The Grammar of English Grammars

by Goold Brown

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—So various have been the views of our grammarians, respecting this complex and most important part of speech, that almost every thing that is contained in any theory or distribution of the English verbs, may be considered a matter of opinion and of dispute. Nay, the essential nature of a verb, in Universal Grammar, has never yet been determined by any received definition that can be considered unobjectionable. The greatest and most acute philologists confess that a faultless definition of this part of speech, is difficult, if not impossible, to be formed. Horne Tooke, at the close of his Diversions of Purley, cites with contempt nearly a dozen different attempts at a definition, some Latin, some English, some French; then, with the abruptness of affected disgust, breaks off the catalogue and the conversation together, leaving his readers to guess, if they can, what he conceived a verb to be. He might have added some scores of others, and probably would have been as little satisfied with any one of them. A definition like that which is given above, may answer in some degree the purpose of distinction; but, after all, we must judge what is, and what is not a verb, chiefly from our own observation of the sense and use of words.[222]

OBS. 2.—Whether participles ought to be called verbs or not, is a question that has been much disputed, and is still variously decided; nor is it possible to settle it in any way not liable to some serious objections. The same may perhaps be said of all the forms called infinitives. If the essence of a verb be made to consist in affirmation, predication, or assertion, (as it is in many grammars,) neither infinitives nor participles can be reckoned verbs, without a manifest breach of the definition. Yet are the former almost universally treated as verbs, and by some as the only pure verbs; nor do all deny them this rank, who say that affirmation is essential to a verb. Participles, when unconnected with auxiliaries, are most commonly considered a separate part of speech; but in the formation of many of our moods and tenses, we take them as constituent parts of the verb. If there is absurdity in this, there is more in undertaking to avoid it; and the inconvenience should be submitted to, since it amounts to little or nothing in practice. With auxiliaries, then, participles are verbs: without auxiliaries, they are not verbs, but form a separate part of speech.

OBS. 3.—The number of verbs in our language, amounts unquestionably to four or five thousand; some say, (perhaps truly,) to eight thousand. All these, whatever be the number, are confessedly regular in their formation, except about two hundred. For, though the catalogues in our grammars give the number somewhat variously, all the irregular, redundant, and defective verbs, put together, are commonly reckoned fewer than two hundred. I admit, in all, two hundred and nineteen. The regular verbs, therefore, are vastly more numerous than those which deviate from the stated form. But, since many of the latter are words of very frequent occurrence, the irregular verbs appear exceedingly numerous in practice, and consequently require a great deal of attention. The defective verbs being very few, and most of these few being mere auxiliaries, which are never parsed separately, there is little occasion to treat them as a distinct class; though Murray and others have ranked them so, and perhaps it is best to follow their example. The redundant verbs, which are regular in one form and irregular in an other, being of course always found written either one way or the other, as each author chooses, may be, and commonly have been, referred in parsing to the class of regular or irregular verbs accordingly. But, as their number is considerable, and their character peculiar, there may be some advantage in making them a separate class. Besides, the definition of an irregular verb, as given in any of our grammars, seems to exclude all such as may form the preterit and the perfect participle by assuming d or ed.

OBS. 4.—In most grammars and dictionaries, verbs are divided, with respect to their signification, into three classes only; active, passive, and neuter. In such a division, the class of active verbs includes those only which are active-transitive, and all the active-intransitive verbs are called neuter. But, in the division adopted above, active-intransitive verbs are made a distinct class; and those only are regarded as neuter, which imply a state of existence without action. When, therefore, we speak of verbs without reference to their regimen, we may, if we please, apply the simple term active to all those which express action, whether transitive or intransitive. "We act whenever we do any thing; but we may act without doing any thing."—Crabb's Synonymes.

OBS. 5.—Among the many English grammars in which verbs are divided, as above mentioned, into active, passive, and neuter, only, are those of the following writers: Lowth, Murray, Ainsworth, Alden, Allen, Alger, Bacon, Bicknell, Blair, Bullions, (at first,) Charles Adams, Bucke, Cobbett, Cobbin, Dilworth, A. Flint, Frost, (at first,) Greenleaf, Hall, Johnson,[223] Lennie, Picket, Pond, Sanborn, R. C. Smith, Rev. T. Smith, and Wright. These authors, and many more, agree, that, "A verb neuter expresses neither action nor passion, but being, or a state of being."—L. Murray. Yet, according to their scheme, such words as walk, run, fly, strive, struggle, wrestle, contend, are verbs neuter. In view of this palpable absurdity, I cannot but think it was a useful improvement upon the once popular scheme of English grammar, to make active-intransitive verbs a distinct class, and to apply the term neuter to those few only which accord with the foregoing definition. This had been done before the days of Lindley Murray, as may be seen in Buchanan's English Syntax, p. 56, and in the old British Grammar, p. 153, each published many years before the appearance of his work;[224] and it has often been done since, and is preferred even by many of the professed admirers and followers of Murray; as may be seen in the grammars of Comly, Fisk, Merchant, Kirkham, and others.

OBS. 6.—Murray himself quotes this improved distribution, and with some appearance of approbation; but strangely imagines it must needs be inconvenient in practice. Had he been a schoolmaster, he could hardly have so judged. He says, "Verbs have been distinguished by some writers, into the following kinds:—

"1st. Active-transitive, or those which denote an action that passes from the agent to some object: as, Cæsar conquered Pompey.

"2d. Active-intransitive, or those which express that kind of action, which has no effect upon any thing beyond itself: as, Cæsar walked.

"3d. Passive, or those which express, not action, but passion, whether pleasing or painful: as, Portia was loved; Pompey was conquered.

"4th. Neuter, or those which express an attribute that consists neither in action nor passion: as, Cæsar stood.

"This appears to be an orderly arrangement. But if the class of active-intransitive verbs were admitted, it would rather perplex than assist the learner: for the difference between verbs active and neuter, as transitive and intransitive is easy and obvious: but the difference between verbs absolutely neuter and [those which are] intransitively active, is not always clear. It is, indeed, often very difficult, if not impossible to be ascertained."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 60.[225]

OBS. 7.—The following note, from a book written on purpose to apply the principles of Murray's Grammar, and of Allen's, (the two best of the foregoing two dozen,) may serve as an offset to the reason above assigned for rejecting the class of active-intransitive verbs: "It is possible that some teachers may look upon the nice distinction here made, between the active transitive and the active intransitive verbs, as totally unnecessary. They may, perhaps, rank the latter with the neuter verbs. The author had his choice of difficulties: on the one hand, he was aware that his arrangement might not suit the views of the above-mentioned persons; and, on the other, he was so sensible of the inaccuracy of their system, and of its clashing with the definitions, as well as rules, laid down in almost every grammar, that he was unwilling to bring before the public a work containing so well-known and manifest an error. Of what use can Murray's definition of the active verb be, to one who endeavours to prove the propriety of thus assigning an epithet to the various parts of speech, in the course of parsing? He says, 'A verb active expresses an action, and necessarily implies an agent, and an object acted upon.' In the sentence, 'William hastens away,' the active intransitive verb hastens has indeed an agent, 'William,' but where is the object? Again, he says, 'Active verbs govern the objective case;' although it is clear it is not the active meaning of the verb which requires the objective case, but the transitive, and that only. He adds, 'A verb neuter expresses neither action, nor passion, but being, or a state of being;' and the accuracy of this definition is borne out by the assent of perhaps every other grammarian. If, with this clear and forcible definition before our eyes, we proceed to class active intransitive verbs with neuter verbs, and direct our pupils to prove such a classification by reciting Murray's definition of the neuter verb, we may indeed expect from a thinking pupil the remonstrance which was actually made to a teacher on that system, while parsing the verb 'to run.' 'Sir,' asks the boy, 'does not to run imply action, for it always makes me perspire?'"—Nixon's English Parser, p. 9.

OBS. 8.—For the consideration of those classical scholars who may think we are bound by the authority of general usage, to adhere to the old division of verbs into active, passive, and neuter, it may be proper to say, that the distribution of the verbs in Latin, has been as much a matter of dispute among the great grammarians of that language, as has the distribution of English verbs, more recently, among ourselves; and often the points at issue were precisely the same.[226] To explain here the different views of the very old grammarians, as Charisius, Donatus, Servius, Priscian; or even to notice the opinions of later critics, as Sanctius, Scioppius, Vossius, Perizonius; might seem perhaps a needless departure from what the student of mere English grammar is concerned to know. The curious, however, may find interesting citations from all these authors, under the corresponding head, in some of our Latin grammars. See Prat's Grammatica Latina, 8vo, London, 1722. It is certain that the division of active verbs, into transitive and intransitive—or, (what is the same thing,) into "absolute and transitive"—or, into "immanent and transient"—is of a very ancient date. The notion of calling passive verbs transitive, when used in their ordinary and proper construction, as some now do, is, I think, a modern one, and no small error.

OBS. 9.—Dr. Adam's distribution of verbs, is apparently the same as the first part of Murray's; and his definitions are also in nearly the same words. But he adds, "The verb Active is also called Transitive, when the action passeth over to the object, or hath an effect on some other thing; as, scribo literas, I write letters: but when the action is confined within the agent, and passeth not over to any object, it is called Intransitive; as, ambulo, I walk; curro, I run: [fist] which are likewise called Neuter Verbs."—Adam's Latin and English Gram., p. 79. But he had just before said, "A Neuter verb properly expresses neither action nor passion, but simply the being, state, or condition of things; as, dormio, I sleep; sedeo, I sit."—Ibid. Verbs of motion or action, then, must needs be as improperly called neuter, in Latin, as in English. Nor is this author's arrangement orderly in other respects; for he treats of "Deponent and Common Verbs," of "Irregular Verbs," of "Defective Verbs," and of "Impersonal Verbs," none of which had he mentioned in his distribution. Nor are the late revisers of his grammar any more methodical.

OBS. 10.—The division of our verbs into active-transitive, active-intransitive, passive, and neuter, must be understood to have reference not only to their signification as of themselves, but also to their construction with respect to the government of an objective word after them. The latter is in fact their most important distinction, though made with reference to a different part of speech. The classical scholar, too, being familiar with the forms of Latin and Greek verbs, will doubtless think it a convenience, to have the arrangement as nearly correspondent to those ancient forms, as the nature of our language will admit. This is perhaps the strongest argument for the recognition of the class of passive verbs in English. Some grammarians, choosing to parse the passive participle separately, reject this class of verbs altogether; and, forming their division of the rest with reference to the construction alone, make but two classes, transitive and intransitive. Such is the distribution adopted by C. Alexander, D. Adams, Bingham, Chandler, E. Cobb, Harrison, Nutting, and John Peirce; and supported also by some British writers, among whom are McCulloch and Grant. Such too was the distribution of Webster, in his Plain and Comprehensive Grammar, as published in 1800. He then taught: "We have no passive verb in the language; and those which are called neuter are mostly active."—Page 14. But subsequently, in his Philosophical, Abridged, and Improved Grammars, he recognized "a more natural and comprehensive division" of verbs, "transitive, intransitive, and passive."—Webster's Rudiments, p. 20. This, in reality, differs but little from the old division into active, passive, and neuter. In some grammars of recent date, as Churchill's, R. W. Bailey's, J. R. Brown's, Butler's, S. W. Clark's, Frazee's, Hart's, Hendrick's, Perley's, Pinneo's, Weld's, Wells's, Mulligan's, and the improved treatises of Bullions and Frost, verbs are said to be of two kinds only, transitive and intransitive; but these authors allow to transitive verbs a "passive form," or "passive voice,"—absurdly making all passive verbs transitive, and all neuters intransitive, as if action were expressed by both. For this most faulty classification, Dr. Bullions pretends the authority of "Mr. Webster;" and Frazee, that of "Webster, Bullions, and others."—Frazee's Gram., Ster. Ed., p. 30. But if Dr. Webster ever taught the absurd doctrine that passive verbs are transitive, he has contradicted it far too much to have any weight in its favour.

OBS. 11.—Dalton makes only two classes; and these he will have to be active and passive: an arrangement for which he might have quoted Scaliger, Sanctius, and Scioppius. Ash and Coar recognize but two, which they call active and neuter. This was also the scheme of Bullions, in his Principles of E. Gram., 4th Edition, 1842. Priestley and Maunder have two, which they call transitive and neuter; but Maunder, like some named above, will have transitive verbs to be susceptible of an active and a passive voice, and Priestley virtually asserts the same. Cooper, Day, Davis, Hazen, Hiley, Webster, Wells, (in his 1st Edition,) and Wilcox. have three classes; transitive, intransitive, and passive. Sanders's Grammar has three; "Transitive, Intransitive, and Neuter;" and two voices, both transitive! Jaudon has four: transitive, intransitive, auxiliary, and passive. Burn has four; active, passive, neuter, and substantive. Cardell labours hard to prove that all verbs are both active and transitive; and for this, had he desired their aid, he might have cited several ancient authorities.[227] Cutler avers, "All verbs are active;" yet he divides them "into active transitive, active intransitive, and participial verbs."—Grammar and Parser, p. 31. Some grammarians, appearing to think all the foregoing modes of division useless, attempt nothing of the kind. William Ward, in 1765, rejected all such classification, but recognized three voices; "Active, Passive, and Middle; as, I call, I am called, I am calling." Farnum, in 1842, acknowledged the first two of these voices, but made no division of verbs into classes.

OBS. 12.—If we admit the class of active-intransitive verbs, that of verbs neuter will unquestionably be very small. And this refutes Murray's objection, that the learner will "often" be puzzled to know which is which. Nor can it be of any consequence, if he happen in some instances to decide wrong. To be, to exist, to remain, to seem, to lie, to sleep, to rest, to belong, to appertain, and perhaps a few more, may best be called neuter; though some grammarians, as may be inferred from what is said above, deny that there are any neuter verbs in any language. "Verba Neutra, ait Sanctius, nullo pacto esse possunt; quia, teste Aristotele, omnis motus, actio, vel passio, nihil medium est."—Prat's Latin Gram., p. 117. John Grant, in his Institutes of Latin Grammar, recognizes in the verbs of that language the distinction which Murray supposes to be so "very difficult" in those of our own; and, without falling into the error of Sanctius, or of Lily,[228] respecting neuter verbs, judiciously confines the term to such as are neuter in reality.

OBS. 13.—Active-transitive verbs, in English, generally require, that the agent or doer of the action be expressed before them in the nominative case, and the object or receiver of the action, after them in the objective; as, "Cæsar conquered Pompey." Passive verbs, which are never primitives, but always derived from active-transitive verbs, (in order to form sentences of like import from natural opposites in voice and sense,) reverse this order, change the cases of the nouns, and denote that the subject, named before them, is affected by the action; while the agent follows, being introduced by the preposition by: as, "Pompey was conquered by Cæsar." But, as our passive verb always consists of two or more separable parts, this order is liable to be varied, especially in poetry; as,

"How many things by season seasoned are
To their right praise and true perfection!"—Shakspeare.

"Experience is by industry achieved,
And perfected by the swift course of time."—Id.

OBS. 14.—Most active verbs may be used either transitively or intransitively. Active verbs are transitive whenever there is any person or thing expressed or clearly implied on which the action terminates; as, "I knew him well, and every truant knew."—Goldsmith. When they do not govern such an object, they are intransitive, whatever may be their power on other occasions; as, "The grand elementary principles of pleasure, by which he knows, and feels, and lives, and moves."—Wordsworth's Pref., p. xxiii. "The Father originates and elects. The Son mediates and atones. The Holy Spirit regenerates and sanctifies."—Gurney's Portable Evidences, p. 66. "Spectators remark, judges decide, parties watch."—Blair's Rhet., p. 271. "In a sermon, a preacher may explain, demonstrate, infer, exhort, admonish, comfort."—Alexander's E. Gram., p. 91.

OBS. 15.—Some verbs may be used in either an active or a neuter sense. In the sentence, "Here I rest," rest is a neuter verb; but in the sentence, "Here I rest my hopes," rest is an active-transitive verb, and governs hopes. And a few that are always active in a grammatical sense, as necessarily requiring an object after them, do not always indicate such an exertion of force as we commonly call action. Such perhaps are the verbs to have, to possess, to owe, to cost; as, "They have no wine."—"The house has a portico."—"The man possesses no real estate."—"A son owes help and honour to his father."—Holyday. "The picture cost a crown."—Wright, p. 181. Yet possibly even these may be sometimes rather active-intransitive; as, "I can bear my part; 'tis my occupation: have at it with you."—Shakspeare. "Kings have to deal with their neighbours."—Bacon. "She will let her instructions enter where folly now possesses."—Shakspeare.

"Thou hast deserv'd more love than I can show;
But 'tis thy fate to give, and mine to owe."—Dryden.

OBS. 16.—An active-intransitive verb, followed by a preposition and its object, will sometimes admit of being put into the passive form: the object of the preposition being assumed for the nominative, and the preposition itself being retained with the verb, as an adverb: as, (Active,) "They laughed at him."—(Passive,) "He was laughed at." "For some time the nonconformists were connived at."—Robertson's America, Vol. ii, p. 414. "Every man shall be dealt equitably with."—Butler's Analogy, p. 212. "If a church would be looked up to, it must stand high."—Parker's Idea, p. 15.

OBS. 17.—In some instances, what is commonly considered the active form of the verb, is used in a passive sense; and, still oftener, as we have no other passive form that so well denotes continuance, we employ the participle in ing in that sense also: as, "I'll teach you all what's owing to your Queen."—Dryden. That is—what is due, or owed. "The books continue selling; i.e. upon the sale, or to be sold."—Priestley's Gram., p. 111. "So we say the brass is forging; i.e. at the forging, or in [being forged.">[—Ib. "They are to blame; i.e. to be blamed."—Ib. Hence some grammarians seem to think, that in our language the distinction between active and passive verbs is of little consequence: "Mr. Grant, however, observes, p. 65, 'The component parts of the English verb, or name of action, are few, simple, and natural; they, consist of three words, as plough, ploughing, ploughed. Now these words, and their inflections, may be employed either actively or passively. Actively, 'They plough the fields; they are ploughing the fields; they ploughed, or have ploughed, the fields.' Passively, 'The fields plough well; the fields are ploughing; the fields are ploughed.' This passive use of the present tense and participle is, however, restricted to what he denominates 'verbs of external, material, or mechanical action;' and not to be extended to verbs of sensation and perception; e.g. love, feel, see, &c."—Nutting's Gram., p. 40.