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.

STEREOTYPE EDITION

NEW YORK
ROBERT B. COLLINS,
254 PEARL STREET.

Southern District of New-York, ss.

BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the 22d day of August, A.D. 1829, in the L. S. 54th year of the Independence of the United States of America, Samuel Kirkham, of the said district, hath deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as author, in the words following, to wit:

"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. Eleventh Edition, enlarged and improved." In conformity to the act of Congress of the United States, entitled "an act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the time therein mentioned." And also to an act entitled "an act supplementary to an act entitled an act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned, and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical and other prints."

FRED. J. BETTS, Clerk of the Southern District of New-York.

AN ESSAY ON ELOCUTION,

DESIGNED FOR THE USE OF SCHOOLS AND PRIVATE LEARNERS

BY SAMUEL KIRKHAM.

This work is mainly designed as a Reading-Book for Schools. In the first part of it, the principles of reading are developed and explained in a scientific and practical manner, and so familiarly illustrated in their application to practical examples as to enable even the juvenile mind very readily to comprehend their nature and character, their design and use, and thus to acquire that high degree of excellence, both, in reading and speaking, which all desire, but to which few attain.

The last part of the work, contains Selections from the greatest master-pieces of rhetorical and poetical composition, both ancient and modern. Many of these selections are taken from the most elegant and classical American authors—writers whose noble productions have already shed an unfading lustre, and stamped immortality upon the literature of our country.—In the select part of the work, rhetorical marks are also employed to point out the application of the principles laid down in the first part.—The very favorable reception of the work by the public, and its astonishingly rapid introduction into schools, since its first publication in 1833, excites in the author the most sanguine hopes in regard to its future success.

NOTICES.

After a careful perusal of this work, we are decidedly of opinion, that it is the only successful attempt of the kind. The rules are copious, and the author's explanations and illustrations are happily adapted to the comprehension of learners. No school should be without this book, and it ought to find a place in the library of every gentleman who values the attainment of a just and forcible elocution.—Pittsburgh Mer. April, 1834.

Mr. Kirkham has given rules for inflections and emphasis, and has followed them by illustrative examples, and these by remarks upon the inflection which he has adopted, and the reasons for his preference of one inflection to another—a most admirable plan for such a work. Copious examples occur in which all the various inflections and the shades of emphasis are distinguished with great accuracy and clearness. The catechetical appendages of each chapter, give the work new value in a school, and the selections made for the exercise of scholars, evince good taste and judgment. U.S. Gazette, Philadelphia, Sept. 17, 1834.

The Essay now before us, needs not depend on any former work of its author for a borrowed reputation; it has intrinsic merits of its own. It lays down principles clearly and concisely. It presents the reader with many new and judicious selections, both in prose and poetry; and altogether evinces great industry combined with taste and ingenuity.—Courier of Upper Canada, York, Oct. 12, 1833.

Of the talent and judgment of Mr. Kirkham, we have already had occasion to speak in terms of honest praise. His work on Elocution raises him still higher in our estimation.—The book would be of great utility in schools—such a one as has long been wanted; and we are glad to see it forthcoming.—Baltimore Visitor, July, 1833.

Every facility for teaching Elocution, which I have so often needed, but never before found, is exactly furnished in this work:—principles are clearly and concisely laid down, and are very happily adapted to the comprehension of the learner. Thoroughly convinced of its utility, I shall lose no time in introducing it into my school. Hartford, Conn. Aug.. 20, 1834. NATHANIEL WEBB.

RECOMMENDATIONS.

It is well known that the recommendations which generally accompany new books have very little weight with the public. This is as it should be, for that work which rests more on its written testimonials, than on its intrinsic merits for support, asserts no claims to permanent patronage. But recommendations which analyze the merits of a work, and which, by exhibiting its prominent features in a striking light, are calculated to carry conviction to the reader that the system recommended is meritorious, the author is proud to have it in his power to present in this volume. The following are some of the numerous testimonials which he has received, and for which he tenders his grateful acknowledgments to those literary gentlemen to whose liberality and politeness he is indebted for them. More than six hundred others presented to the author, and many of which are equally flattering with these, he has not room to insert.

The following notice of this work is extracted from the "Western Review." This journal is ably conducted by the Rev. Timothy Flint, author of "Francis Berrian," "History and Geography of the Miss. Valley," and many other popular and valuable works.

We had not, at that time, seen Mr. Kirkham's "Grammar in familiar Lectures," but have since given it a cursory perusal. If we comprehend the author's design, it is not so much to introduce new principles, as to render more easy and intelligible those which have been long established, and to furnish additional facilities to an accurate and thorough knowledge of our language. In this we think he has been successful.

It is to be expected that a modest, unassuming writer, on presenting himself before the public tribunal as an author, will, as far as is consistent with his plan, avail himself of the authority of such as have written well on the subject before him. Mr. Kirkham has accordingly followed Mr. Murray in the old beaten track of English writers on grammar, in the general principles of his science; endeavoring, at the same time, to avoid whatever appeared to be erroneous or absurd in the writings of that author, and adopting an entirely new arrangement. The most useful matter contained in the treatise of Mr. Murray, is embraced in this; but in the definitions and rules, it is simplified, and rendered much more intelligible. Though our author follows Mr. Murray, in the general principles of his work, he has, in numerous instances, differed from him, pursuing a course that appears to be his own, and introducing some valuable improvements.

Among these may be mentioned some additional rules and explanatory notes in syntax, the arrangement of the parts of speech, the mode of explaining them, manner of parsing, manner of explaining some of the pronouns, and the use of a synopsis which presents the essentials of the science at one view, and is well calculated to afford assistance to learners.

In his arrangement of the parts of speech, Mr. Kirkham seems to have endeavored to follow the order of nature; and we are not able to see how he could have done better. The noun and verb, as being the most important parts of speech, are first explained, and afterwards those which are considered in a secondary and subordinate character. By following this order, he has avoided the absurdity so common among authors, of defining the minor parts before their principals, of which they were designed to be the appendages, and has rationally prepared the way for conducting the learner by easy advances to a correct view of the science.

In his illustrations of the various subjects contained in his work, our author appears to have aimed, not at a flowery style, nor at the appearance of being learned, but at being understood. The clearness and perspicuity of his remarks, and their application to familiar objects, are well calculated to arrest the attention, and aid the understanding of the pupil, and thereby to lessen the labor of the instructor. The principles of the science are simplified, and rendered so perfectly easy of comprehension, we should think no ordinary mind, having such help, could find them difficult. It is in this particular that the work appears to possess its chief merit, and on this account it cannot fail of being preferred to many others.

It gives us pleasure to remark, in reference to the success of the amiable and modest author whose work is before us, that we quote from the fifth edition.

Cincinnati, Aug. 24, 1827.

The following is from the pen of a gentleman of the Bar, formerly a distinguished Classical teacher. [Extract from the "National Crisis.">[

As a friend to literature, and especially to genuine merit, it is with peculiar pleasure I allude to a notice in a late paper of this city, in which Mr. S. Kirkham proposes to deliver a course of Lectures on English Grammar. To such as feel interested in acquiring a general and practical knowledge of this useful science an opportunity is now presented which ought not to be neglected. Having myself witnessed, in several instances, within the last ten months, the practical results of Mr. Kirkham's plan, I am enabled to give a decisive opinion of its merits. The extensive knowledge acquired in one course by his class in Pittsburgh, and the great proficiency evinced by his classes elsewhere, are a demonstration of the utility and superiority of his method of teaching, and a higher encomium on him than I am able to bestow.

The principles on which Mr. Kirkham's "New system of Grammar" is predicated, are judiciously compiled, and happily and briefly expressed; but the great merit of his work consists in the lucid illustrations accompanying the principles, and the simple and gradual manner in which it conducts the learner along from step to step through the successive stages of the science. The explanations blended with the theory, are addressed to the understanding of the pupil in a manner so familiar, that they cannot fail to excite in him a deep interest; and whatever system is calculated to bring into requisition the mental powers, must, I conceive, be productive of good results. In my humble opinion, the system of teaching introduced into this work, will enable a diligent pupil to acquire, without any other aid, a practical knowledge of grammar, in less than one-fourth part of the time usually devoted.

My views of Mr. Kirkham's system are thus publicly given, with the greater pleasure, on account of the literary empiricisms which have been so extensively practised in many parts of the western country.

Cincinnati, April 26, 1826.

From Mr. Blood, Principal of the Chambersburgh Academy, Pa.

Mr. Kirkham,—It is now almost twenty years since I became a teacher of youth, and, during this period, I have not only consulted all, but have used many of the different systems of English grammar that have fallen in my way; and, sir, I do assure you, without the least wish to flatter, that yours far exceeds any I have yet seen.

Your arrangement and systematic order of parsing are most excellent; and experience has convinced me, (having used it, and it only, for the last twelve or thirteen months), that a scholar will learn more of the nature and principles of our language in one quarter, from your system, than in a whole year from any other I had previously used. I do, therefore, most cheerfully and earnestly recommend it to the public at large, and especially to those who, anxious to acquire a knowledge of our language, are destitute of the advantages of an instructer.

Yours, very respectfully, SAMUEL BLOOD.

Chambersburgh Academy, Feb. 12, 1825.

From Mr. N.R. Smith, editor of a valuable literary journal, styled "The Hesperus."

Mr. Kirkham,

Sir, I have examined your Lectures on English Grammar with that degree of minuteness which enables me to yield my unqualified approbation of the work as a grammatical system. The engaging manner in which you have explained the elements of grammar, and accommodated them to the capacities of youth, is an ample illustration of the utility of your plan. In addition to this, the critical attention you have paid to an analytical development of grammatical principles, while it is calculated to encourage the perseverance of young students in the march of improvement, is sufficient, also, to employ the researches of the literary connoisseur. I trust that your valuable compilation will be speedily introduced into schools and academies.

With respect, yours, N.R. SMITH, A.M.

Pittsburgh, March 22, 1825.

From Mr. Jungmann, Principal of the Frederick Lutheran Academy:—Extract.

Having carefully examined Mr. S. Kirkham's new system of "English Grammar in familiar Lectures," I am satisfied that the pre-eminent advantages it possesses over our common systems, will soon convince the public, that it is not one of those feeble efforts of quackery which have so often obtruded upon our notice. Its decided superiority over all other systems, consists in adapting the subject-matter to the capacity of the young learner, and the happy mode adopted of communicating it to his mind in a manner so clear and simple, that he can easily comprehend the nature and the application of every principle that comes before him.

In short, all the intricacies of the science are elucidated so clearly, I am confident that even a private learner, of common docility, can, by perusing this system attentively acquire a better practical knowledge of this important branch of literature in three months, than is ordinarily obtained in one year.

Frederick, Md. Sept 17, 1824. JOHN E. JUNGMANN.

Extract: from De Witt Clinton, late Gov. of New-York.

I consider the Compendium of English Grammar, by Samuel Kirkham, a work deserving encouragement, and well calculated to facilitate the acquisition of this useful science. DE WITT CLINTON.

Albany, Sept 25, 1824.

S. Kirkham, Esq.—I have examined your Grammar with attention, and with a particular view to benefit the Institution under my charge. I am fully satisfied, that it is the best form in which Murray's principles have been given to the public. The lectures are ample, and given in so familiar and easy language, as to be readily understood, even by a tyro in grammar.

I feel it due to you to say, that I commenced the examination of your work, under a strong prejudice against it, in consequence of the numerous "improved systems" with which the public has been inundated, of late, most of which are by no means improvements on Murray, but the productions of individuals whom a "little grammar has rendered grammatically insane." My convictions, therefore, are the result of investigation. I wish you, Sir, success in your publication.

Respectfully, EBER. WHEATON,

Pr. of Mechanics' Society School

With the opinion of Mr. Wheaton respecting Mr. Kirkham's English Grammar, we heartily concur.

NATHAN STARK, Pr. Acad.
(Rev.) JOHN JOHNSTON,
Newburgh, Aug. 4, 1829. (Rev.) WM. S. HEYER,

From the Rev. C.P. McIlvaine, and others.

So far as I have examined the plan of grammatical instruction by Samuel Kirkham I am well satisfied that it meets the wants of elementary schools in this branch, and deserves to be patronised. CHARLES P. McILVAINE.

Brooklyn, L.I. July 9, 1829.

We fully concur in the above, ANDREW HAGEMAN,
E.M. JOHNSON.

EXTRACT.

From the partial examination which I have given Mr. S. Kirkham's English Grammar, I do not hesitate to recommend it to the public as the best of the class I have ever seen, and as filling up an important and almost impassable chasm in works on grammatical science. D.L. CARROLL.

Brooklyn, L.I. June 29, 1829.

We fully concur in the foregoing recommendation. B.B. HALLOCK,
E. KINGSLEY,
T.S. MAYBON.

From A.W. Dodge, Esq.

New-York, July 15, 1829.

The experience of every one at all acquainted with the business of instruction, must have taught him that the study of grammar, important as it is to every class of learners, is almost invariably a dry and uninteresting study to young beginners, and for the very obvious reason, that the systems in general use in the schools, are far beyond the comprehension of youth, and ill adapted to their years. Hence it is, that their lessons in this department of learning, are considered as tasks, and if committed at all, committed to the memory, without enlightening their understandings; so that many a pupil who has been through the English grammar, is totally unacquainted with the nature even of the simplest parts of speech.

The work of Mr. Kirkham on grammar, is well calculated to remedy these evils, and supply a deficiency which has been so long and so seriously felt in the imperfect education of youth in the elementary knowledge of their own language. By a simple, familiar, and lucid method of treating the subject, he has rendered what was before irksome and unprofitable, pleasing and instructive. In one word, the grammar of Mr. Kirkham furnishes a clew by which the youthful mind is guided through the intricate labyrinth of verbs, nouns and pronouns; and the path which has been heretofore so difficult and uninviting, as to dampen the ardor of youth, and waste their energies in fruitless attempts to surmount its obstacles, is cleared of these obstructions by this pioneer to the youthful mind, and planted, at every turn, with friendly guide-boards to direct them in the right road. The slightest perusal of the work alluded to, will convince even the most skeptical of the truth of these remarks, and satisfy every one who is not wedded by prejudice to old rules and forms, that it will meet the wants of the community.

ALLEN W. DODGE.

Philadelphia, Aug. 10, 1829

Having, for several years, been engaged in lecturing on the science of grammar and, during this period, having thoroughly tested the merits of Mr. S. Kirkham's system of "English Grammar in Familiar Lectures" by using it as a text-book for my classes, I take pleasure in giving this testimonial of my cordial approbation of the work. Mr. Kirkham has attempted to improve upon this branch of science, chiefly by unfolding and explaining the principles of grammar in a manner so clear and simple, as to adapt them completely to the understanding of the young learner, and by adopting a new arrangement, which enables the pupil to commit the principles by a simultaneous application of them to practical examples. The public may rest assured, that he has been successful in his attempt in a pre-eminent degree. I make this assertion under a full conviction that it will be corroborated by every candid judge of the science who becomes acquainted with the practical advantages of this manual.

The explicit brevity and accuracy of the rules and definitions, the novel, the striking, the lucid, and critical illustrations accompanying them, the peculiar and advantageous arrangement of the various parts of the subject, the facilities proffered by the "systematic mode of parsing" adopted, the convenient and judicious introduction and adaptation of the exercises introduced, and the deep researches and critical investigations displayed in the "Philosophical Notes," render this system of grammar so decidedly superior to all others extant, that, to receive general patronage, it needs but to be known.

My knowledge of this system from experience in teaching it, and witnessing its effects in the hands of private learners, warrants me in saying, that a learner will, by studying this book four months without a teacher, obtain a more clear conception of the nature and proper construction of words and phrases, than is ordinarily obtained in common schools and academies, in five times four months.

It is highly gratifying to know, that wherever this system has been circulated, it is very rapidly supplanting those works of dulness which have so long paralyzed the energies of the youth of our country.

I think the specimens of verbal criticism, additional corrections in orthography and ortheopy, the leading principles of rhetoric, and the improvements in the illustrations generally, which Mr. K. is about introducing into his ELEVENTH EDITION, will render it quite an improvement on the former editions of this work. H. WINCHESTER.

From the Rev. S. Center, Principal of a Classical Academy.

I have examined the last edition of Kirkham's Grammar with peculiar satisfaction. The improvements which appear in it, do, in my estimation, give it a decided preference to any other system now in use. To point out the peculiar qualities which secure to it claims of which no other system can boast, would be, if required, perfectly easy. At present it is sufficient to remark, that it imbodies all that is essentially excellent and useful in other systems, while it is entirely free from that tediousness of method and prolixity of definition which so much perplex and embarrass the learner.

The peculiar excellence of Mr. Kirkham's grammar is, the simplicity of its method, and the plainness of its illustrations. Being conducted by familiar lectures, the teacher and pupil are necessarily brought into agreeable contact by each lesson. Both are improved by the same task, without the slightest suspicion, on the part of the pupil, that there is anything hard, difficult, or obscure in the subject: a conviction, this, which must inevitably precede all efforts, or no proficiency will be made. In a word, the treatise I am recommending, is a practical one; and for that reason, if there were no others to be urged, it ought to be introduced into all our schools and academies. From actual experiment I can attest to the practicability of the plan which the author has adopted. Of this fact any one may be convinced who will take the pains to make the experiment. SAMUEL CENTER.

Albany, July 10, 1829.

From a communication addressed to S. Kirkham, by the Rev. J. Stockton, author of the "Western Calculator" and "Western Spelling-Book."

Dear Sir,—I am much pleased with both the plan and execution of your "English Grammar in Familiar Lectures." In giving a systematic mode of parsing, calculated alike to exercise the understanding and memory of the pupil, and also free the teacher from the drudgery of continued interrogation, you have made your grammar what every elementary school book ought to be—plain, systematic, and easy to be understood.

This, with the copious definitions in every part of the work, and other improvements so judiciously introduced, gives it a decisive superiority over the imperfect grammar of Murray, now so generally used. JOSEPH STOCKTON, A.M.

Allegheny-Town, (near Pittsburgh,) March 18, 1825.

TO THE ELEVENTH EDITION.

The author is free to acknowledge, that since this treatise first ventured on the wave of public opinion, the gales of patronage which have waited it along, have been far more favorable than he had reason to anticipate. Had any one, on its first appearance, predicted, that the demand for it would call forth twenty-two thousand copies during the past year, the author would have considered the prediction extravagant and chimerical. In gratitude, therefore, to that public which has smiled so propitiously on his humble efforts to advance the cause of learning, he has endeavored, by unremitting attention to the improvement of his work, to render it as useful and as unexceptionable as his time and talents would permit.

It is believed that the tenth and eleventh editions have been greatly improved; but the author is apprehensive that his work is not yet as accurate and as much simplified as it may be. If, however, the disadvantages of lingering under a broken constitution, and of being able to devote to this subject only a small portion of his time, snatched from the active pursuits of a business life, (active as far as his imperfect health permits him to be,) are any apology for its defects, he hopes that the candid will set down the apology to his credit. This personal allusion is hazarded with the additional hope, that it will ward off some of the arrows of criticism which may be aimed at him, and render less pointed and poisonous those that may fall upon him. Not that he would beg a truce with the gentlemen critics and reviewers. Any compromise with them would betray a want of self-confidence and moral courage which he would, by no means, be willing to avow. It would, moreover, be prejudicial to his interest; for he is determined, if his life be preserved, to avail himself of the advantages of any judicious and candid criticisms on his production, that may appear, and, two or three years hence, revise his work, and present to the public another and a better edition.

The improvements in the tenth edition, consisted mainly in the addition of many important principles; in rendering the illustrations more critical, extensive, accurate, and lucid; in connecting more closely with the genius and philosophy of our language, the general principles adopted; and in adding a brief view of philosophical grammar interspersed in notes. The introduction into the ELEVENTH EDITION, of many verbal criticisms, of additional corrections in orthography and orthoepy, of the leading principles of rhetoric, and of general additions and improvements in various parts of the work, render this edition, it is believed, far preferable to any of the former editions of the work.

Perhaps some will regard the philosophical notes as a useless exhibition of pedantry. If so, the author's only apology is, that some investigations of this nature seemed to be called for by a portion of the community whose minds, of late, appear to be under the influence of a kind of philosophical mania; and to such these notes are respectfully submitted for just what they may deem their real value. The author's own opinion on this point, is, that they proffer no material advantages to common learners; but that they may profitably engage the attention of the curious, and perhaps impart a degree of interest to the literary connoisseur.

New-York, August 22, 1820.

CONTENTS.

PREFACE

There appears to be something assuming in the act of writing, and thrusting into public notice, a new work on a subject which has already employed many able pens; for who would presume to do this, unless he believed his production to be, in some respects, superior to every one of the kind which had preceded it? Hence, in presenting to the public this system of English Grammar, the author is aware that an apology will be looked for, and that the arguments on which that apology is grounded, must inevitably undergo a rigid scrutiny. Apprehensive, however, that no explanatory effort, on his part, would shield him from the imputation of arrogance by such as are blinded by self-interest, or by those who are wedded to the doctrines mid opinions of his predecessors, with them he will not attempt a compromise, being, in a great measure, indifferent either to their praise or their censure. But with the candid, he is willing to negotiate an amicable treaty, knowing that they are always ready to enter into it on honorable terms. In this negotiation he asks nothing more than merely to rest the merits of his work on its practical utility, believing that, if it prove uncommonly successful in facilitating the progress of youth in the march of mental improvement, that will be its best apology.

When we bring into consideration the numerous productions of those learned philologists who have labored so long, and, as many suppose, so successfully, in establishing the principles of our language; and, more especially, when we view the labors of some of our modern compilers, who have displayed so much ingenuity and acuteness in attempting to arrange those principles in such a manner as to form a correct and an easy medium of mental conference; it does, indeed, appear a little like presumption for a young man to enter upon a subject which has so frequently engaged the attention and talents of men distinguished for their erudition. The author ventures forward, however, under the conviction, that most of his predecessors are very deficient, at least, in manner, if not in matter; and this conviction, he believes, will be corroborated by a majority of the best judges in community. It is admitted, that many valuable improvements have been made by some of our late writers, who have endeavored to simplify and render this subject intelligible to the young learner, but they have all overlooked what the author considers a very important object, namely, a systematic order of parsing; and nearly all have neglected to develop and explain the principles in such a manner as to enable the learner, without great difficulty, to comprehend their nature and use.

By some this system will, no doubt, be discarded on account of its simplicity; while to others its simplicity will prove its principal recommendation. Its design is an humble one. It proffers no great advantages to the recondite grammarian; it professes not to instruct the literary connoisseur; it presents no attractive graces of style to charm, no daring flights to astonish, no deep researches to gratify him; but in the humblest simplicity of diction, it attempts to accelerate the march of the juvenile mind in its advances in the path of science, by dispersing those clouds that so often bewilder it, and removing those obstacles that generally retard its progress. In this way it endeavors to render interesting and delightful a study which has hitherto been considered tedious, dry, and irksome. Its leading object is to adopt a correct and an easy method, in which pleasure is blended with the labors of the learner, and which is calculated to excite in him a spirit of inquiry, that shall call forth into vigorous and useful exercise, every latent energy of his mind; and thus enable him soon to become thoroughly acquainted with the nature of the principles, and with their practical utility and application.

Content to be useful, instead of being brilliant, the writer of these pages has endeavored to shun the path of those whose aim appears to have been to dazzle, rather than to instruct. As he has aimed not so much at originality as utility, he has adopted the thoughts of his predecessors whose labors have become public stock, whenever he could not, in his opinion, furnish better and brighter of his own. Aware that there is, in the public mind, a strong predilection for the doctrines contained in Mr. Murray's grammar, he has thought proper, not merely from motives of policy, but from choice, to select his principles chiefly from that work; and, moreover, to adopt, as far as consistent with his own views, the language of that eminent philologist. In no instance has he varied from him, unless he conceived that, in so doing, some practical advantage would be gained. He hopes, therefore, to escape the censure so frequently and so justly awarded to those unfortunate innovators who have not scrupled to alter, mutilate, and torture the text of that able writer, merely to gratify an itching propensity to figure in the world as authors, and gain an ephemeral popularity by arrogating to themselves the credit due to another.

The author is not disposed, however, to disclaim all pretensions to originality; for, although his principles are chiefly selected, (and who would presume to make new ones?) the manner of arranging, illustrating, and applying them, is principally his own. Let no one, therefore, if he happen to find in other works, ideas and illustrations similar to some contained in the following lectures, too hastily accuse him of plagiarism. It is well known that similar investigations and pursuits often elicit corresponding ideas in different minds: and hence it is not uncommon for the same thought to be strictly original with many writers. The author is not here attempting to manufacture a garment to shield him from rebuke, should he unjustly claim the property of another; but he wishes it to be understood, that a long course of teaching and investigation, has often produced in his mind ideas and arguments on the subject of grammar, exactly or nearly corresponding with those which he afterwards found, had, under similar circumstances, been produced in the minds of others. He hopes, therefore, to be pardoned by the critic, even though he should not be willing to reject a good idea of his own, merely because some one else has, at some time or other, been blessed with the same thought.

As the plan of this treatise is far more comprehensive than those of ordinary grammars, the writer could not, without making his work unreasonably voluminous, treat some topics as extensively as was desirable. Its design is to embrace, not only all the most important principles of the science, but also exercises in parsing, false syntax, and punctuation, sufficiently extensive for all ordinary, practical purposes, and a key to the exercises, and, moreover, a series of illustrations so full and intelligible, as completely to adapt the principles to the capacities of common learners. Whether this design has been successfully or unsuccessfully executed, is left for the public to decide. The general adoption of the work into schools, wherever it has become known, and the ready sale of forty thousand copies, (though without hitherto affording the author any pecuniary profit,) are favorable omens.

In the selection and arrangement of principles for his work, the author has endeavored to pursue a course between the extremes, of taking blindly on trust whatever has been sanctioned by prejudice and the authority of venerable names, and of that arrogant, innovating spirit, which sets at defiance all authority, and attempts to overthrow all former systems, and convince the world that all true knowledge and science are wrapped up in a crude system of vagaries of its own invention. Notwithstanding the author is aware that public prejudice is powerful, and that he who ventures much by way of innovation, will be liable to defeat his own purpose by falling into neglect; yet he has taken the liberty to think for himself, to investigate the subject critically and dispassionately, and to adopt such principles only as he deemed the least objectionable, and best calculated to effect the object he had in view. But what his system claims as improvements on others, consists not so much in bettering the principles themselves, as in the method adopted of communicating a knowledge of them to the mind of the learner. That the work is defective, the author is fully sensible: and he is free to acknowledge, that its defects arise, in part, from his own want of judgment and skill. But there is another and a more serious cause of them, namely, the anomalies and imperfections with which the language abounds. This latter circumstance is also the cause of the existence of so widely different opinions on many important points; and, moreover, the reason that the grammatical principles of our language can never be indisputably settled. But principles ought not to be rejected because they admit of exceptions.—He who is thoroughly acquainted with the genius and structure of our language, can duly appreciate the truth of these remarks.

Should parents object to the Compendium, fearing it will soon be destroyed by their children, they are informed that the pupil will not have occasion to use it one-tenth part as much as he will the book which it accompanies: and besides, if it be destroyed, he will find all the definitions and rules which it contains, recapitulated in the series of Lectures.

HINTS TO TEACHERS AND PRIVATE LEARNERS.

As this work proposes a new mode of parsing, and pursues an arrangement essentially different from that generally adopted, it may not be deemed improper for the author to give some directions to those who may be disposed to use it. Perhaps they who take only a slight view of the order of parsing, will not consider it new, but blend it with those long since adopted. Some writers have, indeed, attempted plans somewhat similar; but in no instance have they reduced them to what the author considers a regular systematic order.

The methods which they have generally suggested, require the teacher to interrogate the pupil as he proceeds; or else he is permitted to parse without giving any explanations at all. Others hint that the learner ought to apply definitions in a general way, but they lay down no systematic arrangement of questions as his guide. The systematic order laid down in this work, if pursued by the pupil, compels him to apply every definition and every rule that appertains to each word he parses, without having a question put to him by the teacher; and, in so doing, he explains every word fully as he goes along. This course enables the learner to proceed independently; and proves, at the same time, a great relief to the instructer. The convenience and advantage of this method, are far greater than can be easily conceived by one who is unacquainted with it. The author is, therefore, anxious to have the absurd practice, wherever it has been established, of causing learners to commit and recite definitions and rules without any simultaneous application of them to practical examples, immediately abolished. This system obviates the necessity of pursuing such a stupid course of drudgery; for the young beginner who pursues it, will have, in a few weeks, all the most important definitions and rules perfectly committed, simply by applying them in parsing.

If this plan be once adopted, it is confidently believed that every teacher who is desirous to consult, either his own convenience, or the advantage of his pupils, will readily pursue it in preference to any former method. This belief is founded on the advantages which the author himself has experienced from it in the course of several years, devoted to the instruction of youth and adults. By pursuing this system, he can, with less labor, advance a pupil farther in a practical knowledge of this abstruse science, in two months, than he could in one year when he taught in the "old way." It is presumed that no instructor, who once gives this system a fair trial, will doubt the truth of this assertion.

Perhaps some will, on a first view of the work, disapprove of the transposition of many parts; but whoever examines it attentively, will find that, although the author has not followed the common "artificial and unnatural arrangement adopted by most of his predecessors," yet he has endeavored to pursue a more judicious one, namely, "the order of the understanding."

The learner should commence, not by committing and rehearsing, but by reading attentively the first two lectures several times over. He ought then to parse, according to the systematic order, the examples given for that purpose; in doing which, as previously stated, he has an opportunity of committing all the definitions and rules belonging to the parts of speech included in the examples.

The COMPENDIUM, as it presents to the eye of the learner a condensed but comprehensive view of the whole science, may be properly considered an "Ocular Analysis of the English language." By referring to it, the young student is enabled to apply all his definitions and rules from the very commencement of his parsing. To some, this mode of procedure may seem rather tedious; but it must appear obvious to every person of discernment, that a pupil will learn more by parsing five words critically, and explaining them fully, than he would by parsing fifty words superficially, and without understanding their various properties. The teacher who pursues this plan, is not under the necessity of hearing his pupils recite a single lesson of definitions committed to memory, for he has a fair opportunity of discovering their knowledge of these as they evince it in parsing. All other directions necessary for the learner in school, as well as for the private learner, will be given in the succeeding pages of the work. Should these feeble efforts prove a saving of much time and expense to those young persons who may be disposed to pursue this science with avidity, by enabling them easily to acquire a critical knowledge of a branch of education so important and desirable, the author's fondest anticipations will be fully realized; but should his work fall into the hands of any who are expecting, by the acquisition, to become grammarians, and yet, have not sufficient ambition and perseverance to make themselves acquainted with its contents, it is hoped that the blame for their nonimprovement, will not be thrown upon him.

To those enterprising and intelligent gentlemen who may be disposed to lecture on this plan, the author takes the liberty to offer a few hints by way of encouragement.

Any judicious instructor of grammar, if he take the trouble to make himself familiar with the contents of the following pages, will find it an easy matter to pursue this system. One remark only to the lecturer, is sufficient. Instead of causing his pupils to acquire a knowledge of the nature and use of the principles by intense application, let him communicate it verbally; that is, let him first take up one part of speech, and, in an oral lecture, unfold and explain all its properties, not only by adopting the illustrations given in the book, but also by giving others that may occur to his mind as he proceeds. After a part of speech has been thus elucidated, the class should be interrogated on it, and then taught to parse it, and correct errors in composition under the rules that apply to it. In the same manner he may proceed with the other parts of speech, observing, however, to recapitulate occasionally, until the learners become thoroughly acquainted with whatever principles may have been presented. If this plan be faithfully pursued, rapid progress, on the part of the learner, will be the inevitable result; and that teacher who pursues it, cannot fail of acquiring distinction, and an enviable popularity in his profession. S. KIRKHAM.

FAMILIAR LECTURES

ON

ENGLISH GRAMMAR.

LECTURE I

DIVISIONS OF GRAMMAR.—ORTHOGRAPHY.

TO THE YOUNG LEARNER.

You are about to enter upon one of the most useful, and, when rightly pursued, one of the most interesting studies in the whole circle of science. If, however, you, like many a misguided youth, are under the impression that the study of grammar is dry and irksome, and a matter of little consequence, I trust I shall succeed in removing from your mind, all such false notions and ungrounded prejudices; for I will endeavor to convince you, before I close these lectures, that this is not only a pleasing study, but one of real and substantial utility; a study that directly tends to adorn and dignify human nature, and meliorate the condition of man. Grammar is a leading branch of that learning which alone is capable of unfolding and maturing the mental powers, and of elevating man to his proper rank in the scale of intellectual existence;—of that learning which lifts the soul from earth, and enables it to hold converse with a thousand worlds. In pursuing any and every other path of science, you will discover the truth of these remarks, and feel its force; for you will find, that, as grammar opens the door to every department of learning, a knowledge of it is indispensable: and should you not aspire at distinction in the republic of letters, this knowledge cannot fail of being serviceable to you, even if you are destined to pass through the humblest walks of life. I think it is clear, that, in one point of view, grammatical knowledge possesses a decisive advantage over every other branch of learning. Penmanship, arithmetic, geography, astronomy, botany, chemistry, and so on, are highly useful in their respective places; but not one of them is so universally applicable to practical purposes, as this. In every situation, under all circumstances, on all occasions;—when you speak, read, write, or think, a knowledge of grammar is of essential utility.

Doubtless you have heard some persons assert, that they could detect and correct any error in language by the ear, and speak and write accurately without a knowledge of grammar. Now your own observation will soon convince you, that this assertion is incorrect. A man of refined taste, may, by perusing good authors, and conversing with the learned, acquire that knowledge of language which will enable him to avoid those glaring errors that offend the ear; but there are other errors equally gross, which have not a harsh sound, and, consequently, which cannot be detected without a knowledge of the rules that are violated. Believe me, therefore, when I say, that without the knowledge and application of grammar rules, it is impossible for any one to think, speak, read, or write with accuracy. From a want of such knowledge, many often express their ideas in a manner so improper and obscure as to render it impossible for any one to understand them: their language frequently amounts, not only to bad sense, but non-sense. In other instances several different meanings may be affixed to the words they employ; and what is still worse, is, that not unfrequently their sentences are so constructed, as to convey a meaning quite the reverse of that which they intended. Nothing of a secular nature can be more worthy of your attention, then, than the acquisition of grammatical knowledge.

The path which leads to grammatical excellence, is not all the way smooth and flowery, but in it you will find some thorns interspersed, and some obstacles to be surmounted; or, in simple language, you will find, in the pursuit of this science, many intricacies which it is rather difficult for the juvenile mind completely to unravel. I shall, therefore, as I proceed, address you in plain language, and endeavor to illustrate every principle in a manner so clear and simple, that you will be able, if you exercise your mind, to understand its nature, and apply it to practice as you go along; for I would rather give you one useful idea, than fifty high-sounding words, the meaning of which you would probably be unable to comprehend.

Should you ever have any doubts concerning the meaning of a word, or the sense of a sentence, you must not be discouraged, but persevere, either by studying my explanations, or by asking some person competent to inform you, till you obtain a clear conception of it, and till all doubts are removed. By carefully examining, and frequently reviewing, the following lectures, you will soon be able to discern the grammatical construction of our language, and fix in your mind the principles by which it is governed. Nothing delights youth so much, as a clear and distinct knowledge of any branch of science which they are pursuing; and, on the other hand, I know they are apt to be discouraged with any branch of learning which requires much time and attention to be understood. It is the evidence of a weak mind, however, to be discouraged by the obstacles with which the young learner must expect to meet; and the best means that you can adopt, in order to enable you to overcome the difficulties that arise in the incipient stage of your studies, is to cultivate the habit of thinking methodically and soundly on all subjects of importance which may engage your attention. Nothing will be more effectual in enabling you to think, as well as to speak and write, correctly, than the study of English grammar, according to the method of pursuing it as prescribed in the following pages. This system is designed, and, I trust, well calculated, to expand and strengthen the intellectual faculties, in as much as it involves a process by which the mind is addressed, and a knowledge of grammar communicated in an interesting and familiar manner.

You are aware, my young friend, that you live in an age of light and knowledge;—an age in which science and the arts are marching onward with gigantic strides. You live, too, in a land of liberty;—a land on which the smiles of Heaven beam with uncommon refulgence. The trump of the warrior and the clangor of arms no longer echo on our mountains, or in our valleys; "the garments dyed in blood have passed away;" the mighty struggle for independence is over; and you live to enjoy the rich boon of freedom and prosperity which was purchased with the blood of our fathers. These considerations forbid that you should ever be so unmindful of your duty to your country, to your Creator, to yourself, and to succeeding generations, as to be content to grovel in ignorance. Remember that "knowledge is power;" that an enlightened and a virtuous people can never be enslaved; and that, on the intelligence of our youth, rest the future liberty, the prosperity, the happiness, the grandeur, and the glory of our beloved country. Go on then, with a laudable ambition, and an unyielding perseverance, in the path which leads to honor and renown. Press forward. Go, and gather laurels on the hill of science; linger among her unfading beauties; "drink deep" of her crystal fountain; and then join in "the march of fame." Become learned and virtuous, and you will be great. Love God and serve him, and you will be happy.

LANGUAGE.

Language, in its most extensive sense, implies those signs by which men and brutes communicate to each other their thoughts, affections, and desires.

Language may be divided, 1. into natural and artificial; 2. into spoken and written.

NATURAL LANGUAGE, consists in the use of those natural signs which different animals employ in communicating their feelings one to another. The meaning of these signs all perfectly understand by the principles of their nature. This language is common both to man and brute. The elements of natural language in man, may be reduced to three kinds; modulations of the voice, gestures, and features. By means of these, two savages who have no common, artificial language, can communicate their thoughts in a manner quite intelligible: they can ask and refuse, affirm and deny, threaten and supplicate; they can traffick, enter into contracts, and plight their faith. The language of brutes consists in the use of those inarticulate sounds by which they express their thoughts and affections. Thus, the chirping of a bird, the bleating of a lamb, the neighing of a horse, and the growling, whining, and barking of a dog, are the language of those animals, respectively.

ARTIFICIAL LANGUAGE consists in the use of words, by means of which mankind are enabled to communicate their thoughts to one another.—In order to assist you in comprehending what is meant by the term word, I will endeavor to illustrate the meaning of the term.

Idea. The notices which we gain by sensation and perception, and which are treasured up in the mind to be the materials of thinking and knowledge, are denominated ideas. For example, when you place your hand upon a piece of ice, a sensation is excited which we call coldness. That faculty which notices this sensation or change produced in the mind, is called perception; and the abstract notice itself, or notion you form of this sensation, is denominated an idea. This being premised, we will now proceed to the consideration of words.

Words are articulate sounds, used by common consent, not as natural, but as artificial, signs of our ideas. Words have no meaning in themselves. They are merely the artificial representatives of those ideas affixed to them by compact or agreement among those who use them. In English, for instance, to a particular kind of metal we assign the name gold; not because there is, in that sound, any peculiar aptness which suggests the idea we wish to convey, but the application of that sound to the idea signified, is an act altogether arbitrary. Were there any natural connexion between the sound and the thing signified, the word gold would convey the same idea to the people of other countries as it does to ourselves. But such is not the fact. Other nations make use of different sounds to signify the same thing. Thus, aurum denotes the same idea in Latin, and or in French. Hence it follows, that it is by custom only we learn to annex particular ideas to particular sounds.

SPOKEN LANGUAGE or speech is made up of articulate sounds uttered by the human voice.

The voice is formed by air which, after it passes through the glottis, (a small aperture in the upper part of the wind-pipe,) is modulated by the action of the throat, palate, teeth, tongue, lips, and nostrils.

WRITTEN LANGUAGE. The elements of written language consist of letters or characters, which, by common consent and general usage, are combined into words, and thus made the ocular representatives of the articulate sounds uttered by the voice.

GRAMMAR.

GRAMMAR is the science of language.

Grammar may be divided into two species, universal and particular.

UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR explains the principles which are common to all languages.

PARTICULAR GRAMMAR applies those general principles to a particular language, modifying them according to its genius, and the established practice of the best speakers and writers by whom it is used. Hence,

The established practice of the best speakers and writers of any language, is the standard of grammatical accuracy in the use of that language.

By the phrase, established practice, is implied reputable, national, and present usage. A usage becomes good and legal, when it has been long and generally adopted.

The best speakers and writers, or such as may be considered good authority in the use of language, are those who are deservedly in high estimation; speakers, distinguished for their elocution and other literary attainments, and writers, eminent for correct taste, solid matter, and refined manner.

In the grammar of a perfect language, no rules should be admitted, but such as are founded on fixed principles, arising out of the genius of that language and the nature of things; but our language being im-perfect, it becomes necessary, in a practical treatise, like this, to adopt some rules to direct us in the use of speech as regulated by custom. If we had a permanent and surer standard than capricious custom to regulate us in the transmission of thought, great inconvenience would be avoided. They, however, who introduce usages which depart from the analogy and philosophy of a language, are conspicuous among the number of those who form that language, and have power to control it.

Language is conventional, and not only invented, but, in its progressive advancement, varied for purposes of practical convenience. Hence it assumes any and every form which those who make use of it choose to give it. We are, therefore, as rational and practical grammarians, compelled to submit to the necessity of the case; to take the language as it is, and not as it should be, and bow to custom.

PHILOSOPHICAL GRAMMAR investigates and develops the principles of language, as founded in the nature of things and the original laws of thought. It also discusses the grounds of the classification of words, and explains those procedures which practical grammar lays down for our observance.

PRACTICAL GRAMMAR adopts the most convenient classification of the words of a language, lays down a system of definitions and rules, founded on scientific principles and good usage, illustrates their nature and design, and enforces their application.

PRINCIPLE. A principle in grammar is a peculiar construction of the language, sanctioned by good usage.

DEFINITION. A definition in grammar is a principle of language expressed in a definite form.

RULE. A rule describes the peculiar construction or circumstantial relation of words, which custom has established for our observance.

ENGLISH GRAMMAR.

ENGLISH GRAMMAR is the art of speaking and writing the English language with propriety.

GRAMMAR teaches us how to use words in a proper manner. The most important use of that faculty called speech, is, to convey our thoughts to others. If, therefore, we have a store of words, and even know what they signify, they will be of no real use to us unless we can also apply them to practice, and make them answer the purposes for which they were invented. Grammar, well understood, enables us to express our thoughts fully and clearly; and, consequently, in a manner which will defy the ingenuity of man to give our words any other meaning than that which we ourselves intend them to express. To be able to speak and write our vernacular tongue with accuracy and elegance, is, certainly, a consideration of the highest moment.

Grammar is divided into four parts;

  1. ORTHOGRAPHY,
  2. ETYMOLOGY,
  3. SYNTAX,
  4. PROSODY.

ORTHOGRAPHY teaches the nature and powers of letters, and the just method of spelling words.

ORTHOGRAPHY means word-making, or spelling. It teaches us the different kinds and sounds of letters, how to combine them into syllables, and syllables into words.

As this is one of the first steps in the path of literature, I presume you already understand the nature and use of letters, and the just method of spelling words. If you do, it is unnecessary for you to dwell long on this part of grammar, which, though very important, is rather dry and uninteresting, for it has nothing to do with parsing and analyzing language. And, therefore, if you can spell correctly, you may omit Orthography, and commence with Etymology and Syntax.

Orthography treats, 1st, of Letters, 2ndly, of Syllables, and 3dly, of Words.

I. LETTERS. A letter is the first principle, or least part, of a word.

The English Alphabet contains twenty-six letters.

They are divided into vowels and consonants.

A vowel is a letter that can be perfectly sounded by itself. The vowels are a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes w and y. W and y are consonants when they begin a word or syllable; but in every other situation they are vowels.

A consonant is a letter that cannot be perfectly sounded without the help of a vowel; as, b, d, f, l. All letters except the vowels are consonants.

Consonants are divided into mutes and semi-vowels.

The mutes cannot be sounded at all without the aid of a vowel. They are b, p, t, d, k, and c and g hard.

The semi-vowels have an imperfect sound of themselves. They are f, l, m, n, r, v, s, z, x, and c and g soft.

Four of the semi-vowels, namely, l, m, n, r, are called liquids, because they readily unite with other consonants, and flow, as it were, into their sounds.

A diphthong is the union of two vowels, pronounced by a single impulse of the voice; as oi in voice, ou in sound.

A triphthong is the union of three vowels pronounced in like manner; as, eau in beau, iew in view.

A proper diphthong has both the vowels sounded; as, ou in ounce. An improper diphthong has only one of the vowels sounded; as, oa in boat.

II. SYLLABLES. A Syllable is a distinct sound, uttered by a single impulse of the voice; as, a, an, ant.

A word of one syllable, is termed a Monosyllable; a word of two syllables, a Dissyllable; a word of three syllables, a Trisyllable; a word of four or more syllables, a Polysyllable.

III. WORDS. Words are articulate sounds, used by common consent, as signs of our ideas.

Words are of two sorts, primitive and derivative.

A primitive word is that which cannot be reduced to a simpler word in the language; as, man, good.

A derivative word is that which may be reduced to a simpler word; as, manful, goodness.

There is little or no difference between derivative and compound words. The terminations or added syllables, such as ed, es, ess, est, an, ant, en, ence, ent, dom, hood, ly, ous, ful, ness, and the like, were, originally, distinct and separate words, which, by long use, have been contracted, and made to coalesce with other words.

OF THE SOUNDS OF THE LETTERS.

A.—A has four sounds; the long; as in name, basin; the broad; as in ball, wall; the short; as in fagot, glass; and the flat, Italian sound; as in bar, farther. The improper diphthong, aa, has the short sound of a in Balaam, Canaan, Isaac; and the long sound of a in Baal, Gaal, Aaron.

The Latin diphthong, ae, has the long sound of e in aenigma, Caesar, and some other words. But many authors reject this useless excrescence of antiquity, and write, enigma, Cesar.

The diphthong, ai, has the long sound of a; as in pail, sail; except in plaid, said, again, raillery, fountain, Britain, and some others.

Au is sounded like broad a in taught, like flat a in aunt, like long o in hautboy, and like short o in laurel.

Aw has always the sound of broad a; as in bawl, crawl.

Ay has the long sound of a; as in pay, delay.

B.—B has only one sound; as in baker, number, chub.

B is silent when it follows m in the same syllable; as in lamb, &c. except in accumb, rhomb, and succumb. It is also silent before t in the same syllable; as in doubt, debtor, subtle, &c.

C.—C sounds like k before a, o, u, r, l, t, and at the end of syllables; as in cart, cottage, curious, craft, tract, cloth; victim, flaccid. It has the sound of s before e, i, and y; as in centre, cigar, mercy. C has the sound of sh when followed by a diphthong, and is preceded by the accent, either primary or secondary; as in social, pronunciation, &c.; and of z in discern, sacrifice, sice, suffice. It is mute in arbuscle, czar, czarina, endict, victuals, muscle.

Ch is commonly sounded like tsh; as in church, chin; but in words derived from the ancient languages, it has the sound of k; as in chemist, chorus; and likewise in foreign names; as in Achish, Enoch. In words from the French, ch sounds like sh; as in chaise, chevalier; and also like sh when preceded by l or n; as in milch, bench, clinch, &c.

Ch in arch, before a vowel, sounds like k; as in arch-angel, except in arched, archery, archer; archenemy; but before a consonant, it sounds like tsh; as in archbishop. Ch is silent in schedule, schism, yacht, drachm.

D.—D has one uniform sound; as in death, bandage. It sounds like dj or j when followed by long u preceded by the accent; as in educate, verdure. It also sounds like j in grandeur, soldier.

The termination, ed, in adjectives and participial adjectives, retains its distinct sound; as, a wick-ed man, a learn-ed man, bless-ed are the meek; but in verbs the e is generally dropped; as, passed, walked, flashed, aimed, rolled, &c. which are pronounced, past, walkt, flasht, aimd, rold.

E.—E has a long sound; as in scheme, severe; a short sound; as in men, tent; and sometimes the sound of flat a; as in sergeant; and of short i; as in yes, pretty, England, and generally in the unaccented terminations, es, et, en.

F.—F has one unvaried sound; as in fancy, muffin; except in of, which, when uncompounded, is pronounced ov. A wive's portion, a calve's head, are improper. They should be, wife's portion, calf's head.

G.—G has two sounds. It is hard before a, o, u, l, and r, and at the end of a word; as in gay, go, gun, glory; bag, snug. It is soft before e, i, and y; as in genius, ginger, Egypt. Exceptions; get, gewgaw, gimlet, and some others. G is silent before n, as in gnash.

H.—H has an articulate sound; as in hat, horse, hull. It is silent after r; as in rhetoric, rhubarb.

I.—I has a long sound; as in fine; and a short one; as in fin. Before r it is often sounded like u short; as in first, third; and in other words, like short e; as in birth, virtue. In some words it has the sound of long e; as in machine, profile.

J.—J has the sound of soft g; except in hallelujah, in which it is pronounced like y.

K.—K has the sound of c hard, and is used before e, i, and y, where c would be soft; as kept, skirt, murky. It is silent before n; as in knife, knell, knocker.

L.—L has always a soft liquid sound; as in love, billow. It is often silent; as in half, talk, almond.

M.—M has always the same sound; as in murmur, monumental; except in comptroller, which is pronounced controller.

N.—N has two sounds; the one pure; as in man, net, noble; the other a compound sound; as in ankle, banquet, distinct, &c., pronounced angkl, bangkwet. N final is silent when preceded by m; as in hymn, autumn.

O.—O has a long sound; as in note, over; and a short one; as in not, got. It has the sound of u short; as in son, attorney, doth, does; and generally in the terminations, op, ot, or, on, om, ol, od, &c.

P.—P has but one uniform sound; as in pin, slipper; except in cupboard, clapboard, where it has the sound of b. It is mute in psalm, Ptolemy, tempt, empty, corps, raspberry, and receipt.

Ph has the sound of f in philosophy, Philip; and of v in nephew, Stephen.

Q.—Q is sounded like k, and is always followed by u pronounced like w; as in quadrant, queen, conquest.

R.—R has a rough sound; as in Rome, river, rage; and a smooth one; as in bard, card, regard. In the unaccented termination re, the r is sounded after the e; as in fibre, centre.

S.—S has a flat sound like z; as in besom, nasal; and, at the beginning of words, a sharp, hissing sound; as in saint, sister, sample. It has the sound of sh when preceded by the accent and another s or a liquid, and followed by a diphthong or long u; as in expulsion, censure. S sounds like zh when preceded by the accent and a vowel, and followed by a diphthong or long u as in brasier, usual. It is mute in isle, corps, demesne, viscount.

T.—T is sounded in take, temper. T before u, when the accent precedes, and generally before eou, sounds like tsh; as, nature, virtue, righteous, are pronounced natshure, virtshue, richeus. Ti before a vowel, preceded by the accent, has the sound of sh; as in salvation, negotiation; except in such words as tierce, tiara, &c. and unless an s goes before; as, question; and excepting also derivatives from words ending in ty; as in mighty, mightier.

Th, at the beginning, middle, and end of words, is sharp; as in thick, panther, breath. Exceptions; then, booth, worthy, &c.

U.—U has three sounds; a long; as in mule, cubic; a short; as in dull, custard; and an obtuse sound; as in full, bushel. It is pronounced like short e in bury; and like short i in busy, business.

V.—V has uniformly the sound of flat f; as in vanity, love.

W.—W, when a consonant, has its sound, which is heard in wo, beware. W is silent before r; as in wry, wrap, wrinkle; and also in answer, sword, &c. Before h it is pronounced as if written after the h; as in why, when, what;—hwy, hwen, hwat. When heard as a vowel, it takes the sound of u; as in draw, crew, now.

X.—X has a sharp sound, like ks, when it ends a syllable with the accent on it; as, exit, exercise; or when it precedes an accented syllable which begins with any consonant except h; as, excuse, extent; but when the following accented syllable begins with a vowel or h, it has, generally, a flat sound, like gz; as in exert, exhort. X has the sound of Z at the beginning of proper names of Greek original; as in Xanthus, Xenophon, Xerxes.

Y.—Y, when a consonant, has its proper sound; as in youth, York, yes, new-year. When y is employed as a vowel, it has exactly the sound that i would have in the same situation; as in rhyme, system, party, pyramid.

Z.—Z has the sound of flat s; as in freeze, brazen.

RULES FOR SPELLING.

SPELLING is the art of expressing a word by its proper letters.

The following rules are deemed important in practice, although they assist us in spelling only a small portion of the words of our language. This useful art is to be chiefly acquired by studying the spelling-book and dictionary, and by strict attention in reading.

RULE I. Monosyllables ending in f, l, or s, double the final or ending consonant when it is preceded by a single vowel; as staff, mill, pass. Exceptions; of, if, is, as, lids, was, yes, his, this, us, and thus.

False Orthography for the learner to correct.—Be thou like the gale that moves the gras, to those who ask thy aid.—The aged hero comes forth on his staf; his gray hair glitters in the beam.—Shal mortal man be more just than God?—Few know the value of health til they lose it.—Our manners should be neither gros, nor excessively refined.

And that is not the lark, whose notes do beat The vaulty heaven so high above our heads: I have more care to stay, than wil to go.

RULE II. Monosyllables ending in any consonant but f, l, or s, never double the final consonant when it is preceded by a single vowel; as, man, hat. Exceptions; add, ebb, butt, egg, odd, err, inn, bunn, purr, and buzz.

False Orthography.—None ever went sadd from Fingal.—He rejoiced over his sonn.—Clonar lies bleeding on the bedd of death.—Many a trapp is set to insnare the feet of youth.

The weary sunn has made a golden sett, And, by the bright track of his golden carr, Gives token of a goodly day to-morrow.

RULE III. Words ending in y, form the plural of nouns, the persons of verbs, participial nouns, past participles, comparatives, and superlatives, by changing y into i, when the y is preceded by a consonant; as, spy, spies; I carry, thou carriest, he carries; carrier, carried; happy, happier, happiest.

The present participle in ing, retains the y that i may not be doubled; as, carry, carrying.

But when y is preceded by a vowel, in such instances as the above, it is not changed into i; as, boy, boys; I cloy, he cloys; except in the words lay, pay, and say I from which are formed laid, paid, and said; and their compounds, unpaid, unsaid, &c.

False Orthography.—Our fancys should be governed by reason.—Thou wearyest thyself in vain.—He denyed himself all sinful pleasures.

Win straiing souls with modesty and love; Cast none away.

The truly good man is not dismaied by poverty.
Ere fresh morning streak the east, we must be risen to reform yonder allies green.

RULE IV. When words ending in y, assume an additional syllable beginning with a consonant, the y, if it is preceded by a consonant, is commonly changed to i; as, happy, happily, happiness.

But when y is preceded by a vowel, in such instances, it is very rarely changed to i; as, coy, coyless; boy, boyish; boyhood; joy, joyless, joyful.

False Orthography.—His mind is uninfluenced by fancyful humors.—The vessel was heavyly laden.—When we act against conscience, we become the destroiers of our own peace.

Christiana, mayden of heroic mien! Star of the north! of northern stars the queen!

RULE V. Monosyllables, and words accented on the last syllable, ending with a single consonant that is preceded by a single vowel, double that consonant when they assume another syllable that begins with a vowel; as, wit, witty; thin, thinnish; to abet, an abetter.

But if a diphthong precedes, or the accent is not on the last syllable, the consonant remains single; as, to toil, toiling; to offer, an offering; maid, maiden.

False Orthography.—The business of to-day, should not be defered till to-morrow.—That law is annuled.—When we have outstriped our errors we have won the race.—By defering our repentance, we accumulate our sorrows.—The Christian Lawgiver has prohibited many things which the heathen philosophers allowed.

At summer eve, when heaven's aerial bow Spans with bright arch the glitterring hills below.— Thus mourned the hapless man; a thunderring sound Rolled round the shudderring walls and shook the ground.

RULE VI. Words ending in double l, in taking ness, less, ly, or ful, after them, generally omit one l; as, fulness, skilless, fully skilful.

But words ending in any double letter but l, and taking ness, less, ly, or ful, after them, preserve the letter double; as, harmlessness, carelessness, carelessly, stiffly, successful.

False Orthography.—A chillness generally precedes a fever.—He is wed to dullness.

The silent stranger stood amazed to see Contempt of wealth and willful poverty.

Restlesness of mind impairs our peace.—The road to the blisful regions, is as open to the peasant as to the king.—The arrows of calumny fall harmlesly at the feet of virtue.

RULE VII. Ness, less, ly, or ful, added to words ending in silent e, does not cut it off; as, paleness, guileless, closely, peaceful; except in a few words; as, duly, truly, awful.

False Orthography.—Sedatness is becoming.

All these with ceasless praise his works behold. Stars rush: and final ruin fiercly drives Her ploughshare o'er creation! ———Nature made a pause, An aweful pause! prophetic of her end!

RULE VIII. When words ending in silent e, assume the termination, ment, the e should not be cut off; as, abatement, chastisement.

Ment, like other terminations, changes y into i when the y is preceded by a consonant; as, accompany, accompaniment; merry, merriment.

False Orthography.—A judicious arrangment of studies facilitates improvment.—Encouragment is greatest when we least need it.

To shun allurments is not hard, To minds resolv'd, forwarn'd, and well prepared.

RULE IX. When words ending in silent e, assume the termination, able or ible, the e should generally be cut off; as, blame, blamable; cure, curable; sense, sensible. But if c or g soft comes before e in the original word, the e is preserved in words compounded with able; as, peace, peaceable; change, changeable.

False Orthography.—Knowledge is desireable.—Misconduct is inexcuseable.—Our natural defects are not chargable upon us.—We are made to be servicable to others as well as to ourselves.

RULE X. When ing or ish is added to words ending in silent e, the e is almost always omitted; as, place, placing; lodge, lodging; slave, slavish; prude, prudish.

False Orthography.—Labor and expense are lost upon a droneish spirit.—An obligeing and humble disposition, is totally unconnected with a servile and cringeing humor.

Conscience anticipateing time, Already rues th' unacted crime.

One self-approveing hour, whole years outweighs Of stupid starers, and of loud huzzas.

RULE XI. Compound words are generally spelled in the same manner as the simple words of which they are compounded; as, glasshouse, skylight, thereby, hereafter. Many words ending in double l, are exceptions to this rule; as, already, welfare, wilful, fulfil; and also the words, wherever, christmas, lammas, &c.

False Orthography.—The Jew's pasover was instituted in A.M. 2513.—They salute one another by touching their forheads.—That which is some times expedient, is not allways so.

Then, in the scale of reasoning life 'tis plain, There must be, somwhere, such a rank as man. Till hymen brought his lov-delighted hour, There dwelt no joy in Eden's rosy bower. The head reclined, the loosened hair, The limbs relaxed, the mournful air:— See, he looks up; a wofull smile Lightens his wo-worn cheek awhile.

You may now answer the following

QUESTIONS.

What is language?—How is language divided?—What is natural language?—What are the elements of natural language in man?—Wherein consists the language of brutes?—What is artificial language?—What is an idea?—What are words?—What is grammar?—What does Universal grammar explain?—Wherein does Particular grammar differ from universal?—What is the standard of grammatical accuracy?—What is Philosophical grammar?—What is Practical grammar?—What is a principle of grammar?—A definition?—A rule?—What is English grammar?—Into how many parts is grammar divided?—What does Orthography teach?

ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX

LECTURE II

OF NOUNS AND VERBS.

ETYMOLOGY treats of the different sorts of words, their various modifications, and their derivation.

SYNTAX treats of the agreement and government of words, and of their proper arrangement in a sentence.

The word ETYMOLOGY signifies the origin or pedigree of words.

Syn, a prefix from the Greek, signifies together. Syn-tax, means placing together; or, as applied in grammar, sentence making.

The rules of syntax, which direct to the proper choice of words, and their judicious arrangement in a sentence, and thereby enable us to correct and avoid errors in speech, are chiefly based on principles unfolded and explained by Etymology. Etymological knowledge, then, is a prerequisite to the study of Syntax; but, in parsing, under the head of Etymology, you are required to apply the rules of Syntax. It becomes necessary, therefore, in a practical work of this sort, to treat these two parts of grammar in connexion.

Conducted on scientific principles, Etymology would comprehend the exposition of the origin and meaning of words, and, in short, their whole history, including their application to things in accordance with the laws of nature and of thought, and the caprice of those who apply them; but to follow up the current of language to its various sources, and analyze the springs from which it flows, would involve a process altogether too arduous and extensive for an elementary work. It would lead to the study of all those languages from which ours is immediately derived, and even compel us to trace many words through those languages to others more ancient, and so on, until the chain of research would become, if not endless, at least, too extensive to be traced out by one man. I shall, therefore, confine myself to the following, limited views of this part of grammar.

1. Etymology treats of the classification of words.

2. Etymology explains the accidents or properties peculiar to each class or sort of words, and their present modifications. By modifications, I mean the changes produced on their endings, in consequence of their assuming different relations in respect to one another. These changes, such as fruit, fruits, fruit's; he, his, him; write, writest, writeth, writes, wrote, written, writing, writer; a, an; ample, amply, and the like, will be explained in their appropriate places.

3. Etymology treats of the derivation of words; that is, it teaches you how one word comes from, or grows out of another. For example, from the word speak, come the words speakest, speaketh, speaks, speaking, spoke, spoken, speaker, speaker's, speakers. These, you perceive, are all one and the same word, and all, except the last three, express the same kind of action. They differ from each other only in the termination. These changes in termination are produced on the word in order to make it correspond with the various persons who speak, the number of persons, or the time of speaking; as, I speak, thou speakest, the man speaketh, or speaks, the men speak, I spoke; The speaker speaks another speaker's speech.

The third part of Etymology, which is intimately connected with the second, will be more amply expanded in Lecture XIV, and in the Philosophical notes; but I shall not treat largely of that branch of derivation which consists in tracing words to foreign languages. This is the province of the lexicographer, rather than of the philologist. It is not the business of him who writes a practical, English grammar, to trace words to the Saxon, nor to the Celtic, the Greek, the Dutch, the Mexican, nor the Persian; nor is it his province to explain their meaning in Latin, French, or Hebrew, Italian, Mohegan, or Sanscrit; but it is his duty to explain their properties, their powers, their connexions, relations, dependancies, and, bearings, not at the period in which the Danes made an irruption into the island of Great Britain, nor in the year in which Lamech paid his addresses to Adah and Zillah, but at the particular period in which he writes. His words are already derived, formed, established, and furnished to his hand, and he is bound to take them and explain them as he finds them in his day, without any regard to their ancient construction and application.

CLASSIFICATION.

In arranging the parts of speech, I conceive it to be the legitimate object of the practical grammarian, to consult practical convenience. The true principle of classification seems to be, not a reference to essential differences in the primitive meaning of words, nor to their original combinations, but to the manner in which they are at present employed. In the early and rude state of society, mankind are quite limited in their knowledge, and having but few ideas to communicate, a small number of words answers their purpose in the transmission of thought. This leads them to express their ideas in short, detached sentences, requiring few or none of those connectives, or words of transition, which are afterwards introduced into language by refinement, and which contribute so largely to its perspicuity and elegance. The argument appears to be conclusive, then, that every language must necessarily have more parts of speech in its refined, than in its barbarous state.

The part of speech to which any word belongs, is ascertained, not by the original signification of that word, but by its present manner of meaning, or, rather, the office which it performs in a sentence.

The various ways in which a word is applied to the idea which it represents, are called its manner of meaning. Thus, The painter dips his paint brush in paint, to paint the carriage. Here, the word paint, is first employed to describe the brush which the painter uses; in this situation it is, therefore, an adjective; secondly, to name the mixture employed; for which reason it is a noun; and, lastly, to express the action performed; it therefore, becomes a verb; and yet, the meaning of the word is the same in all these applications. This meaning, however, is applied in different ways; and thus the same word becomes different parts of speech. Richard took water from the water pot, to water the plants.

ETYMOLOGY.

Etymology treats, first, of the classification of words.

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE is derived chiefly from the Saxon, Danish, Celtic, and Gothic; but in the progressive stages of its refinement, it has been greatly enriched by accessions from the Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, Italian, and German languages.

The number of words in our language, after deducting proper names, and words formed by the inflections of our verbs, nouns, and adjectives, may be estimated at about forty thousand.

There are ten sorts of words, called parts of speech, namely, the NOUN or SUBSTANTIVE, VERB, ARTICLE, ADJECTIVE, PARTICIPLE, ADVERB, PREPOSITION, PRONOUN, CONJUNCTION, and INTERJECTION.

Thus you perceive, that all the words in the English language are included in these ten classes: and what you have to do in acquiring a knowledge of English Grammar, is merely to become acquainted with these ten parts of speech, and the rules of Syntax that apply to them. The Noun and Verb are the most important and leading parts of speech; therefore they are first presented: all the rest (except the interjection) are either appendages or connectives of these two. As you proceed, you will find that it will require more time, and cost you more labor, to get a knowledge of the noun and verb, than it will to become familiar with all the minor parts of speech.

The principal use of words is, to name things, compare them with each other, and express their actions.

Nouns, which are the names of entities or things, adjectives which denote the comparisons and relations of things by describing them, and expressing their qualities, and verbs, which express the actions and being of things, are the only classes of words necessarily recognised in a philosophical view of grammar. But in a treatise which consults, mainly, the practical advantages of the learner, it is believed, that no classification will be found more convenient or accurate than the foregoing, which divides words into ten sorts. To attempt to prove, in this place, that nothing would be gained by adopting either a less or a greater number of the parts of speech, would be anticipating the subject. I shall, therefore, give my reasons for adopting this arrangement in preference to any other, as the different sorts of words are respectively presented to you, for then you will be better prepared to appreciate my arguments.

OF NOUNS.

A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing; as, man, Charleston, knowledge.

Nouns are often improperly called substantives. A substantive is the name of a substance only; but a noun is the name either of a substance or a quality.

Noun, derived from the Latin word nomen, signifies name. The name of any thing[1] that exists, whether animate or inanimate, or which we can see, hear, feel, taste, smell, or think of, is a noun. Animal, bird, creature, paper, pen, apple, fold, house, modesty, virtue, danger, are all nouns. In order that you may easily distinguish this part of speech from others, I will give you a sign, which will be useful to you when you cannot tell it by the sense. Any word that will make sense with the before it, is a noun. Try the following words by this sign, and see if they are nouns: tree, mountain, soul, mind, conscience, understanding. The tree, the mountain, the soul, and so on. You perceive, that they will make sense with the prefixed; therefore you know they are nouns. There are, however, exceptions to this rule, for some nouns will not make sense with the prefixed. These you will be able to distinguish, if you exercise your mind, by their making sense of themselves; as, goodness, sobriety, hope, immortality.

Nouns are used to denote the nonentity or absence of a thing, as well as its reality; as, nothing, naught, vacancy, non-existence, invisibility.

Nouns are sometimes used as verbs, and verbs, as nouns, according to their manner of meaning; and nouns are sometimes used as adjectives, and adjectives, as nouns. This matter will be explained in the concluding part of this lecture, where you will be better prepared to comprehend it.

NOUNS are of two kinds, common and proper.

A Common noun is the name of a sort or species of things; as, man, tree, river.

A Proper noun is the name of an individual; as, Charles, Ithaca, Ganges.

A noun signifying many, is called a collective noun, or noun of multitude; as, the people, the army.

The distinction between a common and a proper noun, is very obvious. For example: boy is a common noun, because it is a name applied to all boys; but Charles is a proper noun, because it is the name of an individual boy. Although many boys may have the same name, yet you know it is not a common noun, for the name Charles is not given to all boys. Mississippi is a proper noun, because it is the name of an individual river; but river is a common noun, because it is the name of a species of things, and the name river is common to all rivers.

Nouns which denote the genus, species, or variety of beings or things, are always common; as, tree, the genus; oak, ash, chestnut, poplar, different species; and red oak, white oak, black oak, varieties. The word earth, when it signifies a kind or quantity of dirt, is a common noun; but when it denotes the planet we inhabit, it is a proper noun. The words person, place, river, mountain, lake, &c. are common nouns, because they are the names of whole species, or classes of things containing many sorts; but the names of persons, places, rivers, mountains, lakes, &c. are proper nouns, because they denote individuals; as, Augustus, Baltimore, Alps, Huron.

Physician, lawyer, merchant, and shoemaker, are common nouns, because these names are common to classes of men. God and Lord, when applied to Jehovah or Jesus Christ, are proper; but when employed to denote heathen or false gods, or temporal lords, they are common. The Notes and remarks throughout the work, though of minor importance, demand your attentive and careful perusal.

NOTES.

1. When proper nouns have an article annexed to them, they are used after the manner of common nouns; as, "Bolivar is styled the Washington of South America."

2. Common nouns are sometimes used to signify individuals, when articles or pronouns are prefixed to them; as, "The boy is studious; That girl is discreet." In such instances, they are nearly equivalent to proper nouns.

3. Common nouns are sometimes subdivided into the following classes: Nouns of Multitude; as, The people, the parliament: Verbal or participial nouns; as, The beginning, reading, writing; and Abstract nouns, or the names of qualities abstracted from their substances; as, knowledge, virtue, goodness. Lest the student be led to blend the idea of abstract nouns with that of adjectives, both of which denote qualities, a farther illustration appears to be necessary, in order to mark the distinction between these two parts of speech. An abstract noun denotes a quality considered apart (that is, abstracted) from the substance or being to which it belongs; but an adjective denotes a quality joined (adjected) to the substance or being to which it belongs. Thus, whiteness and white both denote the same quality; but we speak of whiteness as a distinct object of thought, while we use the word white always in reference to the noun to which it belongs; as, white paper, white mouse.

4. Some authors have proceeded to still more minute divisions and sub-divisions of nouns; such, for example, as the following, which appear to be more complex than useful: Natural nouns, or names of things formed by nature; as, man, beast, water, air: 2. Artificial nouns, or names of things formed by art; as, book, vessel, house: 3. Personal nouns, or those which stand for human beings; as, man, woman, Edwin: 4. Neuter nouns, or those which denote things inanimate; as, book, field, mountain, Cincinnati. The following, however, is quite a rational division: Material nouns are the names of things formed of matter; as, stone, book: Immaterial nouns are the names of things having no substance; as, hope, immortality.

To nouns belong gender, person, number, and case.

GENDER.

GENDER is the distinction of sex. Nouns have three genders, the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter.

The masculine gender denotes males; as, a man, a boy.

The feminine gender denotes females; as, a woman, a girl.

The neuter gender denotes things without sex; as, a hat, a stick.

Neuter means neither: therefore neuter gender signifies neither gender; that is, neither masculine nor feminine. Hence, neuter gender means no gender. Strictly speaking, then, as there are but two sexes, nouns have but two genders; but for the sake of practical convenience, we apply to them three genders, by calling that a gender which is no gender. The English and the pure Persian, appear to be the only languages which observe, in the distinction of sex, the natural division of nouns.—The genders of nouns are so easily known, that a farther explanation of them is unnecessary, except what is given in the following

NOTES.

1. The same noun is sometimes masculine and feminine, and sometimes masculine or feminine. The noun parents is of the masculine and feminine gender. The nouns parent, associate, neighbor, servant, friend, child, bird, fish, &c. if doubtful, are of the masculine or feminine gender.

2. Some nouns naturally neuter, are, when used figuratively, or personified, converted into the masculine or feminine gender. Those nouns are generally rendered masculine, which are conspicuous for the attributes of imparting or communicating, and which are by nature strong and efficacious; as, the sun, time, death, sleep, winter, &c. Those, again, are generally feminine, which are conspicuous for the attributes of containing or bringing forth, or which are very beautiful, mild, or amiable; as, the earth, moon, church, boat, vessel, city, country, nature, ship, soul, fortune, virtue, hope, spring, peace, &c. This principle for designating the sex of a personified object, which is quite rational, is generally adhered to in the English language; but, in some instances, the poet applies the sex according to his fancy.

The masculine and feminine genders are distinguished in three ways:

1. By different words; as,

Masculine. Feminine.
Bachelor maid
Boar sow
Boy girl
Brother sister
Buck doe
Bull cow
Cock hen
Dog bitch
Drake duck
Earl countess
Father mother
Friar nun
Gander goose
Hart roe
Horse mare
Husband wife
King queen
Lad lass
Lord lady
Man woman
Master mistress
Milter spawner
Nephew niece
Ram ewe
Singer songstress or singer
Sloven slut
Son daughter
Stag hind
Uncle aunt
Wizard witch
Sir madam

2. By a difference in termination; as,

Actor actress
Administrator administratrix
Adulterer adulteress
Ambassador ambassadress
Arbiter arbitress
Auditor auditress
Author authoress
Baron baroness
Benefactor benefactress
Bridegroom bride
Canon canoness
Caterer cateress
Chanter chantress
Conductor conductress
Count countess
Czar czarina
Deacon deaconess
Detracter detractress
Director directress
Duke dutchess
Elector electress
Embassador embassadress
Emperor emperess
Enchanter enchantress
Executor executrix
Fornicator fornicatress
God goddess
Governor governess
Heir heiress
Hero heroine
Host hostess
Hunter huntress
Inheritor inheritress or inheritrix
Instructor instructress
Jew Jewess
Lion lioness
Marquis marchioness
Mayor mayoress
Patron patroness
Peer peeress
Poet poetess
Priest priestess
Prince princess
Prior prioress
Prophet prophetess
Proprietor proprietress
Protector protectress
Shepherd shepherdess
Songster songstress
Sorcerer sorceress
Suiter suitress
Sultan sultaness or sultana
Tiger tigress
Testator testatrix
Traitor traitress
Tutor tutoress
Tyrant tyranness
Victor victress
Viscount viscountess
Votary votaress
Widower widow

3. By prefixing another word; as,

A cock-sparrow A hen-sparrow
A man-servant A maid-servant
A he-goat A she-goat
A he-bear A she-bear
A male-child A female-child
Male-descendants Female-descendants

PERSON.

PERSON is a property of the noun and pronoun which varies the verb.

The first person denotes the speaker.

The second person denotes the person or thing spoken to; as, "Listen, earth!"

The third person denotes the person or thing spoken of; as, "The earth thirsts."

Nouns have but two persons, the second and third. When a man speaks, the pronoun I or we is always used; therefore nouns can never be in the first person. In examples like the following, some philologists suppose the noun to be in the first person:—"This may certify, that I, Jonas Taylor, do hereby give and grant," &c. But it is evident, that the speaker or writer, in introducing his own name, speaks of himself; consequently the noun is of the third person.

If you wish to understand the persons of nouns, a little sober thought is requisite; and, by exercising it, all difficulties will be removed. If I say, my son, have you seen the young man? you perceive that the noun son is of the second person, because I address myself to him; that is, he is spoken to; but the noun man is of the third person, because he is spoken of. Again, if I say, young man, have you seen my son? man is of the second person, and son is of the third.

"Hast thou left thy blue course in the heavens, golden-haired sun of the sky?"

"Father, may the Great Spirit so brighten the chain of friendship between us, that a child may find it, when the sun is asleep in his wig-wam behind the western waters."

"Lo, earth receives him from the bending skies!

Sink down, ye mountains, and, ye valleys, rise!"

"Eternal Hope, thy glittering wings explore

Earth's loneliest bounds, and ocean's wildest shore."

In these examples, the nouns, sun, father, mountains, valleys, and hope, are of the second person, and, as you will hereafter learn, in the nominative case independent. Course, heavens, sky, Spirit, chain, friendship, child, sun, wig-wam, waters, earth, skies, wings, earth, bounds, ocean, and shore, are all of the third person.

NUMBER.

Number is the distinction of objects, as one or more. Nouns are of two numbers, the singular and the plural.

The singular number implies but one; as, a book.

The plural number implies more than one; as, books.

NOTES.

1. Some nouns are used only in the singular form; as, hemp, flax, barley, wheat, pitch, gold, sloth, pride, honesty, meekness, compassion, &c.; others only in the plural form; as, bellows, scissors, ashes, riches, snuffers, tongs, thanks, wages, embers, ides, pains, vespers, &c.

2. Some words are the same in both numbers; as, deer, sheep, swine; and, also, hiatus, apparatus, series, species.

3. The plural number of nouns is generally formed by adding s to the singular; as, dove, doves; face, faces; but sometimes we add es in the plural; as, box, boxes; church, churches; lash, lashes; cargo, cargoes.

4. Nouns ending in f or fe, are rendered plural by a change of that termination into ves; as, half, halves; wife, wives: except grief, relief, reproof, and several others, which form their plurals by the addition of s. Those ending in ff, have the regular plural; as, ruff, ruffs; except staff, staves.

5. Nouns ending in y in the singular, with no other vowel in the same syllable, change it into ies in the plural; as, beauty, beauties; fly, flies. But the y is not changed, where there is another vowel in the syllable; as, key, keys; delay, delays; attorney, attorneys; valley, valleys; chimney, chimneys.

6. Mathematics, metaphysics, politics, optics, ethics, pneumatics, hydraulics, &c. are construed either as singular or plural nouns.

7. The word news is always singular. The nouns means, alms, and amends, though plural in form, may be either singular or plural in signification. Antipodes, credenda, literati, and minutiæ are always plural. Bandit is now used as the singular of Banditti.

8. The following nouns form their plurals not according to any general rule; thus, man, men; woman, women; child, children; ox, oxen; tooth, teeth; goose, geese; foot, feet; mouse, mice; louse, lice; brother, brothers or brethren; cow, cows or kine; penny, pence, or pennies when the coin is meant; die, dice for play, dies for coining; pea and fish, pease and fish when the species is meant, but peas and fishes when we refer to the number; as, six peas, ten fishes.

9. The following compounds form their plurals thus: handful, handfuls; cupful, cupfuls; spoonful, spoonfuls:—brother-in-law, brothers-in-law; court-martial, courts-martial.

The following words form their plurals according to the rules of the languages from which they are adopted.

Singular Plural.
Antithesis antitheses
Apex apices
Appendix {appendixes or
{appendices
Arcanum arcana
Automaton automata
Axis axes
Basis bases
Beau {beaux or
{beaus
Calx {calces or
{calxes
Cherub {cherubim or
{cherubs
Crisis crises
Criterion criteria
Datum data
Diæresis diæreses
Desideratum desiderata
Effluvium effluvia
Ellipsis ellipses
Emphasis emphases
Encomium {encomia or
{encomiums
Erratum errata
Genius genii [2]
Genus genera
Hypothesis hypotheses
Ignis fatuus ignes fatui
Index {indices or
{indexes[3]
Lamina laminae
Magus magi
Memorandum {memoranda or
{memorandums
Metamorphosis metamorphoses
Parenthesis parentheses
Phenomenon phenomena
Radius {radii or
{radiuses
Stamen stamina
Seraph {seraphim or
{seraphs
Stimulus stimuli
Stratum strata
Thesis theses
Vertex vertices
Vortex {vortices or
{vortexes

CASE.

Case, when applied to nouns and pronouns, means the different state, situation, or position they have in relation to other words. Nouns have three cases, the nominative, the possessive, and the objective.

I deem the essential qualities of case, in English, to consist, not in the changes or inflections produced on nouns and pronouns, but in the various offices which they perform in a sentence, by assuming different positions in regard to other words. In accordance with this definition, these cases can be easily explained on reasoning principles, founded in the nature of things.

Now, five grains of common sense will enable any one to comprehend what is meant by case. Its real character is extremely simple; but in the different grammars it assumes as many meanings as Proteus had shapes. The most that has been written on it, however, is mere verbiage. What, then, is meant by case? In speaking of a horse, for instance, we say he is in a good case, when he is fat, and in a bad case, when he is lean, and needs more oats; and in this sense we apply the term case to denote the state or condition of the horse. So, when we place a noun before a verb as actor or subject, we say it is in the nominative case; but when it follows a transitive verb or preposition, we say it has another case; that is, it assumes a new position or situation in the sentence: and this we call the objective case. Thus, the boy gathers fruit. Here the boy is represented as acting. He is, therefore, in the nominative case. But when I say, Jane struck the boy, I do not represent the boy as the actor, but as the object of the action. He is, therefore, in a new case or condition. And when I say, This is the boy's hat, I do not speak of the boy either as acting or as acted upon; but as possessing something: for which reason he is in the possessive case. Hence, it is clear, that nouns have three cases or positions.

As the nominative and objective cases of the noun are inseparably connected with the verb, it is impossible for you to understand them until you shall have acquired some knowledge of this part of speech. I will, therefore, now give you a partial description of the verb in connexion with the noun; which will enable me to illustrate the cases of the noun so clearly, that you may easily comprehend their nature.

In the formation of language, mankind, in order to hold converse with each other, found it necessary, in the first place, to give names to the various objects by which they were surrounded. Hence the origin of the first part of speech, which we denominate the noun. But merely to name the objects which they beheld or thought of, was not sufficient for their purpose. They perceived that these objects existed, moved, acted, or caused some action to be done. In looking at a man, for instance, they perceived that he lived, walked, ate, smiled, talked, ran, and so on. They perceived that plants grow, flowers bloom, and rivers flow. Hence the necessity of another part of speech, whose office it should be to express these existences and actions. This second class of words we call

VERBS.

A verb is a word which signifies to BE, to DO, or to SUFFER; as, I am; I rule; I am ruled.

Verbs are of three kinds, active, passive, and neuter. They are also divided into regular, irregular, and defective.

The term verb is derived from the Latin word verbum, which signifies a word. This part of speech is called a verb or word, because it is deemed the most important word in every sentence: and without a verb and nominative, either expressed or implied, no sentence can exist. The noun is the original and leading part of speech; the verb comes next in order, and is far more complex than the noun. These two are the most useful in the language, and form the basis of the science of grammar. The other eight parts of speech are subordinate to these two, and, as you will hereafter learn, of minor importance.

For all practical purposes, the foregoing definition and division of the verb, though, perhaps, not philosophically correct, will be found as convenient as any other. I adopt them, therefore, to be consistent with the principle, that, in arranging the materials of this treatise, I shall not alter or reject any established definition, rule, or principle of grammar, unless, in my humble judgment, some practical advantage to the learner is thereby gained. The following, some consider a good definition.

A VERB is a word which expresses affirmation.

An active verb expresses action; and
The nominative case is the actor, or subject of the verb; as, John writes.

In this example, which is the verb? You know it is the word writes, because this word signifies to do; that is, it expresses action, therefore, according to the definition, it is an active verb. And you know, too, that the noun John is the actor, therefore John is in the nominative case to the verb writes. In the expressions, The man walks—The boy plays—Thunders roll—- Warriors fight—you perceive that the words walks, plays, roll, and fight, are active verbs; and you cannot be at a loss to know, that the nouns man, boy, thunders, and warriors, are in the nominative case.

As no action can be produced without some agent or moving cause, it follows, that every active verb must have some actor or agent. This actor, doer, or producer of the action, is the nominative. Nominative, from the Latin nomino, literally signifies to name; but in the technical sense in which it is used in grammar, it means the noun or pronoun which is the subject of affirmation. This subject or nominative may be active, passive, or neuter, as hereafter exemplified.

A neuter verb expresses neither action nor passion, but being, or a state of being; as, John sits.

Now, in this example, John is not represented as an actor, but, as the subject of the verb sits, therefore John is in the nominative case to the verb. And you know that the word sits does not express apparent action, but a condition of being; that is, it represents John in a particular state of existence; therefore sits is a neuter verb. In speaking of the neuter gender of nouns, I informed you, that neuter means neither; from which it follows, that neuter gender implies neither gender; that is, neither masculine nor feminine. Hence, by an easy transition of thought, you learn, that neuter, when applied to verbs, means neither of the other two classes; that is, a neuter verb is one which is neither active nor passive. In these examples, The man stands—The lady lives—The child sleeps—The world exists—the words stands, lives, sleeps, and exists, are neuter verbs; and the nouns, man, lady, child, and world, are all in the nominative case, because each is the subject of a verb. Thus you perceive, that when a noun is in the nominative case to an active verb, it is the actor; and when it is nominative to a neuter verb, it is not an actor, but the subject of the verb.

Some neuter verbs express being in general; as, The man is; Kingdoms exist. Others express being in some particular state; as, The man stands, sits, lies, or hangs.

I will now give you two signs, which will enable you to distinguish the verb from other parts of speech, when you cannot tell it by its signification. Any word that will make sense with to before it, is a verb. Thus, to run, to write, to smile, to sing, to hear, to ponder, to live, to breathe, are verbs. Or, any word that will conjugate, is a verb. Thus, I run, thou runnest, he runs; I write, thou writest, he writes; I smile, &c. But the words, boy, lady, child, and world, will not make sense with to prefixed—to boy, to lady, to world, is nonsense. Neither will they conjugate—I lady, thou ladiest, &c. is worse than nonsense. Hence you perceive, that these words are not verbs. There are some exceptions to these rules, for verbs are sometimes used as nouns. This will be explained by and by.

To verbs belong number, person, mood, and tense.

At present I shall speak only of the number and person of verbs; but hereafter I will give you a full explanation of all their properties. And permit me to inform you, that I shall not lead you into the intricacies of the science, until, by gradual and easy progressions, you are enabled to comprehend the principles involved in them. Only such principles will be elucidated, as you are prepared to understand at the time they are unfolded before you. You must not be too anxious to get along rapidly; but endeavor to become thoroughly acquainted with one principle, before you undertake another. This lecture will qualify you for the next.

NUMBER AND PERSON OF VERBS. You recollect, that the nominative is the actor or subject, and the active verb is the action performed by the nominative. By this you perceive, that a very intimate connexion or relation exists between the nominative case and the verb. If, therefore, only one creature or thing acts, only one action, at the same instant, can be done; as, The girl writes. The nominative girl is here of the singular number, because it signifies but one person; and the verb writes denotes but one action, which the girl performs; therefore the verb writes is of the singular number, agreeing with its nominative girl. When the nominative case is plural, the verb must be plural; as, girls write. Take notice, the singular verb ends in s, but the noun is generally plural when it ends in s; thus, The girl writes—the girls write.

Person, strictly speaking, is a quality that belongs not to verbs, but to nouns and pronouns. We say, however, that the verb must agree with its nominative in person, as well as in number; that is, the verb must be spelled and spoken in such a manner as to correspond with the first, second, or third person of the noun or pronoun which is its nominative.

I will now show you how the verb is varied in order to agree with its nominative in number and person. I, Thou, He, She, It; We, Ye or You, They, are personal pronouns. I is of the first person, and singular number; Thou is second person, sing.; He, She, or It, is third per. sing.; We is first per. plural; Ye or You is second per. plural; They is third per. plural. These pronouns are the representatives of nouns, and perform the same office that the nouns would for which they stand. When placed before the verb, they are, therefore, the nominatives to the verb.

Notice particularly, the different variations or endings of the verb, as it is thus conjugated in the

INDICATIVE MOOD, PRESENT TENSE.

Singular. Plural.
1. Per. I walk, 1. Per. We Walk,
2. Per. Thou walkest, 2. Per. Ye or you walk,
3. Per. He walks, or the boy walks, or walketh. 3. Per. They walk, or the boys walk.

This display of the verb shows you, that whenever it ends in est, it is of the second person singular; but when the verb ends in s, or eth, it is of the third person singular. Walkest, ridest, standest, are of the second person singular; and walks or walketh, rides or rideth, stands or standeth, are of the third person singular.

I have told you, that when the nominative is singular number, the verb must be; when the nominative is plural, the verb must be; and when the nominative is first, second, or third person, the verb must be of the same person. If you look again at the foregoing conjugation of walk, you will notice that the verb varies if its endings in the singular, in order to agree in form with the first, second, and third person of its nominative; but in the plural it does not vary its endings from the first person singular. The verb, however, agrees in sense with its nominative in the plural, as well as in the singular. Exercise a little mind, and you will perceive that agreement and government in language do not consist merely in the form of words. Now, is it not clear, that when I say, I walk, the verb walk is singular, because it expresses but one action? And when I say, Two men walk, is it not equally apparent, that walk is plural, because it expresses two actions? In the sentence, Ten men walk, the verb walk denotes ten actions, for there are ten actors. Common sense teaches you, that there must be as many actions as there are actors; and that the verb, when it has no form or ending to show it, is as strictly plural, as when it has.—So, in the phrase, We walk, the verb walk is first person, because it expresses the actions performed by the speakers: Ye or you walk, the verb is second person, denoting the actions of the persons spoken to; third person, They walk. The verb, then, when correctly written, always agrees, in sense, with its nominative in number and person.

At present you are learning two parts of speech, neither of which can be understood without a knowledge of the other. It therefore becomes necessary to explain them both, in the same lecture. You have been already informed, that nouns have three cases; the nominative, the possessive, and the objective.

POSSESSIVE CASE. The possessive case denotes the possessor of something; as, This is John's horse. This expression implies, that John is the owner or possessor of the horse; and, that horse is the property which he possesses.

When I say, These are the men's, and those, the boys' hats, the two words, "boys' hats," plainly convey the idea, if they have any meaning at all, that the boys own or possess the hats. "Samuel Badger sells boys' hats." Who owns the hats? Mr. Badger. How is that fact ascertained? Not by the words, "boys' hats," which, taken by themselves, imply, not that they are Mr. Badger's hats, nor that they are for boys, but that they are hats of, or belonging to, or possessed by boys. But we infer from the words connected with the phrase, "boys' hats," that the boys are not yet, as the phrase literally denotes, in the actual possession of the hats. The possession is anticipated.

In the phrases, fine hats, coarse hats, high-crowned hats, broad-brimmed hats, woollen, new, ten, some, these, many hats, the words in italics, are adjectives, because they restrict, qualify, or define the term hats; but the term boys' does not describe or limit the meaning of hats. Boys', therefore, is not, as some suppose, an adjective.

"The slave's master." Does the slave possess the master? Yes. The slave has a master. If he has him, then, he possesses him;—he sustains that relation to him which we call possession.

A noun in the possessive case, is always known by its having an apostrophe, and generally an s after it; thus, John's, hat; the boy's coat. When a plural noun in the possessive case, ends in s, the apostrophe is added, but no additional s; as, "Boys' hats; Eagles' wings." When a singular noun ends in ss, the apostrophe only is added; as, "For goodness' sake; for righteousness' sake;" except the word witness; as, "The witness's testimony." When a noun in the possessive case ends in ence, the s is omitted, but the apostrophe is retained; as, "For conscience' sake."

Now please to turn back, and read over this and the preceding lecture three times, and endeavor, not only to understand, but, also, to remember, what you read. In reading, proceed thus: read one sentence over slowly, and then look off the book, and repeat it two or three times over in your mind. After that, take another sentence and proceed in the same manner, and so on through the whole lecture. Do not presume to think, that these directions are of no real consequence to you; for, unless you follow them strictly, you need not expect to make rapid progress. On the other hand, if you proceed according to my instructions, you will be sure to acquire a practical knowledge of grammar in a short time.—When you shall have complied with this requisition, you may commit the following order of parsing a noun, and the order of parsing a verb; and then you will be prepared to parse or analyze the following examples.

ANALYSIS, OR PARSING.

Do you recollect the meaning of the word analysis? If you do not, I will explain if: and first, I wish you to remember, that analysis is the reverse of synthesis. Synthesis is the act of combining simples so as to form a whole or compound. Thus, in putting together letters so as to form syllables, syllables so as to form words, words so as to form sentences, and sentences so as to form a discourse, the process is called synthetic. Analysis, on the contrary, is the act of decomposition; that is, the act of separating any thing compounded into its simple parts, and thereby exhibiting its elementary principles. Etymology treats of the analysis of language. To analyze a sentence, is to separate from one another and classify the different words of which it is composed; and to analyze or parse a word, means to enumerate and describe all its various properties, and its grammatical relations with respect to other words in a sentence, and trace it through all its inflections or changes. Perhaps, to you, this will, at first, appear to be of little importance; but, if you persevere, you will hereafter find it of great utility, for parsing will enable you to detect, and correct, errors in composition.

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.

LECTURE III.

OF ARTICLES.

An article is a word prefixed to nouns to limit their signification; as, a man, the woman.

There are only two articles, a or an, and the. A or an is called the indefinite article. The is called the definite article.

The indefinite article limits the noun to one of a kind, but to no particular one; as, a house.

The definite article generally limits the noun to a particular object, or collection of objects; as, the house, the men.

The small claims of the article to a separate rank as a distinct part of speech, ought not to be admitted in a scientific classification of words. A and the, this and that, ten, few, and fourth, and many other words, are used to restrict, vary, or define the signification of the nouns to which they are joined. They might, therefore, with propriety, be ranked under the general head of Restrictives, Indexes, or Defining Adjectives. But, as there is a marked distinction in their particular meaning and application, each class requires a separate explanation. Hence, no practical advantage would be gained, by rejecting their established classification, as articles, numerals, and demonstratives, and by giving them new names. The character and application of a and the can be learned as soon when they are styled articles, as when they are denominated specifying or defining adjectives.

The history of this part of speech is very brief. As there are but two articles, a or an and the, you will know them wherever they occur.

A noun used without an article, or any other restrictive, is taken in its general sense; as, "Fruit is abundant;" "Gold is heavy;" "Man is born to trouble" Here we mean, fruit and gold in general; and all men, or mankind.

When we wish to limit the meaning of the noun to one object, but to no particular one, we employ a or an. If I say, "Give me a pen;" "Bring me an apple;" you are at liberty to fetch any pen or any apple you please. A or an, then, is indefinite, because it leaves the meaning of the noun to which it is applied, as far as regards the person spoken to, vague, or indeterminate; that is, not definite. But when reference is made to a particular object, we employ the, as, "Give me the pen;" "Bring me the apple, or the apple." When such a requisition is made, you are not at liberty to bring any pen or apple you please, but you must fetch the particular pen or apple to which you know me to refer. The is, therefore, called the definite article.

"A star appears." Here, the star referred to, may be known as a particular star, definite, and distinguished from all others, in the mind of the speaker; but to the hearer, it is left, among the thousands that bedeck the vault of heaven, undistinguished and indefinite. But when the star has previously been made the subject of discourse, it becomes, in the minds of both speaker and hearer a definite object, and he says, "The star appears;" that is, that particular star about which we were discoursing.

"Solomon built a temple." Did he build any temple, undetermined which? No; it was a particular temple, pre-eminently distinguished from all others. But how does it become a definite object in the mind of the hearer? Certainly, not by the phrase, "a temple," which indicates any temple, leaving it altogether undetermined which; but supposing the person addressed was totally unacquainted with the fact asserted, and it becomes to him, in one respect only, a definite and particular temple, by means of the associated words, "Solomon built;" that is, by the use of these words in connexion with the others, the hearer gets the idea of a temple distinguished as the one erected by Solomon. If the speaker were addressing one whom he supposed to be unacquainted with the fact related, he might make the temple referred to a still more definite object in the mind of the hearer by a farther explanation of it; thus, "Solomon built a temple on mount Zion; and that was the temple to which the Jews resorted to worship."

"The lunatic, the poet, and the lover,
"Are of imagination all compact."

"The horse is a noble animal;" "The dog is a faithful creature;" "The wind blows;" "The wolves were howling in the woods." In these examples, we do not refer to any particular lunatics, poets, lovers, horses, dogs, winds, wolves, and woods, but we refer to these particular classes of things, in contradistinction to other objects or classes. The phrase, "Neither the one nor the other," is an idiom of the language.

REMARKS.—This method of elucidating the articles, which is popular with Blair, Priestley, Lowth, Johnson, Harris, Beattie, Coote, Murray, and many other distinguished philologists, is discarded by some of our modern writers. But, by proving that this theory is exceptionable, they by no means make it appear, that it ought, therefore, to be rejected.

Exceptionable or not, they have not been able to supply its place with one that is more convenient in practice. Neither have they adopted one less exceptionable. The truth is, after all which can be done to render the definitions and rules of grammar comprehensive and accurate, they will still be found, when critically examined by men of learning and science, more or less exceptionable. These exceptions and imperfections are the unavoidable consequence of the imperfections of the language. Language, as well as every thing else of human invention, will always be imperfect. Consequently, a perfect system of grammatical principles, would not suit it. A perfect grammar will not be produced, until some perfect being writes it for a perfect language; and a perfect language will not be constructed, until some super-human agency is employed in its production. All grammatical principles and systems which are not perfect, are exceptionable.

NOTES.

1. The article is omitted before nouns implying the different virtues, vices, passions, qualities, sciences, arts, metals, herbs, &c.; as, "Modesty is becoming; Falsehood is odious; Grammar is useful," &c.

2. The article is not prefixed to proper nouns; as, Barron killed Decatur; except by way of eminence, or for the sake of distinguishing a particular family, or when some noun is understood; as, "He is not a Franklin; He is a Lee, or of the family of the Lees; We sailed down the (river) Missouri."

3. An adjective is frequently placed between the article and the noun with which the article agrees; as, "A good boy; an industrious man." Sometimes the adjective precedes the article; as, "As great a man as Alexander; Such a shame."

4. In referring to many individuals, when we wish to bring each separately under consideration, the indefinite article is sometimes placed between the adjective many and a singular noun; as, "Where many a rosebud rears its blushing head;" "Full many a flower is born to blush unseen."

5. The definite article the is frequently applied to adverbs in the comparative or superlative degree; as, "The more I examine it, the better I like it," "I like this the least of any."

You may proceed and parse the following articles, when you shall have committed this

SYSTEMATIC ORDER OF PARSING

The order of parsing an Article, is—an article, and why?—definite or indefinite, and why?—with what noun does it agree?—RULE.

"He is the son of a king."

The is an article, a word prefixed to a noun to limit its signification—definite, it limits the noun to a particular object—it belongs to the noun "son," according to

RULE 2. The definite article the belongs to nouns in the singular or plural number.

A is an article, a word placed before a noun to limit its signification—indefinite, it limits the noun to one of a kind, but to no particular one—it agrees with "king," agreeably to

RULE 1. The article a or an agrees with nouns in the singular number only.

NOTE. By considering the original meaning of this article, the propriety of Rule 1, will appear. A or an, (formerly written ane,) being equivalent to one, any one, or some one, cannot be prefixed to nouns in the plural number. There is, however, an exception to this rule. A is placed before a plural noun when any of the following adjectives come between the article and the noun: few, great, many, dozen, hundred, thousand, million; as, a few men, a thousand houses, &c.

EXERCISES IN PARSING.

A bird sings. An eagle flies. Mountains stand. The multitude pursue pleasure. The reaper reaps the farmer's grain. Farmers mow the grass. Farmers' boys spread the hay. The clerk sells the merchant's goods. An ostrich outruns an Arab's horse. Cecrops founded Athens. Gallileo invented the telescope. James Macpherson translated Ossian's poems. Sir Francis Drake circumnavigated the globe. Doctor Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning-rod. Washington Irving wrote the Sketch-Book.

I will now offer a few remarks on the misapplication of the articles, which, with the exercise of your own discriminating powers, will enable you to use them with propriety. But, before you proceed, please to answer the following

QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED IN PARSING.

How many articles are there?—In what sense is a noun taken, when it has no article to limit it?—Repeat the order of parsing an article.—What rule applies in parsing the definite article?—What rule in parsing the indefinite?

PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.

A, AN, THE.

In a scientific arrangement of grammatical principles, a and the belong to that class of adjectives denominated definitives or restrictives.

A, an, ane, or one, is the past participle of ananad, to add, to join. It denotes that the thing to which it is prefixed, is added, united, aned, an-d, oned, (woned,) or made one.

The and that. According to Horne Tooke, the is the imperative, and that, the past participle, of the Anglo-Saxon verb thean, to get, take, assume. The and that had, originally, the same meaning. The difference in their present application, is a modern refinement. Hence, that, as well as the, was formerly used, indifferently, before either a singular or a plural noun.

QUESTIONS ON THE NOTES.

Before what nouns is the article omitted?—Is the article the ever applied to adverbs?—Give examples.—What is the meaning of a or an? —When is a or an placed before a plural noun?—From what are a, the, and that derived?

EXERCISES IN FALSE SYNTAX.

NOTE TO RULE 1. An is used before a vowel or silent h, and a before a consonant or u long, and also before the word one.

It is not only disagreeable to the ear, but, according to this note, improper to say, a apple, a humble suppliant, an hero, an university, because the word apple begins with a vowel, and h is not sounded in the word humble, for which reasons a should be an in the first two examples; but, as the h is sounded in hero, and the u is long in university, a ought to be prefixed to these words: thus, an apple, an humble suppliant: a hero, a university. You may correct the following

EXAMPLES.

A enemy, a inkstand, a hour, an horse, an herald, an heart, an heathen, an union, a umbrella, an useful book, many an one. This is an hard saying. They met with an heavy loss. He would not give an hat for an horse.

NOTE 1, TO RULE 2. The articles are often properly omitted: when used they should be justly applied, according to their distinct character; as, "Gold is corrupting; The sea is green; A lion is bold." It would be improper to say, The gold is corrupting; Sea is green; Lion is bold.

The grass is good for horses, and the wheat for men. Grass is good for the horses, and wheat for the men. Grass looks well. Wheat is blighted.

In the first of these sentences, we are not speaking of any particular kind of grass or wheat, neither do we wish to limit the meaning to any particular crop or field of grass, or quantity of wheat; but we are speaking of grass and wheat generally, therefore the article the should be omitted. In the second sentence, we do not refer to any definite kind, quality, or number of horses or men; but to horses and men generally; that is, the terms are here used to denote whole species, therefore, the article should be omitted, and the sentence should read thus, "Grass is good for horses, and wheat for men."

In the third and fourth examples, we wish to limit our meaning to the crops of grass and wheat now on the ground, which, in contradistinction to the crops heretofore raised, are considered as particular objects; therefore we should say, "The grass looks well; The wheat is blighted."

NOTE 2. When a noun is used in its general sense, the article should be omitted; as, "Poetry is a pleasing art;" "Oranges grow in New Orleans."

FALSE SYNTAX.

Corn in the garden, grows well; but corn in the field, does not. How does the tobacco sell? The tobacco is dear. How do you like the study of the grammar? The grammar is a pleasing study. A candid temper is proper for the man. World is wide. The man is mortal. And I persecuted this way unto the death. The earth, the air, the fire, and the water, are the four elements of the old philosophers.

LECTURE IV.

OF ADJECTIVES.

An ADJECTIVE is a word added to a noun to express its quality or kind, or to restrict its meaning; as, a good man, a bad man, a free man, an unfortunate man, one man, forty men.

In the phrases, a good apple, a bad apple, a large apple, a small apple, a red apple, a white apple, a green apple, a sweet apple, a sour apple, a bitter apple, a round apple, a hard apple, a soft apple, a mellow apple, a fair apple, a May apple, an early apple, a late apple, a winter apple, a crab apple, a thorn apple, a well-tasted apple, an ill-looking apple, a water-cored apple, you perceive that all those words in italics are adjectives, because each expresses some quality or property of the noun apple, or it shows what kind of an apple it is of which we are speaking.

The distinction between a noun and an adjective is very clear. A noun is the name of a thing; but an adjective denotes simply the quality or property of a thing. This is fine cloth. In this example, the difference between the word denoting the thing, and that denoting the quality of it, is easily perceived. You certainly cannot be at a loss to know, that the word cloth expresses the name, and fine, the quality, of the thing; consequently fine must be an adjective. If I say, He is a wise man, a prudent man, a wicked man, or an ungrateful man, the words in italics are adjectives, because each expresses a quality of the noun man. And, if I say, He is a tall man, a short man, a white man, a black man, or a persecuted man, the words, tall, short, white, black, and persecuted, are also adjectives, because they tell what kind of a man he is of whom I am speaking, or they attribute to him some particular property.

Some adjectives restrict or limit the signification of the nouns to which they are joined, and are, therefore, sometimes called definitives; as, one era, seven ages, the first man, the whole mass, no trouble, those men, that book, all regions.

Other adjectives define or describe nouns, or do both; as, fine silk, blue paper, a heavy shower, pure water, green mountains, bland breezes, gurgling rills, glass window, window glass, beaver hats, chip bonnets, blackberry ridge, Monroe garden, Juniata iron, Cincinnati steam-mill.

Some adjectives are secondary, and qualify other adjectives; as, pale red lining, dark blue silk, deep sea green sash, soft iron blooms, red hot iron plate.

You will frequently find the adjective placed after the noun; as, "Those men are tall; A lion is bold; The weather is calm; The tree is three feet thick."

Should you ever be at a loss to distinguish an adjective from the other parts of speech, the following sign will enable you to tell it. Any word that will make sense with the word thing added, or with any other noun following it, is an adjective; as, a high thing, a low thing, a hot thing, a cold thing, an unfinished thing, a new-fashioned thing:—or, a pleasant prospect, a long-deserted dwelling, an American soldier, a Greek Testament. Are these words adjectives, distant, yonder, peaceful, long-sided, double-headed? A distant object or thing, yonder hill, &c. They are. They will make sense with a noun after them. Adjectives sometimes become adverbs. This matter will be explained in Lecture VI. In parsing, you may generally know an adjective by its qualifying a noun or pronoun.

Most words ending in ing are present participles. These are frequently used as adjectives; therefore, most participles will make sense with the addition of the word thing, or any other noun, after them; as, a pleasing thing, a moving spectacle, mouldering ruins.

In the Latin language, and many others, adjectives, like nouns, have gender, number, and case; but in the English language, they have neither gender, person, number, nor case. These properties belong to creatures and things, and not to their qualities; therefore gender, person, number, and case, are the properties of nouns, and not of adjectives.

Adjectives are varied only to express the degrees of comparison. They have three degrees of comparison, the Positive, the Comparative, and the Superlative.

The positive degree expresses the quality of an object without any increase or diminution; as, good, wise, great.

The comparative degree increases or lessens the positive in signification; as, better, wiser, greater, less wise.

The superlative degree increases or lessens the positive to the highest or lowest degree; as, best, wisest, greatest, least wise.

COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES.

More and most form the comparative and superlative degrees by increasing the positive; and less and least, by diminishing it.

Comparison by increasing the positive

Pos. Comp. Sup.
great, greater, greatest.
wise, wiser, wisest.
holy, more holy most holy.
frugal, more frugal most frugal.

Comparison by diminishing the positive.

Pos. Comp. Sup.
wise, less wise least wise.
holy, less holy, least holy.
frugal, less frugal, least frugal.

NUMERAL ADJECTIVES.

Words used in counting, are called numeral adjectives of the cardinal kind; as, one, two, three, four, twenty, fifty, &c.

Words used in numbering, are called numeral adjectives of the ordinal kind; as, first, second, third, fourth, twentieth, fiftieth, &c.

NOTE. The words many, few, and several, as they always refer to an indefinite number, may be properly called numeral adjectives of the indefinite kind.

NOTES.

1. The simple word, or Positive, becomes the Comparative by adding r, or er; and the Positive becomes the Superlative, by adding st, or est, to the end of it; as, Pos. wise, Com. wiser, Sup. wisest; rich, richer, richest; bold, bolder, boldest. The adverbs, more and most, less and least, when placed before the adjective, have the same effect; as, Pos. wise, Com. more wise, Sup. most wise; Pos. wise, Com. less wise, Sup. least wise.

2. Monosyllables are generally compared by adding er and est; dissyllables, trisyllables, &c. by more and most; as, mild, milder, mildest; frugal, more frugal, most frugal; virtuous, more virtuous, most virtuous. Dissyllables ending in y; as, happy, lovely; and in le after a mute; as, able, ample; and dissyllables accented on the last syllable; as, discreet, polite; easily admit of er and est; as, happier, happiest; politer, politest. Words of more than two syllables very seldom admit of these terminations.

3. When the positive ends in d, or t, preceded by a single vowel, the consonant is doubled in forming the comparative and superlative degrees; as red, redder, reddest; hot, hotter, hottest.

4. In some words the superlative is formed by adding most to the end of them; as, nethermost, uttermost or utmost, undermost, uppermost, foremost.

5. In English, as in most languages, there are some words of very common use, (in which the caprice of custom is apt to get the better of analogy,) that are irregular in forming the degrees of comparison; as, "Good, better, best; bad, worse, worst; little, less, least; much or many, more, most; near, nearer, nearest or next; late, later, latest or last; old, older or elder, oldest or eldest;" and a few others.

6. The following adjectives, and many others, are always in the superlative degree, because, by expressing a quality in the highest degree, they carry in themselves a superlative signification: chief, extreme, perfect, right, wrong, honest, just, true, correct, sincere, vast, immense, ceaseless, infinite, endless, unparalleled, universal, supreme, unlimited, omnipotent, all-wise, eternal.

7. Compound adjectives, and adjectives denoting qualities arising from the figure of bodies, do not admit of comparison; such as, well-formed, frost-bitten, round, square, oblong, circular, quadrangular, conical, &c.

8. The termination ish added to adjectives, expresses a slight degree of quality below the comparative; as, black, blackish; salt, saltish. Very, prefixed to the comparative, expresses a degree of quality, but not always a superlative degree.

Read this Lecture carefully, particularly the NOTES; after which you may parse the following adjectives and neuter verb, and, likewise, the examples that follow. If you cannot repeat all the definitions and rules, spread the Compendium when you parse. But before you proceed, please to commit the

SYSTEMATIC ORDER OF PARSING.

The order of parsing an ADJECTIVE, is—an adjective, and why?—compare it—degree of comparison, and why?—to what noun does it belong?—RULE.

That great nation was once powerful; but now it is feeble.

Great is an adjective, a word added to a noun to express its quality—pos. great, com. greater, sup. greatest—it is in the positive degree, it expresses the quality of an object without any increase or diminution, and belongs to the noun "nation," according to

RULE 18. Adjectives belong to, and qualify, nouns expressed or understood.

Was is a verb, a word that signifies to be—neuter, it expresses neither action nor passion, but being or a state of being—third person singular, because its nominative "nation" is a noun of multitude conveying unity of idea—it agrees with "nation," agreeably to RULE 10. A noun of multitude conveying unity of idea, may have a verb or pronoun agreeing with it in the singular.

Powerful is an adjective belonging to "nation," according to Rule 18. Feeble belongs to "it," according to Note 1, under Rule 18. Is is a neuter verb agreeing with "it," agreeably to Rule 4.

"Bonaparte entered Russia with 400,000 men."

Four-hundred-thousand is a numeral adjective of the cardinal kind, it is a word used in counting, and belongs to the noun "men," according to Note 2, under Rule 18. Numeral adjectives belong to nouns, which nouns must agree in number with their adjectives.

If, in parsing the following examples, you find any words about which you are at a loss, you will please to turn back, and parse all the foregoing examples again. This course will enable you to proceed without any difficulty.

More is an adverb. Of and to are prepositions, governing the nouns that follow them in the objective case.

EXERCISES IN PARSING.

A benevolent man helps indigent beggars. Studious scholars learn many long lessons. Wealthy merchants own large ships. The heavy ships bear large burdens; the lighter ships carry less burdens. Just poets use figurative language. Ungrammatical expressions offend a true critic's ear. Weak critics magnify trifling errors. No composition is perfect. The rabble was tumultuous. The late-washed grass looks green. Shady trees form a delightful arbor. The setting sun makes a beautiful appearance; the variegated rainbow appears more beautiful. Epaminondas was the greatest of the Theban generals; Pelopidas was next to Epaminondas.

The first fleet contained three hundred men; the second contained four thousand. The earth contains one thousand million inhabitants. Many a cheering ray brightens the good man's pathway.

NOTE. Like, Worth. The adjective like is a contraction of the participle likened, and generally has the preposition unto understood after it. "She is like [unto] her brother." "They are unlike [to] him." "The kingdom of heaven is like [likened or made like] unto a householder."

The noun worth has altogether dropped its associated words. "The cloth is worth ten dollars a yard;" that is, The cloth is of the worth of ten dollars by the yard, or for a, one, or every yard.

Some eminent philologists do not admit the propriety of supplying an ellipsis after like, worth, ere, but, except, and than, but consider them prepositions. See Anomalies, in the latter part of this work.

REMARKS ON ADJECTIVES AND NOUNS.

A critical analysis requires that the adjective when used without its noun, should be parsed as an adjective belonging to its noun understood; as, "The virtuous [persons] and the sincere [persons] are always respected;" "Providence rewards the good [people,] and punishes the bad [people.]"

But sometimes the adjective, by its manner of meaning, becomes a noun, and has another adjective joined to it; as, "the chief good;" "The vast immense [immensity] of space."

Various nouns placed before other nouns, assume the character of adjectives, according to their manner of meaning; as, "Sea fish, iron mortar, wine vessel, gold watch, corn field, meadow ground, mountain height."

The principle which recognises custom as the standard of grammatical accuracy, might rest for its support on the usage of only six words, and defy all the subtleties of innovating skeptics to gainsay it. If the genius and analogy of our language were the standard, it would be correct to observe this analogy, and say, "Good, gooder, goodest; bad, badder, baddest; little, littler, littlest; much, mucher; muchest." "By this mean;" "What are the news." But such a criterion betrays only the weakness of those who attempt to establish it. Regardless of the dogmas and edicts of the philosophical umpire, the good sense of the people will cause them, in this instance, as well as in a thousand others, to yield to custom, and say, "Good, better, best; bad, worse, worst; little, less, least; much, more, most;" "By this means;" "What is the news?"

With regard to the using of adjectives and other qualifying words, care must be taken, or your language will frequently amount to absurdity or nonsense. Let the following general remark, which is better than a dozen rules, put you on your guard. Whenever you utter a sentence, or put your pen on paper to write, weigh well in your mind the meaning of the words which you are about to employ. See that they convey precisely the ideas which you wish to express by them, and thus you will avoid innumerable errors. In speaking of a man, we may say, with propriety, he is very wicked, or exceedingly lavish, because the terms wicked and lavish are adjectives that admit of comparison; but, if we take the words in their literal acceptation, there is a solecism in calling a man very honest, or exceedingly just, for the words honest and just, literally admit of no comparison. In point of fact, a man is honest or dishonest, just or unjust: there can be no medium or excess in this respect. Very correct, very incorrect, very right, very wrong, are common expressions; but they are not literally proper. What is not correct, must be incorrect; and that which is not incorrect, must be correct: what is not right, must be wrong; and that which is not wrong, must be right. To avoid that circumlocution which must otherwise take place, our best speakers and writers, however, frequently compare adjectives which do not literally admit of comparison: "The most established practice;" "The most uncertain method;" "Irving, as a writer, is far more accurate than Addison;" "The metaphysical investigations of our philosophical grammars, are still more incomprehensible to the learner." Comparisons like these, should generally be avoided; but sometimes they are so convenient in practice, as to render them admissible. Such expressions can be reconciled with the principles of grammar, only by considering them as figurative.

Comparative members of sentences, should be set in direct opposition to each other; as, "Pope was rich, but Goldsmith was poor." The following sentences are inaccurate: "Solomon was wiser than Cicero was eloquent." "The principles of the reformation were deeper in the prince's mind than to be easily eradicated." This latter sentence contains no comparison at all; neither does it literally convey any meaning. Again, if the Psalmist had said, "I am the wisest of my teachers," he would have spoken absurdly, because the phrase would imply, that he was one of his teachers. But in saying, "I am wiser than my teachers," he does not consider himself one of them, but places himself in contradistinction to them.

Before you proceed any farther, you may answer the following

QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED IN PARSING.

What is the distinction between a noun and an adjective?—By what sign may an adjective be known?—Are participles ever used as adjectives?—Does gender, person, number, or case, belong to adjectives?—How are they varied?—Name the three degrees of comparison.—What effect have less and least in comparing adjectives?—Repeat the order of parsing an adjective.—What rule applies in parsing an adjective?—What rule in parsing a verb agreeing with a noun of multitude conveying unity of idea?—What Note should be applied in parsing an adjective which belongs to a pronoun?—What Note in parsing numeral adjectives?

QUESTIONS ON THE NOTES.

Repeat all the various ways of forming the degrees of comparison, mentioned in the first five NOTES.—Compare these adjectives; ripe, frugal, mischievous, happy, able, good, little, much or many, near, late, old.—Name some adjectives that are always in the superlative, and never compared.—Are compound adjectives compared?—What is said of the termination ish, and of the adverb very?—When does an adjective become a noun?—What character does a noun assume when placed before another noun?—How can you prove that custom is the standard of grammatical accuracy?

PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.

ADNOUNS.

Adnoun or Adjective, comes from the Latin, ad and jicio, to add to.

Adnouns are a class of words added to nouns to vary their comprehension, or to determine their extension. Those which effect the former object, are called adjectives, or attributes; and those which effect the latter, restrictives. It is not, in all cases, easy to determine to which of these classes an adnoun should be referred. Words which express simply the qualities of nouns, are adjectives; and such as denote their situation or number, are restrictives.

Adjectives were originally nouns or verbs.

Some consider the adjective, in its present application, exactly equivalent to a noun connected to another noun by means of juxtaposition, of a preposition, or of a corresponding flexion. "A golden cup," say they, "is the same as a gold cup, or a cup of gold." But this principle appears to be exceptionable. "A cup of gold," may mean either a cup-full of gold, or a cup made of gold. "An oaken cask," signifies an oak cask, or a cask of oak; i.e. a cask made of oak; but a beer cask, and a cask of beer, are two different things. A virtuous son; a son of virtue.

The distinguishing characteristic of the adjective, appears to consist in its both naming a quality, and attributing that quality to some object.

The terminations en, ed, and ig (our modern y,) signifying give, add, join, denote that the names of qualities to which they are postfixed, are to be attributed to other nouns possessing such qualities: wood-en, wood-y. See page 37.

Left is the past participle of the verb leave. Horne Tooke defines right to be that which is ordered or directed. The right hand is that which your parents and custom direct you to use in preference to the other. And when you employ that in preference, the other is the leaved, leav'd, or left hand; i.e. the one leaved or left. "The one shall be taken, and the other (leaved) left."

Own. Formerly a man's own was what he worked for, own being a past participle of a verb signifying to work.

Restrictive. Some restrictives, in modern times, are applied only to singular nouns; such as a or an, another, one, this, that, each, every, either. Others, only to plural nouns; as, these, those, two, three, few, several, all. But most restrictives, like adjectives, are applied to both singular and plural nouns: first, second, last, the, former, latter, any, such, same, some, which, what.

Numerals. All numeration was, doubtless, originally performed by the fingers; for the number of the fingers is still the utmost extent of its signification. Ten is the past participle of tynan, to close, to shut in. The hands tyned, tened, closed, or shut in, signified ten; for there numeration closed. To denote a number greater than ten, we must begin again, ten and one, ten and two, &c.

Twain, twa-in, twa-ain, twa-ane, is a compound of two (twa, twae, twee, twi, two or dwo or duo) and one (ane, ain, an.) It signifies two units joined, united, aned, or oned. Twenty (twa-ane-ten) signifies two tens aned, oned, or united. Things separated into parcels of twenty each, are called scores. Score is the past participle of shear, to separate.

The Ordinals are formed like abstract nouns in eth. Fifth, sixth, or tenth is the number which fiv-eth, six-eth, ten-eth, or mak-eth up the number five, six, or ten.

Philosophical writers who limit our acceptation of words to that in which they were originally employed, and suppose that all the complicated, yet often definable, associations which the gradual progress of language and intellect has connected with words, are to be reduced to the standard of our forefathers; appear not to have sufficiently attended to the changes which this principle of association actually produces. As language is transmitted from generation to generation, many words become the representatives of ideas with which they were not originally associated; and thus they undergo a change, not only in the mode of their application, but also in their meaning. Words being the signs of things, their meaning must necessarily change as much, at least, as things themselves change; but this variation in their import more frequently depends on accidental circumstances. Among the ideas connected with a word that which was once of primary, becomes only of secondary importance; and sometimes, by degrees, it loses altogether its connexion with the word, giving place to others with which, from some accidental causes, it has been associated.

Two or three instances will illustrate the truth of these remarks. In an ancient English version of the New Testament, we find the following language: "I, Paul, a rascal of Jesus Christ, unto you Gentiles," &c. But who, in the present acceptation of the word, would dare to call "the great apostle of the Gentiles" a rascal? Rascal formerly meant a servant: one devoted to the interest of another; but now it is nearly synonymous with villain. Villain once had none of the odium which is now associated with the term; but it signified one who, under the feudal system, rented or held lands of another. Thus, Henry the VIII. says to a vassal or tenant, "As you are an accomplished villain, I order that you receive £700 out of the public treasury." The word villain, then, has given up its original idea, and become the representative of a new one, the word tenant having supplanted it. To prove that the meaning of words changes, a thousand examples could be adduced; but with the intelligent reader, proof is unnecessary.

QUESTIONS ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.

How are adnouns divided?—What constitutes the true character of an adjective?—What are the signification and denotement of the terminations, en, ed, and ig?—What do left and own signify?—Name the three ways in which restrictives are applied.—How was numeration originally performed?—What is said of twain, twenty, score, and the ordinal numbers?—What is said of the changes produced in the meaning of words, by the principle of association?

EXERCISES IN FALSE SYNTAX.

NOTE 9, under RULE 18. Double Comparatives and Superlatives should be avoided; such as, worser, lesser, more deeper, more wickeder, &c.: chiefest, supremest, perfectest, rightest; or more perfect, most perfect, most supreme, &c.

Virtue confers the most supreme dignity on man, and it should be his chiefest desire.

He made the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.

The phrases "most supreme," and "chiefest," in the first sentence, are incorrect, because supreme and chief are in the superlative degree without having the superlative form superadded, which addition makes them double superlatives. They should be written, "confers supreme dignity," and, "his chief desire."

We can say, one thing is less than another, or smaller than another, because the adjectives less and smaller are in the comparative degree; but the phrase "lesser light," in the second sentence, is inaccurate. Lesser is a double comparative, which, according to the preceding Note, should be avoided. Lesser is as incorrect as badder, gooder, worser. "The smaller light," would be less exceptionable. You can correct the following without my assistance. Correct them four times over.

The pleasures of the understanding are more preferable than those of imagination or sense. The tongue is like a race-horse, which runs the faster the lesser weight it carries. The nightingale's voice is the most sweetest in the grove. The Most Highest hath created us for his glory, He was admitted to the chiefest offices. The first witness gave a strong proof of the fact; the next more stronger still; but the last witness, the most stronger of all. He gave the fullest and the most sincere proof of the truer friendship.

LECTURE V.

OF PARTICIPLES.

A PARTICIPLE is a word derived from a verb, and partakes of the nature of a verb, and also of an adjective.

Verbs have three participles, the present or imperfect, the perfect, and the compound.

The present or imperfect participle denotes action or being continued, but not perfected. It always ends in ing; as, ruling, being: "I am writing a letter."

The perfect participle denotes action or being perfected or finished. When derived from a regular verb, it ends in ed, and corresponds with the imperfect tense; as, ruled, smiled: "The letter is written."

The compound participle implies action or being completed before the time referred to. It is formed by placing having before the perfect participle; as, having ruled, having been ruled: "Having written the letter, he mailed it."

The term Participle comes from the Latin word participio, which signifies to partake: and this name is given to this part of speech, because it partakes of the nature of the verb and of the adjective.

By many writers, the participle is classed with the verb, and treated as a part of it; but, as it has no nominative, partakes of the nature of an adjective, requires many syntactical rules which apply not to the verb, and, in some other respects, has properties peculiar to itself, it is believed that its character is sufficiently distinct from the verb, to entitle it to the rank of a separate part of speech. It is, in fact, the connecting link between, not only the adjective and the verb, but also the noun and the verb.

All participles are compound in their meaning and office. Like verbs, they express action and being, and denote time; and, like adjectives, they describe the nouns of which they denote the action or being. In the sentences, The boatman is crossing the river; I see a man laboring in the field; Charles is standing; you perceive that the participles crossing and laboring express the actions of the boatman and the man, and standing the state of being of Charles. In these respects, then, they partake of the nature of verbs. You also notice, that they describe the several nouns associated with them, like describing adjectives; and that, in this respect, they participate the properties of adjectives. And, furthermore, you observe they denote actions which are still going on; that is, incomplete or unfinished actions; for which reason we call them imperfect participles.

Perhaps I can illustrate their character more clearly. When the imperfect or present and perfect participles are placed before nouns, they become defining or describing adjectives, and are denominated participial adjectives; as, A loving companion; The rippling stream; Roaring winds; A wilted leaf; An accomplished scholar. Here the words loving, rippling, roaring, wilted, and accomplished, describe or define the nouns with which they are associated. And where the participles are placed after their nouns, they have, also, this descriptive quality. If I say, I see the moon rising; The horse is running a race; The dog is beaten; I describe the several objects, as a rising moon, a running horse, and a beaten dog, as well as when I place these participles before the nouns. The same word is a participle or a participial adjective, according to its manner of meaning. The preceding illustration, however, shows that this distinction is founded on a very slight shade of difference in the meaning of the two. The following examples will enable you to distinguish the one from the other.

Participles. Participial adjectives.
See the sun setting. See the setting sun.
See the moon rising. See the rising moon.
The wind is roaring. Hear the roaring wind.
The twig is broken. The broken twig fell.
The vessel anchored in the bay, lost her mast. The anchored vessel spreads her sail.

The present or imperfect participle is known by its ending in ing; as, floating, riding, hearing, seeing. These are derived from the verbs, float, ride, hear, and see. But some words ending in ing are not participles; such as evening, morning, hireling, sapling, uninteresting, unbelieving, uncontrolling. When you parse a word ending in ing, you should always consider whether it comes from a verb or not. There is such a verb as interest, hence you know that the word interesting is a participle; but there is no such verb as uninterest, consequently, uninteresting can not be a participle: but it is an adjective; as, an uninteresting story. You will be able very easily to distinguish the participle from the other parts of speech, when you shall have acquired a more extensive knowledge of the verb.

Speak the participles from each of these verbs, learn, walk, shun, smile, sail, conquer, manage, reduce, relate, discover, overrate, disengage. Thus, Pres. learning, Perf. learned, Comp. having learned. Pres. walking, Perf. walked, Compound, having walked, and so on.

You may now commit the order of parsing a participle, and then proceed with me.

SYSTEMATIC ORDER OF PARSING.

The order of parsing a PARTICIPLE, is—a participle, and why?—from what verb is it derived?—speak the three—present, perfect, or compound, and why?—to what does it refer or belong?—RULE.

"I saw a vessel sailing"

Sailing is a participle, a word derived from a verb, and partakes of the nature of a verb, and also of an adjective—it comes from the verb to sail—pres. sailing, perf. sailed, comp. having sailed—it is a present or imperfect participle, because it denotes the continuance of an unfinished action—and refers to the noun "vessel" for its subject, according to

RULE 27. The present participle refers to some noun or pronoun denoting the subject or actor.

"Not a breath disturbs the sleeping billow."

Sleeping is a participial adjective, a word added to a noun to express its quality—it cannot, with propriety, be compared—- it belongs to the noun "billow," agreeably to

RULE 18. Adjectives belong to, and qualify, nouns expressed or understood.

You will please to parse these two words several times over, and, by a little reflection, you will perfectly understand the 27th RULE. Recollect, the participle never varies its termination to agree with a noun or pronoun, for, as it has no nominative, it has no agreement; but it simply refers to an actor. Examples: I see a vessel sailing; or, I see three vessels sailing. You perceive that the participle sailing refers to a singular noun in the first example, and to a plural noun in the second; and yet the participle is in the same form in both examples. The noun vessel is in the objective case, and governed by the transitive verb see. But when a verb follows a noun, the ending of the verb generally varies in order to agree with the noun which is its nominative; as, the vessel sails; the vessels sail.

In this place it may not be improper to notice another Rule that relates to the participle. In the sentence, "The man is beating his horse," the noun horse is in the objective case, because it is the object of the action expressed by the active-transitive participle "beating," and it is governed by the participle beating, according to

RULE 26. Participles have the same government as the verbs have from which they are derived.

The principle upon which this rule is founded, is quite apparent. As a participle derived from a transitive verb, expresses the same kind of action as its verb, it necessarily follows, that the participle must govern the same case as the verb from which it is derived.

When you shall have studied this lecture attentively, you may proceed and parse the following exercises, containing five parts of speech. If, in analyzing these examples, you find any words which you cannot parse correctly and systematically by referring to your Compend for definitions and rules, you will please to turn back and read over again the whole five lectures. You must exercise a little patience; and, for your encouragement, permit me to remind you, that when you shall have acquired a thorough knowledge of these five parts of speech, only five more will remain for you to learn. Be ambitious to excel. Be thorough in your investigations. Give your reasoning powers free scope. By studying these lectures with attention, you will acquire more grammatical knowledge in three months, than is commonly obtained in two years.

In the following examples, the words purling, crusted, slumbering, and twinkling, are participial adjectives. There and its you may omit.

EXERCISES IN PARSING.

Orlando left the herd grazing. The hunters heard the young dog barking. The old fox heard the sportsman's horn sounding. Deep rivers float long rafts. Purling streams moisten the earth's surface. The sun approaching, melts the crusted snow. The slumbering seas calmed the grave old hermit's mind. Pale Cynthia declining, clips the horizon. Man beholds the twinkling stars adorning night's blue arch. The stranger saw the desert thistle bending there its lowly head.

REMARKS ON PARTICIPLES.

Participles frequently become nouns; as, "A good understanding; Excellent writing; He made a good beginning, but a bad ending."

Constructions like the following, have long been sanctioned by the best authorities: "The goods are selling;" "The house is building;" "The work is now publishing." A modern innovation, however, is likely to supersede this mode of expression: thus, "The goods are being sold;" "The house is being built;" "The work is now being published."

You may now answer these

QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED IN PARSING.

How many kinds of participles are there?—What is the ending of a present participle?—What does a perfect participle denote?—With what does the perfect participle of a regular verb correspond?—What is a compound participle?—From what word is the term participle derived?—Why is this part of speech thus named?—Wherein does this part of speech partake of the nature of a verb?—Do all participles participate the properties of adjectives?—In what respect?—When are participles called participial adjectives?—Give examples.—How may a present participle be known?—Repeat the order of parsing a participle.—What rule applies in parsing a present participle?—What Rule in parsing a participial adjective?—Do participles vary in their terminations in order to agree with their subject or actor?—What Rule applies in parsing a noun in the objective case, governed by a participle?—Do participles ever become nouns?—Give examples.

PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.

Participles are formed by adding to the verb the termination ing, ed, or en. Ing signifies the same as the noun being. When postfixed to the noun-state of the verb, the compound word thus formed, expresses a continued state of the verbal denotement. It implies that what is meant by the verb, is being continued. En is an alteration of an, the Saxon verbalizing adjunct; ed is a contraction of dede; and the terminations d and t, are a contraction of ed. Participles ending in ed or en, usually denote the dodo, dede, doed, did, done, or finished state of what is meant by the verb. The book is printed. It is a print-ed or print-done book, or such a one as the done act of printing has made it. The book is written; i.e. it has received the done or finish-ed act of writ-ing it.

Participles bear the same relation to verbs, that adnouns do to nouns. They might, therefore, be styled verbal adjectives. But that theory which ranks them with adnouns, appears to rest on a sandy foundation. In classifying words, we ought to be guided more by their manner of meaning, and their inferential meaning, than by their primitive, essential signification. "I have a broken plate;" i.e. I have a plate—broken; "I have broken a plate." If there is no difference in the essential meaning of the word broken, in these two constructions, it cannot be denied, that there is a wide difference in the meaning—inferred by custom; which difference depends on the manner in which the term is applied. The former construction denotes, that I possess a plate which was broken, (whether with or without my agency, is not intimated,) perhaps, one hundred or one thousand years ago; whereas, the meaning of the latter is, that I performed the act of reducing the plate from a whole to a broken state; and it is not intimated whether I possess it, or some one else. It appears reasonable, that, in a practical grammar, at least, any word which occurs in constructions differing so widely, may properly be classed with different parts of speech. This illustration likewise establishes the propriety of retaining what we call the perfect tense of the verb.

QUESTIONS ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.

How are participles formed?—What does the imperfect part express?— What do perfect participles denote?

LECTURE VI.

OF ADVERBS.

An ADVERB is a word used to modify the sense of a verb, aparticiple, an adjective, or another adverb.

Recollect, an adverb never qualifies a noun. It qualifies any of the four parts of speech abovenamed, and none others.

To modify or qualify, you know, means to produce some change. The adverb modifies. If I say, Wirt's style excels Irving's, the proposition is affirmative, and the verb excels expresses the affirmation. But when I say, Wirt's style excels not Irving's, the assertion is changed to a negative. What is it that thus modifies or changes the meaning of the verb excels? You perceive that it is the little word not. This word has power to reverse the meaning of the sentence. Not, then, is a modifier, qualifier, or negative adverb.

When an adverb is used to modify the sense of a verb or participle, it generally expresses the manner, time, or place, in which the action is performed, or some accidental circumstance respecting it. In the phrases, The man rides gracefully, awkwardly, badly, swiftly, slowly, &c.; or, I saw the man riding swiftly, slowly, leisurely, very fast, &c., you perceive that the words gracefully, awkwardly, very fast, &c., are adverbs, qualifying the verb rides, or the participle riding, because they express the manner in which the action denoted by the verb and participle, is done.

In the phrases, The man rides daily, weekly, seldom, frequently, often, sometimes, never; or, The man rode yesterday, heretofore, long since, long ago, recently, lately, just now or, The man will ride soon, presently, directly, immediately, by and by, to-day, hereafter, you perceive that all these words in italics, are adverbs, qualifying the meaning of the verb, rides, because they express the time of the action denoted by the verb.

Again, if I say, The man lives here, near by, yonder, remote, far off, somewhere, nowhere, everywhere, &c., the words in italics are adverbs of place, because they tell where he lives.

Adverbs likewise qualify adjectives, and sometimes other adverbs; as, more wise, most wise; or more wisely, most wisely. When an adverb is joined to an adjective or adverb, it generally expresses the degree of comparison; for adverbs, like adjectives, have degrees of comparison. Thus, in the phrase, A skilful artist, you know the adjective skilful is in the positive degree; but, by placing the adverb more before the adjective, we increase the degree of quality denoted by the adjective to the comparative; as, A more skilful artist: and most renders it superlative; as, A most skilful artist. And if we place more and most before other adverbs, the effect is the same; as, skilfully, more skilfully, most skilfully.

COMPARISON OF ADVERBS.
Positive. Comparative. Superlative.
soon, sooner, soonest.
often, oftener, oftenest.
much, more, most.
well, better, best.
far, farther, farthest.
wisely, more wisely, most wisely.
justly, more justly, most justly.
justly, less justly, least justly.

You will generally know an adverb at sight; but sometimes you will find it more difficult to be distinguished, than any other part of speech in the English language. I will, therefore, give you some signs which will assist you a little.

Most words ending in ly are adverbs; such as, politely, gracefully, judiciously. Any word or short phrase that will answer to any one of the questions, how? how much? when? or where? is an adverb; as, The river flows rapidly; He walks very fast; He has gone far away; but he will soon return; She sings sweetly; They learn none at all. How, or in what manner does the river flow? Rapidly. How does he walk? Very fast. Where has he gone? Far away. When will he return? Soon. How does she sing? Sweetly. How much do they learn? None at all. From this illustration, you perceive, that, if you could not tell these adverbs by the sense, you would know them by their answering to the questions. However, your better way will be to distinguish adverbs by considering the office they perform in the sentence; or by noticing their grammatical relation, or their situation, with respect to other words. To gain a thorough knowledge of their real character, is highly important. Rapidly, fast, far away, soon, sweetly, &c. are known to be adverbs by their qualifying the sense of verbs. "A very good pen writes extremely well." Well, in this sentence, is known to be an adverb by its qualifying the sense of the verb writes; extremely, by its ending in ly, or by its being joined to the adverb well to qualify it; and very is known as an adverb by its joining the adjective good.

Expressions like these, none at all, a great deal, a few days ago, long since, at length, in vain, when they are used to denote the manner or time of the action of verbs or participles, are generally termed adverbial phrases.

Adverbs, though very numerous, may, for the sake of practical convenience, be reduced to particular classes.

1. Of Number; as, Once, twice, thrice, &c.

2. Of Order; as, First, secondly, lastly, finally, &c.

3. Of Place; as, Here, there, where, elsewhere, anywhere, somewhere, nowhere, herein, whither, hither, thither, upward, downward, forward, backward, whence, thence, whithersoever, &c.

4. Of Time. Present; as, Now, to-day, &c. Past; as, Already, before, lately, yesterday, heretofore, hitherto, long since, long ago, &c. Future; as, To-morrow, not yet, hereafter, henceforth, henceforward, by and by, instantly, presently, immediately, ere long, straightways, &c. Time indefinite; as, Oft, often, oft-times, often-times, sometimes, soon, seldom, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, always, when, then, ever, never, again, &c.

5. Of Quantity; as, Much, little, sufficiently, how much, how great, enough, abundantly, &c.

6. Of Manner or quality; as, Wisely, foolishly, justly, unjustly, quickly, slowly, &c. Adverbs of quality are the most numerous kind; and they are generally formed by adding the termination ly to an adjective or a participle, or by changing le into ly; as, Bad, badly; cheerful, cheerfully; able, ably; admirable, admirably.

7. Of Doubt; as, Haply, perhaps, peradventure, possibly, perchance.

8. Of Affirmation; as, Verily, truly, undoubtedly, doubtless, certainly, yea, yes, surely, indeed, really, &c.

9. Of Negation; as, Nay, no, not, by no means, not at all, in no wise, &c.

10. Of Interrogation; as, How, why, wherefore, whither, &c., and sometimes when, whence, where.

11. Of Comparison; as, More, most, better, best, worse, worst, less, least, very, almost, little, alike, &c.

NOTES.

1. This catalogue contains but a small portion of the adverbs in our language. Many adverbs are formed by a combination of prepositions with the adverbs of place, here, there, where; as, Hereof, thereof, whereof; hereto, thereto, whereto; hereby, thereby, whereby; herewith, therewith, wherewith; herein, therein, wherein; therefore, (i.e. there-for,) wherefore, (i.e. where-for,) hereupon, hereon, thereupon, thereon, whereupon, whereon, &c.

2. Some adverbs are composed of nouns or verbs and the letter a, used instead of at, an, &c.; as, Aside, athirst, afoot, asleep, aboard, ashore, abed, aground, afloat, adrift, aghast, ago, askance, away, asunder, astray, &c.

You will now please to read this lecture four times over, and read slowly and carefully, for unless you understand well the nature and character of this part of speech, you will be frequently at a loss to distinguish it from others in composition. Now do you notice, that, in this sentence which you have just read, the words slowly, carefully, well, and frequently, are adverbs? And do you again observe, that, in the question I have just put to you, the words now and just are adverbs? Exercise a little sober thought. Fifteen minutes spent in reflection, are worth whole days occupied in careless reading.

In the following exercises six parts of speech are presented, namely, Nouns, Verbs, Articles, Adjectives, Participles, and Adverbs; and I believe you are now prepared to parse them all agreeably to the systematic order, four times over. Those words in italics are adverbs.

SYSTEMATIC ORDER OF PARSING.

The order of parsing an ADVERB, is—an adverb, and why?—what sort?—what does it qualify?—RULE.

"My friend has returned again; but his health is not very good."

Again, is an adverb, a word used to modify the sense of a verb—of time indefinite, it expresses a period of time not precisely defined—it qualifies the verb "has returned," according to

Rule 29. Adverbs qualify verbs, participles, adjectives, and other adverbs.

Not is an adverb, a word used to modify the sense of an adverb—of negation, it makes the assertion negative; that is, it changes the proposition from an affirmative to a negative—and it qualifies the adverb "very," agreeably to Rule 29. Adverbs qualify verbs, &c.

Very is an adverb, a word used to qualify the sense of an adjective—of comparison, it compares the adjective "good," and qualifies it according to Rule 29. Adverbs qualify adjectives, &c.

EXERCISES IN PARSING.

The traveller described a lofty castle decaying gradually. Very few literary men ever became distinguished poets. The great Milton excels not Homer. The Roman women, once voluntarily contributed their most precious jewels to save the city.

Many small streams uniting, form very large rivers. The river Funza falling perpendicularly forms a vast cataract. Attentive servants always drive horses very carefully; negligent servants often drive horses very carelessly. Assiduous scholars improve very fast; idle scholars learn none at all. Friendship often ends in love; but love in friendship, never.

NOTE. Several adverbs frequently qualify one verb. Have you walked? Not yet quite far enough, perhaps. Not, yet, far, and enough, qualify "have walked" understood; perhaps qualifies not; and quite qualifies far. The adverbs always and carefully both qualify the verb "drive:" the former expresses time, and the latter, manner. Once and voluntarily qualify the verb "contributed;" the former expresses number, and the latter, manner. The word their you need not parse. The active verb to save has no nominative. The nouns love and friendship, following in, are in the objective case, and governed by that preposition.

REMARKS ON ADVERBS.

When the words therefore, consequently, accordingly, and the like, are used in connexion with other conjunctions, they are adverbs; but when they appear single, they are commonly considered conjunctions.

The words when and where, and all others of the same nature, such as whence, whither, whenever, wherever, till, until, before, otherwise, while, wherefore, &c. may be properly called adverbial conjunctions, because they participate the nature both of adverbs and conjunctions; of adverbs, as they denote the attributes either of time or place; of conjunctions, as they conjoin sentences.

There are many words that are sometimes used as adjectives, and, sometimes as adverbs; as, "More men than women were there; I am more diligent than he." In the former sentence more is evidently an adjective, for it is joined to a noun to qualify it; in the latter it is an adverb, because it qualifies an adjective. There are others that are sometimes used as nouns, and sometimes as adverbs; as, "to-day's lesson is longer than yesterday's." In this example, to-day and yesterday are nouns in the possessive case; but in phrases like the following, they are generally considered adverbs of time; "He came [to his] home yesterday, and will set out again to-day." Here they are nouns, if we supply on before them.

"Where much [wealth, talent, or something else] is given, much [increase, improvement] will be required; Much money has been expended; It is much better to write than starve." In the first two of these examples, much is an adjective, because it qualifies a noun; in the last, an adverb, because it qualifies the adjective better. In short, you must determine to what part of speech a word belongs, by its sense, or by considering the manner in which it is associated with other words.

An adjective may, in general, be distinguished from an adverb by this rule: when a word qualifies a noun or pronoun, it is an adjective, but when it qualifies a verb, participle, adjective, or adverb, it is an adverb.

Prepositions are sometimes erroneously called adverbs, when their nouns are understood. "He rides about;" that is, about the town, country, or some-thing else. "She was near [the act or misfortune of] falling;" "But do not after [that time or event] lay the blame on me." "He came down [the ascent] from the hill;" "They lifted him up [the ascent] out of the pit." "The angels above;"—above us—"Above these lower heavens, to us invisible, or dimly seen."

Before you proceed to correct the following exercises in false Syntax, you may answer these

QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED IN PARSING.

Does an adverb ever qualify a noun?—What parts of speech does it qualify?—When an adverb qualifies a verb or participle, what does it express?—When an adverb qualifies an adjective or adverb, what does it generally express?—Compare some adverbs.—By what signs may an adverb be known?—Give examples.—Repeat some adverbial phrases.—Name the different classes of adverbs.—Repeat some of each class.—Repeat the order of parsing an adverb.—What rule do you apply in parsing an adverb?

QUESTIONS ON THE NOTES.

Repeat some adverbs that are formed by combining prepositions with adverbs of place.—Repeat some that are composed of the article a and nouns.—What part of speech are the words, therefore, consequently, &c.?—What words are styled adverbial conjunctions?—Why are they so called?—Is the same word sometimes used as an adjective, and sometimes as an adverb?—Give examples.—What is said of much?—By what rule can you distinguish an adjective from an adverb?—Do prepositions ever become adverbs?

PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.

As the happiness and increasing prosperity of a people essentially depend on their advancement in science and the arts, and as language, in all its sublime purposes and legitimate bearings, is strictly identified with these, it may naturally be supposed, that that nation which continues, through successive generations, steadily to progress in the former, will not be neglectful of the cultivation and refinement of the latter. The truth of this remark is illustrated by those who have, for many ages, employed the English language as their medium for the transmission of thought. Among its refinements may be ranked those procedures by which verbs and nouns have been so modified and contracted as to form what we call adverbs, distributives, conjunctions, and prepositions; for I presume it will be readily conceded, that conciseness, as well as copiousness and perspicuity in language, is the offspring of refinement. That an immense amount of time and breath is saved by the use of adverbs, the following development will clearly demonstrate. He who is successful in contracting one mode of expression that is daily used by thirty millions, doubtless does much for their benefit.

Most adverbs express in one word what would otherwise require two or more words; as, "He did it here," for, He did it in this place; there, for, in that place; where, for, in what place; now, for, at this time. Why means for what reason; how—in what mind, mood, mode, or manner; exceedingly—to a great degree; very—in an eminent degree; often and seldom signify many times, few times.

The procedures by which words have been contracted, modified and combined, to form this class of words, have been various. The most prolific family of this illegitimate race, are those in ly, a contraction of like. Gentleman-ly, means gentleman-like, like a gentleman. We do not yet say, ladily, but lady-like. The north Britons still say, wiselike, manlike, instead of, wisely, manly.

Quick comes from gwick, the past part. of the Anglo-Saxon verb gwiccian, to vivify, give life. Quick-ly or live-ly, means, in a quick-like or life-like manner; in the manner of a creature that has life. Rapid-ly—rapid-like, like a rapid; a quick-ly or swift-ly running place in a stream.

Al-ways, contraction of in all ways. By a slight transition, it means in or at all times. Al-one, contraction of all-one. On-ly—one-like. Al-so—all the same (thing.) Ever—an age. For ever and ever—for ages and ages. Ever is not synonymous with always. Never—ne ever. It signifies no age, no period of time. No, contraction of not. Not, a modification of no-thing, noth-ing, naught. "He is not greater"—is greater in naught—in no thing.

Adrift is the past part. adrifed, adrif'd, adrift; from the Saxon drifan, or adrifan, to drive. Ago, formerly written ygo, gon, agon, gone, agone, is the past part. of the verb to go. It refers to time gone by. Asunder, the Saxon past part. asundren, from the verb sondrian or asondrian, to separate. Aloft—on the loft, on luft, on lyft; lyft being the Anglo-Saxon word for air or clouds. Astray, the part. of straegan, to stray. Awry, part. of wry than, to writhe.

Needs—need-is; anciently, nedes, nede is. To-wit, the infinitive of witan, to know. It means, to be known. Ay or yea signifies have it, enjoy it. Yes is ay-es, have, possess, enjoy that. Our corrupt o-yes of the crier, is the French imperative, oyez, hear, listen. Straight way—by a straight way. While—wheel; period in which some thing whiles or wheels itself round. Till—to while. Per, Latin,—the English by. Perhaps—per haps, per chance.

These examples of derivation are given with the view to invite the attention of the intelligent pupil to the "Diversions of Purley, by John Horne Tooke."

QUESTIONS ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.

How does the use of adverbs contribute to the conciseness of language?—Illustrate the fact.—What is said of ly, like, and quick?—How are the following words composed, always, alone, only, also?—What is the meaning of ever, never, not, adrift, ago, asunder, aloft, astray, awry?—Give the signification of needs, to-wit, ye, yes, o-yes, straightway, while, till, and per.

NOTE. Learners need not answer the questions on the Philosophical Notes, in this or any other Lecture, unless the teacher deem it expedient.

EXERCISES IN FALSE SYNTAX.

NOTE 3, TO RULE 29, Adjectives are sometimes improperly applied as adverbs; as, indifferent honest; excellent well; miserable poor:—She writes elegant; He is walking slow.

The adjectives indifferent, excellent, and miserable, are here improperly used, because adjectives do not express the degree of adjectives or adverbs, but such modifications are denoted by adverbs. The phrases should, therefore, be, "indifferently honest, excellently well, miserably poor." Elegant and slow are also inaccurate, for it is not the office of the adjective to express the manner, time, or place of the action of verbs and participles, but it is the office of the adverb. The constructions should be, "She writes elegantly; He is walking slowly."

You may correct the following examples several times over, and explain the principles that are violated.

FALSE SYNTAX.

He speaks fluent, and reasons coherent.

She reads proper, and writes very neat.

They once lived tolerable well, but now they are miserable poor.

The lowering clouds are moving slow.

He behaved himself submissive, and was exceeding careful not to give offence.

NOTE 4, TO RULE 29. Adverbs are sometimes improperly used instead of adjectives; as, "The tutor addressed him in terms rather warm, but suitably to his offence."

The adverb suitably is incorrect. It does not express the manner of the action of the verb "addressed," but it denotes the quality of the noun terms understood; for which reason it should be an adjective, suitable.

FALSE SYNTAX.

The man was slowly wandering about, solitarily and distressed.

He lived in a manner agreeably to his condition.

The study of Syntax should be previously to that of Punctuation.

He introduced himself in a manner very abruptly.

Conformably to their vehemence of thought, was their vehemence of gesture.

I saw him previously to his arrival.

LECTURE VII

OF PREPOSITIONS.

A PREPOSITION is a word which serves to connect words, and show the relation between them.

The term preposition is derived from the two Latin words, pre, which signifies before, and pono, to place. Prepositions are so called, because they are mostly placed before the nouns and pronouns which they govern in the objective case.

The principal prepositions are presented in the following list, which you may now commit to memory, and thus you will be enabled to distinguish them from other parts of speech whenever you see them in composition.

A LIST OF THE PREPOSITIONS.
of over at after betwixt
to under near about beside
for through up against athwart
by above down unto towards
with below before across notwithstanding
in between behind around out of
into beneath off amidst instead of
within from on upon throughout over against
without beyond among underneath according to.

This list contains many words that are sometimes used as conjunctions, and sometimes as adverbs; but when you shall have become acquainted with the nature of the preposition, and of the conjunction and adverb too, you will find no difficulty in ascertaining to which of these classes any word belongs.

By looking at the definition of a preposition, you will notice, that it performs a double office in a sentence, namely, it connects words, and also shows a relation between them. I will first show you the use and importance of this part of speech as a connective. When corn is ripe—October, it is gathered—the field—men—who go—hill—hill—baskets,—which they put the ears. You perceive, that in this sentence there is a total want of connexion and meaning; but let us fill up each vacancy with a preposition, and the sense will be clear. "When corn is ripe, in October, it is gathered in the field by men, who go from hill to hill with baskets, into which they put the ears."

From this illustration you are convinced, no doubt, that our language would be very deficient without prepositions to connect the various words of which it is composed. It would, in fact, amount to nothing but nonsense. There is, however, another part of speech that performs this office, namely, the conjunction. This will be explained in Lecture IX.; in which lecture you will learn, that the nature of a preposition, as a connective particle, is nearly allied to that of a conjunction. In the next place I will show you how prepositions express a relation between words.

The boy's hat is under his arm. In this expression, what relation does the preposition under show? You know that hat and arm are words used as signs of two objects, or ideas; but under is not the sign of a thing you can think of: it is merely the sign of the relation existing between the two objects. Hence you may perceive, that since the word under is the sign of the relation existing between particular ideas, it also expresses a relation existing between the words hat and arm, which words are the representatives of those ideas.

The boy holds his hat in his hand. In this sentence the preposition in shows the relation existing between hat and hand, or the situation, or relative position, each has in regard to the other. And, if I say, The boy's hat is on his head, you perceive that on shows the relation between hat and head. Again, in the expressions, The boy threw his hat up stairs—under the bed—behind the table—through the window—over the house—across the street—into the water—and so on, you perceive that the several prepositions express the different relations existing between the hat and the other nouns, stairs, bed, table, window, house, street, and water.

A preposition tells where a thing is: thus, "The pear is on the ground, under the tree."

Prepositions govern the objective case, but they do not express an action done to some object, as an active-transitive verb or participle does. When a noun or pronoun follows a preposition, it is in the objective case, because it is the object of the relation expressed by the preposition, and not the object of an action.

I can now give you a more extensive explanation of the objective case, than that which was given in a former lecture. I have already informed you, that the objective case expresses the object of an action or of a relation; and, also, that there are three parts of speech which govern nouns and pronouns in the objective case, namely, active-transitive verbs, participles derived from transitive verbs, and prepositions. A noun or pronoun in the objective case, cannot be, at the same time, the object of an action and of a relation. It must be either the object of an action or of a relation. And I wish you particularly to remember, that whenever a noun or pronoun is governed by a transitive verb or participle, it is the object of an action; as, The tutor instructs his pupils; or, The tutor is instructing his pupils; but whenever a noun or pronoun is governed by a preposition, it is the object of a relation; as, The tutor gives good instruction to his pupils.

Before you proceed to parse the following examples, please to review this lecture, and then the whole seven in the manner previously recommended, namely, read one or two sentences, and then look off your book and repeat them two or three times over in your mind. This course will enable you to retain the most important ideas advanced. If you wish to proceed with ease and advantage, you must have the subject-matter of the preceding lectures stored in your mind. Do not consider it an unpleasant task to comply with my requisitions, for when you shall have learned thus far, you will understand seven parts of speech; and only three more will remain to be learned.

If you have complied with the foregoing request, you may commit the following order, and then proceed in parsing.

SYSTEMATIC ORDER OF PARSING.

The order of parsing a PREPOSITION, is—a preposition, and why?—what does it connect?—what relation does it show?

"He saw an antelope in the wilderness."

In is a preposition, a word which serves to connect words, and show the relation between them—it connects the words "antelope" and "wilderness"—and shows the relation between them.

Wilderness is a noun, the name of a place—com. the name of a sort or species—neut. gend. it denotes a thing without sex—third pers. spoken of—sing. num. it implies but one—and in the objective case, it is the object of a relation expressed by the preposition "in," and governed by it, according to

RULE 31. Prepositions govern the objective case.

The genius of our language will not allow us to say, Stand before he; Hand the paper to they. Prepositions require the pronoun following them to be in the objective form, position, or case; and this requisition amounts to government. Hence we say, "Stand before him;" "Hand the paper to them." Every preposition expresses a relation, and every relation must have an object: consequently, every preposition must be followed by a noun or pronoun in the objective case.

EXERCISES IN PARSING.

The all-wise Creator bestowed the power of speech upon man, for the most excellent uses. Augustus heard the orator pleading the client's cause, in a flow of most powerful eloquence. Fair Cynthia smiles serenely over nature's soft repose. Life's varying schemes no more distract the laboring mind of man. Septimius stabbed Pompey standing on the shore of Egypt.

A beam of tranquillity often plays round the heart of the truly pious man. The thoughts of former years glide over my soul, like swift-shooting meteors over Ardven's gloomy vales.

At the approach of day, night's swift dragons cut the clouds full fast; and ghosts, wandering here and there, troop home to church-yards.

Love still pursues an ever devious race,

True to the winding lineaments of grace.

NOTE.—The words my and and you need not parse. The noun "meteors," following the adverb "like," is in the objective case, and governed by unto understood, according to NOTE 2, under Rule 32. The noun "home" is governed by to understood, according to Rule 32.

REMARKS ON PREPOSITIONS AND VERBS.

A noun or pronoun in the objective case, is often governed by a preposition understood; as, "Give him that book;" that is, "Give that book to him;" "Ortugrul was one day wandering," &c. that is, on one day. "Mercy gives affliction a grace;" that is, Mercy gives a grace to affliction. See Note 1, under Rule 32.

To be able to make a proper use of prepositions, particular attention is requisite. There is a peculiar propriety to be observed in the use of by and with; as, "He walks with a staff by moonlight;" "He was taken by stratagem, and killed with a sword." Put the one preposition for the other, and say, "He walks by a staff with moonlight;" "He was taken with stratagem, and killed by a sword;" and it will appear, that the latter expressions differ from the former in signification, more than one, at first view, would be apt to imagine.

Verbs are often compounded of a verb and a preposition; as, to uphold, to withstand, to overlook; and this composition gives a new meaning to the verb; as, to understand, to withdraw, to forgive. But the preposition is more frequently placed after the verb, and separately from it, like an adverb; in which situation it does not less affect the sense of the verb, and give it a new meaning; and in all instances, whether the preposition is placed either before or after the verb, if it gives a new meaning to the verb, it may be considered as a part of the verb. Thus, to cast means to throw; but to cast up an account, signifies to compute it; therefore up is a part of the verb. The phrases, to fall on, to bear out, to give over, convey very different meanings from what they would if the prepositions on, out and over, were not used. Verbs of this kind are called compound verbs.

You may now answer the following

QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED IN PARSING.

From what words is the term preposition derived?—Why is it thus named?—Repeat the list of prepositions.—Name the three parts of speech that govern nouns and pronouns in the objective case.—When is a noun or pronoun in the objective case, the object of an action?—When is it the object of a relation?—Repeat the order of parsing a preposition.—What rule do you apply in parsing a noun or pronoun governed by a preposition?—Does every preposition require an objective case after it?—Is a noun or pronoun ever governed by a preposition understood?—Give examples.—What is said of verbs compounded of a verb and preposition?—Give the origin and meaning of the prepositions explained in the Philosophical Notes.

PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.

From, according to H. Tooke, is the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic noun frum, beginning, source, author. "He came from (beginning) Rochester." Of, he supposes to be a fragment of the Gothic and Saxon noun afora, consequence, offspring, follower. "Solomon, the son of (offspring) David." Of or off, in its modern acceptation, signifies disjoined, sundered: A piece of (off) the loaf, is, a piece disjoined, or separated from the loaf. The fragrance of or off the rose.

For signifies cause. "I write for your satisfaction;" i.e. your satisfaction being the cause. By or be is the imperative byth, of the Saxon beon, to be. With, the imperative of withan, to join; or, when equivalent to by, of wyr-than, to be. "I will go with him." "I, join him, will go." In comes from the Gothic noun inna, the interior of the body; a cave or cell. About, from boda, the first outward boundary. Among is the past part. of gamaengan, to mingle. Through or thorough is the Gothic substantive dauro, or the Teutonic thuruh. It means passage, gate, door.

Before—be-fore, be-hind, be-low, be-side, be-sides, be-neath are formed by combining the imperative, be, with the nouns fore, hind, low, side, neath. Neath—Saxon neothan, neothe, has the same signification as nadir. Be-tween, be-twixt—be and twain. A dual preposition. Be-yond—be-passed. Beyond a place, means, be passed that place. Notwithstanding—not-stand-ing-with, not-withstanding. "Any order to the contrary not-withstanding," (this order;) i.e. not effectually withstanding or opposing it.

LECTURE VIII.

OF PRONOUNS.

A PRONOUN is a word used instead of a noun, and generally to avoid the too frequent repetition of the same word. A pronoun is, likewise, sometimes a substitute for a sentence, or member of a sentence.

The word pronoun comes from the two Latin words, pro, which means for, or instead of, and nomen, a name, or noun. Hence you perceive, that pronoun means for a noun, or instead of a noun.

In the sentence, "The man is happy; he is benevolent; he is useful;" you perceive, that the word he is used instead of the noun man; consequently he must be a pronoun. You observe, too, that, by making use of the pronoun he in this sentence, we avoid the repetition of the noun man, for without the pronoun, the sentence would be rendered thus, "The man is happy; the man is benevolent; the man is useful."

By looking again at the definition, you will notice, that pronouns always stand for nouns, but they do not always avoid the repetition of nouns. Repetition means repeating or mentioning the same thing again. In the sentence, "I come to die for my country," the pronouns, I and my, stand for the name of the person who speaks; but they do not avoid the repetition of that name, because the name or noun for which the pronouns are used, is not mentioned at all. Pronouns of the third person, generally avoid the repetition of the nouns for which they stand; but pronouns of the first and second person, sometimes avoid the repetition of nouns, and sometimes they do not.

A little farther illustration of the pronoun will show you its importance, and, also, that its nature is very easily comprehended. If we had no pronouns in our language, we should be obliged to express ourselves in this manner: "A woman went to a man, and told the man that the man was in danger of being murdered by a gang of robbers; as a gang of robbers had made preparations for attacking the man. The man thanked the woman for the woman's kindness, and, as the man was unable to defend the man's self, the man left the man's house, and went to a neighbor's."

This would be a laborious style indeed; but, by the help of pronouns, we can express the same ideas with far greater ease and conciseness: "A woman went to a man, and told him, that he was in great danger of being murdered by a gang of robbers, who had made preparations for attacking him. He thanked her for her kindness, and, as he was unable to defend himself, he left his house and went to a neighbor's."

If you look at these examples a few moments, you cannot be at a loss to tell which words are pronouns; and you will observe too, that they all stand for nouns.

Pronouns are generally divided into three kinds, the Personal, the Adjective, and the Relative pronouns. They are all known by the lists.

1. OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

Personal Pronouns are distinguished from the relative, by their denoting the person of the nouns for which they stand. There are five of them; I, thou, he, she, it; with their plurals, We, ye or you, they.

To pronouns belong gender, person, number, and case.

GENDER. When we speak of a man, we say, he, his, him; when we speak of a woman, we say, she, hers, her; and when we speak of a thing, we say it. Hence you perceive, that gender belongs to pronouns as well as to nouns. Example; "The general, in gratitude to the lady, offered her his hand; but she, not knowing him, declined accepting it." The pronouns his and him, in this sentence, personate or represent the noun general; they are, therefore, of the masculine gender: her and she personate the lady; therefore, they are feminine: and it represents hand; for which reason it is of the neuter gender. This illustration shows you, then, that pronouns must be of the same gender as the nouns are for which they stand. But, as it relates to the variation of the pronouns to express the sex,

Gender has respect only to the third person singular of the pronouns, he, she, it. He is masculine; she is feminine; it is neuter.

You may naturally inquire, why pronouns of the first and second persons are not varied to denote the gender of their nouns, as well as of the third. The reason is obvious. The first person, that is, the person speaking, and the second person, or the person spoken to, being at the same time the subjects of the discourse, are supposed to be present; from which, and other circumstances, their sex is commonly known, and, therefore, the pronouns that represent these persons, need not be marked by a distinction of gender; but the third person, that is, the person or thing spoken of, being absent, and in many respects unknown, necessarily requires the pronoun that stands for it, to be marked by a distinction of gender.

In parsing, we sometimes apply gender to pronouns of the first and second person, and also to the plural number of the third person; but these have no peculiar form to denote their gender; therefore they have no agreement, in this respect, with the nouns which they represent.

PERSON. Pronouns have three persons in each number.

I, is the first person{
Thou, is the second person{Singular.
He, she, or it, is the third person{
We, is the first person{
Ye or you, is the second person{Plural.
They, is the third person{

This account of persons will be very intelligible, when you reflect, that there are three persons who may be the subject of any discourse: first, the person who speaks, may speak of himself; secondly, he may speak of the person to whom he addresses himself; thirdly, he may speak of some other person; and as the speakers, the persons spoken to, and the persons spoken of, may be many, so each of these persons must have a plural number.

Pronouns of the second and third person, always agree, in person with the nouns they represent; but pronouns of the first person, do not. Whenever a pronoun of the first person is used, it represents a noun; but nouns are never of the first person, therefore these pronouns cannot agree in person with their nouns.

NUMBER. Pronouns, like nouns, have two numbers, the singular and the plural; as, I, thou, he; we, ye or you, they.

CASE. Pronouns have three cases, the nominative, the possessive, and the objective.

In the next place I will present to you the declension of the personal pronouns, which declension you must commit to memory before you proceed any farther.

The advantages resulting from the committing of the following declension, are so great and diversified, that you cannot be too particular in your attention to it. You recollect, that it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish the nominative case of a noun from the objective, because these cases of nouns are not marked by a difference in termination; but this difficulty is removed in regard to the personal pronouns, for their cases are always known by their termination. By studying the declension you will learn, not only the cases of the pronouns, but, also, their genders, persons, and numbers.

DECLENSION OF THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

FIRST PERSON.
Sing. Plur.
Nom. I, we,
Poss. my or mine, our or ours,
Obj. me. us.
SECOND PERSON.
Sing. Plur.
Nom. thou, ye or you,
Poss. thy or thine, your or yours,
Obj. thee. you.
THIRD PERSON.
Mas. Sing. Plur.
Nom. he, they,
Poss. his, their or theirs,
Obj. him. them.
THIRD PERSON.
Fem. Sing. Plur.
Nom. she, they,
Poss. her or hers, their or theirs.
Obj. her. them.
THIRD PERSON.
Neut. Sing. Plur.
Nom. it, they,
Poss. its, their or theirs,
Obj. it. them.

NOTES.

1. When self is added to the personal pronouns, as himself, myself, itself, themselves, &c. they are called compound personal pronouns, and are used in the nominative or objective case, but not in the possessive.

2. In order to avoid the disagreeable harshness of sound, occasioned by the frequent recurrence of the terminations est, edst, in the adaptation of our verbs to the nominative thou, a modern innovation which substitutes you for thou, in familiar style, has generally been adopted. This innovation contributes greatly to the harmony of our colloquial style. You was formerly restricted to the plural number; but now it is employed to represent either a singular or a plural noun. It ought to be recollected, however, that when used as the representative of a singular noun, this word retains its original plural form; and, therefore, the verb connected with it, should always be plural. Inattention to this peculiarity, has betrayed some writers into the erroneous conclusion, that, because you implies unity when it represents a singular noun, it ought, when thus employed, to be followed by a singular verb; as, "When was you there?" "How far was you from the parties?" Such a construction, however, is not supported by good usage, nor by analogy. It is as manifest a solecism as to say, We am, or we is. Were it, in any case, admissible to connect a singular verb with you, the use of was would still be ungrammatical, for this form of the verb is confined to the first and third persons, and you is second person. Wast being second person, it would approximate nearer to correctness to say, you wast. We never use the singular of the present tense with you:—you art, you is; you walkest, you walks. Why, then, should any attempt be made to force a usage so unnatural and gratuitous as the connecting of the singular verb in the past tense with this pronoun? In every point of view, the construction, "When were you there?" "How far were you from the parties?" is preferable to the other.

3. The words my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, are, by many, denominated possessive adjective pronouns; but they always stand for nouns in the possessive case. They ought, therefore, to be classed with the personal pronouns. That principle of classification which ranks them with the adjective pronouns, would also throw all nouns in the possessive case among the adjectives. Example: "The lady gave the gentleman her watch for his horse." In this sentence her personates, or stands for, the noun "lady," and his represents "gentleman." This fact is clearly shown by rendering the sentence thus, "The lady gave the gentleman the lady's watch for the gentleman's horse." If lady's and gentleman's are nouns, her and his must be personal pronouns. The same remarks apply to my, thy, our, your, their and its. This view of these words may be objected to by those who speculate and refine upon the principles of grammar until they prove their non-existence, but it is believed, nevertheless, to be based on sound reason and common sense.

4. Mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, theirs, have, by many respectable grammarians, been considered merely the possessive cases of personal pronouns, whilst, by others, they have been denominated pronouns or nouns in the nominative or objective case. It is believed, however, that a little attention to the meaning and office of these words, will clearly show the impropriety of both these classifications. Those who pursue the former arrangement, allege, that, in the examples, "You may imagine what kind of faith theirs was; My pleasures are past; hers and yours are to come; they applauded his conduct, but condemned hers and yours," the words theirs, hers, and yours, are personal pronouns in the possessive case, and governed by their respective nouns understood. To prove this, they construct the sentence thus, "You may imagine what kind of faith their faith was;—her pleasures and your pleasures are to come;—but condemned her conduct and your conduct;" or thus, "You may imagine what kind of faith the faith of them was;—the pleasures of her and the pleasures of you, are to come;— but condemned the conduct of her and the conduct of you." But these constructions, (both of which are correct,) prove too much for their purpose; for, as soon as we supply the nouns after these words, they are resolved into personal pronouns of kindred meaning, and the nouns which we supply: thus, theirs becomes, their faith: hers, her pleasures; and yours, your pleasures. This evidently gives us two words instead of, and altogether distinct from, the first; so that, in parsing, their faith, we are not, in reality, analyzing theirs, but two other words of which theirs is the proper representative. These remarks also prove, with equal force, the impropriety of calling these words merely simple pronouns or nouns in the nominative or objective case. Without attempting to develop the original or intrinsic meaning of these pluralizing adjuncts, ne and s, which were, no doubt, formerly detached from the pronouns with which they now coalesce, for all practical purposes, it is sufficient for us to know, that, in the present application of these pronouns, they invariably stand for, not only the person possessing, but, also the thing possessed, which gives them a compound character. They may, therefore, be properly denominated COMPOUND PERSONAL PRONOUNS; and, as they always perform a double office in a sentence by representing two other words, and, consequently, including two cases, they should, like the compound relative what, be parsed as two words. Thus, in the example, "You may imagine what kind of faith theirs was," theirs is a compound personal pronoun, equivalent to their faith. Their is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun; personal, it personates the persons spoken of, understood; third pers. plur. numb., &c.—and in the possessive case, and governed by "faith," according to Rule 12. Faith is a noun, the name of a thing, &c. &c.—and in the nominative case to "was," and governs it; Rule 3. Or, if we render the sentence thus, "You may imagine what kind of faith the faith of them[4] was," faith would be in the nominative case to "was," and them would be in the objective case, and governed by "of:" Rule 31.

Objections to this method of treating these pronouns, will doubtless be preferred by those who assert, that a noun is understood after these words, and not represented by them. But this is assertion without proof; for, if a noun were understood, it might be supplied. If the question be put, whose book? and the answer be, mine, ours, hers, or theirs, the word book is included in such answer. Were it not included, we might supply it, thus, mine book, ours book, hers book, and so on. This, however, we cannot do, for it would be giving a double answer: but when the question is answered by a noun in the possessive case, the word book is not included, but implied; as, Whose book? John's, Richard's; that is, John's book; Richard's book.

This view of the subject, without a parallel, except in the compounds what, whoever, and others, is respectfully submitted to the public; believing, that those who approve of a critical analysis of words, will coincide with me. Should any still be disposed to treat these words so superficially as to rank them among the simple pronouns, let them answer the following interrogatory: If what, when compound, should be parsed as two words, why not mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, and theirs?

5. Mine and thine, instead of my and thy, are used in solemn style, before a word beginning with a vowel or silent h; as, "Blot out all mine iniquities;" and when thus used, they are not compound. His always has the same form, whether simple or compound; as, "Give John his book; That desk is his." Her, when placed before a noun, is in the possessive case; as, Take her hat: when standing alone, it is in the objective case; as, Give the hat to her.

When you shall have studied this lecture attentively, and committed the declension of the personal pronouns, you may commit the following

SYSTEMATIC ORDER OF PARSING.

The order of parsing a PERSONAL PRONOUN, is—a pronoun, and why?—personal, and why?—person, and why?—gender and number, and why?—RULE: case, and why?—RULE.—Decline it.

There are many peculiarities to be observed in parsing personal pronouns in their different persons; therefore, if you wish ever to parse them correctly, you must pay particular attention to the manner in which the following are analyzed. Now notice, particularly, and you will perceive that we apply only one rule in parsing I and my, and two in parsing thou, him, and they.

"I saw my friend."

I is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun—personal, it represents the person speaking, understood—first person, it denotes the speaker—singular number, it implies but one—and in the nominative case, it represents the actor and subject of the verb "saw," and governs it, agreeably to RULE 3. The nom. case gov. the verb. Declined—first pers. sing. num. nom. I, poss. my or mine, obj. me. Plur. nom. we, poss. our or ours, obj. us.

My is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun—personal, it personates the person speaking, understood—first pers. it denotes the speaker—sing. num. it implies but one—and in the possessive case, it denotes possession; it is governed by the noun "friend", agreeably to RULE 12. A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the noun it possesses. Declined—first pers. sing. nom. I, poss. my or mine, obj. me. Plur. nom. we, poss. our or ours, obj. us.