an ind. ps. \ p. and r. of /e<, by Rule 4. To proceed, is the r. of Jet me; by Note 2, Rule 4. In Lindley Murray's, twelve lines. 17. "Living expensively and luxuriously destroys health: by living frugally and temperately, health is preserved." Living expensively and luxuriously, is the st. of destroys, by Note 1, Rule 2. Destroys ra. c. with its st. and pt. im., by Rule 2 and 16. Health ind. n. 3p. r. of destroys, by RULE 4. By rl. Living frugally and temperately r. of by, by Note 1, RuleC. Health ind. n. 3p. and st. of is pre- served. Is preserved sa. c. with Us st. health, and pt. im. by Rule 2 and 16. We cannot here state in how many lines Lindley Murray has parsed the preceding sentence, because, by some unac- countable oversight, the part, health is preserved, is left un- parscd. " I now see the good man coming ; but, alas ! he has walked with much difficulty." Grant's Grammar, page 116. / ind. ps. Ip. and st. of see. Note sd. See ra. c. with its st. / and pt. im. by R. 2 and 16. The d. Good d. Man ind. mn. 3p. and r. of see, by R. 4. Coming, ip. But 1. Alas ex. He ind. m. ps. 3p. and st. of has walked. Has walked sa. c. with it#st. he and At. im. by R. 2 and 16. With rl. Much d. Difficulty ind. n. 3p. and r. of with, by RULE 6. Mr. Grant parses the preceding sentence in the following manner. " /, is a personal pronoun of the singular number, common gender, and nominative c;tse. (Decline it.1 " Now, is an adverb of time. (Mention its effects on see.) " See, is an active transitive irn gular verb, indicative mood, present tense, singular number, and first person, from see, saw, seen. " The, is the definite article, pointing out what man. " Good, is an adjective of the positive degree, joined to man, to denote his quality. Compared irregularly, good, better, best. 176 EiNGLlSH GRAMMAR. " Stun, is a common noun of the singular number, mascu- line gender, and objective case. Its plural is men. " But, is a conjunction or word coupling the preceding as- sertion with the following. "Alas', is an interjection. " He, is a personal pronoun of the singular number, mas- culine gender, and is the nominative case and third person. It stands instead of man. (Decline it.) " Has, is an active transitive irregular verb indicative mood, present tense, singular number, and third person, from have, had, had. " Walked, is considered as the perfect participle of the ac- tive intransitive regular verb, walk, walked, walked.* " With, is a preposition, a word connecting what follows it with what goes before, and indicating a relation. " Much, is a deiinitive of quantity, or an adjective joined to difficulty. Compared irregularly, much, more, most. " Difficulty is a common noun of the singular number, neuter gender, and objective case." The prolixity of Mr. Grant's system of parsing must appear evident to the reader, if he observes that Mr. Grant has taken twenty-six lines to parse the preceding sentence, which we have done in six. ^ The star after walked refers to the following note, p. HO. * " To term, in the usual way, / have walked, I may walk, 1 may be walking, I shall walk, etc., tenses, is not in reality parsing, but phrasing. Such words as have, may, shall, ought to be considered as verbs, and leading or principal verbs too, rather than auxiliaries, in present time; be and "a/ft, as infinitives depending on the verbs ; walked as a per- fect participle, or a participial, supplying the place of a noun in the objective case, and denoting a finished action; and walking, an imperfect participle, referring to the nominative /. In I do murder, I do write, I did murder, I did write, I c;in consider murder and write as nothing else but verbal nouns, merely the specific names of action governed by do and did, and capable themselves of governing an accusative." THIRD P\P.T 177 We also find, in page 185, of his Grammar, . following note to Rule 1 1 . Note 2. " The perfect participle after have may be considered as the accusative of a verbal noun; thus, 1 have walked, i. e., I possess the finished action of walking. I do write, I did write, are constructions, we apprehend, of the same descrip- tion." Without wresting the meaning of the preceding notes, Mr. Grant evidently denies the propriety of taking two or more words, collectively, in parsing; he denies the existence of auxiliary verbs in the English language, he asserts, that the form of the verb generally called a perfect participle, is a noun when it follows any part of the verb, to have; and that the verbs, usually called auxiliaries, are principal verbs. The justness of the censure, which Mr. Grant insinuates when he observes, This is not in reality parsing, but phrasing, is very badly sustained by his own theory. Does not shall write, consist of the two words, shall and write; and to write, of the two words, to and write? If to call the two words, shall write, a verb, is phrasing, and not parsing, to call to write a verb or verbal noun, as Mr. Grant does, must also be phras- ing. The following extract from his Grammar, proves that the inferences we have drawn from his phrasing, are just: "Has the English language a passive voice, a subjunctive and a potential mood, a future tense, and similar other tenses, without definite number? The very terms indeed, would never have been introduced into English grammar, but from a servile and unwarrantable imitation of the grammars of lan- guages widely differing from the English in their genius anrl structure. While, however, they assert, with propriety, that a noun or case must be one word, some of them contend, with strange inconsistency, that a mood or a tense, nay, even a verb, voice, or word, may consist of sewral terms. If this system of Ktymology be examined, it will be found, that more than one half of them is occupied with irrelevant discussions on the nature of fictitious moods, tenses, and voices; whilu every necessary remark might well have been comprised i'i less than ha'f-a-dozen pages. The loss of time, the misdi- 178 F.NCLISH GRAMMAR. reeled labour, and the inculcation of an erroneous principle, arising from such a system, are in the instruction of youth no trivial consideration." Preface, p. 6. Let the reader, if lie can, reconcile the opinions stated in the preceding extracts, with these in the following passages of the same work. Page 148 : The nominative is the thing spoken of, and may be a noun, pronoun, infinitive, phrase, or even a sentence; generally, however, preceded by the word that, ' used as a demonstrative." Page 70. "Auxiliary verbs." "The auxiliaries are, be, am, do, have, may, can, shall, will, to which may be added ought, with their variations; and let and must, used without variation." Here may, can, shall, etc., are auxiliaries; in page 116 they are not! Page 151. "The infinitive mood, or some other word in a clause, or a part of a sentence, is often the nominative to a verb; as, To err, is human;' i. e. error is human ; ' his being from home, occasioned the deljiy,' t. e. his absence." Page 9. "Gender, number and case, are termed the ac- cidents of a noun." Page 16. "A case is a variation in the termination of a noun or pronoun." 14 That, sententially , or substantially considered, a clause or a sentence may be the subject or object, is very probable; but I am inclined to think, that generally, in a grammatical point of view, the infinitive, or one word, is to be regarded as a noun. Thus, when Lindley Murray (Rule I, Note I ) adduces, 4 To see the sun is plea- sant,' as an example in which the infinitive is the nominative to the verb, he is perfectly correct. Bui can his next example, ' A desire to excel others in learning and virtue is commendable,' be considered as one in which the infinitive mood, or part of a sentence, is put as the nominative case to the verb ? Certainly not; the word desire is the grammatical nominative. Even in this example, ' That warm climates should accelerate the growth of the human body, and shorten iis duration, is very reasonable to believe,' either the repre- sentative it, understood, is the nominative to is, or the representa- tive that, or rather some word understood to it, such as, thing, cir- /tces, assertion." TIIIUD PARH. 179 Let the reader reconcile the grammatical opinions given in the preceding extracts, if he can. In page 6 of the Preface, it is asserted, with propriety, " that case must be one word." In page 9 of Etymology, case is an accident of a noun, In page 16, case is a variation in the termination of a noun or pronoun. In page 148, the nominative case may be a phrase, that is, two or more words, or it may be a whole sentence. If case is one word, how can case be the variation in the ter- mination of a word, or how can one word or the variation in the termination of a word, be the infinitive mood, a clause, or a whole sentence? Does not the infinitive mood, a clause, or a sentence, consist of two or more words? How, then, can one word, or the variation in the termination of a word, be two or more words; that is. how can the infinitive mood, a clause, or sentence, each of which is two or more words, be one word, or a variation in the termination of a word? If to take the words, shall write, as one verb, and to assert that it denotes future time, is phrasing, to take a clause, or an en- tire sentence, collectively, and call it a noun, must also be phrasing, which Jlr. Grant is obliged to do before he can say, it is in the nominative case, as case is a variation in the ter- mination of a noun or pronoun. If phrasing is a crime, is not Mr. Grant as guilty as others? He who detects or exposes errors in works published for the instruction of youth, insures the esteem and gratitude of all philanthropists ; but he who misquotes an author, or wrests the evident signification of an author's words to support his own blind theory, undoubtedly merits and insures their eta-, sure and contempt. Jlr. Grant remarks, page 60, that: "Murray and others observe, that the nature of mood consists in the change which the verb undergoes, to signify various intentions of the mind and various modifications, etc., of action; and yet, after this explanation, contend, that the infinitive is strictly a mood, al- though they define it to be a word, expressing a thing in a general and unlimited manner, without any dislinc'ion cf ISO EXGCISH GRAMMAP.. number or person. Surely, if person be excluded, intention must be inadmissible. Either the definition, or the example, is improper." The substance of the preceding extract from Grant's Gram- mar is, by no means, calculated to establish his justice or ai'Uleness. In the clause, "Although they define it to be a word, expressing a thing in a general and unlimited man- ner, without any distinction of number or person," if we ask Mr. Grant, who defines it to be a word, etc.? he must answer, Murray and others define it to be a word, etc., and if we ask him, \vhat do Murray and others define? he must an- swer, they define the infinite mood to be a word, etc. Who (he other writers are, to whose works Mr. Grant alludes, we do not know ; nor can we know how they define the infinitive mood ; but we do know how Murray defines it, and we also know, that Mr. Grant has, in this instance, misquoted Mur- ray's Grammar, This fact throws a painful suspicion on Mr. Grant's love of justice. Is not the most scrupulous care to be taken, and the strictest rectitude to be observed, when we as- sume the prerogative of judging that upon which the fame, happiness, and prosperity of an author depend? Murray's definition is: "The infinitive mood expresses a thing in a general and unlimited manner, without any distinc- tion of number or person; as, ' to act;' ' to speak;' ' to be feared.'" How can Mr, Grant assert, that Murray defines the infinitive mood, to be a word, etc.? Why has not Mr. Grant given Murray's definition correctly? Why has not he given Murray's examples of the infinitive mood with the definition? From what part of Murray's definition can we infer, that the infinitive consists only of one word? Murray gave three examples to illustrate the definition, namely, to act, to speak, to be feared, each of which consists of two or more words; hence the in- ference, that the infinitive mood is a word, or that Murray de- fines it to be a word, cannot be drawn from his definition or examples. How can Mr. Grant's readers judge the propriety or im- propriety of Lindlcy Murray's definition, when Mr. Grant only presents them with his own corrupt version of it, without even THIRD PART. 181 an example? Let us suppose, for argument sake, that the de- finition here given is proper; then, according to Grant, the example is improper. If we ask the reader, what example is improper? He certainly cannot tell. Why cannot he tell? Because Mr. Grant has given no example whatever. Where, then, can we find the improper example which Mr. Grant al- ludes to, when he says, "Either the definition, or example, is improper?" If Mr. Grant thinks his readers will 'condemn Murray's Grammar before they see or hear the evidence against it, he must have a very indifferent opinion of their justice. Mr. Grant says, "Surely, if person be excluded, intention is inadmissible." We say, that person is not excluded; that the only thing excluded is the distinction of number and per- son. Mr. Grant must know, that there is a great difference between excluding persons, and excluding the distinction of persons. Mr. Grant says, "Thus, when Lindley Murray (Rule 1, Note 1) adduces, 'to see the sun is pleasant,' as an example in which the infinitive is the nominative to the verb, he is per- fectly correct." We insist, that to see the sun, is the subject of the verb is, and not to see, and consequently, thai Lindley Murray and Grant are both wrong. " As a tree is known by its fruit," so is the truth or falsehood of an author's theory known, by the truth or falsehood of the results to which his theory leads. When we see, we must see something, and it is that thing which we see, that renders the act of teeing pleasant, unplea- sant, melancholy, or heart-rending, etc. : as, " To see the sun is pleasant;" " to see your property destroyed is unplea- sant; " to see man's indifference to his own salvation is me- lancholy;" " to see your country desolated and your dearest friends slain is heart-rending." If to ascertain the subject of the verb, is, in each of the four preceding assertions, we ask, what is pleasant? what is unpleasant? what is melancholy? what is heart rending? According to Mr. Grant's views, to see, without its adjuncts, that is, to see is pleasant: to see is unpleasant; to see is melancholy: to see is heart-rending. If to see is pleasant, how can to see be unpleasant ? or, if to see 182 ENGLISH f.UAMMAtt. is pleasant, how can to see be heart-rending? If I ask \\hat is heart-rending? Let the reader judge which of the two answers;" To see our dearest fri;nds slain is hean -rending," or, " To see is heart-rending," is more consistent. Any English reader knows as well as Mr. Grant, or any grammarian, that the first is correct and the second absurd. Doctor Crombie wilfully misquoted Lowth's Grammar. Let the reader judge whether the following extracts fully prove tliis charge or not. Crombic's Grammar, page 96: " Now, in parsing, every word should be considered as a dis- tinct part of speech ; whether, therefore, we admit pleased to be a perfect participle or not ( for this point I shall afterwards examine), it is obvious that on the principle now laid down, and acknowledged by Doctor Lowth, am pleased is not a pre- sent passive, nor has the author himself parsed it in this man- ner." We insist that pleased is a perft ct participle, and that Lowth parsed am pleased as a present passive. In Lowth's Grammar, page 37, " This participle represents the action as complete and finished; and being subjoined to the auxiliary, to have, constitutes the perfect times; I call it, therefore, the perfect participle. The same subjoined to the auxiliary, to be, constitutes a passive verb ; and in that state, or when used without the auxiliary in a passive sense, is called the passive participle." In page 108, in parsing the sentence, This is my beloved son, inivhom I am well pleased: he says, ' Pleased," the passive participle of the verb to please, making with the auxi- liary verb, am, a passive verb, in the indicative mood, present time, first person singular, agreeing with the nominative case, 7." Let the reader now jud^e whether Doctor Crombie was guilty of misquoting Lowth or not. We shall parse the following sentences, to prove that our Rules for the construction of sentences are as comprehensive as those given by any other writer on the subject, although we have not written one fourth as many. " Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in hea- THIRD PAUT. 183 yen ; give us this day our daily bread ; and forgive us our tres- passes as we forgive them who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation ; but deliver us from evil : Amen." Our is d. Father ind. n. 2p. and st. of give. Who ind. ps. 2p. and st. of art. Art sa. c. with its st. who, and pt. im. In rl. Heaven ind. n. 3p. and r. of in, by Rule 6. Be hal- lowed, sa. c. with its st.name, and ft. by R. 2. Thy d. King- dom ind. n. 3p. and st. of come. Come, sa. c. with its st. kingdom, and ft. by Rule 2. Thy d. Will ind. n. 3p. and st. of be done. Be done sa. c. with its st. will, and ft. im. by Rule 2. On rl. Earth ind. n. 3p. r. of on, by Rule 6. As it is in Heaven sd. of thy will be done on earth. Gice, ra. c. with its st. Father and ft. im. by R. 2. Us ph ps. Ip. and r. of to, im. by R. 6. This d. Day ind. n. 3p. and the r. of on, im. Our d. Daily d. Bread, ind. n. 3 p. and r. of give, by Rule 4. Andl. Forgive ra. c. with its st. thou, im. by Rule 2. Us pi. ps. Ip. and r. of to, im. by Rule 6. Our d. Trespasses pi. n. 3p. and r. of forgive, by Rule 4. As we forgive them that trespass against us sd. of forgive us our trespasses, by Rule 9. And 1. Lead ra. c. with its st. thou, im. by Rule 2. Us pi. ps. Ip. and r. of lead, by Rule 4. ATof sd. 7/ito rl. Temptation ind. n. 3p. and r. of into, by Rule 6. But 1. Deliver ra. c. with its st. t/tou, im. by Rule 2. From rl. .EvM ind. n. 3p. and r. of from, by Rule 6. Amen ex. " The master taught us to write." The d. Master ind. mn. 3p. and st. of taught. Taught ra. c. with its st. master, and Dt. im. by Rule 2. Us pi. ps Ip. and r. of to im. by Rule 6. To write is the r. of taught, by Note 1, Rule 4. " I once saw a young girl tie a string to a poor bird's leg, and pull it through the yard ; but it could not go so fast as she did. She ran, and it went hop, hop, to try to keep up with her ; but it broke its poor leg, and there it lay on the hard stones. Its head was hurt, and the poor bird was soon dead. So I told her maid not to let her have birds if she was to use them so ill ; and she has not had one since that time." 7 ind. ps. Ip. and st. of saw. Once sd. Saw ra. c. with its st. /, and Dt. im. A d. Young d. Girl ind. fn. 3p. and 184 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. r. of saw, by Rule 4. To tie a string to a poor bird's leg. and to pull it through the yard r. of / saw a young girl, by Note 2, R. 4. But 1. It ind. ns. 3p. and st. of could go. Could go sa. c. with its st. it, and Dt. im. by Rule 2. Not sd. So fast as she did go sd. of it could not go, by Rule 9. She ind. fps. 3p. and st. of ran. Ran sa. c. with its st. she, and Dt. im. by Rule 2. And 1. It ind. ns. 3p. and st. of went. Went sa. c. with its st. ft, and Dt. im. by Rule 2. Hop, hop sd. To try ra. To keep up with her is the ra. of to try, by Rule 4. But I. It ind. ns. 3p. and st. of broke*. Broke ra. c. with its st. it, and Dt. im. Us d. Poor d. Leg ind. n. 3p. and r. of broke, by Rule 4. And 1. J/iere is re- dundant. It ind. ns. 3p. and st. of lay. Lay sa. c. with ils st. it, and Dt. im. On rl. The d. J?ard d. Stones pi. n. 3p. and r. of on, by Rule 6. And 1. Its d. Bead ind. n. 3p. and st. of teas hurt. Was hurt sa. c. with its st. head and Dt. im. by R. 2 and 16. And 1. The d. Poor d. Bird ind. n. 3p. and st. of teas. Soon sd. Dead d. of bird, by Rule 10. So 1. / ind. ps. Ip. and st. of told. Told ra. c. with its st. /, arid Dt. im. Her d. Maid ind. fn. 3p. and r. of to im. by Rule 6. Not to let her have birds if the used them so ill r. of told. And ]. She ind. f. ps. 3p. and st. of has had. Has had ra. c. with its st. she, and At. im. by Rule 2. Not sd. One. d. of bird, irn. which is the r. of she has had. Since rl. That d. Time ind. n. 3p. and r. of since, by Rule 6. " The miser who hoards up his gold, Unwilling to use or to lend, Himself in the dog may behold The ox in his indigent friend." By Rule 16, the above sentence runs thus : " The miser, who hoards up his ?old and who is unwilling to use it, or to lend it, may behold himself in the dog, and he may behold the ox in his indigent friend." The d. Miser ind. mn. 3p. and st. of may behold. Who ind. ps. 3p. and st. of hoards. Hoards ra. c. with its st. who, and pt. im. Rule 2. U*> sd. IJis d. Gold ind. n. 3p. THIRD PART. 185 and r. of u'ho hoards. And 1. Who ind. ps. 3p. and st. of t*. /* sa. c. with its st. who. Unwilling d. relating to person im. To use ra. It ind. ns. 3p. and r. of to use. Or 1. To lend ra. It ind. ns. 3p and r. of to lend. May behold ra. c. with its &t. miser and ft. im. Himself, ind. m. ps. 3p. and r. of may behold. In rl. The d. Dog ind. mn. 3p. and r. of in. And 1. He ind. m. ps. 3p. and st. of may be- hold. May behold ra. c. with its st. he, and ft. im. The, d. Ox ind. mn. 3p. and r. of may behold. In rl. His d. In- digent d. Friend ind. mn. 3p. and r. of in, by R. 6. " THE BLIND BOV. ' say, what is that thing called light, Which I can ne'er enjoy? [must What are the blessings of the sight? tell your poor blind boy! 2. You talk of wond'rous things you see ; You say the sun shines bright ; 1 feel his heat, but how can he, [him warm For you make day and night? [or make it 3. My day and night myself I make, Whene'er 1 sleep or play ; If I can always keep awake, [And could I always keep I shall have constant day. [With me'twere always 4. With heavy sighs I often hear You mourn my hapless woe ; Surely with patience I can bear [But sure A. loss 1 ne'er can know. 5. Then let not what I cannot have, My cheerfulness destroy : [cheer of mind While thus I sing, I am a king, Although a poor blind boy." We have taken the liberty to substitute the words in italics 186 EltGi ISH GRAMMAR. for those opposite in the margin; the reader may judge if we have injured the verse or sense. By Rule 16, the first verse runs thus : say you, what thing is that thing which is called light, which light I can never enjoy. tell you, to your poor blind boy, what blessings are the blessings of the sight. ex. Say i a. c. with its st. thou, and ft. im. Rule 2. You pi. ps. 2p. and st of say. What is that tling which is called light, is the r. of say you. What d. Thing ind. n. 3p. and st. of is. Is sa. c. w ith its st. thing and pt. im. by Rule 2. That d. Thing ind. n. 3p. and st. of is, by Note 1, Rule 1. Which d. relating to thing, im and st. of is called. Is called sa. % with its st. thing, and pt. implied by Rule 2. Liyht ind. n. 3p. and st. of is called. Which d. Light ind. n. 3p. and r. of 7 can enjoy. I ind. ps. Ip. and st. can en- joy. Can enjoy ra. c. with its st. I, and ft. im. by Rule 2. Never sd. ex. Tell ra. c. with its st. you and ft. im. by Rule 2. You pi. ps. 2p. and st. of tell. To rl. Your d. Poor d. Blind d. Boy ind. mn. 3p and r. of to. What blessings are the blessings of the sight r. of you tell, or tell you, by Rule 4. What d. Blessings pi. n. 3p. and st. of are. Are sa. c. with its st. blessings, by Rule 2. The d. Blessings pi. n. 3p. and st. of are. Of rl. The d. Sight ind. n 3p. and r. of of. By Rule 16, the 2nd verse runs thus : " You talk of wond'rous tilings which you see: You say the sun shines brightly, I feel his heat, but how can he make day and night for you." You pi. ps. 2p. and st. of talk. Talk sa. c. with its st. you, and pt. im. Of rl. Wond'rous d. Things pi. n. 3p. and r. of of. Which d. of things, im. Things \>l. n. 3p. and r. of you see. You pi. ps. 2p. and st. of see. Seera. c. with its st. you and pt. im. You pi. ps. 2p. and st. of soy. Say ra. c. with its st. you, and pt. im. By rule 2, the sun shines brightly r. of you say. I ind. ps. Ip. and st. of feel. Feel ra. c. with its st. /. and pt. im. His d. Heat ind. n. 3p. and r. of feel, by Rule 4. But I. How sd. Can make ra. c. with its st. he and ft. im. by Rule 2. Ue ind. rn. ps. of 3p. and st. of can make. Day ind. n. 3p. and r. of can make, by Rule 4. And THIRD PART. 1S7 I. Right ind. n. 3p. and r. of can make, by Rule 4. For rl. You pi. ps. 2p. and r. of for, by Rule G. By Rule 1C, the third verse runs thus : "I make my day and night myself, whenever I sleep or play. If I can always keep myself awake, I shall have con- stant day." / ind. ps. lp. and st. of make. Make ra. c. with its st. I and pt. im. by Rule 2. My d. Day ind. n. 3p. and r. of make, by Rule 4. And 1 . Night ind. n. 3p. and r. of / make, by Rule 4. Myself ind. ps. lp. and st. of make. Whenever I. I ind. ps. Ip. and st. of sleep and play. Sleep sa. c. with its st. / andpt. im. Or 1. Play sa. c. with its st. /and pt. im. If 1. / ind. ps. lp. and st. of can keep. Can keep r.i. c. with its st. / and pt. im. by Rule 2. Myself ind. ps. Ip. and r. of can keep, by Rule 4. Always sd. Awake d. of myself. I ind. ps lp. and st. of shall have. Shall have ra. c. with its st. / and Pt. irn, by Rule 2. Constant, d. Day ind. n. 3p. and r. of should have, by Rule 4. By Rule 16, the fourth verse runs thus: "I often hear you mourn for my hapless woe, with heavy sighs. Surely I can bear with patience a loss which loss I ne- ver can know." / ind. ps. lp. and st. of hear. Often sd. Hear ra. c. with its st. / and pt. im. by Rule 2. You mourn my hapless woe with heavy sighs r. of hear, by Note 1, Rule 4. You pi ps. 2p. and st. of mourn. Mourn sa. c. with its st. you and pt. im. Forrl. My d. Hapless d. Woe ind. n. 3p. r. of for, by Rule 6. With rl. Heavy d. Sighs pi. n. 3p. and r. of n- it It by Rule 6. Surely sd. /ind. ps. ip. and st. of can bear. Can bear ra. c. with its st. / and ft. im. by Rule 2. With rl. Patience ind. n. 3p. and r. of with, by Rule 6. A d. Loss ind. n. 3p. and r. of can bear, by Rule 4. Which d. Loss ind. n. 3p. and r. of can know. I ind. ps. lp. and st. of can know. Never sd. Can know ra. c. with its st. / and ft. imp. by Rule 2. By Rule 16, the fll'lh verse runs thus: " Let not what I can not have destroy my cheerfulness. 188 ENGLISH CRVMMAR. While I sing thus, I am a king, although I am a poor blind boy." Let destroy ra. c. with its st. what and ft. im. by Rule 2. What, a double substitute, put for the st. of let destroy, and r. of / can have. (Si-e the explanation of the word what, in page 2-i.) / ind. ps. Ip. and st. of can have. Can have ra. c. with its st. / and ft. im. by Rule 2. Not sd. My d. Cheer- fulness ind. n. 3p. and r. of let destroy, by Rule 4. While 1. / ind, ps. Ip. and st. of sing. Smysa. c. with its st. /and pt. im. by Rule 2. Thus sd. / ind. ps Ip. and st. of am, by Rule 1. A d. King ind. mn. 3p. explicative of / by Note 1, Rule \. Although}. I ind. ps Ip. and st. of am. Am sa. c. with its st. /and pt im. by Rule 2. Ad. Poord. Blind d. Boy ind mn, 3p. explicative of J, by Note 1, Rule i. The word then, in the beginning of this verse is superfluous in prose, as it adds nothing to the sense. The imporfcnce of the rules we have given for the construc- tion of sentences will appear from their application to the fol- lowing sentences, taken from the Key to Lindley Murray's Exercises. When a writer on grammar, by way of instruction, corrects the faults of others, we may naturally conclude, that the corrected sentences are good English. Let the public judge the perspicuity, precision, and purity of the fallowing sen- tences, taken from his Key, page 29. 1. "Disappointments sink the heart of man; but the renewal of hope gives consolation." Disappointments deject man, but revived hope consoles him. R. 13. 2. "The smiles that encourage severity of judgment, hide malice and insincerity." He who by smiles encourages injustice, is malicious and de- ceitful. Rule 13. 3. " He dares not act in opposition to his instructions." He dares not oppose his instructions. R. 13. 4. "The number of the inhabitants of Great Britain and Ire land does not exceed twenty -three millions." The population of Great Rritain and Ireland does not ex- ceed twenty-three millions Rule 13. THIRD PART. 189 5. "Nothing but vain and foolish pursuits delight some per- sons." Vain and frivolous pursuits only, delight some persons. 6. " So much both of ability and merit is seldom found." This sentence is so vague, that you can only guess its mean- ing. Perhaps it may be, Seldom has one person possessed so much ability and merit. 7. "He is a more methodical writer than Plutarch or any other that writes lives too hastily." He is a more methodical writer than Plutarch or than any other over-hasty biographer. R. 13. 8. " I am sorry to say it, but there were more equivocators than one.'' I am sorry there were more equivocators than one. Rule 12. To employ it, without necessity, as in the last example, is one of the most common faults in composition. 9. " Let it be remembered, thatt't is not the uttering or the hearing of certain words, that constitutes the worship of the Almighty. " liemembcr, that uttering or hearing certain words does not constitute divine worship. R. 12 and 13. 10. "There are many occasions in life, in which silence and simplicity are true wisdom." Silence and artlessness are often true wisdom. Rule 12 and 13. 11. "The generous never recount minutely the actions they have done ; nor the prudent, those they will do." The generous never recount their kind actions; nor do the prudent those they intend. R. 12 and 13. 12. "The business that relates to ecclesiastical meetings, matters, and persons, was to be ordered according to the king's direction." Ecclesiastical matters were to be regulated by the king's di- rection. R. 12 and 13. 13. "In him was happily blended true dignity with softness of manners." He possessed a happy miiture of suavity and dignity, R. 12 and 13. 190 ENGLISH GRAMMAR. The propriety of soft manners, or softness of manners, is very doubtful. 14.