English Grammar in Familiar Lectures / Accompanied by a compendium, embracing a new systematic order of parsing, a new system of punctuation, exercises in false syntax, and a system of philosophical grammar, in notes, to which are added an appendix and a key to the exercises : designed for the use of schools and private learners

by Samuel Kirkham

SYSTEMATIC ORDER OF PARSING.

The order of parsing a NOUN, is—a noun, and why?—common, proper, or collective, and why?—gender, and why?—person, and why?—number, and why?—case, and why?—RULE:—decline it.

The order of parsing a VERB, is—a verb, and why?—active, passive, or neuter, and why?—if active—transitive or intransitive, and why?—if passive—how is it formed?—regular, irregular, or defective, and why?—mood, and why?—tense, and why?—person and number, and why?—with what does it agree?—RULE:—conjugate it.

I will now parse two nouns according to the order, and, in so doing, by applying the definitions and rules, I shall answer all those questions given in the order. If you have perfectly committed the order of parsing a noun and verb, you may proceed with me; but, recollect, you cannot parse a verb in full, until you shall have had a more complete explanation of it.

John's hand trembles.

John's is a noun, [because it is] the name of a person—proper, the name of an individual—masculine gender, it denotes a male—third person, spoken of—singular number, it implies but one—and in the possessive case, it denotes possession—it is governed by the noun "hand," according to

RULE 12. A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the noun it possesses.

Declined—Sing. nom. John, poss. John's, obj. John. Plural—nom. Johns, poss. Johns', obj. Johns.

Hand is a noun, the name of a thing—common, the name of a sort or species of things—neuter gender, it denotes a thing without sex—third person, spoken of—sing. number, it implies but one—and in the nominative case, it is the actor and subject of the verb "trembles," and governs it agreeably to

RULE 3. The nominative case governs the verb:—that is, the nominative determines the number and person of the verb.

Declined—Sing. nom. hand, poss. hand's, obj. hand. Plur. nom. hands, poss. hands', obj. hands.

Trembles is a verb, a word which signifies to do—active, it expresses action—third person, singular number, because the nominative "hand" is with which it agrees, according to

RULE 4. The verb must agree with its nominative in number and person.

You must not say that the verb is of the third person because it is spoken of. The verb is never spoken of; but it is of the third person, and singular or plural number, because its nominative is.

Conjugated—First pers. sing. I tremble, 2 pers. thou tremblest, 3 pers. he trembles, or, the hand trembles. Plural, 1 pers. we tremble, 2 pers. ye or you tremble, 3 pers. they or the hands tremble.

Government, in language, consists in the power which one word has over another, in causing that other word to be in some particular case, number, person, mood, or tense.

ILLUSTRATION.

RULE 3. The nominative case governs the verb.

If you employ the pronoun I, which is of the first person, singular number, as the nominative to a verb, the verb must be of the first pers. sing, thus, I smile; and when your nominative is second pers. sing, your verb must be; as, thou smilest. Why, in the latter instance, does the ending of the verb change to est? Because the nominative changes. And if your nominative is third person, the verb will vary again; thus, he smiles, the man smiles. How clear it is, then, that the nominative governs the verb; that is, the nominative has power to change the form and meaning of the verb, in respect to num. and person. Government, thus far, is evinced in the form of the words, as well as in the sense.

RULE 4. The verb must agree with its nominative in number and person.

It is improper to say, thou hear, the men hears. Why improper? Because hear is first pers. and the nominative thou is second pers. Hears is singular, and the nom. men is plural. Rule 4th says, The verb must agree with its nominative. The expressions should, therefore, be, thou hearest, the men hear; and then the verb would agree with its nominatives. But why must the verb agree with its nominative? Why must we say, thou talkest, the man talks, men talk? Because the genius of our language, and the common consent of those who speak it, require such a construction: and this requisition amounts to a law or rule. This rule, then, is founded in the nature of things, and sanctioned by good usage.

RULE 12. A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the noun which it possesses.

It is correct to say, The man eats, he eats; but we cannot say, the man dog eats, he dog eats. Why not? Because the man is here represented as the possessor, and dog, the property, or thing possessed; and the genius of our language requires, that when we add to the possessor, the thing which he is represented as possessing, the possessor shall take a particular form to show its case, or relation to the property; thus, The man's dog eats, his dog eats. You perceive, then, that the added noun, denoting the thing possessed, has power to change the form of the noun or pronoun denoting the possessor, according to RULE 12. thus, by adding dog in the preceding examples, man is changed to man's, and he, to his.

Now parse the sentence which I have parsed, until the manner is quite familiar to you; and then you will be prepared to analyze correctly and systematically, the following exercises. When you parse, you may spread the Compendium before you; and, if you have not already committed the definitions and rules, you may read them on that, as you apply them. This mode of procedure will enable you to learn all the definitions and rules by applying them to practice.

EXERCISES IN PARSING.

Rain descends—Rains descend—Snow falls—Snows fall—Thunder rolls—Thunders roll—Man's works decay—Men's labors cease—John's dog barks—Eliza's voice trembles—Julia's sister's child improves—Peter's cousin's horse limps.

In the next place, I will parse a noun and a neuter verb, which verb, you will notice, differs from an active only in one respect.

"Birds repose on the branches of trees."

Birds is a noun, the name of a thing or creature—common, the name of a genus or class—masculine and feminine gender, it denotes both males and females—third person, spoken of—plural number, it implies more than one—and in the nominative case, it is the subject of the verb "repose," and governs it according to RULE 3. The nominative case governs the verb. Declined—Sing. nom. bird, poss. bird's, obj. bird. Plural, nom. birds, poss. birds', obj. birds.

Repose is a verb, a word that signifies to be—neuter, it expresses neither action nor passion, but a state of being—third person, plural number, because the nominative "birds" is with which it agrees, agreeably to RULE 4. The verb must agree with its nominative in number and person.

Declined—1. pers. sing. I repose, 2. pers. thou reposest, 3. pers. he reposes, or the bird reposes. Plur. 1. pers. we repose, 2. pers. ye or you repose, 3. pers. they repose, or birds repose.

Now parse those nouns and neuter verbs that are distinguished by italics, in the following

EXERCISES IN PARSING.

The book lies on the desk—The cloak hangs on the wall—Man's days are few—Cathmor's warriors sleep in death—Caltho reposes in the narrow house—Jocund day stands tiptoe on the misty mountain tops. The sunbeams rest on the grave where her beauty sleeps.

You may parse these and the preceding exercises, and all that follow, five or six times over, if you please.

OBJECTIVE CASE.—ACTIVE-TRANSITIVE VERBS.

The objective case expresses the object of an action or of a relation. It generally follows a transitive verb, a participle, or a preposition.

A noun is in the objective case when it is the object of something. At present I shall explain this case only as the object of an action; but when we shall have advanced as far as to the preposition, I will also illustrate it as the object of a relation.

An active verb is transitive when the action passes over from the subject or nominative to an object; as, Richard strikes John.

Transitive means passing. In this sentence the action of the verb strikes is transitive, because it passes over from the nominative Richard to the object John; and you know that the noun John is in the objective case, because it is the object of the action expressed by the active-transitive verb strikes. This matter is very plain. For example: Gallileo invented the telescope. Now it is evident, that Gallileo did not exert his powers of invention, without some object in view. In order to ascertain that object, put the question, Gallileo invented what? The telescope. Telescope, then, is the real object of the action, denoted by the transitive verb invented; and, therefore, telescope is in the objective case. If I say, The horse kicks the servant—Carpenters build houses—Ossian wrote poems—Columbus discovered America—you readily perceive, that the verbs kick, build, wrote, and discovered, express transitive actions; and you cannot be at a loss to tell which nouns are in the objective case:—they are servant, houses, poems, and America.

The nominative and objective cases of nouns are generally known by the following rule: the nominative does something; the objective has something done to it. The nominative generally comes before the verb; and the objective, after it. When I say, George struck the servant, George is in the nominative, and servant is in the objective case; but, when I say, The servant struck George, servant is in the nominative case, and George is in the objective. Thus you perceive, that Case means the different state or situation of nouns with regard to other words.

It is sometimes very difficult to tell the case of a noun. I shall, therefore, take up this subject again, when I come to give you an explanation of the participle and preposition.

Besides the three cases already explained, nouns are sometimes in the nominative case independent, sometimes in the nominative case absolute, sometimes in apposition in the same case, and sometimes in the nominative or objective case after the neuter to be, or after an active-intransitive or passive verb. These cases are illustrated in Lecture X. and in the 21 and 22 rules of Syntax.

ACTIVE-INTRANSITIVE VERBS.

An active verb is transitive, when the action terminates on an object: but

An active verb is intransitive, when the action does not terminate on an object; as, John walks.

You perceive that the verb walks, in this example, is intransitive, because the action does not pass over to an object; that is, the action is confined to the agent John. The following sign will generally enable you to distinguish a transitive verb from an intransitive. Any verb that will make sense with the words a thing or a person, after it, is transitive. Try these verbs by the sign, love, help, conquer, reach, subdue, overcome. Thus, you can say, I love a person or thing—I can help a person or thing—and so on. Hence you know that these verbs are transitive. But an intransitive verb will not make sense with this sign, which fact will be shown by the following examples: smile, go, come, play, bark, walk, fly. We cannot say, if we mean to speak English, I smile a person or thing—I go a person or thing:—hence you perceive that these verbs are not transitive, but intransitive.

If you reflect upon these examples for a few moments, you will have a clear conception of the nature of transitive and intransitive verbs. Before I close this subject, however, it is necessary farther to remark, that some transitive and intransitive verbs express what is called a mental or moral action; and others, a corporeal or physical action. Verbs expressing the different affections or operations of the mind, denote moral actions; as, Brutus loved his country; James hates vice; We believe the tale:—to repent, to relent, to think, to reflect, to mourn, to muse. Those expressing the actions produced by matter, denote physical actions; as, The dog hears the bell; Virgil wrote the Aenead; Columbus discovered America;—to see, to feel, to taste, to smell, to run, to talk, to fly, to strike. In the sentence, Charles resembles his father, the verb resembles does not appear to express any action at all; yet the construction of the sentence, and the office which the verb performs, are such, that we are obliged to parse it as an active-transitive verb, governing the noun father in the objective case. This you may easily reconcile in your mind, by reflecting, that the verb has a direct reference to its object. The following verbs are of this character: Have, own, retain; as, I have a book.

Active intransitive verbs are frequently made transitive. When I say, The birds fly, the verb fly is intransitive; but when I say, The boy flies the kite, the verb fly is transitive, and governs the noun kite in the objective case. Almost any active intransitive verb, and sometimes even neuter verbs, are used as transitive. The horse walks rapidly; The boy runs swiftly; My friend lives well; The man died of a fever. In all these examples the verbs are intransitive; in the following they are transitive: The man walks his horse; The boy ran a race; My friend lives a holy life; Let me die the death of the righteous.

The foregoing development of the character of verbs, is deemed sufficiently critical for practical purposes; but if we dip a little deeper into the verbal fountain, we shall discover qualities which do not appear on its surface. If we throw aside the veil which art has drawn over the real structure of speech, we shall find, that almost every verb has either a personal or a verbal object, expressed or implied. Verbal objects, which are the effects or productions resulting from the actions, being necessarily implied, are seldom expressed.

The fire burns. If the fire burns, it must burn wood, coal, tallow, or some other combustible substance. The man laughs. Laughs what? Laughs laughter or laugh. They walk; that is, They walk or take walks. Rivers flow (move or roll them-selves or their waters) into the ocean.

"I sing the shady regions of the west."

"And smile the wrinkles from the brow of age."

The child wept itself sick; and then, by taking (or sleeping) a short nap, it slept itself quiet and well again. "He will soon sleep his everlasting sleep"; that is, "He will sleep the sleep of death."

Thinkers think thoughts; Talkers talk or employ words, talk, or speeches; The rain rains rain. "Upon Sodom and Gomorrah the Lord rained fire and brimstone." "I must go the whole length." "I shall soon go the way of all the earth."

Now please to turn back again, and peruse this lecture attentively; after which you may parse, systematically, the following exercises containing nouns in the three cases, and active-transitive verbs.

The printer prints books.

Prints is a verb, a word that signifies to do—active, it expresses action—transitive, the action passes over from the nominative "printer" to the object "books"—third pers. sing. numb. because the nominative printer is with which it agrees.

RULE 4. The verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person.

Declined—1. pers. sing. I print, 2. pers. thou printest, 3. pers. he prints, or the printer prints, and so on.

Books is a noun, the name of a thing—common, the name of a sort of things,—neut. gend. it denotes a thing without sex—third pers. spoken of—plur. num. it implies more than one—and in the objective case, it is the object of the action, expressed by the active-transitive verb "prints," and is governed by it according to

RULE 20. Active-transitive verbs govern the objective case.

The noun books is thus declined—Sing. nom. book, poss. book's, obj. book—Plur. nom. books, poss. books', obj. books.

RULE 20. Transitive verbs govern the objective case; that is, they require the noun or pronoun following them to be in that case; and this requisition is government. Pronouns have a particular form to suit each case; but nouns have not. We cannot say, She struck he; I gave the book to they. Why not? Because the genius of our language requires the pronoun following a transitive verb or preposition (to is a preposition) to assume that form which we call the objective form or case. Accordingly, the construction should be, She struck him; I gave the book to them.—Read, again, the illustration of "government" on page 52.

EXERCISES IN PARSING.

Nom. case.	Trans. verb	Poss. case	Obj. case.
Julius	prints	childrens'	primers.
Harriet	makes	ladies'	bonnets.
The servant	beats	the man's	horse.
The horse	kicks	the servant's	master.
The boy	struck	that man's	child.
The child	lost	those boys'	ball.
The tempest	sunk	those merchants'	vessels.
Pope	translated	Homer's	Illiad.
Cicero	procured	Milo's	release.
Alexander	conquered	Darius'	army.
Perry	met	the enemy's	fleet.
Washington	obtained	his country's	freedom.

NOTE 1. The words the, that, those, and his, you need not parse.

2. A noun in the possessive case, is sometimes governed by a noun understood; as, Julia's lesson is longer than John's [lesson.]

As you have been analyzing nouns in their three cases, it becomes necessary to present, in the next place, the declension of nouns, for you must decline every noun you parse. Declension means putting a noun through the different cases: and you will notice, that the possessive case varies from the nominative in its termination, or ending, but the objective case ends like the nominative. The nominative and objective cases of nouns, must, therefore, be ascertained by their situation in the sentence, or by considering the office they perform.

DECLENSION OF NOUNS.

	SING.	PLUR.		SING.	PLUR.
Nom.	king	kings	Nom.	man	men
Poss.	king's	kings'	Poss.	man's	men's
Obj.	king.	kings.	Obj.	man.	men.

Now, if you have parsed every word in the preceding examples, (except the, that, those, and his) you may proceed with me and parse the examples in the following exercises, in which are presented nouns and active-intransitive verbs.

"My flock increases yearly."

Flock is a noun, a name denoting animals—a noun of multitude, it signifies many in one collective body—masculine and feminine gender, denoting both sexes—third person, spoken of—singular number, it denotes but one flock—and in the nominative case, it is the active agent of the verb "increases," and governs it, according to RULE 3, The nominative case governs the verb. (Decline it.)

Increases is a verb, a word that signifies to do—active, it expresses action—intransitive, the action does not pass over to an object—of the third person, singular number, because its nominative "flock" conveys unity of idea, and it agrees with "flock" agreeably to

RULE 10. A noun of multitude conveying unity of idea, must have a verb or pronoun agreeing with it in the singular.

"The divided multitude hastily disperse."

Multitude is a noun, a name that denotes persons—a collective noun, or noun of multitude, it signifies many—masculine and feminine gender, it implies both sexes—third person, spoken of—singular number, it represents but one multitude, or collective body; (but in another sense, it is plural, as it conveys plurality of idea, and, also, implies more individuals than one;)—and in the nominative case, it is the actor and subject of the verb "disperse," which it governs, according to RULE 3. The nom. case governs the verb.—Declined.—Sing. nom. multitude, poss. multitude's, obj. multitude—Plur. nom. multitudes, poss. multitudes', obj. multitudes.

Disperse is a verb, a word that signifies to do—active, it expresses action—intransitive, the action does not terminate on an object—third person, plural number, because its nominative "multitude" conveys plurality of idea; and it agrees with "multitude" agreeably to RULE 11. A noun of multitude conveying plurality of idea, must have a verb or pronoun agreeing with it in the plural.

Rules 10, and 11, rest on a sandy foundation. They appear not to be based on the principles of the language; and, therefore, it might, perhaps, be better to reject than to retain them. Their application is quite limited. In many instances, they will not apply to nouns of multitude. The existence of such a thing as "unity or plurality of idea," as applicable to nouns of this class, is doubtful. It is just as correct to say, "The meeting was divided in its sentiments," as to say, "The meeting were divided in their sentiments." Both are equally supported by the genius of the language, and by the power of custom. It is correct to say, either that, "The fleet were dispersed;" "The council were unanimous;" "The council were divided;" or that, "The fleet was dispersed;" "The council was unanimous;" "The council was divided." But, perhaps for the sake of euphony, in some instances, custom has decided in favor of a singular, and in others, of a plural construction, connected with words of this class. For example; custom gives a preference to the constructions, "My people do not consider;" "The peasantry go barefoot;" "The flock is his object;" instead of, "My people doth not consider;" "The peasantry goes barefoot;" "The flock are his object." In instances like these, the application of the foregoing rules may be of some use; but the constructions in which they do not apply, are probably more numerous than those in which they do.

EXERCISES IN PARSING.

Nom. case.	Intran. verb.	Nom. case.	Intran. verb.
Men	labor.	The sun	sets.
Armies	march.	The moon	rises.
Vessels	sail.	The stars	twinkle.
Birds	fly.	The rain	descends.
Clouds	move.	The river	flows.
Multitudes	perish.	The nation	mourns.

Your improvement in grammar depends, not on the number of words which you parse, but on the attention which you give the subject. You may parse the same exercises several times over.

For the gratification of those who prefer it, I here present another

DIVISION OF VERBS.

Verbs are of two kinds, transitive and intransitive.

A verb is transitive when the action affects an object; as, "Earthquakes rock kingdoms; thrones and palaces are shaken down; and potentates, princes, and subjects, are buried in one common grave."

The nominative to a passive verb, is the object, but not the agent, of the action.

A verb is intransitive when it has no object; as, "The waters came upon me;" "I am he who was, and is, and is to come."

As an exercise on what you have been studying, I will now put to you a few questions, all of which you ought to be able to answer before you proceed any farther.

QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED IN PARSING.

With what two general divisions of grammar does the second lecture begin?—Of what does Etymology treat?—Of what does Syntax treat?—On what is based the true principle of classification?—How do you ascertain the part of speech to which a word belongs?—What is meant by its manner of meaning?—Name the ten parts of speech.—Which of these are considered the most important?—By what sign may a noun be distinguished?—How many kinds of nouns are there?—What belong to nouns?—What is gender?—How many genders have nouns?—What is person?—How many persons have nouns?—What is number?—How many numbers have nouns?—What is case?—How many cases have nouns?—Does case consist in the inflections of a noun?—How many kinds of verbs are there?—By what sign may a verb be known?—What belong to verbs?—What is synthesis?—What is analysis?—What is parsing?—Repeat the order of parsing the noun.—Repeat the order of parsing the verb.—What rule do you apply in parsing a noun in the possessive case?—What rule, in parsing a noun in the nominative case?—What rule applies in parsing a verb?—What is meant by government?—Explain rules 3, 4, and 12.—By what rule are the nominative and objective cases of nouns known?—By what sign can you distinguish a transitive from an intransitive verb?—Do transitive verbs ever express a moral action?—Are intransitive and neuter verbs ever used as transitive?—Give some examples of transitive verbs with personal and verbal objects.—What rule do you apply in parsing a noun in the objective case?—Explain rule 20.—In parsing a verb agreeing with a noun of multitude conveying plurality of idea, what rule do you apply?

---

QUESTIONS ON THE NOTES.

Whether the learner be required to answer the following questions, or not, is, of course, left discretionary with the teacher. The author takes the liberty to suggest the expediency of not, generally, enforcing such a requisition, until the pupil goes through the book a second time.

Name some participial nouns.—What are abstract nouns?—What is the distinction between abstract nouns and adjectives?—What are natural nouns?—Artificial nouns?—What is the distinction between material and immaterial nouns?—Are nouns ever of the masculine and feminine gender?—Give examples.—When are nouns, naturally neuter, converted into the masculine or feminine gender?—Give examples.—Speak some nouns that are always in the singular number.—Some that are always plural.—Speak some that are in the same form in both numbers.—Name all the various ways of forming the plural number of nouns.—Of what number are the nouns news, means, alms, and amends?—Name the plurals to the following compound nouns, handful, cupful, spoonful, brother-in-law, court-martial.

---

NOTES ON PHILOSOPHICAL GRAMMAR.

Perhaps no subject has, in this age, elicited more patient research, and critical investigation of original, constituent principles, formations, and combinations, than the English language. The legitimate province of philology, however, as I humbly conceive, has, in some instances, been made to yield to that of philosophy, so far as to divert the attention from the combinations of our language which refinement has introduced, to radical elements and associations which no way concern the progress of literature, or the essential use for which language was intended. Were this retrogressive mode of investigating and applying principles, to obtain, among philologists, the ascendency over that which accommodates the use of language to progressive refinement, it is easy to conceive the state of barbarism to which society would, in a short time, be reduced. Moreover, if what some call the philosophy of language, were to supersede, altogether, the province of philology as it applies to the present, progressive and refined state of English literature, the great object contemplated by the learned, in all ages, namely, the approximation of language, in common with every thing else, to that point of perfection at which it is the object of correct philology to arrive, would be frustrated.

The dubious and wildering track struck out by those innovators and visionaries who absurdly endeavor to teach modern English, by rejecting the authority and sanction of custom, and by conducting the learner back to the original combinations, and the detached, disjointed, and barbarous constructions of our progenitors, both prudence and reason, as well as a due regard for correct philology, impel me to shun. Those modest writers who, by bringing to their aid a little sophistry, much duplicity, and a wholesale traffic in the swelling phrases, "philosophy, reason, and common sense," attempt to overthrow the wisdom of former ages, and show that the result of all the labors of those distinguished philologists who had previously occupied the field of grammatical science, is nothing but error and folly, will doubtless meet the neglect and contempt justly merited by such consummate vanity and unblushing pedantry. Fortunately for those who employ our language as their vehicle of mental conference, custom will not yield to the speculative theories of the visionary. If it would, improvement in English literature would soon be at an end, and we should be tamely conducted back to the Vandalic age.

As the use of what is commonly called the philosophy of language, is evidently misapplied by those who make it the test of grammatical certainty, it may not be amiss to offer a few considerations with a view to expose the fallacy of so vague a criterion.

All reasoning and investigation which depend on the philosophy of language for an ultimate result, must be conducted a posteriori. Its office, according to the ordinary mode of treating the subject, is to trace language to its origin, not for the purpose of determining and fixing grammatical associations and dependances, such as the agreement, government, and mutual relations of words, but in order to analyze combinations with a view to develop the first principles of the language, and arrive at the primitive meaning of words. Now, it is presumed, that no one who has paid critical attention to the subject, will contend, that the original import of single words, has any relation to the syntactical dependances and connexions of words in general;—to gain a knowledge of which, is the leading object of the student in grammar. And, furthermore, I challenge those who have indulged in such useless vagaries, to show by what process, with their own systems, they can communicate a practical knowledge of grammar. I venture to predict, that, if they make the attempt, they will find their systems more splendid in theory, than useful in practice.

Again, it cannot rationally be contended, that the radical meaning has any efficiency in controlling the signification which, by the power of association, custom has assigned to many words;—a signification essentially different from the original import. Were this the case, and were the language now to be taught and understood in compliance with the original import of words, it would have to undergo a thorough change; to be analyzed, divided, and sub-divided, almost ad infinitum. Indeed, there is the same propriety in asserting that the Gothic, Danish, and Anglo-Saxon elements in our language, ought to be pronounced separately, to enable us to understand our vernacular tongue, that there is in contending, that their primitive meaning has an ascendency over the influence of the principle of association in changing, and the power of custom in determining, the import of words. Many of our words are derived from the Greek, Roman, French, Spanish, Italian, and German languages; and the only use we can make of their originals, is to render them subservient to the force of custom in cases in which general usage has not varied from the primitive signification. Moreover, let the advocates of a mere philosophical investigation of the language, extend their system as far as a radical analysis will warrant them, and, with Horne Tooke, not only consider adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections, as abbreviations of nouns and verbs, but, on their own responsibility, apply them, in teaching the language, in compliance with their radical import, and what would such a course avail them against the power of custom, and the influence of association and refinement? Let them show me one grammarian, produced by such a course of instruction, and they will exhibit a "philosophical" miracle. They might as well undertake to teach architecture, by having recourse to its origin, as represented by booths and tents. In addition to this, when we consider the great number of obsolete words, from which many now in use are derived, the original meaning of which cannot be ascertained, and, also, the multitude whose signification has been changed by the principle of association, it is preposterous to think, that a mere philosophical mode of investigating and teaching the language, is the one by which its significancy can be enforced, its correctness determined, its use comprehended, and its improvement extended. Before what commonly passes for a philosophical manner of developing the language can successfully be made the medium through which it can be comprehended, in all its present combinations, relations, and dependances, it must undergo a thorough retrogressive change, in all those combinations, relations, and dependances, even to the last letter of the alphabet. And before we can consent to this radical modification and retrograde ratio of the English language, we must agree to revive the customs, the habits, and the precise language of our progenitors, the Goths and Vandals. Were all the advocates for the introduction of such philosophical grammars into common schools, at once to enter on their pilgrimage, and recede into the native obscurity and barbarity of the ancient Britons, Picts, and Vandals, it is believed, that the cause of learning and refinement would not suffer greatly by their loss, and that the good sense of the present age, would not allow many of our best teachers to be of the party.

The last consideration which I shall give a philosophical manner of investigating and enforcing the English language, is, that by this mode of analyzing and reducing it to practice, it cannot, in this age, be comprehended as the medium of thought. Were this method to prevail, our present literal language would become a dead letter. Of what avail is language, if it can not be understood? And how can it be accommodated to the understanding, unless it receive the sanction of common consent? Even if we admit that such a manner of unfolding the principles of our language, is more rational and correct than the ordinary, practical method, I think it is clear that such a mode of investigation and development, does not meet the necessities and convenience of ordinary learners in school. To be consistent, that system which instructs by tracing a few of our words to their origin, must unfold the whole in the same manner. But the student in common schools and academies, cannot afford time to stem the tide of language up to its source, and there dive to the bottom of the fountain for knowledge. Such labor ought not to be required of him. His object is to become, not a philosophical antiquarian, but a practical grammarian. If I comprehend the design (if they have any) of our modern philosophical writers on this subject, it is to make grammarians by inculcating a few general principles, arising out of the genius of the language, and the nature of things, which the learner, by the exercise of his reasoning powers, must reduce to practice. His own judgment, independent of grammar rules, is to be his guide in speaking and writing correctly. Hence, many of them exclude from their systems, all exercises in what is called false Syntax. But these profound philological dictators appear to have overlooked the important consideration, that the great mass of mankind, and especially of boys and girls in common schools, can never become philosophers; and, consequently, can never comprehend and reduce to practice their metaphysical and obscure systems of grammar. I wish to see children treated as reasoning beings. But there should be a medium in all things. It is, therefore, absurd to instruct children as if they were already profound philosophers and logicians.

To demonstrate the utility, and enforce the necessity, of exercising the learner in correcting false Syntax, I need no other argument than the interesting and undeniable fact, that Mr. Murray's labors, in this department, have effected a complete revolution in the English language, in point of verbal accuracy. Who does not know, that the best writers of this day, are not guilty of one grammatical inaccuracy, where those authors who wrote before Mr. Murray flourished, are guilty of five? And what has produced this important change for the better? Ask the hundreds of thousands who have studied "Mr. Murray's exercises in FALSE SYNTAX." If, then, this view of the subject is correct, it follows, that the greater portion of our philosophical grammars, are far more worthy the attention of literary connoisseurs, than of the great mass of learners.

Knowing that a strong predilection for philosophical grammars, exists in the minds of some teachers of this science, I have thought proper, for the gratification of such, to intersperse through the pages of this work under the head of "PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES," an entire system of grammatical principles as deduced from what appears to me to be the most rational and consistent philosophical investigations. They who prefer this theory to that exhibited in the body of the work, are, of course, at liberty to adopt it.

In general, a philosophical theory of grammar will be found to accord with the practical theory embraced in the body of this work. Wherever such agreement exists, the system contained in these NOTES will be deficient, and this deficiency may be supplied by adopting the principles contained in the other parts of the work.

---

OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL CLASSIFICATION OF WORDS.

According to the method in which philosophical investigations of language have generally been conducted, all our words should be reduced to two classes; for it can be easily shown, that from the noun and verb, all the other parts of speech have sprung. Nay, more. They may even be reduced to one. Verbs do not, in reality, express actions; but they are intrinsically the mere names of actions. The idea of action or being communicated by them, as well as the meaning of words in general, is merely inferential. The principle of reasoning assumed by the celebrated Horne Tooke, if carried to its full extent, would result, it is believed, in proving that we have but one part of speech.

Adnouns or adjectives were originally nouns. Sweet, red, white, are the names of qualities, as well as sweetness, redness, whiteness. The former differ from the latter only in their manner of signification. To denote that the name of some quality or substance is to be used in connexion with some other name, or, that this quality is to be attributed to some other name, we sometimes affix to it the termination en, ed, or y; which signifies give, add, or join. When we employ the words wooden, woollen, wealthy, grassy, the terminations en and y, by their own intrinsic meaning, give notice that we intend to give, add, or join, the names of some other substances in which are found the properties or qualities of wood, wool, wealth, or grass.

Pronouns are a class of nouns, used instead of others to prevent their disagreeable repetition. Participles are certain forms of the verb. Articles, interjections, adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions, are contractions of abbreviations of nouns and verbs. An (a, one, or one) comes from ananad, to add, to heap. The and that, from the Anglo-Saxon verb thean, to get, assume. Lo is the imperative of look; fy, of fian, to hate; and welcome means, it is well that you are come. In comes from the Gothic noun inna, the interior of the body; and about, from boda, the first outward boundary. Through or thorough is the Teutonic noun thuruh, meaning passage, gate, door. From is the Anglo-Saxon noun frum, beginning, source, author. He came from (beginning) Batavia. If (formerly written gif, give, gin) is the imperative of the Anglo-Saxon verb gifan, to give. I will remain if (give or grant that fact) he will (remain.) But comes from the Saxon verb beon-utan, to be-out. I informed no one but (be-out, leave-out) my brother.

This brief view of the subject, is sufficient to elucidate the manner in which, according to Horne Tooke's principles, the ten parts of speech are reduced to one. But I am, by no means, disposed to concede, that this is the true principle of classification; nor that it is any more philosophical or rational than one which allows a more practical division and arrangement of words. What has been generally received as "philosophical grammar," appears to possess no stronger claims to that imposing appellation than our common, practical grammars. Query. Is not Mr. Murray's octavo grammar more worthy the dignified title of a "Philosophical Grammar," than Horne Tooke's "Diversions of Purley," or William S. Cardell's treatises on language? What constitutes a philosophical treatise, on this, or on any other subject? Wherein is there a display of philosophy in a speculative, etymological performance, which attempts to develop and explain the elements and primitive meaning of words by tracing them to their origin, superior to the philosophy employed in the development and illustration of the principles by which we are governed in applying those words to their legitimate purpose, namely, that of forming a correct and convenient medium by means of which we can communicate our thoughts? Does philosophy consist in ransacking the mouldy records of antiquity, in order to guess at the ancient construction and signification of single words? or have such investigations, in reality, any thing to do with grammar?

Admitting that all the words of our language include, in their original signification, the import of nouns or names, and yet, it does not follow, that they now possess no other powers, and, in their combinations and connexions in sentences, are employed for no other purpose, than barely to name objects. The fact of the case is, that words are variously combined and applied, to answer the distinct and diversified purposes of naming objects, asserting truths, pointing out and limiting objects, attributing qualities to objects, connecting objects, and so on; and on this fact is founded the true philosophical principle of the classification of words. Hence, an arrangement of words into classes according to this principle, followed by a development and illustration of the principles and rules that regulate us in the proper use and application of words in oral and written discourse, appears to approximate as near to a true definition of philosophical grammar, as any I am capable of giving.

Nouns, or the names of the objects of our perceptions, doubtless constituted the original class of words; (if I may be allowed to assume such a hypothesis as an original class of words;) but the ever-active principle of association, soon transformed nouns into verbs, by making them, when employed in a particular manner, expressive of affirmation. This same principle also operated in appropriating names to the purpose of attributing qualities to other names of objects; and in this way was constituted the class of words called adjectives or attributes. By the same principle were formed all the other classes.

In the following exposition of English grammar on scientific principles, I shall divide words into seven classes; Nouns or Names, Verbs, Adjectives, Adnouns, or Attributes, Adverbs, Propositions, Pronouns, and Conjunctions or Connectives.

For an explanation of the noun, refer to the body of the work.

---

PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.

Plausible arguments may be advanced, for rejecting neuter and passive verbs; but they have been found to be so convenient in practice, that the theory which recognises them, has stood the test of ages. If you tell the young learner, that, in the following expressions, The church rests on its foundation; The book lies on the desk; The boys remain (are) idle, the nouns church, book, and boys, are represented as acting, and, therefore, the verbs rests, lies, remain, and are, are active, he will not believe you, because there is no action that is apparent to his senses. And should you proceed further, and, by a labored and metaphysical investigation and development of the laws of motion, attempt to prove to him that "every portion of matter is influenced by different, active principles, tending to produce change," and, therefore, every thing in universal nature is always acting, it is not at all probable, that you could convince his understanding, in opposition to the dearer testimony of his senses. Of what avail to learners is a theory which they cannot comprehend?

Among the various theorists and speculative writers on philosophical grammar, the ingenious Horne Tooke stands pre-eminent; but, unfortunately, his principal speculations on the verb, have never met the public eye. William S. Cardell has also rendered himself conspicuous in the philological field, by taking a bolder stand than any of his predecessors. His view of the verb is novel, and ingeniously supported. The following is the substance of his theory

OF THE VERB.

A verb is a word which expresses action; as, Man exists; Trees grow; Watersflow; Mountains stand; I am.

All verbs are active, and have one object or more than one, expressed or implied. The pillar stands; that is, it keeps itself in an erect or standing posture; it upholds or sustains itself in that position. They are; i.e. they air themselves, or breathe air; they inspirit, vivify, or uphold themselves by inhaling air.

Many verbs whose objects are seldom expressed, always have a persona or verbal one implied. The clouds move; i.e. move themselves along. The troops marched twenty miles a day; i.e. marched themselves. The moon shines:—The moon shines or sheds a shining, sheen, lustre, or brightness. The sparrow flies:—flies or takes a flight. Talkers talk or speak words or talk; Walkers walk walkings or walks; The rain rains rain; Sitters sit or hold sittings or sessions.

To prove that there is no such thing as a neuter verb, the following appear to be the strongest arguments adduced.

1. No portion of matter is ever in a state of perfect quiescence; but the component parts of every thing are at all times "influenced by different, active principles, tending to produce change." Hence, it follows, that no being or thing can be represented in a neuter or non-acting state.

This argument supposes the essential character of the verb to be identified with the primary laws of action, as unfolded by the principles of physical science. The correctness of this position may be doubted; but if it can be clearly demonstrated, that every particle of matter is always in motion, it does not, by any means, follow, that we cannot speak of things in a state of quiescence. What is false in fact may be correct in grammar. The point contested, is not whether things always act, but whether, when we assert or affirm something respecting them, we always represent them as acting.

2. Verbs were originally used to express the motions or changes of things which produced obvious actions, and, by an easy transition, were afterward applied, in the same way, to things whose actions were not apparent. This assumption is untenable, and altogether gratuitous.

3. Verbs called neuter are used in the imperative mood; and, as this mood commands some one to do something, any verb which adopts it, must be active. Thus, in the common place phrases, "Be there quickly; Stand out of my way; Sit or lie farther."

It is admitted that these verbs are here employed in an active sense; but it is certain, that they are not used according to their proper, literal meaning. When I tell a man, literally, to stand, sit, or lie, by moving he would disobey me; but when I say, "Stand out of my way," I employ the neuter verb stand, instead of the active verb move or go, and in a correspondent sense. My meaning is, Move yourself out of my way; or take your stand somewhere else. This, however, does not prove that stand is properly used. If we choose to overstep the bounds of custom, we can employ any word in the language as an active-transitive verb. Be, sit, and lie, may be explained in the same manner.

4. Neuter verbs are used in connexion with adverbs which express the manner of action. They must, therefore, be considered active verbs. The child sleeps soundly; He sits genteelly; They live contentedly and happily together.

The class of verbs that are never employed as active, is small. By using adverbs in connexion with verbs, we can fairly prove that some verbs are not active. It is incorrect to say, I am happily; They were peacefully; She remains quietly; The fields appear greenly. These verbs in their common acceptation, do not express action; for which reason we say, I am happy; They are peaceful; &c. But in the expressions, The child sleeps soundly; She sits gracefully; They live happily and contentedly; we employ the verbs sleeps, sits, and live, in an active sense. When no action is intended, we say, They live happy and contented.

If, on scientific principles, it can be proved that those verbs generally denominated neuter, originally expressed action, their present, accepted meaning will still oppose the theory, for the generality of mankind do not attach to them the idea of action.

Thus I have endeavored to present a brief but impartial abstract of the modern theory of the verb, leaving it with the reader to estimate it according to its value.

To give a satisfactory definition of the verb, or such a one as shall be found scientifically correct and unexceptionable, has hitherto baffled the skill, and transcended the learning, of our philosophical writers. If its essential quality, as is generally supposed, is made to consist in expressing affirmation, it remains still to be defined when a verb expresses affirmation. In English, and in other languages, words appropriated to express affirmation, are often used without any such force; our idea of affirmation, in such instances, being the mere inference of custom.

In the sentence,—"Think, love, and hate, denote moral actions," the words think, love, and hate, are nouns, because they are mere names of actions. So, when I say, "John, write—is an irregular verb," the word write is a noun; but when I say, "John, write—your copy," write is called a verb.

Why is this word considered a noun in one construction, and a verb in the other, when both constructions, until you pass beyond the word write, are exactly alike? If write does not express action in the former sentence, neither does it in the latter, for, in both, it is introduced in the same manner. On scientific principles, write must be considered a noun in the latter sentence, for it does not express action, or make an affirmation; but it merely names the action which I wish John to perform, and affirmation is the inferential meaning.

The verb in the infinitive, as well as in the imperative mood, is divested of its affirmative or verbal force. In both these moods, it is always presented in its noun-state.

If, after dinner, I say to a servant, "Wine," he infers, that I wish him to bring me wine; but all this is not said. If I say, Bring some wine, he, in like manner, understands, that I wish him to bring me wine; but all that is expressed, is the name of the action, and of the object of the action. In fact, as much is done by inference, as by actual expression, in every branch of language, for thought is too quick to be wholly transmitted by words.

It is generally conceded, that the termination of our verbs, est, eth, s, ed, and, also, of the other parts of speech, were originally separate words of distinct meaning; and that, although they have been contracted, and, by the refinement of language, have been made to coalesce with the words in connexion with which they are employed, yet, in their present character of terminations, they retain their primitive meaning and force. To denote that a verbal name was employed as a verb, the Saxons affixed to it a verbalizing adjunct; thus, the (to take, hold) was the noun-state of the verb; and when they used it as a verb, they added the termination an; thus, thean. The termination added, was a sign that affirmation was intended. The same procedure has been adopted, and, in many instances, is still practised, in our language. An, originally affixed to our verbs, in the progress of refinement, was changed to en, and finally dropped. A few centuries ago, the plural number of our verbs was denoted by the termination, en; thus, they weren, they loven; but, as these terminations do not supersede the necessity of expressing the subject of affirmation, as is the case in the Latin and Greek verbs, they have been laid aside, as unnecessary excrescences. For the same reason, we might, without any disparagement to the language, dispense with the terminations of our verbs in the singular.

In support of the position, that these terminations were once separate words, we can trace many of them to their origin. To denote the feminine gender of some nouns, we affix ess; as, heiress, instructress. Ess is a contraction of the Hebrew noun essa, a female. Of our verbs, the termination est is a contraction of doest, eth, of doeth, s of does. We say, thou dost or doest love; or thou lovest; i.e. love-dost, or love-doest. Some believe these terminations to be contractions of havest, haveth, has. We affix ed, a contraction of dede, to the present tense of verbs to denote that the action named is dede, did, doed, or done.

To and do from the Gothic noun taui, signifying act or effect, are, according to Horne Tooke, nearly alike in meaning and force; and when the custom of affixing some more ancient verbalizing adjunct, began to be dropped, its place and meaning were generally supplied by prefixing one of these. When I say, "I am going to walk," the verbal or affirmative force is conveyed by the use of to, meaning the same as do; and walk is employed merely as a verbal name; that is, I assert that I shall do the act which I name by the word walk, or the act of walking.

Perhaps such speculations as these will prove to be more curious than profitable. If it be made clearly to appear, that, on scientific principles, whenever the verbal name is unaccompanied by a verbalizing adjunct, it is in the noun-state, and does not express affirmation, still this theory would be very inconvenient in practice.

I shall resume this subject in Lecture XI.

---

QUESTIONS ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.

What has usually been the object of philosophical investigations of language? (page 32.)—Do the syntactical dependances and connexions of words depend on their original import?—Is the power of association and custom efficient in changing the radical meaning of some words?—Have words intrinsically a signification of their own; or is their meaning inferential; i.e. such as custom has assigned to them? (page 38.)—On what fact is based the true, philosophical principle of classification?—Define philosophical grammar.—Which is supposed to be the original part of speech?—How were the others formed from that?—How many parts of speech may be recognised in a scientific development and arrangement of the principles of our language?—Name them.—What testimony have we that many things do not act? (page 43.)—Repeat some of the arguments in favor of, and against, the principle which regards all verbs as active.—In what moods are verbs used in their noun-state? (page 48.)—Give examples.—What is said of the terminations est, eth, s, and en, and of the words to and do?

REMARKS ON VERBS AND NOUNS.

You have already been informed, that verbs are the most important part of speech in our language; and to convince you of their importance, I now tell you, that you cannot express a thought, or communicate an idea, without making use of a verb, either expressed or implied. Verbs express, not only the state or manner of being, but, likewise, all the different actions and movements of all creatures and things, whether animate or inanimate. As yet I have given you only a partial description of this sort of words; but when you are better prepared to comprehend the subject, I will explain all their properties, and show you the proper manner of using them.

A word that is generally a noun, sometimes becomes a verb; and a verb is frequently used as a noun. These changes depend on the sense which the word conveys; or, rather, on the office it performs in the sentence; that is the manner in which it is applied to things. For instance, glory is generally a noun; as "The glory of God's throne." But if I say, I glory in religion; or, He glories in wickedness, the word glory becomes a verb. The love of man is inconstant. In this sentence, love is a noun; in the next, it is a verb: They love virtue. He walks swiftly; Scavengers sweep the streets; The ship sails well. In these phrases, the words walks, sweep, and sails, are verbs; in the following they are nouns: Those are pleasant walks; He takes a broad sweep; The ship lowered her sails.

Thus you see, it is impossible for you to become a grammarian without exercising your judgment. If you have sufficient resolution to do this, you will, in a short time, perfectly understand the nature and office of the different parts of speech, their various properties and relations, and the rules of syntax that apply to them; and, in a few weeks, be able to speak and write accurately. But you must not take things for granted, without examining their propriety and correctness. No. You are not a mere automaton, or boy-machine; but a rational being. You ought, therefore, to think methodically, to reason soundly, and to investigate every principle critically. Don't be afraid to think for yourself. You know not the high destiny that awaits you. You know not the height to which you may soar in the scale of intellectual existence. Go on, then, boldly, and with unyielding perseverance; and if you do not gain admittance into the temple of fame, strive, at all hazards, to drink of the fountain which gurgles from its base.

EXERCISES IN FALSE SYNTAX.

NOTE 1, TO RULE 12. A noun in the possessive case, should always be distinguished by the apostrophe, or mark of elision; as, The nation's glory.

That girls book is cleaner than those boys books.

Not correct, because the nouns girls and boys are both in the possessive case, and, therefore, require the apostrophe, by which they should be distinguished; thus, "girl's, boys'" according to the preceding NOTE. [Repeat the note.]

Thy ancestors virtue is not thine.

If the writer of this sentence meant one ancestor, he should have inserted the apostrophe after r, thus, "ancestor's"; if more than one, after s, thus, "ancestors' virtue;" but, by neglecting to place the apostrophe, he has left his meaning ambiguous, and we cannot ascertain it. This, and a thousand other mistakes you will often meet with, demonstrate the truth of my declaration, namely, that "without the knowledge and application of grammar rules, you will often speak and write in such a manner as not to be understood." You may now turn back and re-examine the "illustration" of Rules 3, 4, and 12, on page 52, and then correct the following examples about five times over.

A mothers tenderness and a fathers care, are natures gift's for mans advantage. Wisdoms precept's form the good mans interest and happiness. They suffer for conscience's sake. He is reading Cowpers poems. James bought Johnsons Dictionary.

RULE 4. A verb must agree with its nominative in number and person.

Those boys improves rapidly. The men labors in the field. Nothing delight some persons. Thou shuns the light. He dare not do it. They reads well.

I know you can correct these sentences without a rule, for they all have a harsh sound, which offends the ear. I wish you, however, to adopt the habit of correcting errors by applying rules; for, by-and-by, you will meet with errors in composition which you cannot correct, if you are ignorant of the application of grammar rules.

Now let us clearly understand this 4th Rule. Recollect, it applies to the verb and not to the noun; therefore, in these examples the verb is ungrammatical. The noun boys, in the first sentence, is of the third person plural, and the verb improves is of the third person singular; therefore, Rule 4th is violated, because the verb dues not agree with its nominative in number. It should be, "boys improve." The verb would then be plural, and agree with its nominative according to the Rule. In the fourth sentence, the verb does not agree in person with its nominative. Thou is of the second person, and shuns is of the third. It should be, "thou shunnest," &c. You may correct the other sentences, and, likewise, the following exercises in

FALSE SYNTAX.

A variety of pleasing objects charm the eye. The number of inhabitants of the United States exceed nine millions. Nothing but vain and foolish pursuits delight some persons.

In vain our flocks and fields increase our store,
When our abundance make us wish for more.

While ever and anon, there falls
Huge heaps of hoary, moulder'd walls.

---