THE ANALYZING OF SENTENCES.
To analyze a sentence, is, to resolve it into some species of constituent parts, but most properly into words, its first significant elements, and to point out their several relations and powers in the given connexion.
The component parts of a sentence are members, clauses, phrases, or words. Some sentences, which are short and simple, can only be divided into their words; others, which are long and complex, may be resolved into parts again and again divisible.
Of analysis applicable to sentences, there are several different methods; and, so far as their difference may compatibly aid the application of different principles of the science of grammar, there may be an advantage in the occasional use of each.
FIRST METHOD OF ANALYSIS.
Sentences not simple may be reduced to their constituent members, clauses, or simple sentences; and the means by which these are united, may be shown. Thus:—
EXAMPLE ANALYZED.
"Even the Atheist, who tells us that the universe is self-existent and indestructible—even he, who, instead of seeing the traces of a manifold wisdom in its manifold varieties, sees nothing in them all but the exquisite structures and the lofty dimensions of materialism—even he, who would despoil creation of its God, cannot look upon its golden suns, and their accompanying systems, without the solemn impression of a magnificence that fixes and overpowers him."—DR. CHALMERS, Discourses on Revelation and Astronomy, p. 231.
ANALYSIS.—This is a compound sentence, consisting of three complex members, which are separated by the two dashes. The three members are united in one sentence, by a suspension of the sense at each dash, and by two virtual repetitions of the subject, "Atheist" through the pronoun "he," put in the same case, and representing this noun. The sense mainly intended is not brought out till the period ends. Each of the three members is complex, because each has not only a relative clause, commencing with "who," but also an antecedent word which makes sense with "cannot look," &c. The first of these relative clauses involves also a subordinate, supplementary clause,—"the universe is self-existent and indestructible"—introduced after the verb "tells" by the conjunction "that." The last phrase, "without the solemn impression," &c., which is subjoined by "without" to "cannot look," embraces likewise a subordinate, relative clause,—"that fixes and overpowers him,"—which has two verbs; the whole, antecedent and all, being but an adjunct of an adjunct, yet an essential element of the sentence.
SECOND METHOD OF ANALYSIS.
Simple sentences, or the simple members of compound sentences, may be resolved into their PRINCIPAL and their SUBORDINATE PARTS; the subject, the verb, and the case put after or governed by the verb, being first pointed out as THE PRINCIPAL PARTS; and the other words being then detailed as ADJUNCTS to these, according to THE SENSE, or as adjuncts to adjuncts. Thus:—
EXAMPLE ANALYZED.
"Fear naturally quickens the flight of guilt. Rasselas could not catch the fugitive, with his utmost efforts; but, resolving to weary, by perseverance, him whom he could not surpass in speed, he pressed on till the foot of the mountain stopped his course."—DR. JOHNSON, Rasselas, p. 23.
ANALYSIS.—The first period here is a simple sentence. Its principal parts are—Fear, quickens, flight; Fear being the subject, quickens the verb, and flight the object. Fear has no adjunct; naturally is an adjunct of quickens; the and of guilt are adjuncts of flight. The second period is composed of several clauses, or simple members, united. The first of these is also a simple sentence, having, three principal parts—Rasselas, could catch, and fugitive; the subject, the verb, and its object, in their order. Not is added to could catch, reversing the meaning; the is an adjunct to fugitive; with joins its phrase to could not catch; but his and utmost are adjuncts of efforts. The word but connects the two chief members as parts of one sentence. "Resolving to weary" is an adjunct to the pronoun he, which stands before pressed. "By perseverance," is an adjunct to weary. Him is governed by weary, and is the antecedent to whom. "Whom he could not surpass in speed," is a relative clause, or subordinate simple member, having three principal parts—he, could surpass, and whom. Not and in speed are adjuncts to the verb could surpass. "He pressed on" is an other simple member, or sentence, and the chief clause here used, the others being subjoined to this. Its principal parts are two, he and pressed; the latter taking the particle on as an adjunct, and being intransitive. The words dependent on the nominative he, (to wit, resolving, &c.,) have already been mentioned. Till is a conjunctive adverb of time, connecting the concluding clause to pressed on. "The foot of the mountain stopped his course," is a subordinate clause and simple member, whose principal parts are—the subject foot, the verb stopped, and the object course. The adjuncts of foot are the and of the mountain; the verb in this sentence has no adjunct but course, which is better reckoned a principal word; lastly, his is an adjunct to course, and governed by it.
THIRD METHOD OF ANALYSIS.
Sentences may be partially analyzed by a resolution into their SUBJECTS and their PREDICATES, a method which some late grammarians have borrowed from the logicians; the grammatical subject with its adjuncts, being taken for the logical subject; and the finite verb, which some call the grammatical predicate[330] being, with its subsequent case and the adjuncts of both, denominated the predicate, or the logical predicate. Thus:—
EXAMPLE ANALYZED.
"Such is the emptiness of human enjoyment, that we are always impatient of the present. Attainment is followed by neglect, and possession, by disgust. Few moments are more pleasing than those in which the mind is concerting measures for a new undertaking. From the first hint that wakens the fancy, to the hour of actual execution, all is improvement and progress, triumph and felicity."—DR. JOHNSON, Rambler.
ANALYSIS.—Here the first period is a compound sentence, containing two clauses,—which are connected by that. In the first clause, emptiness is the grammatical subject, and "the emptiness of human enjoyment" is the logical. Is some would call the grammatical predicate, and "Such is," or is such, the logical; but the latter consists, as the majority teach, of "the copula" is, and "the attribute," or "predicate," such. In the second clause, (which explains the import of "Such,") the subject is we; which is unmodified, and in which therefore the logical form and the grammatical coincide and are the same. Are may here be called the grammatical predicate; and "are always impatient of the present," the logical. The second period, too, is a compound sentence, having two clauses, which are connected by and. Attainment is the subject of the former; and, "is followed by neglect" is the predicate. In the latter, possession alone is the subject; and, "[is followed] by disgust," is the predicate; the verb is followed being understood at the comma. The third period, likewise, is a compound, having three parts, with the two connectives than and which. Here we have moments for the first grammatical subject, and Few moments for the logical; then, are for the grammatical predicate, and are more pleasing for the logical: or, if we choose to say so, for "the copula and the attribute." "Than those," is an elliptical member, meaning, "than are those moments," or, "than those moments are pleasing;" both subject and predicate are wholly suppressed, except that those is reckoned a part of the logical subject. In which is an adjunct of is concerting, and serves well to connect the members, because which represents those, i.e. those moments. Mind, or the mind, is the next subject of affirmation; and is concerting, or, "is concerting measures for a new undertaking," is the predicate or matter affirmed. Lastly, the fourth period, like the rest, is compound. The phrases commencing with From and to, describe a period of time, and are adjuncts of the verb is. The former contains a subordinate relative clause, of which that (representing hint) is the subject, and wakens, or wakens the fancy, the predicate. Of the principal clause, the word all, taken as a noun, is the subject, whether grammatical or logical; and "the copula," or "grammatical predicate," is, becomes, with its adjuncts and the nominatives following, the logical predicate.
FOURTH METHOD OF ANALYSIS.
All syntax is founded on the RELATION of words one to an other, and the CONNEXION of clauses and phrases, according to THE SENSE. Hence sentences may be, in some sort, analyzed, and perhaps profitably, by the tracing of such relation or connexion, from link to link, through a series of words, beginning and ending with such as are somewhat remote from each other, yet within the period. Thus:—
EXAMPLES ANALYZED.
1. "Swift would say, 'The thing has not life enough in it to keep it sweet;' Johnson, 'The creature possesses not vitality sufficient to preserve it from putrefaction.'"—MATT. HARRISON, on the English Language, p. 102. ANALYSIS.—What is the general sense of this passage? and what, the chain of connexion between the words Swift and putrefaction? The period is designed to show, that Swift preferred words of Saxon origin; and Johnson, of Latin. It has in contrast two coördinate members, tacitly connected: the verb would say being understood after Johnson, and perhaps also the particle but, after the semicolon. Swift is the subject of would say; and would say introduces the clause after it, as what would be said. The relates to thing; thing is the subject of has; has, which is qualified by not, governs life; life is qualified by the adjective enough, and by the phrase, in it; enough is the prior term of to; to governs keep; keep governs it, which stands for the thing; and it, in lieu of the thing, is qualified by sweet. The chief members are connected either by standing in contrast as members, or by but, understood before Johnson. Johnson is the subject of would say, understood: and this would say, again introduces a clause, as what would be said. The relates to creature; creature is the subject of possesses; possesses, which is qualified by not, governs vitality; vitality is qualified by sufficient; sufficient is the prior term of to; to governs preserve; preserve governs it, and is the prior term of from; and from governs putrefaction.
2. "There is one Being to whom we can look with a perfect conviction of finding that security, which nothing about us can give, and which nothing about us can take away."—GREENWOOD; Wells's School Gram., p. 192.[331]
ANALYSIS.—What is the general structure of this passage? and what, the chain of connexion "between the words away and is?" The period is a complex sentence, having four clauses, all connected together by relatives; the second, by whom, to the first and chief clause, "There is one Being;" the third and the fourth, to the second, by which and which; but the last two, having the same antecedent, security, and being coördinate, are also connected one to the other by and. As to "the chain of connexion," Away relates to can take; can take agrees with its nominative nothing, and governs which; which represents security; security is governed by finding; finding is governed by of; of refers back to conviction; conviction is governed by with; with refers back to can look; can look agrees with we, and is, in sense, the antecedent of to; to governs whom; whom represents Being; and Being is the subject of is.
FIFTH METHOD OF ANALYSIS.
The best and most thorough method of analysis is that of COMPLETE SYNTACTICAL PARSING; a method which, for the sake of order and brevity, should ever be kept free from all mixture of etymological definitions or reasons, but which may be preceded or followed by any of the foregoing schemes of resolution, if the teacher choose to require any such preliminary or subsidiary exposition. This method is fully illustrated in the Twelfth Praxis below.
OBSERVATIONS ON METHODS OF ANALYSIS.
OBS. 1.—The almost infinite variety in the forms of sentences, will sometimes throw difficulty in the way of the analyzer, be his scheme or his skill what it may. The last four or five observations of the preceding series have shown, that the distinction of sentences as simple or compound, which constitutes the chief point of the First Method of Analysis above, is not always plain, even to the learned. The definitions and examples which I have given, will make it generally so; and, where it is otherwise, the question or puzzle, it is presumed, cannot often be of much practical importance. If the difference be not obvious, it can hardly be a momentous error, to mistake a phrase for an elliptical clause, or to call such a clause a phrase.
OBS. 2.—The Second Method above is, I think, easier of application than any of the rest; and, if other analysis than the regular method of parsing seem desirable, this will probably be found as useful as any. There is, in many of our popular grammars, some recognition of the principles of this analysis—some mention of "the principal parts of a sentence," in accordance with what are so called above,—and also, in a few, some succinct account of the parts called "adjuncts;" but there seems to have been no prevalent practice of applying these principles, in any stated or well-digested manner. Lowth, Murray, Alger, W. Allen, Hart, Hiley, Ingersoll, Wells, and others, tell of these "PRINCIPAL PARTS;"—Lowth calling them, "the agent, the attribute, and the object;" (Gram., p. 72;)—Murray, and his copyists, Alger, Ingersoll, and others, calling them, "the subject, the attribute, and the object;"—Hiley and Hart calling them, "the subject or nominative, the attribute or verb, and the object;"—Allen calling them, "the nominative, the verb, and (if the verb is active,) the accusative governed by the verb;" and also saying, "The nominative is sometimes called the subject; the verb, the attribute; and the accusative, the object;"—Wells calling them, "the subject or nominative, the verb, and the object;" and also recognizing the "adjuncts," as a species which "embraces all the words of a simple sentence [,] except the principal parts;"—yet not more than two of them all appearing to have taken any thought, and they but little, about the formal application of their common doctrine. In Allen's English Grammar, which is one of the best, and likewise in Wells's, which is equally prized, this reduction of all connected words, or parts of speech, into "the principal parts" and "the adjuncts," is fully recognized; the adjuncts, too, are discriminated by Allen, as "either primary or secondary," nor are their more particular species or relations overlooked; but I find no method prescribed for the analysis intended, except what Wells adopted in his early editions but has since changed to an other or abandoned, and no other allusion to it by, Allen, than this Note, which, with some appearance of intrusion, is appended to his "Method of Parsing the Infinitive Mood:"—"The pupil may now begin to analyse [analyze] the sentences, by distinguishing the principal words and their adjuncts."—W. Allen's E. Gram., p. 258.
OBS. 3.—These authors in general, and many more, tell us, with some variation of words, that the agent, subject, or nominative, is that of which something is said, affirmed, or denied; that the attribute, verb, or predicate, is that which is said, affirmed, or denied, of the subject; and that the object, accusative, or case sequent, is that which is introduced by the finite verb, or affected by the action affirmed. Lowth says, "In English the nominative case, denoting the agent, usually goes before the verb, or attribution; and the objective case, denoting the object, follows the verb active."—Short Introd., p. 72. Murray copies, but not literally, thus: "The nominative denotes the subject, and usually goes before the verb [,] or attribute; and the word or phrase, denoting the object, follows the verb: as, 'A wise man governs his passions.' Here, a wise man is the subject; governs, the attribute, or thing affirmed; and his passions, the object."—Murray's Octavo, p. 142; Duodecimo, 116. To include thus the adjuncts with their principals, as the logicians do, is here manifestly improper; because it unites what the grammatical analyzer is chiefly concerned to separate, and tends to defeat the main purpose for which "THE PRINCIPAL PARTS" are so named and distinguished.
OBS. 4.—The Third Method of Analysis, described above, is an attempt very briefly to epitomize the chief elements of a great scheme,—to give, in a nutshell, the substance of what our grammarians have borrowed from the logicians, then mixed with something of their own, next amplified with small details, and, in some instances, branched out and extended to enormous bulk and length. Of course, they have not failed to set forth the comparative merits of this scheme in a sufficiently favourable light. The two ingenious gentlemen who seem to have been chiefly instrumental in making it popular, say in their preface, "The rules of syntax contained in this work result directly from the analysis of propositions, and of compound sentences; and for this reason the student should make himself perfectly familiar with the sections relating to subject and predicate, and should be able readily to analyze sentences, whether simple or compound, and to explain their structure and connection. * * * This exercise should always precede the more minute and subsidiary labor of parsing. If the latter be conducted, as it often is, independently of previous analysis, the principal advantage to be derived from the study of language, as an intellectual exercise, will inevitably be lost."—Latin Grammar of Andrews and Stoddard, p. vi. N. Butler, who bestows upon this subject about a dozen duodecimo pages, says in his preface, "The rules for the analysis of sentences, which is a very useful and interesting exercise, have been taken from Andrews' and Stoddard's Latin Grammar, some changes and additions being made."—Butler's Practical Gram., p. iv.[332]
OBS. 5.—Wells, in the early copies of his School Grammar, as has been hinted, adopted a method of analysis similar to the Second one prescribed above; yet referred, even from the first, to "Andrews and Stoddard's Latin Grammar," and to "De Sacy's General Grammar," as if these were authorities for what he then inculcated. Subsequently, he changed his scheme, from that of Parts Principal and Adjuncts, to one of Subjects and Predicates, "either grammatical or logical," also "either simple or compound;"—to one resembling Andrews and Stoddard's, yet differing from it, often, as to what constitutes a "grammatical predicate;"—to one resenbling [sic—KTH] the Third Method above, yet differing from it, (as does Andrews and Stoddard's,) in taking the logical subject and predicate before the grammatical. "The chapter on Analysis," said he then, "has been Revised and enlarged with great care, and will be found to embody all the most important principles on this subject [.] which are contained in the works of De Sacy, Andrews and Stoddard, Kühner, Crosby, and Crane. It is gratifying to observe that the attention of teachers is now so generally directed to this important mode of investigating the structure of our language, in connection with the ordinary exercises of etymological and syntactical parsing."—Wells's School Gram., New Ed., 1850, p. iv.
OBS. 6.—In view of the fact, that Wells's chief mode of sentential analysis had just undergone an almost total metamorphosis, a change plausible perhaps, but of doubtful utility,—that, up to the date of the words just cited, and afterwards, so far and so long as any copies of his early "Thousands" remain in use, the author himself has earnestly directed attention to a method which he now means henceforth to abandon,—in this view, the praise and gratulation expressed above seem singular. If it has been found practicable, to slide "the attention of teachers," and their approbation too, adroitly over from one "important mode of investigating the structure of our language," to an other;—if "it is gratifying to observe," that the direction thus given to public opinion sustains itself so well, and "is so generally" acquiesced in;—if it is proved, that the stereotyped praise of one system of analysis may, without alteration, be so transferred to an other, as to answer the double purpose of commending and superseding;—it is not improbable that the author's next new plates will bear the stamp of yet other "most important principles" of analysis. This process is here recommended to be used "in connection with the ordinary exercises of etymological and syntactical parsing,"—exercises, which, in Wells's Grammar, are generally, and very improperly, commingled; and if, to these, may be profitably conjoined either his present or his former scheme of analysis, it were well, had he somewhere put them together and shown how.
OBS. 7.—But there are other passages of the School Grammar, so little suited to this notion of "connection" that one can hardly believe the word ought to be taken in what seems its only sense. "Advanced classes should attend less to the common Order of Parsing, and more to the Analysis of language."—Wells's Grammar, "3d Thousand," p. 125; "113th Thousand," p. 132. This implies, what is probably true of the etymological exercise, that parsing is more rudimental than the other forms of analysis. It also intimates, what is not so clear, that pupils rightly instructed must advance from the former to the latter, as to something more worthy of their intellectual powers. The passage is used with reference to either form of analysis adopted by the author. So the following comparison, in which Parsing is plainly disparaged, stands permanently at the head of "the chapter on Analysis," to commend first one mode, and then an other: "It is particularly desirable that pupils should pass as early as practicable from the formalities of common PARSING, to the more important exercise of ANALYZING critically the structure of language. The mechanical routine of technical parsing is peculiarly liable to become monotonous and dull, while the practice of explaining the various relations and offices of words in a sentence, is adapted to call the mind of the learner into constant and vigorous action, and can hardly fail of exciting the deepest interest,"—Wells's Gram., 3d Th., p. 181; 113th Th., p. 184.
OBS. 8.—An ill scheme of parsing, or an ill use of a good one, is almost as unlucky in grammar, as an ill method of ciphering, or an ill use of a good one, would be in arithmetic. From the strong contrast cited above, one might suspect that, in selecting, devising, or using, a technical process for the exercising of learners in the principles of etymology and syntax, this author had been less fortunate than the generality of his fellows. Not only is it implied, that parsing is no critical analysis, but even what is set in opposition to the "mechanical routine," may very well serve for a definition of Syntactical Parsing—"the practice of explaining the various relations and offices of words in a sentence!" If this "practice," well ordered, can be at once interesting and profitable to the learner, so may parsing. Nor, after all, is even this author's mode of parsing, defective though it is in several respects, less "important" to the users of his book, or less valued by teachers, than the analysis which he sets above it.
OBS. 9.—S. S. Greene, a public teacher in Boston, who, in answer to a supposed "demand for a more philosophical plan of teaching the English language," has entered in earnest upon the "Analysis of Sentences," having devoted to one method of it more than the space of two hundred duodecimo pages, speaks of analysis and of parsing, thus: "The resolving of a sentence into its elements, or of any complex element into the parts which compose it, is called analysis."—Greene's Analysis, p. 14. "Parsing consists in naming a part of speech, giving its modifications, relation, agreement or dependence, and the rule for its construction. Analysis consists in pointing out the words or groups of words which constitute the elements of a sentence. Analysis should precede parsing."—Ib., p. 26. "A large proportion of the elements of sentences are not single words, but combinations or groups of words. These groups perform the office of the substantive, the adjective, or the adverb, and, in some one of these relations, enter in as the component parts of a sentence. The pupil who learns to determine the elements of a sentence, must, therefore, learn the force of these combinations before he separates them into the single words which compose them. This advantage is wholly lost in the ordinary methods of parsing."—Ib., p. 3.
OBS. 10.—On these passages, it may be remarked in the first place, that the distinction attempted between analysis and parsing is by no means clear, or well drawn. Nor indeed could it be; because parsing is a species of analysis. The first assertion would be just as true as it is now, were the former word substituted for the latter: thus, "The resolving of a sentence into its elements, or of any complex element into the parts which compose it, is called parsing." Next, the "Parsing" spoken of in the second sentence, is Syntactical Parsing only; and, without a limitation of the species, neither this assertion nor the one concerning precedence is sufficiently true. Again, the suggestion, that, "Analysis consists in pointing out the words or groups of words which constitute the elements of a sentence," has nothing distinctive in it; and, without some idea of the author's peculiar system of "elements," previously impressed upon the mind, is scarcely, if at all, intelligible. Lastly, that a pupil must understand a sentence,—or, what is the same thing, "learn the force of the words combined,"—before he can be sure of parsing each word rightly, is a very plain and certain truth; but what "advantage" over parsing this truth gives to the lesser analysis, which deals with "groups," it is not easy to discover. If the author had any clear idea of "this advantage," he has conveyed no such conception to his readers.
OBS. 11.—Greene's Analysis is the most expanded form of the Third Method above.[333] Its nucleus, or germinating kernel, was the old partition of subject and predicate, derived from the art of logic. Its chief principles may be briefly stated thus: Sentences, which are simple, or complex, or compound, are made up of words, phrases, and clauses—three grand classes of elements, called the first, the second, and the third class. From these, each sentence must have two elements; the Subject, or Substantive element, and the Predicate, or Predicative element, which are principal; and a sentence may have five, the subordinates being the Adjective element, the Objective element, and the Adverbial element. The five elements have sundry modifications and subdivisions. Each of the five may, like a sentence, be simple, or complex, or compound; and each may be of any of the three grand classes. The development of this scheme forms a volume, not small. The system is plausible, ingenious, methodical, mostly true, and somewhat elaborate; but it is neither very useful nor very accurate. It seems too much like a great tree, beautiful, symmetrical, and full of leaves, but raised or desired only for fruit, yet bearing little, and some of that little not of good quality, but knurly or bitter. The chief end of a grammar, designed for our tongue, is, to show what is, and what is not, good English. To this end, the system in question does not appear to be well adapted.
OBS. 12.—Dr. Bullions, the projector of the "Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek, all on the same plan," inserted in his Latin Grammar, of 1841, a short sketch of the new analysis by "subjects and predicates," "grammatical and logical," the scheme used by Andrews and Stoddard; but his English Grammar, which appeared in 1834, was too early for this "new and improved method of investigating" language. In his later English Grammar, of 1849, however, paying little regard to sameness of "plan" or conformity of definitions, he carefully devoted to this matter the space of fifteen pages, placing the topic, not injudiciously, in the first part of his syntax, and referring to it thus in his Preface: "The subject of ANALYSIS, wholly omitted in the former work, is here introduced in its proper place; and to an extent in accordance with its importance."— Bullions, Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 3.
OBS. 13.—In applying any of the different methods of analysis, as a school exercise, it will in general perhaps be best to use each separately; the teacher directing which one is to be applied, and to what examples. The selections prepared for the stated praxes of this work, will be found as suitable as any. Analysis of sentences is a central and essential matter in the teaching or the study of grammar; but the truest and the most important of the sentential analyses is parsing; which, because it is a method distinguished by a technical name of its own, is not commonly denominated analysis. The relation which other methods should bear to parsing, is, as we have seen, variously stated by different authors. Etymological parsing and Syntactical are, or ought to be, distinct exercises. The former, being the most simple, the most elementary, and also requisite to be used before the pupil is prepared for the latter, should, without doubt, take precedence of all the rest, and be made familiar in the first place. Those who say, "Analysis should precede parsing," will scarcely find the application of other analysis practicable, till this is somewhat known. But Syntactical Parsing being, when complete in form, the most thorough process of grammatical resolution, it seems proper to have introduced the other methods before it, as above. It can hardly be said that any of these are necessary to this exercise, or to one an other; yet in a full course of grammatical instruction, each may at times be usefully employed.
OBS. 14.—Dr. Bullions suggests, that, "Analysis should precede Syntactical parsing, because, till we know the parts and elements of a sentence, we can not understand their relations, nor intelligently combine them into one consistent whole."—Analytical and Pract. Gram., p. 114. This reason is entirely fictitious and truthless; for the words of a sentence are intuitively known to be its "parts and elements;" and, to "understand their relations," is as necessary to one form of analysis as to another; but, "intelligently to combine them," is no part of the parser's duty: this belongs to the writer; and where he has not done it, he must be criticised and censured, as one that knows not well what he says. In W. Allen's Grammar, as in Wells's, Syntactical parsing and Etymological are not divided. Wells intersperses his "Exercises in Parsing," at seven points of his Syntax, and places "the chapter on Analysis," at the end of it. Allen treats first of the several parts of grammar, didactically; then presents a series of exercises adapted to the various heads of the whole. At the beginning of these, are fourteen "Methods of Parsing," which show, successively, the properties and construction of his nine parts of speech; and, at the ninth method, which resolves infinitives, it is proposed that the pupil begin to apply a method of analysis similar to the Second one above.
EXAMPLES FOR PARSING. PRAXIS XII.—SYNTACTICAL.
_The grand clew to all syntactical parsing is THE SENSE; and as any composition is faulty which does not rightly deliver the authors meaning, so every solution of a word or sentence is necessarily erroneous, in which that meaning is not carefully noticed and literally preserved.
In all complete syntactical parsing, it is required of the pupil—to distinguish the different parts of speech and their classes; to mention their modifications in order; to point out their relation, agreement, or government; and to apply the Rules of Syntax. Thus_:—