The Grammar of English Grammars

by Goold Brown

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—No other words are so often employed as the articles. And, by reason of the various and very frequent occasions on which these definitives are required, no words are oftener misapplied; none, oftener omitted or inserted erroneously. I shall therefore copiously illustrate both their uses and their abuses; with the hope that every reader of this volume will think it worth his while to gain that knowledge which is requisite to the true use of these small but important words. Some parts of the explanation, however, must be deferred till we come to Syntax.

OBS. 2.—With the attempts of Tooke, Dalton, Webster, Cardell, Fowle, Wells,[134] Weld, Butler Frazee, Perley, Mulligan, Pinneo, S. S. Greene, and other writers, to degrade the article from its ancient rank among the parts of speech, no judicious reader, duly acquainted with the subject, can, I think, be well pleased. An article is not properly an "adjective," as they would have it to be; but it is a word of a peculiar sort—a customary index to the sense of nouns. It serves not merely to show the extent of signification, in which nouns are to be taken, but is often the principal, and sometimes the only mark, by which a word is known to have the sense and construction of a noun. There is just as much reason to deny and degrade the Greek or French article, (or that of any other language,) as the English; and, if those who are so zealous to reform our the, an, and a into adjectives, cared at all to appear consistent in the view of Comparative or General Grammar, they would either set about a wider reformation or back out soon from the pettiness of this.

OBS. 3.—First let it be understood, that an or a is nearly equivalent in meaning to the numeral adjective one, but less emphatic; and that the is nearly equivalent in meaning to the pronominal adjective that or those, but less emphatic. On some occasions, these adjectives may well be substituted for the articles; but not generally. If the articles were generally equivalent to adjectives, or even if they were generally like them, they would be adjectives; but, that adjectives may occasionally supply their places, is no argument at all for confounding the two parts of speech. Distinctions must be made, where differences exist; and, that a, an, and the, do differ considerably from the other words which they most resemble, is shown even by some who judge "the distinctive name of article to be useless." See Crombie's Treatise, Chap. 2. The articles therefore must be distinguished, not only from adjectives, but from each other. For, though both are articles, each is an index sui generis; the one definite, the other indefinite. And as the words that and one cannot often be interchanged without a difference of meaning, so the definite article and the indefinite are seldom, if ever, interchangeable. To put one for the other, is therefore, in general, to put one meaning for an other: "A daughter of a poor man"—"The daughter of the poor man"—"A daughter of the poor man"—and, "The daughter of a poor man," are four phrases which certainly have four different and distinct significations. This difference between the two articles may be further illustrated by the following example: "That Jesus was a prophet sent from God, is one proposition; that Jesus was the prophet, the Messiah, is an other; and, though he certainly was both a prophet and the prophet, yet the foundations of the proof of these propositions are separate and distinct."—Watson's Apology, p. 105.

OBS. 4.—Common nouns are, for the most part, names of large classes of objects; and, though what really constitutes the species must always be found entire in every individual, the several objects thus arranged under one general name or idea, are in most instances susceptible of such a numerical distribution as gives rise to an other form of the noun, expressive of plurality; as, horse, horses. Proper nouns in their ordinary application, are, for the most part, names of particular individuals; and as there is no plurality to a particular idea, or to an individual person or thing as distinguished from all others, so there is in general none to this class of nouns; and no room for further restriction by articles. But we sometimes divert such nouns from their usual signification, and consequently employ them with articles or in the plural form; as, "I endeavoured to retain it nakedly in my mind, without regarding whether I had it from an Aristotle or a Zoilus, a Newton or a Descartes."—Churchill's Gram., Pref., p. 8. "It is not enough to have Vitruviuses, we must also have Augustuses to employ them."—Bicknell's Gram., Part ii, p. 61.

"A Daniel come to judgment! yea, a Daniel!"
—SHAK. Shylock.

"Great Homer, in th' Achilles, whom he drew,
Sets not that one sole Person in our View."
—Brightland's Gram., p. 183.

OBS. 5.—The article an or a usually denotes one out of several or many; one of a sort of which there are more; any one of that name, no matter which. Hence its effect upon a particular name, or proper noun, is directly the reverse of that which it has upon a common noun. It varies and fixes the meaning of both; but while it restricts that of the latter, it enlarges that of the former. It reduces the general idea of the common noun to any one individual of the class: as, "A man;" that is, "One man, or any man." On the contrary, it extends the particular idea of the proper noun, and makes the word significant of a class, by supposing others to whom it will apply: as, "A Nero;" that is, "Any Nero, or any cruel tyrant." Sometimes, however, this article before a proper name, seems to leave the idea still particular; but, if it really does so, the propriety of using it may be doubted: as, "No, not by a John the Baptist risen from the dead."—Henry's Expos., Mark, vi. "It was not solely owing to the madness and depravity of a Tiberius, a Caligula, a Nero, or a Caracalla, that a cruel and sanguinary spirit, in their day, was so universal."—M'Ilvaine's Evid., p. 398.

OBS. 6.—With the definite article, the noun is applied, sometimes specifically, sometimes individually, but always definitely, always distinctively. This article is demonstrative. It marks either the particular individual, or the particular species,—or, (if the noun be plural,) some particular individuals of the species,—as being distinguished from all others. It sometimes refers to a thing as having been previously mentioned; sometimes presumes upon the hearer's familiarity with the thing; and sometimes indicates a limitation which is made by subsequent words connected with the noun. Such is the import of this article, that with it the singular number of the noun is often more comprehensive, and at the same time more specific, than the plural. Thus, if I say, "The horse is a noble animal," without otherwise intimating that I speak of some particular horse, the sentence will be understood to embrace collectively that species of animal; and I shall be thought to mean, "Horses are noble animals." But if I say, "The horses are noble animals," I use an expression so much more limited, as to include only a few; it must mean some particular horses, which I distinguish from all the rest of the species. Such limitations should be made, whenever there is occasion for them; but needless restrictions displease the imagination, and ought to be avoided; because the mind naturally delights in terms as comprehensive as they may be, if also specific. Lindley Murray, though not uniform in his practice respecting this, seems to have thought it necessary to use the plural in many sentences in which I should decidedly prefer the singular; as, "That the learners may have no doubts."—Murray's Octavo Gram., Vol. i, p. 81. "The business will not be tedious to the scholars."—Ib., 81. "For the information of the learners."—Ib., 81. "It may afford instruction to the learners."—Ib., 110. "That this is the case, the learners will perceive by the following examples."—Ib., 326. "Some knowledge of it appears to be indispensable to the scholars."—Ib., 335.

OBS. 7.—Proper names of a plural form and signification, are almost always preceded by the definite article; as, "The Wesleys,"—"The twelve Cæsars,"—"All the Howards." So the names of particular nations, tribes, and sects; as, The Romans, the Jews, the Levites, the Stoics. Likewise the plural names of mountains; as, The Alps, the Apennines, the Pyrenees, the Andes. Of plural names like these, and especially of such as designate tribes and sects, there is a very great number. Like other proper names, they must be distinguished from the ordinary words of the language, and accordingly they are always written with capitals; but they partake so largely of the nature of common nouns, that it seems doubtful to which class they most properly belong. Hence they not only admit, but require the article; while most other proper names are so definite in themselves, that the article, if put before them, would be needless, and therefore improper.

"Nash, Rutledge, Jefferson, in council great, And Jay, and Laurens oped the rolls of fate; The Livingstons, fair freedoms generous band, The Lees, the Houstons, fathers of the land."—Barlow.

OBS. 8.—In prose, the definite article is always used before names of rivers, unless the word river, be added; as, The Delaware, the Hudson, the Connecticut. But if the word river be added, the article becomes needless; as, Delaware river, Hudson river, Connecticut river. Yet there seems to be no impropriety in using both; as, The Delaware river, the Hudson river, the Connecticut river. And if the common noun be placed before the proper name, the article is again necessary; as, The river Delaware, the river Hudson, the river Connecticut. In the first form of expression, however, the article has not usually been resolved by grammarians as relating to the proper name; but these examples, and others of a similar character, have been supposed elliptical: as, "The [river] Potomac"—"The [ship] Constitution,"—"The [steamboat] Fulton." Upon this supposition, the words in the first and fourth forms are to be parsed alike; the article relating to the common noun, expressed or understood, and the proper noun being in apposition with the appellative. But in the second form, the apposition is reversed; and, in the third, the proper name appears to be taken adjectively. Without the article, some names of rivers could not be understood; as,

"No more the Varus and the Atax feel
The lordly burden of the Latian keel."—Rowe's Lucan, B. i. l. 722.

OBS. 9.—The definite article is often used by way of eminence, to distinguish some particular individual emphatically, or to apply to him some characteristic name or quality: as, "The Stagirite,"—that is, Aristotle; "The Psalmist," that is, David; "Alexander the Great,"—that is, (perhaps,) Alexander the Great Monarch, or Great Hero. So, sometimes, when the phrase relates to a collective body of men: as, "The Honourable, the Legislature,"—"The Honourable, the Senate;"—that is, "The Honourable Body, the Legislature," &c. A similar application of the article in the following sentences, makes a most beautiful and expressive form of compliment: "These are the sacred feelings of thy heart, O Lyttleton, the friend."—Thomson. "The pride of swains Palemon was, the generous and the rich."—Id. In this last example, the noun man is understood after "generous," and again after "rich;" for, the article being an index to the noun, I conceive it to be improper ever to construe two articles as having reference to one unrepeated word. Dr. Priestley says, "We sometimes repeat the article, when the epithet precedes the substantive; as He was met by the worshipful the magistrates."—Gram., p. 148. It is true, we occasionally meet with such fulsome phraseology as this; but the question is, how is it to be explained? I imagine that the word personages, or something equivalent, must be understood after worshipful, and that the Doctor ought to have inserted a comma there.

OBS. 10.—In Greek, there is no article corresponding to our an or a, consequently man and a man are rendered alike; the word, [Greek: anthropos] may mean either. See, in the original, these texts: "There was a man sent from God," (John, i, 6,) and, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?"—Heb., ii, 6. So of other nouns. But the definite article of that language, which is exactly equivalent to our the, is a declinable word, making no small figure in grammar. It is varied by numbers, genders, and cases; so that it assumes more than twenty different forms, and becomes susceptible of six and thirty different ways of agreement. But this article in English is perfectly simple, being entirely destitute of grammatical modifications, and consequently incapable of any form of grammatical agreement or disagreement—a circumstance of which many of our grammarians seem to be ignorant; since they prescribe a rule, wherein they say, it "agrees," "may agree," or "must agree," with its noun. Nor has the indefinite article any variation of form, except the change from an to a, which has been made for the sake of brevity or euphony.

OBS. 11.—As an or a conveys the idea of unity, of course it applies to no other than nouns of the singular number. An eagle is one eagle, and the plural word eagles denotes more than one; but what could possibly be meant by "ans eagles," if such a phrase were invented? Harris very strangely says, "The Greeks have no article correspondent to an or a, but supply its place by a NEGATION of their article. And even in English, where the article a cannot be used, as in plurals, its force is exprest by the same NEGATION."—Harris's Hermes, p. 218. What a sample of grammar is this! Besides several minor faults, we have here a nonentity, a NEGATION of the Greek article, made to occupy a place in language, and to express force! The force of what? Of a plural an or a,! of such a word as ans or aes! The error of the first of these sentences, Dr. Blair has copied entire into his eighth lecture.

OBS. 12.—The following rules of agreement, though found in many English grammars, are not only objectionable with respect to the sense intended, but so badly written as to be scarcely intelligible in any sense: 1. "The article a or an agrees with nouns in the singular number only, individually, or collectively: as, A Christian, an infidel, a score, a thousand." 2. "The definite article the may agree with nouns in the singular AND[135] plural number: as, The garden, the houses, the stars."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 170; 12mo, 139; Fish's Murray, 98; a Teacher's, 45. For the purpose of preventing any erroneous construction of the articles, these rules are utterly useless; and for the purpose of syntactical parsing, or the grammatical resolution of this part of speech, they are awkward and inconvenient. The syntax of the articles may be much better expressed in this manner: "Articles relate to the nouns which they limit," for, in English, the bearing of the articles upon other words is properly that of simple relation, or dependence, according to the sense, and not that of agreement, not a similarity of distinctive modifications.

OBS. 13.—Among all the works of earlier grammarians, I have never yet found a book which taught correctly the application of the two forms of the indefinite article an or a. Murray, contrary to Johnson and Webster, considers a to be the original word, and an the euphonic derivative. He says: "A becomes an before a vowel, and before a silent h. But if the h be sounded, the a only is to be used."—Murray's Gram., p. 31. To this he adds, in a marginal note, "A instead of an is now used before words beginning with u long. It is used before one. An must be used before words WHERE the h is not silent, if the accent is on the second syllable; as, an heroic action, an historical account."—Ib. This explanation, clumsy as it is, in the whole conception; broken, prolix, deficient, and inaccurate as it is, both in style and doctrine; has been copied and copied from grammar to grammar, as if no one could possibly better it. Besides several other faults, it contains a palpable misuse of the article itself: "the h" which is specified in the second and fifth sentences, is the "silent h" of the first sentence; and this inaccurate specification gives us the two obvious solecisms of supposing, "if the [silent] h be sounded," and of locating "words WHERE the [silent] h is not silent!" In the word humour, and its derivatives, the h is silent, by all authority except Webster's; and yet these words require a and not an before them.

OBS. 14.—It is the sound only, that governs the form of the article, and not the letter itself; as, "Those which admit of the regular form, are marked with an R."—Murray's Gram., p. 101. "A heroic poem, written by Virgil."—Webster's Dict. "Every poem of the kind has no doubt a historical groundwork."—Philological Museum, Vol. i, p. 457. "A poet must be a naturalist and a historian."—Coleridge's Introduction, p. 111. Before h in an unaccented syllable, either form of the article may be used without offence to the ear; and either may be made to appear preferable to the other, by merely aspirating the letter in a greater or less degree. But as the h, though ever so feebly aspirated has something of a consonant sound, I incline to think the article in this case ought to conform to the general principle: as, "A historical introduction has, generally, a happy effect to rouse attention."— Blair's Rhet., p. 311. "He who would write heroic poems, should make his whole life a heroic poem."—See Life of Schiller, p. 56. Within two lines of this quotation, the biographer speaks of "an heroic multitude!" The suppression of the sound of h being with Englishmen a very common fault in pronunciation, it is not desirable to increase the error, by using a form of the article which naturally leads to it. "How often do we hear an air metamorphosed into a hair, a hat into a gnat, and a hero into a Nero!"—Churchill's Gram., p. 205. Thus: "Neither of them had that bold and adventurous ambition which makes a conqueror an hero."—Bolingbroke, on History, p. 174.

OBS. 15.—Some later grammarians are still more faulty than Murray, in their rules for the application of an or a. Thus Sanborn: "The vowels are a, e, i, o, and u. An should be used before words beginning with any of these letters, or with a silent h."—Analytical Gram., p. 11. "An is used before words beginning with u long or with h not silent, when the accent is on the second syllable; as, an united people, an historical account, an heroic action."—Ib., p. 85. "A is used when the next word begins with a consonant; an, when it begins with a vowel or silent h."—lb., p. 129. If these rules were believed and followed, they would greatly multiply errors.

OBS. 16.—Whether the word a has been formed from an, or an from a, is a disputed point—or rather, a point on which our grammarians dogmatize differently. This, if it be worth the search, must be settled by consulting some genuine writings of the twelfth century. In the pure Saxon of an earlier date, the words seldom occur; and in that ancient dialect an, I believe, is used only as a declinable numerical adjective, and a only as a preposition. In the thirteenth century, both forms were in common use, in the sense now given them, as may be seen in the writings of Robert of Gloucester; though some writers of a much later date—or, at any rate, one, the celebrated Gawin Douglas, a Scottish bishop, who died of the plague in London, in 1522—constantly wrote ane for both an and a: as,

"Be not ouer studyous to spy ane mote in myn E,
That in gour awin ane ferrye bot can not se."
—Tooke's Diversions, Vol. i, p. 124.

"Ane uthir mache to him was socht and sperit;
Bot thare was nane of all the rout that sterit."
—Ib., Vol. i, p. 160.

OBS. 17.—This, however, was a Scotticism; as is also the use of ae for a: Gower and Chaucer used an and a as we now use them. The Rev. J. M. M'Culloch, in an English grammar published lately in Edinburgh, says, "A and an were originally ae and ane, and were probably used at first simply to convey the idea of unity; as, ae man, ane ox."—Manual of E. Gram., p. 30. For this idea, and indeed for a great part of his book, he is indebted to Dr. Crombie; who says, "To signify unity, or one of a class, our forefathers employed ae or ane; as, ae man, ane ox."—Treatise on Etym. and Synt., p. 53. These authors, like Webster, will have a and an to be adjectives. Dr. Johnson says, "A, an article set before nouns of the singular number; as, a man, a tree. This article has no plural signification. Before a word beginning with a vowel, it is written an; as, an ox, an egg; of which a is the contraction."—Quarto Dict., w. A.

OBS. 18.—Dr. Webster says, "A is also an abbreviation of the Saxon an or ane, one, used before words beginning with an articulation; as, a table, instead of an table, or one table. This is a modern change; for, in Saxon, an was used before articulations as well as vowels; as, an tid, a time, an gear, a year."—Webster's Octavo Dict., w. A. A modern change, indeed! By his own showing in other works, it was made long before the English language existed! He says, "An, therefore, is the original English adjective or ordinal number one; and was never written a until after the Conquest."—Webster's Philos. Gram., p. 20; Improved Gram., 14. "The Conquest," means the Norman Conquest, in 1066; but English was not written till the thirteenth century. This author has long been idly contending, that an or a is not an article, but an adjective; and that it is not properly distinguished by the term "indefinite." Murray has answered him well enough, but he will not be convinced.[136] See Murray's Gram., pp. 34 and 35. If a and one were equal, we could not say, "Such a one,"—"What a one,"—"Many a one,"—"This one thing;" and surely these are all good English, though a and one here admit no interchange. Nay, a is sometimes found before one when the latter is used adjectively; as, "There is no record in Holy Writ of the institution of a one all-controlling monarchy."—Supremacy of the Pope Disproved, p. 9. "If not to a one Sole Arbiter."—Ib., p. 19.

OBS. 19.—An is sometimes a conjunction, signifying if; as, "Nay, an thou'lt mouthe, I'll rant as well as thou."—Shak. "An I have not ballads made on you all, and sung to fifty tunes, may a cup of sack be my poison."—Id., Falstaff. "But, an it were to do again, I should write again."—Lord Byron's Letters. "But an it be a long part, I can't remember it."—SHAKSPEARE: Burgh's Speaker, p. 136.

OBS. 20.—In the New Testament, we meet with several such expressions as the following: "And his disciples were an hungred."—SCOTT'S BIBLE: Matt, xii, 1. "When he was an hungred."—Ib. xii, 3. "When he had need and was an hungered."—Ib. Mark, ii, 25. Alger, the improver of Murray's Grammar, and editor of the Pronouncing Bible, taking this an to be the indefinite article, and perceiving that the h is sounded in hungered, changed the particle to a in all these passages; as, "And his disciples were a hungered." But what sense he thought he had made of the sacred record, I know not. The Greek text, rendered word for word, is simply this: "And his disciples hungered." And that the sentences above, taken either way, are not good English, must be obvious to every intelligent reader. An, as I apprehend, is here a mere prefix, which has somehow been mistaken in form, and erroneously disjoined from the following word. If so, the correction ought to be made after the fashion of the following passage from Bishop M'Ilvaine: "On a certain occasion, our Saviour was followed by five thousand men, into a desert place, where they were enhungered."—Lectures on Christianity, p. 210.

OBS. 21.—The word a, when it does not denote one thing of a kind, is not an article, but a genuine preposition; being probably the same as the French à, signifying to, at, on, in, or of: as, "Who hath it? He that died a Wednesday."—Shak. That is, on Wednesday. So sometimes before plurals; as, "He carves a Sundays."—Swift. That is, on Sundays. "He is let out a nights."—Id. That is, on nights—like the following example: "A pack of rascals that walk the streets on nights."—Id. "He will knap the spears a pieces with his teeth."—More's Antid. That is, in pieces, or to pieces. So in the compound word now-a-days, where it means on; and in the proper names, Thomas à Becket, Thomas à Kempis, Anthony à Wood, where it means at or of.

"Bot certainly the daisit blude now on dayis
Waxis dolf and dull throw myne unwieldy age."—Douglas.

OBS. 22.—As a preposition, a has now most generally become a prefix, or what the grammarians call an inseparable preposition; as in abed, in bed; aboard, on board; abroad, at large; afire, on fire; afore, in front; afoul, in contact; aloft, on high; aloud, with loudness; amain, at main strength; amidst, in the midst; akin, of kin; ajar, unfastened; ahead, onward; afield, to the field; alee, to the leeward; anew, of new, with renewal. "A-nights, he was in the practice of sleeping, &c.; but a-days he kept looking on the barren ocean, shedding tears."—Dr. Murray's Hist. of Europ. Lang., Vol. ii, p. 162. Compounds of this kind, in most instances, follow verbs, and are consequently reckoned adverbs; as, To go astray,—To turn aside,—To soar aloft,—To fall asleep. But sometimes the antecedent term is a noun or a pronoun, and then they are as clearly adjectives; as, "Imagination is like to work better upon sleeping men, than men awake."—Lord Bacon. "Man alive, did you ever make a hornet afraid, or catch a weasel asleep?" And sometimes the compound governs a noun or a pronoun after it, and then it is a preposition; as, "A bridge is laid across a river."—Webster's Dict., "To break his bridge athwart the Hellespont."—Bacon's Essays.

"Where Ufens glides along the lowly lands,
Or the black water of Pomptina stands."—Dryden.

OBS. 23.—In several phrases, not yet to be accounted obsolete, this old preposition à still retains its place as a separate word; and none have been more perplexing to superficial grammarians, than those which are formed by using it before participles in ing; in which instances, the participles are in fact governed by it: for nothing is more common in our language, than for participles of this form to be governed by prepositions. For example, "You have set the cask a leaking," and, "You have set the cask to leaking," are exactly equivalent, both in meaning and construction. "Forty and six years was this temple in building."—John, ii, 20. Building is not here a noun, but a participle; and in is here better than a, only because the phrase, a building, might be taken for an article and a noun, meaning an edifice.[137] Yet, in almost all cases, other prepositions are, I think, to be preferred to à, if others equivalent to it can be found. Examples: "Lastly, they go about to apologize for the long time their book hath been a coming out:" i.e., in coming out.—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 179. "And, for want of reason, he falls a railing::" i.e., to railing.—Ib., iii, 357. "That the soul should be this moment busy a thinking:" i.e., at or in thinking.—Locke's Essay, p. 78. "Which, once set a going, continue in the same steps:" i.e., to going.—Ib., p. 284. "Those who contend for four per cent, have set men's mouths a watering for money:" i.e., to watering.—LOCKE: in Johnson's Dict. "An other falls a ringing a Pescennius Niger:" i.e., to ringing.—ADDISON: ib. "At least to set others a thinking upon the subject:" i.e., to thinking.—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 300. "Every one that could reach it, cut off a piece, and fell a eating:" i.e., to eating.—Newspaper. "To go a mothering,[138] is to visit parents on Midlent Sunday."—Webster's Dict., w. Mothering. "Which we may find when we come a fishing here."—Wotton. "They go a begging to a bankrupt's door."—Dryden. "A hunting Chloë went."—Prior. "They burst out a laughing."—M. Edgeworth. In the last six sentences, a seems more suitable than any other preposition would be: all it needs, is an accent to distinguish it from the article; as, à.

OBS. 24.—Dr. Alexander Murray says, "To be a-seeking, is the relic of the Saxon to be on or an seeking. What are you a-seeking? is different from, What are you seeking? It means more fully the going on with the process."—Hist. Europ. Lang,, Vol. ii, p. 149. I disapprove of the hyphen in such terms as "à seeking," because it converts the preposition and participle into I know not what; and it may be observed, in passing, that the want of it, in such as "the going on," leaves us a loose and questionable word, which, by the conversion of the participle into a noun, becomes a nondescript in grammar. I dissent also from Dr. Murray, concerning the use of the preposition or prefix a, in examples like that which he has here chosen. After a neuter verb, this particle is unnecessary to the sense, and, I think, injurious to the construction. Except in poetry, which is measured by syllables, it may be omitted without any substitute; as, "I am a walking."—Johnson's Dict., w. A. "He had one only daughter, and she lay a dying."—Luke, viii, 42. "In the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing."—1 Pet., iii, 20. "Though his unattentive thoughts be elsewhere a wandering."—Locke's Essay, p. 284. Say—"be wandering elsewhere;" and omit the a, in all such cases.

"And—when he thinks, good easy man, full surely
His greatness is a ripening—nips his root."—Shak.

OBS. 25.—"A has a peculiar signification, denoting the proportion of one thing to an other. Thus we say, The landlord hath a hundred a year; the ship's crew gained a thousand pounds a man."—Johnson's Dict. "After the rate of twenty leagues a day."—Addison. "And corn was at two sesterces a bushel."—Duncan's Cicero, p. 82. Whether a in this construction is the article or the preposition, seems to be questionable. Merchants are very much in the habit of supplying its place by the Latin preposition per, by; as, "Board, at $2 per week."—Preston's Book-Keeping, p. 44. "Long lawn, at $12 per piece."—Dilworth's, p. 63. "Cotton, at 2s. 6d. per pound."—Morrison's, p. 75. "Exchange, at 12d. per livre."—Jackson's, p. 73. It is to be observed that an, as well as a, is used in this manner; as, "The price is one dollar an ounce." Hence, I think, we may infer, that this is not the old preposition a, but the article an or a, used in the distributive sense of each or every, and that the noun is governed by a preposition understood; as, "He demands a dollar an hour;" i. e., a dollar for each hour.—"He comes twice a year:" i. e., twice in every year.—"He sent them to Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses:" (1 Kings, v, 14:) i. e., ten thousand, monthly; or, as our merchants say, "per month." Some grammarians have also remarked, that, "In mercantile accounts, we frequently see a put for to, in a very odd sort of way; as, 'Six bales marked 1 a 6.' The merchant means, 'marked from 1 to 6.' This is taken to be a relic of the Norman French, which was once the law and mercantile language of England; for, in French, a, with an accent, signifies to or at."—Emmons's Gram., p. 73. Modern merchants, in stead of accenting the a, commonly turn the end of it back; as, @.

OBS. 26.—Sometimes a numeral word with the indefinite article—as a few, a great many, a dozen, a hundred, a thousand—denotes an aggregate of several or many taken collectively, and yet is followed by a plural noun, denoting the sort or species of which this particular aggregate is a part: as, "A few small fishes,"—"A great many mistakes,"—"A dozen bottles of wine,"—"A hundred lighted candles,"—"A thousand miles off." Respecting the proper manner of explaining these phrases, grammarians differ in opinion. That the article relates not to the plural noun, but to the numerical word only, is very evident; but whether, in these instances, the words few, many, dozen, hundred, and thousand, are to be called nouns or adjectives, is matter of dispute. Lowth, Murray, and many others, call them adjectives, and suppose a peculiarity of construction in the article;—like that of the singular adjectives every and one in the phrases, "Every ten days,"—"One seven times more."—Dan., iii, 19. Churchill and others call them nouns, and suppose the plurals which follow, to be always in the objective case governed by of, understood: as, "A few [of] years,"—"A thousand [of] doors;"—like the phrases, "A couple of fowls,"—"A score of fat bullocks."—Churchill's Gram., p. 279. Neither solution is free from difficulty. For example: "There are a great many adjectives."—Dr. Adam. Now, if many is here a singular nominative, and the only subject of the verb, what shall we do with are? and if it is a plural adjective, what shall we do with a and great? Taken in either of these ways, the construction is anomalous. One can hardly think the word "adjectives" to be here in the objective case, because the supposed ellipsis of the word of cannot be proved; and if many is a noun, the two words are perhaps in apposition, in the nominative. If I say, "A thousand men are on their way," the men are the thousand, and the thousand is nothing but the men; so that I see not why the relation of the terms may not be that of apposition. But if authorities are to decide the question, doubtless we must yield it to those who suppose the whole numeral phrase to be taken adjectively; as, "Most young Christians have, in the course of half a dozen years, time to read a great many pages."—Young Christian, p. 6.

"For harbour at a thousand doors they knock'd;
Not one of all the thousand but was lock'd."—Dryden.

OBS. 27.—The numeral words considered above, seem to have been originally adjectives, and such may be their most proper construction now; but all of them are susceptible of being construed as nouns, even if they are not such in the examples which have been cited. Dozen, or hundred, or thousand, when taken abstractly, is unquestionably a noun; for we often speak of dozens, hundreds, and thousands. Few and many never assume the plural form, because they have naturally a plural signification; and a few or a great many is not a collection so definite that we can well conceive of fews and manies; but both are sometimes construed substantively, though in modern English[139] it seems to be mostly by ellipsis of the noun. Example: "The praise of the judicious few is an ample compensation for the neglect of the illiterate many."—Churchill's Gram., p. 278. Dr. Johnson says, the word many is remarkable in Saxon for its frequent use. The following are some of the examples in which he calls it a substantive, or noun: "After him the rascal many ran."—Spenser. "O thou fond many."—Shakspeare. "A care-craz'd mother of a many children."—Id. "And for thy sake have I shed many a tear."—Id. "The vulgar and the many are fit only to be led or driven."—South. "He is liable to a great many inconveniences every moment of his life."—Tillotson. "Seeing a great many in rich gowns, he was amazed."—Addison.

"There parting from the king, the chiefs divide,
And wheeling east and west, before their many ride."—Dryden.

OBS. 28.—"On the principle here laid down, we may account for a peculiar use of the article with the adjective few, and some other diminutives. In saying, 'A few of his adherents remained with him;' we insinuate, that they constituted a number sufficiently important to be formed into an aggregate: while, if the article be omitted, as, 'Few of his adherents remained with him;' this implies, that he was nearly deserted, by representing them as individuals not worth reckoning up. A similar difference occurs between the phrases: 'He exhibited a little regard for his character;' and 'He exhibited little regard for his character.'"—Churchill's Gram., p. 279. The word little, in its most proper construction, is an adjective, signifying small; as, "He was little of stature."—Luke. "Is it not a little one?"—Genesis. And in sentences like the following, it is also reckoned an adjective, though the article seems to relate to it, rather than to the subsequent noun; or perhaps it may be taken as relating to them both: "Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep."—Prov., vi, 10; xxiv, 33. But by a common ellipsis, it is used as a noun, both with and without the article; as, "A little that a righteous man hath, is better than the riches of many wicked."—Psalms, xxxvii, 16. "Better is little with the fear of the Lord, than great treasure and trouble therewith."—Prov., xv, 16. "He that despiseth little things, shall perish by little and little."—Ecclesiasticus. It is also used adverbially, both alone and with the article a; as, "The poor sleep little."—Otway. "Though they are a little astringent."—Arbuthnot. "When he had gone a little farther thence."—Mark, i, 19. "Let us vary the phrase [in] a very little" [degree].—Kames, Vol. ii, p. 163.

OBS. 29.—"As it is the nature of the articles to limit the signification of a word, they are applicable only to words expressing ideas capable of being individualized, or conceived of as single things or acts; and nouns implying a general state, condition, or habit, must be used without the article. It is not vaguely therefore, but on fixed principles, that the article is omitted, or inserted, in such phrases as the following: 'in terror, in fear, in dread, in haste, in sickness, in pain, in trouble; in a fright, in a hurry, in a consumption; the pain of his wound was great; her son's dissipated life was a great trouble to her."—Churchill's Gram., p. 127.

OBS. 30.—Though the, an, and a, are the only articles in our language, they are far from being the only definitives. Hence, while some have objected to the peculiar distinction bestowed upon these little words, firmly insisting on throwing them in among the common mass of adjectives; others have taught, that the definitive adjectives—I know not how many—such as, this, that, these, those, any, other, some, all, both, each, every, either, neither—"are much more properly articles than any thing else."—Hermes, p. 234. But, in spite of this opinion, it has somehow happened, that these definitive adjectives have very generally, and very absurdly, acquired the name of pronouns. Hence, we find Booth, who certainly excelled most other grammarians in learning and acuteness, marvelling that the articles "were ever separated from the class of pronouns." To all this I reply, that the, an, and a, are worthy to be distinguished as the only articles, because they are not only used with much greater frequency than any other definitives, but are specially restricted to the limiting of the signification of nouns. Whereas the other definitives above mentioned are very often used to supply the place of their nouns; that is, to represent them understood. For, in general, it is only by ellipsis of the noun after it, and not as the representative of a noun going before, that any one of these words assumes the appearance of a pronoun. Hence, they are not pronouns, but adjectives. Nor are they "more properly articles than any thing else;" for, "if the essence of an article be to define and ascertain" the meaning of a noun, this very conception of the thing necessarily supposes the noun to be used with it.

OBS. 31.—The following example, or explanation, may show what is meant by definitives. Let the general term be man, the plural of which is men: A man—one unknown or indefinite; The man—one known or particular; The men—some particular ones; Any man—one indefinitely; A certain man—one definitely; This man—one near; That man—one distant; These men—several near; Those men—several distant; Such a man—one like some other; Such men—some like others; Many a man—a multitude taken singly; Many men—an indefinite multitude taken plurally; A thousand men—a definite multitude; Every man—all or each without exception; Each man—both or all taken separately; Some man—one, as opposed to none; Some men—an indefinite number or part; All men—the whole taken plurally; No men—none of the sex; No man—never one of the race.