The Grammar of English Grammars Part 289

[132] These definitions are numbered here, because each of them is the first of a series now begun. In cla.s.s rehearsals, the pupils may be required to give the definitions in turn; and, to prevent any from losing the place, it is important that the numbers be mentioned. When all have become sufficiently familiar with the _definitions_, the exercise may be performed _without them._ They are to be read or repeated till faults disappear--or till the teacher is satisfied with the performance. He may then save time, by commanding his cla.s.s to proceed more briefly; making such distinctions as are required in the praxis, but ceasing to explain the terms employed; that is, _omitting all the definitions, for brevity's sake._ This remark is applicable likewise to all the subsequent praxes of etymological parsing.]

[133] The _modifications_ which belong to the different parts of speech consist chiefly of the _inflections_ or _changes_ to which certain words are subject. But I use the term sometimes in a rather broader sense, as including not only _variations_ of words, but, in certain instances, their _original forms_, and also such of their _relations_ as serve to indicate peculiar properties. This is no questionable license in the use of the term; for when the position of a word _modifies_ its meaning, or changes its person or case, this effect is clearly a grammatical _modification_, though there be no absolute _inflection_. Lord Kames observes, "_That quality_, which distinguishes one genus, one species, or even one individual, from an other, is termed a _modification_: thus the same particular that is termed a _property_ or _quality_, when considered as belonging to an individual, or a cla.s.s of individuals, is termed a _modification_, when considered as distinguishing the individual or the cla.s.s from an other."--_Elements of Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 392.

[134] Wells, having put the articles into the cla.s.s of adjectives, produces authority as follows: "'The words _a_ or _an_, and _the_, are reckoned by _some_ grammarians a separate part of speech; but, as they in all respects come under the definition of the adjective, it is unnecessary, as well as _improper_, to rank them as a cla.s.s by themselves.'--Cannon." To this he adds, "The articles are also ranked with adjectives by Priestley, E.

Oliver, Bell, Elphinston, M'Culloch, D'Orsey, Lindsay, Joel, Greenwood.

Smetham, Dalton, King, Hort, Buchanan, Crane, J. Russell, Frazee, Cutler, Perley, Swett, Day. Goodenow, Willard, Robbins, Felton, Snyder, Butler, S.

Barrett, Badgley, Howe, Whiting, Davenport, Fowle, Weld, and others."--_Wells's School Gram._, p. 69. In this way, he may have made it seem to many, that, after thorough investigation, he had decided the point discreetly, and with preponderance of authority. For it is claimed as a "peculiar merit" of this grammar, that, "Every point of practical importance is _thoroughly investigated_, and reference is carefully made to the _researches_ of preceding writers, in all cases which admit of being determined by _weight of authority_."--WILLIAM RUSSELL, _on the cover_.

But, in this instance, as in sundry others, wherein he opposes the more common doctrine, and cites concurrent authors, both he and all his authorities are demonstrably to the wrong. For how can they be right, while reason, usage, and the prevailing opinion, are still against them? If we have forty grammars which reject, the articles as a part of speech, we have more than twice as many which recognize them as such; among which are those of the following authors: viz., Adam, D. Adams, Ainsworth, Alden, Alger, W.

Allen, Ash, Bacon, Barnard, Beattie, Beck, Bicknell, Bingham, Blair, J. H.

Brown, Bucke, Bullions, Burn, Burr, Chandler, Churchill, Coar, Cobbett, Cobbin, Comly, Cooper, Davis, Dearborn, Ensell, Everett, Farnum, Fisk, A.

Flint, Folker, Fowler, Frost, R. G. Greene, Greenleaf, Guy, Hall, Hallock, Hart, Harrison, Matt. Harrison, Hazen, Hendrick, Hiley, Hull, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Johnson, Kirkham, Latham, Lennie, A. Lewis, Lowth, Maltby, Maunder, Mennye, Merchant, T. H. Miller, Murray, Nixon, Nutting, Parker and Fox, John Peirce, Picket, Pond, S. Putnam, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, R. C.

Smith, Rev. T. Smith, Spencer, Tower, Tucker, Walker, Webber, Wilc.o.x, Wilson, Woodworth, J. E. Worcester, S. Worcester, Wright. The articles characterize our language more than some of the other parts of speech, and are worthy of distinction for many reasons, one of which is the very great _frequency_ of their use.

[135] In Murray's Abridgement, and in his "Second Edition," 12mo, the connective in this place is "_or_;" and so is it given by most of his amenders; as in _Alger's Murray_, p. 68; _Alden's_, 89; _Bacon's_, 48; _Cooper's_, 111; _A. Flint's_, 65; _Maltby's_, 60; _Miller's_, 67; _S.

Putnam's_, 74; _Russell's_, 52; _T. Smith's_, 61. All these, and many more, repeat both of these ill-devised rules.

[136] When this was written, Dr. Webster was living.

[137] In French, the preposition _a, (to,)_ is always carefully distinguished from the verb _a, (has,)_ by means of the grave accent, which is placed over the former for that purpose. And in general also the Latin word _a, (from,)_ is marked in the same way. But, with us, no appropriate sign has. .h.i.therto been adopted to distinguish the preposition _a_ from the article _a_; though the Saxon _a, (to,)_ is given by Johnson with an acute, even where no other _a_ is found. Hence, in their ignorance, thousands of vulgar readers, and among them the authors of sundry grammars, have constantly mistaken this preposition for an article. Examples: "Some adverbs are composed of _the article a_ prefixed to nouns; as _a_-side, _a_-thirst, _a_-sleep, _a_-sh.o.r.e, _a_-ground, &c."--_Comly's Gram._, p67.

"Repeat some [adverbs] that are composed of _the article a_ and nouns."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 89. "To go a fishing;" "To go a hunting;"

i.e. "to go _on_ a fishing _voyage_ or _business_;" "to go _on_ a hunting _party_."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 221; _Fisk's_, 147; _Ingersoll's_, 157; _Smith's_, 184; _Bullions's_, 129; _Merchant's_, 101; _Weld's_, 192, _and others._ That this interpretation is false and absurd, may be seen at once by any body who can read Latin; for, _a hunting, a fishing_, &c., are expressed by the supine in _um_: as, "_Venatum ire_."--Virg. aen. I.e., "To go _a_ hunting." "_Abeo piscatum_."--Beza. I.e. "I go _a_ fishing."--_John_, xxi, 3. Every school-boy ought to know better than to call this _a_ an article. _A fishing_ is equivalent to the infinitive _to fish_. For the Greek of the foregoing text is [Greek: Hupago halieuein,]

which is rendered by Monta.n.u.s, "_Vado piscari_;" i.e., "_I go to fish_."

One author ignorantly says, "The _article a_ seems to have _no particular meaning_, and is _hardly proper_ in such expressions as these. 'He went _a-hunting_,' She lies _a-bed_ all day.'"--_Wilc.o.x's Gram._, p. 59. No marvel that he could not find the meaning of an _article_ in this _a!_ With doltish and double inconsistency, Weld first calls this "The _article a_ employed _in the sense_ of a _preposition_," (_E. Gram._, p. 177,) and afterwards adopts Murray's interpretation as above cited! Some, too, have an absurd practice of joining this preposition to the participle; generally with the hyphen, but sometimes without: thus, "A-GOING, In motion; as, to set a mill _agoing_."--_Webster's Dict._ The doctor does not tell us what part of speech _agoing_ is; but, certainly, "to set the mill _to_ going,"

expresses just the same meaning, and is about as often heard. In the burial-service of the Common Prayer Book, we read, "They are even as _asleep_;" but, in the ninetieth Psalm, from which this is taken, we find the text thus: "They are as _a sleep_;" that is, as a dream that is fled.

Now these are very different readings, and cannot both he right.

[138] Here the lexicographer forgets his false etymology of _a_ before the participle, and writes the words _separately_, as the generality of authors always have done. _A_ was used as a preposition long before the article _a_ appeared in the language; and I doubt whether there is any truth at all in the common notions of its origin. Webster says, "In the words _abed, ash.o.r.e_, &c., and before _the_ participles _acoming, agoing, ashooting_, [he should have said, 'and _before participles_; as, _a coming, a going, a shooting_,'] _a_ has been supposed a contraction of _on_ or _at_. It may be so _in some cases_; but with the participles, it _is sometimes_ a contraction of the Saxon prefix _ge, and sometimes_ perhaps of the Celtic _ag_."--_Improved Gram._, p. 175. See _Philos. Gram._, p. 244. What admirable learning is this! _A_, forsooth, is a _contraction_ of _ge!_ And this is the doctor's reason for _joining_ it to the participle!

[139] The following construction may he considered an _archaism_, or a form of expression that is now obsolete: "You have bestowed _a_ many _of_ kindnesses upon me."--_Walker's English Particles_, p. 278.

[140] "If _I_ or _we_ is set before a name, it [the name] is of the first person: as, _I, N-- N--, declare; we, N-- and M-- do promise_."--_Ward's Gram._, p. 83. "Nouns which relate to the person or persons _speaking_, are said to be of the _first_ person; as, I, _William_, speak to you."--_Fowle's Common School Gram._, Part ii, p. 22. The first person of nouns is admitted by Ainsworth, R. W. Bailey, Barnard, Brightland, J. H.

Brown, Bullions, Butler, Cardell, Chandler, S. W. Clark, Cooper, Day, Emmons, Farnum, Felton, Fisk, John Flint, Fowle, Frazee, Gilbert, Goldsbury, R. G. Greene, S. S. Greene, Hall, Hallock, Hamlin, Hart, Hendrick, Hiley, Perley, Picket, Pinneo, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, Smart, R. C. Smith, Spear, Weld, Wells, Wilc.o.x, and others. It is denied, either expressly or virtually, by Alger, Bacon, Comly, Davis, Dilworth, Greenleaf, Guy, Hazen, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Kirkham, Latham, L. Murray, Maltby, Merchant, Miller, Nutting, Parkhurst, S. Putnam, Rev. T. Smith, and others.

Among the grammarians who do not appear to have noticed the persons of nouns at all, are Alden, W. Allen, D. C. Allen, Ash, Bicknell, Bingham, Blair, Buchanan, Bucke, Burn, Burr, Churchill, Coar, Cobb, Dalton, Dearborn, Abel Flint, R. W. Green, Harrison, Johnson, Lennie, Lowth, Mennye, Mulligan, Priestley, Staniford, Ware, Webber, and Webster.

[141] Prof. S. S. Greene most absurdly and erroneously teaches, that, "When the speaker wishes to represent himself, _he cannot use his name_, but _must_ use some other word, as, _I_; [and] when he wishes to represent the hearer, he _must_ use _thou_ or _you_."--_Greene's Elements of E. Gram._, 1853, p. x.x.xiv. The examples given above sufficiently show the falsity of all this.

[142] In _shoe_ and _shoes, canoe_ and _canoes_, the _o_ is sounded slenderly, like _oo_; but in _doe_ or _does, foe_ or _foes_, and the rest of the fourteen nouns above, whether singular or plural, it retains the full sound of its own name, _O_. Whether the plural of _two_ should be "_twoes_" as Churchill writes it, or "_twos_," which is more common, is questionable. According to Dr. Ash and the Spectator, the plural of _who_, taken substantively, is "_whos_."--_Ash's Gram._, p. 131.

[143] There are some singular compounds of the plural word _pence_, which form their own plurals regularly; as, _sixpence, sixpences_. "If you do not all show like gilt _twopences_ to me."--SHAKSPEARE. "The _sweepstakes_ of which are to be composed of the disputed difference in the value of two doubtful _sixpences._"--GOODELL'S LECT.: _Liberator_. Vol. ix, p. 145.

[144] In the third canto of Lord Byron's Prophecy of Dante, this noun is used in the singular number:--

"And ocean written o'er would not afford s.p.a.ce for the _annal_, yet it shall go forth."

[145] "They never yet had separated for their daylight beds, without a climax to their _orgy_, something like the present scene."--_The Crock of Gold_, p. 13. "And straps never called upon to diminish that long whity-brown interval between shoe and _trowser_."--_Ib._, p. 24. "And he gave them _victual_ in abundance."--_2 Chron._, xi, 23. "Store of _victual_."--_Ib._, verse 11.

[146] The noun _physic_ properly signifies medicine, or the science of medicine: in which sense, it seems to have no plural. But Crombie and the others cite one or two instances in which _physic_ and _metaphysic_ are used, not very accurately, in the sense of the singular of _physics_ and _metaphysics_. Several grammarians also quote some examples in which _physics, metaphysics, politics, optics_, and other similar names of sciences are used with verbs or p.r.o.nouns of the singular number; but Dr.

Crombie justly says the plural construction of such words, "is more common, and more agreeable to a.n.a.logy."--_On Etym. and Syntax_, p. 27.

[147] "Benjamin Franklin, following the occupation of a compositor in a printing-office, at a limited weekly _wage_," &c.--_Chambers' Edinburgh Journal_, No. 232. "WAGE, Wages, hire. The singular number is still frequently used, though _Dr. Johnson_ thought it obsolete."--_Glossary of Craven_. 1828.

[148] Our lexicographers generally treat the word _firearms_ as a close compound that has no singular. But some write it with a hyphen, as _fire-arms_. In fact the singular is sometimes used, but the way of writing it is unsettled. Dr. Johnson, in his Dictionary, defines a _carbine_ as, "a small sort of _fire arm_;" Webster has it, "a short gun, or _fire arm_;"

Worcester, "a small _fire-arm_;" Cobb, "a sort of small _firearms_."

Webster uses "_fire-arm_," in defining "_stock_."

[149] "But, soon afterwards, he made a glorious _amend_ for his fault, at the battle of Plataea."--_Hist. Reader_, p. 48.

[150] "There not _a dreg_ of guilt defiles."--_Watts's Lyrics_, p. 27.

[151] In Young's Night Thoughts, (N. vii, l. 475.) _lee_, the singular of _lees_, is found; Churchill says, (Gram., p. 211,) "Prior has used _lee_, as the singular of _lees_;" Webster and Bolles have also both forms in their dictionaries:--

"Refine, exalt, throw down their poisonous _lee_, And make them sparkle in the bowl of bliss."--_Young_.

[152] "The 'Procrustean bed' has been a myth heretofore; it promises soon to be _a shamble_ and a slaughterhouse in reality."--_St. Louis Democrat_, 1855.

[153] J. W. Wright remarks, "Some nouns admit of no plural distinctions: as, _wine, wood_, beer, _sugar, tea, timber, fruit, meat_, goodness, happiness, and perhaps all nouns ending in _ness_."--_Philos. Gram._, p.

139. If this learned author had been brought up in the _woods_, and had never read of Murray's "richer _wines_," or heard of Solomon's "dainty _meats_,"--never chaffered in the market about _sugars_ and _teas_, or read in Isaiah that "all our _righteousnesses_ are as filthy rags," or avowed, like Timothy, "a good profession before many _witnesses_,"--he might still have hewed the _timbers_ of some rude cabin, and partaken of the wild _fruits_ which nature affords. If these nine plurals are right, his a.s.sertion is nine times wrong, or misapplied by himself seven times in the ten.

[154] "I will not suppose it possible for my dear James to fall into either the company or the language of those persons who talk, and even write, about _barleys, wheats, clovers, flours, gra.s.ses_, and _malts_."-- _Cobbett's E. Gram._, p. 29.

[155] "It is a general rule, that all names of things measured or weighed, have no plural; for in _them_ not number, but quant.i.ty, is regarded: as, _wool, wine, oil_. When we speak, however, of different kinds, we use the plural: as, the coa.r.s.er _wools_, the richer _wines_, the finer _oils_."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 41.

[156] So _pains_ is the regular plural of _pain_, and, by Johnson, Webster, and other lexicographers, is recognized only as plural; but Worcester inserts it among his stock words, with a comment, thus: "Pains, _n._ Labor; work; toil; care; trouble. [Fist] According to the best usage, the word _pains_, though of plural form, is used in these senses as singular, and is joined with a singular verb; as, 'The pains they had taken _was_ very great.' _Clarendon_. 'No pains _is_ taken.' _Pope_. 'Great pains _is_ taken.' _Priestley_. '_Much_ pains.' _Bolingbroke_."--_Univ. and Crit.

Dict._ The multiplication of anomalies of this kind is so undesirable, that nothing short of a very clear decision of Custom, against the use of the regular concord, can well justify the exception. Many such examples may be cited, but are they not examples of false syntax? I incline to think "the best usage" would still make all these verbs plural. Dr. Johnson cites the first example thus: "The _pains_ they had taken _were_ very great.

_Clarendon_."--_Quarto Dict., w. Pain_. And the following recent example is unquestionably right: "_Pains have_ been taken to collect the information required."--_President Fillmore's Message_, 1852.

[157] "And the _fish_ that _is_ in the river shall die."--_Exod._, vii, 18.

"And the _fish_ that _was_ in the river died."--_Ib._, 21. Here the construction is altogether in the singular, and yet the meaning seems to be plural. This construction appears to be more objectionable, than the use of the word _fish_ with a plural verb. The French Bible here corresponds with ours: but the Latin Vulgate, and the Greek Septuagint, have both the noun and the verb in the plural: as, "The _fishes_ that _are_ in the river,"--"The _fishes_ that _were_," &c. In our Bible, _fowl_, as well _fish_, is sometimes plural; and yet both words, in some pa.s.sages, have the plural form: as, "And _fowl_ that may fly," &c.--_Gen._, i, 20. "I will consume the _fowls_ of the heaven, and the _fishes_ of the sea."--_Zeph._, i, 3.

[158] Some authors, when they give to _mere words_ the construction of plural nouns, are in the habit of writing them in the form of possessives singular; as, "They have of late, 'tis true, reformed, in some measure, the gouty joints and darning work of _whereunto's, whereby's, thereof's, therewith's_, and the rest of this kind."--_Shaftesbury_. "Here," says Dr.

Crombie, "the genitive singular is _improperly_ used for the objective case plural. It should be, _whereuntos, wherebys, thereofs, therewiths_."-- _Treatise on Etym. and Synt._, p. 338. According to our rules, these words should rather be, _whereuntoes, wherebies_, _thereofs, therewiths_. "Any word, when used as the name of itself, becomes a noun."--_Goodenow's Gram._, p. 26. But some grammarians say, "The plural of words, considered as words merely, is formed by the apostrophe and _s_; as, 'Who, that has any taste, can endure the incessant, quick returns of the _also's_, and the _likewise's_, and the _moreover's_, and the _however's_, and the _notwithstanding's_?'--CAMPBELL."--_Wells's School Gram._, p. 54. Practice is not altogether in favour of this principle, and perhaps it would be better to decide with Crombie that such a use of the apostrophe is improper.

[159] "The Supreme Being (_G.o.d, [Greek: Theos], Deus, Dieu_, &c.) is, in all languages, masculine; in as much as the masculine s.e.x is the superior and more excellent; and as He is the Creator of all, the Father of G.o.ds and men."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 54. This remark applies to all the direct names of the Deity, but the abstract idea of _Deity itself_, [Greek: To Theion], _Numen, G.o.dhead_, or _Divinity_, is not masculine, but neuter. On this point, some notions have been published for grammar, that are too heterodox to be cited or criticised here. See _O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p.

208.

[160] That is, we give them s.e.x, if we mean to represent them _as_ persons.

In the following example, a character commonly esteemed feminine is represented as neuter, because the author would seem to doubt both the s.e.x and the personality: "I don't know what a _witch_ is, or what _it_ was then."--_N. P. Rogers's Writings_, p. 154.

[161] There is the same reason for doubling the _t_ in _cittess_, as for doubling the _d_ in _G.o.ddess_. See Rule 3d for Spelling. Yet Johnson, Todd, Webster, Bolles, Worcester, and others, spell it _citess_, with one _t_.

"Cits and _citesses_ raise a joyful strain."--DRYDEN: _Joh. Dict._

[162] "But in the _English_ we have _no Genders_, as has been seen in the foregoing Notes. The same may be said of _Cases_."--_Brightland's Gram._, Seventh Edition, Lond., 1746, p. 85.

[163] The Rev. David Blair so palpably contradicts himself in respect to this matter, that I know not which he favours most, two cases or three. In his main text, he adopts no objective, but says: "According to the _sense_ or _relation_ in which nouns are used, they are in the NOMINATIVE or [the]

POSSESSIVE CASE, thus, _nom._ man; _poss._ man's." To this he adds the following marginal note: "In the English language, the distinction of the objective case is observable only in the p.r.o.nouns. _Cases_ being nothing but _inflections_, where inflections do not exist, there can be no grammatical distinction of cases, for the terms _inflection_ and _case_ are _perfectly synonymous_ and _convertible_. As the English noun has _only one change_ of termination, _so no other case_ is here adopted. The _objective_ case is noticed in the _p.r.o.nouns_; and _in parsing nouns_ it is easy to distinguish _subjects_ from _objects_. A noun which _governs the verb_ may be described as in the _nominative_ case, and one governed by the verb, or following a preposition, as in the _objective_ case."--_Blair's Practical Gram., Seventh Edition_, London, 1815, p. 11. The terms _inflection_ and _case_ are not practically synonymous, and never were so in the grammars of the language from which they are derived. The man who rejects the objective case of English nouns, because it has not a form peculiar to itself alone, must reject the accusative and the vocative of all neuter nouns in Latin, for the same reason; and the ablative, too, must in general be discarded on the same principle. In some other parts of his book, Blair speaks of the objective case of nouns as familiarly as do other authors!

[164] This author says, "We choose to use the term _subjective_ rather than _nominative_, because it is shorter, and because it conveys its meaning by its sound, whereas the latter word means, indeed, little or nothing in itself."--_Text-Book_, p. 88. This appears to me a foolish innovation, too much in the spirit of Oliver B. Peirce, who also adopts it. The person who knows not the meaning of the word _nominative_, will not be very likely to find out what is meant by _subjective_; especially as some learned grammarians, even such men as Dr. Crombie and Professor Bullions, often erroneously call the word which is governed by the verb its _subject_.