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_:—