Full text of "Analysis of the seven parts of speech of the English language"

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http : //books . google . com/

.^r

4 :

Google

y Google

>000&&%«T

^^lOogle

y Google

3Z,

600006S66T

y Google

,y Google

ANALYSIS

SEVEN PARTS OF SPEECH

ENGLISH LANGUAGE,

WITH A VIEW TO FIX THEIR CHARACTEB, AND FmyiSU

SIMPLE aULES FOa ASCKHTAIKIKO THEM ; AS ALSO

TO ELUCIDATE AND FACILITATE THE METHOD

OF PAaSINO.

C|)ufls on a Neb lh:inciple.

''Nw WITH

AN APPENDIX.

BY THE

REV. CHARLES J. LYON, M. A.,

LATE OF TRINITY COLLEGK, CAUBRIDGR.

'* Though Oninmar be usually amongst the first things taught, it is
always one of the last understood.**— Ditbrsions op Purlby.

*< Le plus grand arantage d*une langue est d*<tre elair' Tous les pro.
ced^ de graxmnaire ne devroient aller qu'ii ce but'*

M. LB PREilDBNT DB BBOBSBS.

EDINBURGH

PRINTED FOR OLIVER & BOYD, TWEEDDALE-COURT :
AND 8IMFKIN it MARSHALL, LONDON.

1832.

Digitized by LjOOQ IC

Oliver at Boyd, Printers.

Digitized by LjOOQ IC

CONTENTS.

Page

Introduction^ 1

NOUN, 17

ADJECTIVE, 20

PRONOUN, 31

VERB, 34

PREPOSITION, 55

CONJUNCTION, 59

ADVERB, 66

Conclusion, 70

Specimen of Parsing, 7I

APPENDIX.

A. The present unsettled state of the English Parts

of Speech, 85

B. The same word is not more than one Part of Speech.

—In this Appendix it is shown that the word that
is always a Definite Adjectiye, having a noun ex-
pressed or understood after it,.... 93

d by Google

C Our Aoxilijry Verbs aie cacntul parts of an Be-

gularVoiii,^ -...108

D. Englidi Xoans have no Gender,... 11 1

£- On tbe etymdcgr and ok of Ae irards thcm and^ .
THAV, whidiaie ihawn to be Ihe same wind. — In
this Appendix is nrplamfd the etymological s^-
nification of the eompantive degree in Ki^ish,

Frendi, and Latin^... '. 113

F. On the ttrofidd nae of the woid Tnaax^.. ~.119

O. On the etjmologj and nae of the pranonn it, 121

H. ProfisHor Dngald Stewart and the Qnartnly Re-
Tiew, versus Home Tooke^s Direnioiis of Porley^lSS

,y Google

INTRODUCTION.

Every one may have observed how few persons,
even of the best education^ can take up an Eng-
lish book, and give accurately the parts of speech
of the words, in the order they occur. Nor is this
much to be wondered at, when we look into the
present state of English Grammar, as exhibited
in all the popular books on the subject. They
are enough to puzzle philosophers themselves, and
more than enough to bewilder and disgust the un-
fortunate children who are doomed to wade through
them.

The only grammar I have met with which has
any pretensions to simplicity, is one by the famous
Cobbett, who writes expressly (as he tells us) for
^^ sailors and soldiers, plough-boys and appren*
tices.*" The work is certainly entitled to notice,
on account of the extraordinary circulation it has

d by Google

had among the educated classes of society : but
as to intrinsic merit, it seems to me to leave the
subject it professes to simplify just as much clog-
ged and disfigured as it was before ; nor, in fact,
is it very easy to discover in what respects it dif-
fers from other grammars, excepting that it re-
peats their errors in plainer language, and in so
doing, only tends to give them greater currency
and perpetuity.* Had the author, however, exer-
cised his usual penetration, he might have seen
that, since even"" statesmen and philosophers have,
upon his own showing, fallen into grammatical
errors (though they have not fallen into quite so
many as he alleges), his soldiers, sailorsj and
plough-boys, could have very little hope of avoid*
ing them. I will venture to assert, that none of
these persons ever read, or ever will read Cob*

* There is indeed another object in the publication of
this book (whether the principal, or only a secondary one,
I pretend not to decide), namely, the propagation of treason
and libel, and a wanton abuse of the constituted audiori-
ties of the country. Cobbett may thank his stars that he
is an Englishman ; for such a publication would not be
tolerated in any other country under the son ; not even
in America.

As to his grammatical errors, I shall have occasion to
advert to a few of them in the Notes and Appendix to this
Analysb.

d by Google

belt's grammar ; nor, if they did^ cotdd they com-
prehend a twentieth part of it. Not that the sub-
ject is difficult, or that his manner of treating it is
unintelligible ; but his work (partly from its very
nature, but chiefly from the defects it possesses in
common with all other grammars) is not, with all
its pretensions to simplicity, adapted for the lower
orders of society ; who, indeed, as it seems to me,
have nothing to do with the niceties of grammar,
or with any other niceties beyond those of their
respective occupations.

I have not myself the vanity to think that my
Analysis will be read by the lower orders, though
I have rendered it as simple as possible, and have
excluded from it all hard names and technical
terms, to which I have as great an objection as
they can have. Such terms, in a grammatical
disquisition especially, seem to me not only use-
less, but pernicious, for whatever class of readers
it may be intended— useless, because the subject
may just as well be explained without them — and
pernicious, because they tend to render that mys-
terious and unintelligible, which in reality is just
the reverse.

My object has been to correct certain errors,
which, with all deference, I conceive our gramma-

Digitized by LjOOQ IC

rians have fallen into. I have. endeavoured also
to supply their omissions, and to do away with
their redundancies ; and, in general, to simplify
the rules for Parsing^ by furnishing dear expla-
nations of the Parts of Speech : and though I have
not attempted to define metaphysically their na-
ture, I have done what perhaps may be thought
more important, fiimished easy rules for their use.
I have, besides, given the exact number of the
Pronouns, Prepositions^ and Conjunctions, which
has never been done before ; so that, if my rules
be approved, these parts of speech may be con-
sidered as rescued from that perplexing uncer-
tainty in which they have hitherto been involved.
I have, moreover, given a new arrangement of the
Verb ; and have abolished the useless distinction
of the Article, by throwing it into the Adjective,
to which it naturally belongs. I have, however,
retained the old names of the parts of speech, not-
withstanding that several of them are objection-
able—contenting myself with suggesting what I
consider to be better ones in the Notes. In short,
I have made no alteration of any kind but what
the necessity of the case seemed to require ; and
whatever change I have proposed, has been solely
with a view to substitute something short and

d by Google

simple, for what before was complicated, inaccu«
rate, or unintelligible.*

Let it not be supposed, at the same time, that
I affect to have made any discoveries. Much of
what I have advanced is, I believe^ new : at least,
it is the result of my own reflection, and different
from any thing I have met with in English Oram*
mars. The truth is, that I found I entertained
very confused ideas of the Parts of Speech ; and
moreover, that this conflision was shared by others
whom I consulted, and who might be supposed to
know better. I therefore set about clearing away
the rubbish, merely to fill up my leisure hours
agreeably, and, as I thought, not uselessly : and
having, after a good deal of labour, succeeded, to
my own satisfaction at least, I felt anxious to make
the path which I had cleared for myself, equally
accessible to others.

It is not, however, difficult either to detect exist-
ing errors, or to suggest a remedy for them. The
difficulty is to simplify the remedy ; and not only
to make its usefrdness obvious, but its application
easy. I have spent much time and reflection in
endeavouring to accomplish this object in respect

* See Appendix A.

Digitized by LjOOQ IC

to English Gnunmar ; with what success, it is not
for me to decide.

I cannot here avoid expressing my smrprise hovr
little attention has been paid to thb department
of Literatuie by the writers of our age ; and how
little taste the generality of persons appear to have
for the subject. In the too eager pursuit of other
matters, we do not pay sufficient attention to that
by which alone they are all treated and handled.
I hesitate not to assert, that we have no English
Ghrammar, nor any work upon the subject, that
can give the Englishman clear notions of the Parts
of Speech of his language : we have nothing, in
fact, but a few clumsy and almost unintelligible
compilations ** for the use of schools ;^ or dis-
quisitions that are far too philosophical and ab-
struse for the unlearned reader.* While there

* '' It is a carious example of the spirit of the age^
that Mr Lindley Murray's Grammar has proceeded to toe
thirtieth edition, in complete defiance of all the facts and
arguments laid down in Tooke*s Diversiona of Purley.
Murrav translates the Latin Grammar into English, as so
manv had done before him, and fancies he has written an
English Grammar ! and divines applaud, and school-
masters usher him into the polite world, and English
scholars carry on the jest, while Home Tooke's genuine
anatomy of our native tonsue is laid on the shelf! Can it
be that our politicians smell a rat in the member for Old
Sarum ? that our clergy do not relish Parson Home ? that
the world at large are alarmed at acuteness and originality

d by Google

has been a competition for superiority in almost
every other branch of knowledge, this, which is so
intimately connected with them all, has been un-
accountably neglected. Even of our learned men,
the great majority, I suspect, understand Oreek
and Latin better than they do English.* It is
true that English cannot be fiilly understood with-
out a knowledge of other languages : but surely,
• in respect to minute grammatical investigation,
•we ought not to give any tongue a preference to
our own: nor indeed is it possible to translate,
with accuracy, any foreign language into EngHsh,
without a thorough comprehension of the minuikp
of both. At any rate, we cannot employ our
knowledge of the languages of Europe (whether

greater than their own ? — It seems in this, as in many
other instances, as if there were a patent for absurdity in
the natural bias of the human mind, and that folly should
be stereotyped" — Oid Number of the New Monthly Ma*
gazine.

* " It is an egregious but common error to imagine that
a perfect knowledge of Greek and Latin precludes the ne-
.cessity of studying the principles of English Grammar.
The structure of the ancient, and that of tne modern lan-
guages are very dissimilar." — Caombie.

It is a curious fact that, in the notes to Soame*s Bamp-
ton Lectures for 1830, on the Doctrines of the Anglo*
Saxon Church, the Latin and Greek quotations are not
translated into English, while the Anglo-Saxon uniforrolv
are. Does not this prove that our learned men know Greek
. and Latin better than their own language ?

d by Google

they be dead or Hying) better than in enabling us
to master the etjrmology and use of our own.
Persons of any pretensions to education should at
least endeavour clearly to understand the parts of
speech of a language which is daily in their
mouths ; and not be contented with barely look-
ing at the superficies, when^ with a very little
trouble, they may penetrate to a considerable
depth beyond the surface. They will dtscorer
many beautiful and valuable gems to reward themi
for their labour.

I have met, indeed, with wellrbiformed persons,
clergymen, and even authors of merit, who have
contended that the study of English Grammar is
unnecessary, on, the plea that we learn from mix-
ing with good society, and from the perusal of
standard books, both to speak and write our native
tongue with propriety. It is painful to be under
the necessity of refuting a notion so obviously erro-
neous, and pregnant with mischief. I would only
ask such persons the few following questions :-^
Will not the English language gradually degene-
rate, and cease in time to be a civilized language
at all, if the principles of it are neglected by the
very persons whose compositions are justly regard-
ed as the standards of its purity ? When, in speak-

d by Google

ing BBd wntmg, ire mfy fellow the multitade, jnay
we not be «aid to be gioping in die dark, and pro-
ceeding more fvom chance than ffom intdligence ?
And shall we not, in that case, be continually Ua-
ble to fall into errors, without haying in our pos-
session any test by which to correct them ? Is not
the writer who knows his native tongue grammati-
cally, more likely than one who does not, to aivoid
those ambiguous and inaccurate sentences which
disfigure the compositions of our most popular au-
thors ? It is granted that custom is the sole rule
for the jproficmoia^fon of words ; butJirewenotto
be guided by something higher, in determining the
laws of Universal Grammar? Besides, does not our
conceiving a subject dearly, and thinking upon it
correctly, depend much upon learning to express
oursdves upon it with precision ? Finally, if it be
necessary to attend to the minutuB of other lan-
guages, m OT^ to a fiiU understanding of them,
how can we be said to understand English, if we
know no more about its minutias than what may
be gathered from capricious custom,-«-no more, in
^hort, than what the simplest child or the most il-
literate peasant has pidred up, thoughtlessly and at
random, from the mere hearsay of his companions P
But to return. I have taken the liberty to find

d by Google

great fault with my predecessors, for which I sup^
pose I shall be foimd great fault with myself: if,
indeed, I be so ftr honoured as to be noticed at all.
Should, however, my cotemporaries censure me
with as much apparent reason as I have censured
others, I shall be thankful for the reproof, and
study to profit by it. If I get advice which is really
valuable, I will excuse the harsh terms in which it
may chance to be conveyed.

At the same time, I think it necessary to say
that the manner in which the public may receive
this Analysis will be to me no proof either of its
mierit or demerit. When I observe such perform-
ances as those of L. Murray and Cobbett univer-
sally applauded, I am forced to conclude that it ia
much easier to obtain praise than to deserve it On
the other hand, the little esteem in which the Di-
versions of Purley is hdid is an instance that the
highest praise may be deserved, and not received.*
I am not, therefore, so sanguine as tQ expect a
place among the enviable few who have both de-
served the public approbation and obtained it
Meanwhile, however, I am satisfied as to the im-

I - • :

* Some French writer says, " La faveur prodiguee aux
mauvais ouvrages, est aussi cootraire aux progres de Tesprft
que le d^chainement oontre lea bona."

d by Google

portanc^ and utility of what I hare attempted, not-
withstanding some imperfections with which it may
possibly be incumbered.

On what is commonly called Syntax I have said
little, because, from the title of the work, this was
evidently foreign to my purpose. Besides, how-
ever defective our popular grammars are on the
.Parts of Speech, they are by no means soon Syn-
tax; nor am I aware that any material improve^
iH^nt could be made in that department. At the
same time, I am persuaded that a dear knowledge
of the Parts of Speech, and intercourse with per-
sons of good education, would, in a great mea*
sure, supersede the necessity of perusing works on
Syntax.

I ought here to state that this Analysis is not
intended for mere beginners, because I have sup-
posed my readers to be already acquainted with the
outlines of English Grammar : in other words, to
know what every person of the least pretensions to
education must know ; and hence I have not re-
peated what may be found in every abridgment
pf every grammar that is in print. Still less have
I altered into those details which Harris, Murray,
Grant, and others have so industriously pursued,—
details, one-half of which, as it seems to me, every

d by Google

Engluhman knows abea^jr, without haviag r^id
^em; and the other half, very few persons would
be the wiser for, were they to poiB over them evet
80 studiously. My main object has hem to eluci-
date and ihcifitate the method of pamng : and by
Iceeping this object steadily in view, I hope it will
be found that I ba^e equally avrnded the obscurity
Arising ftom brevity, and the tediousness proceed-
ing from i)eduadan(7.

It will be seen that I have availed mysdf of some
valuable hints suggested by the learned author of
die Diversions of Purley. The object of that in-
eatimaUe work, however, is chiefly to expose the
errors of the aa<^ient.and modern grammarians,
which is done with an acuteness and research beyond
all praise ; but. it must ever be regretted that one so
admirably fitted for the task as Tooke was, should
not have advanced a step farther than he did, and
constructed a grammar and dictionary on the prind-
pies he 80 suocessftilly advocated. This is the more
to be regretted, since nodiing is so bewildering and
irksome to the English student, as to find (whidi
we continually do in Johnson^s Dictiosafy) the same
word put down as two, three, or four different parts
of speech; and each of these with from five td fifty
different meanings ! when we know that this same

d by Google

woidfiidy be proved lo 4be only QfM put of speedi ;
and, however mo^ed by the connezioii in wMcb
it is used, to have bot one primary meaning. The
Divefsiong of Purley may satisfy every one that
words have only one meaning; and I have taken
upon myself to show that they are not more than
one part of speech.*

It seems impossibk to compose even a tolesdbk
dictionary or grammar, or woric on synonymes, wid^
out some knowledge of Etymology,-— which term
I do not use in the sense commonly affixed to it in
our popular grammars, in order to distinguish it
from Syntax : but I mean by it, the origin and de-
rivation of words as far back as we can trace them,
together with their various collateral significations,
whether literal or figurative. Nothing but this will
furnish the clue to the true meaning of particidar
words. WUhout the due, we grope in the dark,
and lose ourselves in a labyrinth of errors : toith
the clue, the path is easily discovered, time is saved,
and confusion avoided.

I by no means assert that it is necessary for all
who use dictionaries to be etymologiBts : but it is
evident that when a lexicographer does not himself

* See Appeadix B.

d by Google

know the trae s^ificntion of a word, he caimot
give a satis&ctory explanation of it to others. His
ignorance will betray itself even to the unlearned.
The most superficial may perceive when an author
is master of his subject, or when he is only hasardr
ing random assertions, or improbable guesses con-
cerning it. All I mean to affirm is, that words and
synonymes ought to be invariably based on Ety-
mology, which is the only anchor that can keep
them stationary amid the storms and currents to
which the ocean of language is ever subject.*

* How, for example, ean the seemingly different senses
of the same words in English and French, be understood,
without knowing their Etymology ? Such as, attend and
attendre ; defend and defendre ; particular snd particulier /
assist and assister, and a hundred others. Or how can tlie
various meanings of the same word in English he satisfac-
torily explained, without keeping in view its derivation ?
To instance the word fare : faran is the Anglo-Saxon verb
to go ; hence wc have Jar, gone; what is y ova fare ? or,
what is your going ? no thorough-fare, or, no thorough
(through) going; a vfSiy -faring and sea-faring man, or, a
wsy-^t"^ or sea-^n^ man ; how fare* it with yoo ? or,
how goes it with you ? or, how do you get on generally ?
farewell^ or, go, get on well : and hence, by an easy tran-
sition, the noun fare means the general gv^/tn^ on, in re-
spect to treatment, accommodations, provisions, &c. Let
an^ one now turn to Johnson's Dictionary, and compare
thi^ simple EtymologicdL account of the word fare, with
his, and decide which is the most satisfactory.

In the Notes and Appendix of this Treatise, I have
availed myself of Etymology whenever it throws light on
the Parts of Speech, or on points that are coufessemy ob-

d by Google

The utmost this Analysis professes to effect is^
to supply what the generality of persons^ I have
reason to believe, feel the want of, — ^namely, dUr
tinct conceptions on the Seven Parts of Speech
of the English Language, — a subject which, more
than any other, has been rendered unintelligible
by the obscurity of definitions, and the technicali-
ties of terms : and though in its present state the
Analysis may not be altogether adapted for begin-
ners, yet it wiQ be very easy to construct an abridg-
ed grammar for their use, on the plan I have re-
commended, should it be approved of

All that is necessary for the ordinary reader, is
contained in the text of the Analysis, which is short.
Those who wish to go beyond the surface may, it
is hoped, derive satisfaction from the Notes and
Appendix, in whidh some original matter will be
found.

A specimen of Parsing is given at the conclu-
sion^ where a letter of Lord Chesterfield^'s to i^s
Son, is employed for the purpose of illustrating the
rules contained in the Analysis.

scure, but not to the subversion of any of the established
principles of the language.

d by Google

Digitized by LjOOQ IC

ANALYSIS

OF THE

SEVEN PARTS OF SPEECH, &c.

I HAVE remarked in the preface, that I do not pro-
fess to give definitions of the Parts of Speech, but
only rules for their use. I am obliged, however,
to find a d^nition for the Noun^ as otherwise we
should have no datum to proceed upon in deter-
mining the remaining parts of speech. The Ad-
jective and Pronoun (it will be seen) may be known
from the Noun ; the Verb and Preposition from
the Pronoun ; the Conjunction from the Verb ;
and the Adverb from them all; but we have no
similar method of determining the Noun; and

Digitized by VjOOQIC

hence the necessity of considering it as a sort of
axiom or first prindple, and giving it an indepen-
dent definition. I would therefore define the Nouk
(from nam^ nomen) to be the name of any person,
phice, thing, quality, or principle, — ^using these
words in their most extensive signification, or more
briefly, the name of whatever may be th£

SUBJECT OF conversation.*

There has been great diversity of opinion as to
the number of the cctses of our Nouns, — some ar-
guing for six, some for three, some for two, and
others for one ; while one grammarian of the 17th
century (Dr Wallis) contends that our noun should
be divested of cases altogether ; and that what is
commonly called the possessive case^ ought to be
considered as a possessive adjective, on the ground
that it goes before, and in some sort qualifies,
.a noun. On this point, I have adopted the opi-
nion of the two most distinguished grammarians
.of the last century, viz. Bishop Lowth and Dr
Priestly, — ^not altogether because the opinion is
theirs, but because it is most consonant to the name

* I am indebted^ for this definition, to Quintilian^ who
says of the Noun that it is de i/uo hquimur ; in contradis*
tinction to the verb^ which^ he says, is qwid hqatmur.

d by Google

and nature of the thing, — the word case signify,
ing cadence^ (from casuSf cadd) a fall, or termi-
nation : and hence we have just as many cases, as
we have distinguishing terminations to our nouns ;
and these, it is sufficiently ohvious, are two only,
viz. the nominative and possessive; as, man, man^s ;
sun, sun'^s.

I say nothing of the plurals of nouns, because
there is no uncertainty about them, and I suppose
my readers to be abeady acquainted with them.
As to gender, I do not admit that our nouns have
any.*

I shall have occasion to make a few more obser-
vations on the noun, when treating of the Adjec-
tive ; for these two parts of speech, like man and
wife, ought not, strictly speaking, to be ^^ put
asunder.^^

* See Appendix D*

,y Google

'TsE office ef tbe ABjetdwe is to deaigmaie the
Xomi, or point out aome prniBarity bdoqgbig to
it ; wad its pootioB gamalhr is, sad always may
be, immediatdj brfare tbe Noun.

Tbe nile, tben, I vould oKr fiir tbe Adjsc-
TITS is, tbat it precedks axd designates the

Witb leqpect to tbe oidiiiaiy dass of adjectives,
it will not be necessary for me to do more than
sbow tbat tbe above rale is strictly applicable to
tbem. Thus we say, a genemus man, a large
bouse, a moeet orange ; and again, we defflgnate a
man as being generous, a bouse as bdnglaige, an
orange as being sweet. Consequently, generous,
large, and sweet, since tbey both precede and de-
signate nouns, are adjectives. These, for the sake
of distinction, may be caUed Attributive Adjec-
tivesy as generally indicating the attribute or qua-

* PoMessive cases of nouns^ verbs, and prepositions, pre-
cede nouns^ but do not designate them.

The term adfjective is evidently objectionable, since it
has no reference to the use or character of the word : Pre-
nmn would be better.

d by Google

lity of the noun. And it may be added, that this
is the only description of adjectives which admits
of degrees of comparison ; as, generous, more ge-
nerous, most generous; laige, laiger, largest;
sweet, sweeter, sweetest.

There is a second class of words to which our
rule of preceding and designating nouns will apply,
and which, on this account, must be brouj^t under
the head of adjectives ; I mean Prcnomimal Ad*
jectivea^ so caUed, becauise formed from their re«
spective pronouns. Of these, there are exactly
eleven ; my, mine^ thy^ thine, his, her, ito, our,
yowTy their, whose. We say, his book, her child,
my table ; and the book is designated as being
his book, the child, as being her child, and the ta-
ble, as being my table. These consequently are
adjectives.

When, in parsing, we meet with the words my-
self, thy-self, our-selves, &c., we can only say con*
ceming them, that they are compounded prono^
minal adjectives, being compounds of the pro*
nominal adjectives my, thy, our, 4*c.> and the af-
fix self, or its plural, selves.*

• The term self is no part of speech : it is a mere affix,
in the same manner that un^ dis^ re, mis, tub, and con are
jt^n^^es. Sometimes selfh a prefix, as in self-deulal.

d by Google

There is a third descriptioii of words which equal-
ly admit of being put before nouns, and are equally
employed to designate them. The following list
contains a certain ntunber of them i^^One^ two^
three^ Sfc, ad infinitum ; Jlrst, second^ thirds 4-c.,
ad infinitum; the,'^ thiSj that, whichj tvhat^
these, those, only, awn, same, ecuih, every, ano*
ther, both, whole, all, no. These may be said to
define, or restrict the sense of the noun to which
they are joined, and may, for that reason, be caUed
Definite Adjectives. The remainder of the words
in question are as follows, and may, for the contrary
reason, be called Indefinite Adjectives ; a or an,*

* The reader may perhaps be surprised to find what are
eommonly allied the Articles theySXxA a or an, classed among
adjectives. But surely if these two words can be legiti-
mately brought under this head^ it must be wrong, in every
view, to assi^ them a place by themselves. Now, it is
evident that m the phrsses the house., a man, the and a de-
signate as well as precede dieir nouns ; for a or on is ane,
one (unus) ; so that a man is equivalent to one, some, or
any roan ; and, in like manner, the house is equivalent Co
this, that, or the same house. Hence the and a are definite
and indefinite adjectives respectively.

Dr Wallis (one of our oldest and best grammarians) holds
this opinion ; and Dr Priestly, in his Rudiments of £nff*
lish Grammar, says expressly, *' articles are, strictly speak-
ing, adjectives, as they necessarily require a noun substan-
tive to follow them, the signification of which they serve
to limit and ascertain, as cM adjectives <2tK**-*P* 105.

The word 7Ae has been ascertained bv Tooke to have the
tame etymology as the word that, the former being the im-

d by Google

whichever, whatever , any, same, other, few, se-
veral, many, such,*

It will be seen at once that all these words may
be placed before nouns ; and they also serve to
designate them. Thus, when we speak of two
men, that house, which tree, these books, some
children, few cities, such horses, &c., we designate
these nouns by pointing out a peculiarity in each
of them : of the men, it is intimated that it is not
an unlimited number, but only two ; of the tree
and house, that it is not any, but a particular one ;
of the books, that it is certain books pointed to by
the speaker; of the children and cities, that it is
a small number of them, in contradistinction to all
or none ; of the horses, that it is a description si-
milar to certain others that have been mentioned.-}-

perative of the Anglo-Saxon verb thean^ to aaanme or sup*
pose, and the latter the past participle (tbied, thet, that)
of the same verb. Hence the stsnified originally, assume ;
and thai, assumed. In Appendixes B and £ we shall have
occasion to make an important use of this etymolMj.

* My reason for excluding either and neither from the
above list, will appear in Appendix B.

t There are a few anomalies or peculiarities in these
definite and indefinite adiectives, which may require to be
adterted to. Some of them are joined to nouns plural,
some to nouns singular, and some to both. Other, and
the numerals one, two, three, 4[c,, admit of plural termi-
nations ; as, others, ones, twos^ threes, &c We also write
other's, one's, which are contractions fbr other person's.

d by Google

ddndteaa

1 eaitikf hat cwo^ tbiee, scd mheUb^bs sww&y
jccixdu^ to dicr ayfuptlr A&rbI ve in dtf-
femi tCBtOKCS. Tbtt, I an pdsaded, is ahi>.
gttbtr MM enar^ akl a rerj misduefwi one, in.
jMnicb ai it Icfldi to great coofnaaB. Theabove
wogd» are ad|ectircs, and notlmg eke. It is trae,
thejr hare not ahrajrs a noon cnncaipd after tiieai,
bat dieB tbej bare alvays one ondentood. The
sentence is, in tbat case^ dfiptical ; bat it would
be itraage to aigne tbat tbe eO^ds dianged the
partof qieediof theword. I foibear saying racnne
oil ibu subject bere, because in Appendix B I
have endeayoured to pioYe, at some length, the
general position, that no word is ever more than
one part of speech.

Upon the whole, we need never, T think, be at
A loss to determine the noun and adjective. We

0ns person '»• We baj, besides, afew oranges, mani^ a time,
Much a flguroi what a wonder. Lastly, own never occurs
but between tbe pronominal adjective and tbe noun ; as^
my 0wn houpo. These peculiarities, bowever^ do not affect
their general ohsracter as adjectiye(|. . . ^

d by Google

have seen that the adjective precedes and desig*
loates the noun ; and this rule for the adjectire
furnishes us with one for the noun, nrhich perhaps
tnay be more easy of application than the defini-
tion given at the beginning of this secticm, a rule
being always more intelligible and tangible than a
definition ; for the noun is evidently that word
which is preceded and designated by the acgecdve :
80 that if we previously know ^ne of these parts of
speech, we can scarcely fail to ascertain die other.
Thus, if it be asked, what part of speech is the
word early f • I find I can say, an early hour;
and if I know hour to be a noun, i am then sure
that early is an adjective. In the same manner,
I discover the parts of speech of such words as
li^^^ much^ eiiougk, former^ latter^ near^ Uke^
^^ because I can say, little wine, much bread,
enough water, the former epistle, the iattef sen-
tence, a near view, a like occurrrace.* And con-
versely, if I want to ascertain the parts of speech
of the words advantage^ degree^ service^ system^
cor^encey 4*^., I find I can put adjectives before

* I shall bave occasion to make a further remark on the
words near and lilce when we come to Prepositions. Their
apparent use cls prepositions, will be easily accounted for,
without its being necessary to class them with prepositions.

d by Google

Aeokf and ssy, a great advantage, a Idg^ degree;
an important service, a regular system, impficit
confidence; and hence I may infier that the wovds
in qnestbn are noons. This will generally be
found a short and simple, and for the most par^
a correct method of ascertaining the noun as well
as the adjective.

There are fi>ur other words to be noticed tmder
tfab Section, because I hope to make it appear
that they are to be consid«»d as each a noun and
adjective in a state of combination. I mean the
words ours, yoursy hers^ and theirs. Our Gram^
marians find no difficulty in disposing of these
words. They call them possessive cases of prou
nouns, and in so calling them, think they have
done all that is necessary ; though they, strangely
enough, assign other possessive cases to the very
4ame pronouns. Thus they call her and hers^ the
possessivesof^i^; our bhAouts of we ; your tokA
yours of you ; their and theirs of they ! This may
satisfy those who are contented to take the ipse
dicoit of the grammarian in the place of reason
and common. sense ; but to me, I confess, nothing
can be more unsatisfactory. Our^ your^ her^ and
iheir^ I have already shown to be pronominal ad-
jectives ; but with respect to the same words with

d by Google

tfie ^^ulgoined, I was for a long lime at a loss to
find a suitable denommation for them, there being
no other words like than, in our, or in any other
language. Possessive cases they eannot be : for
all other possessive cases admit of nouns jafter
them, which these do not. I am disposed then to
consider them as the pronominal adjectives aur^
youTy her^ and tMr^ combined with an anUcederU
noun i for the final s will be found, in every in-
stance to represent a noun previously referred to*
Thus the sentences, ^^ that house is our«,^ ^< these
duldren are tbeir^,^ signify ^< that house is our-
bouse/' ^^ these cfaUdren are their-childrra ;'^ so
that the true and only use of the « is to represent
the noun already mentioned, to save the trouble
of repetition : in other words, our^ and theirs are
fHTonominai a^^ectives and nouns in a state of com-
bination ; and it is of course the same with hers
and jfours.* All I contend for is, that this is the
modem force and signification of the s (which is

* It may be some help to the memory to consider the s
as standing for tb<i word said : thus^ apeakit^ of a house,
we say^ it is theirs^ their-«, tbeir-jaid^ their-said-house.

Sometimes the noun represented by i is understood ; as
in the phrase *^ I am yours truly/' i, «. I afn« my doar
friend, yours, or your-friend truly. " I have receii^
yours of the l<5th inst**' i. €, your-lMter*

d by Google

all we need lie ooDoemed about) w liate f q lie ite
ongnL

The sam of what has been said is this. The
nocm may be known from its being the name of
any subject or oligect ; the a^ecdve from its i«e-
ceding and deagnating the noon. Or, when the
adjective is previously known, the noon may be
more conveniently determined from its bdng pre-
ceded and designated by the adjecdve. We have
moreover,

1. Attributive Adjectives; so caDed from thm>
generally indicating the attribute of the noun, as
generous, large, sweet

2. Pronominal Adjectives ; from the pronoun ;
as, Aw, her, my.

3. Definite Adjectives ; from their defining or
limiting the noun ; as, /Ae, this, that

4. Indefinite Adjectives ; from their leaving the
noun undefined or unlimited ; as, a, any, some.

The four words ours, yours, hers, theirs, are
the prondminal adjectives, our, your, her, their,
combined with an antecedent noun.

With respect to the foregoing classification of
adjectives into four divisions, a better arrangement
and nomenclature might perhaps be devised. My

d by Google

chief object was to prove that the several dasses
of words alluded to, really are adjectives ; or at
least, that since they are all of one character, they
ought to pass under one general name, whatever
name may be thought most appropriate.

A few supplementary observations concerning
Adjectives seem to be necessary*

The present and past participles of verbs are
frequently used adjecHvely; as, a pleasing ad-
dress, A finished picture.

Nouns are sometimes used adjecHvely ; as, a
gold-nng^ ^Aip-stores, cauntry-houaej shell^^Bbf
cAwrcA-yard-cough, &c.*

It would seem as if occasionally the same word
were used both as a noun and an adjeciive ; thus
we say, a great evil, and an evil design ; a divine
being, and an eminent divine. The same remark
will apply to the words Christicm^ ritual, liquid^
missionary, cold, cunning, original, private, and
tif few more. As it is, however, one object of this
work to show that words are not more than one

* Johnson calls country an adjective, because we say
country-house. Might he not as well have called cow an
adjective, because we say cow-house ? Sometimes even a
preposition is used adjectively, as, an a/?er- thought^ an
under'tL<!,ent ; but we do not on that account call after
and under adjectives.

d by Google

part of speech, I would decide, that in all such
cases, the woid in qnestiem is a noun used adfec^
Hveltff (m the ground that it mnst have been a
noun before it conld be an adjective. Persons
and objects mnst have eidsted before their quali-
ties were thought of. It admits of proof that
nouns and verbs were antecedent to all other part«
of speech.

The foregoing is aU that is necessary to be
known concerning the Noun and the Adjective.
Under the head of the Verb, will be found some
observations on the Participle, which it is well
known is nearly related to the Adjective.

,y Google

This part of speech is well named, because it ex-
plains itself. It is a word used instead of, or for
a noun. Hence, whatevee woed eepeesents

A NOUN IS A PEONOUN.

The following are our nine pronouns with their
nominative and objective cases.

NaminaUTe Caiei. Ol^ective Caiea.

I me

thou thee

he him

she her

it it

we us

ye or you you

they them

who* whom

I have never been able to discover any pro-
nouns except these ; though in our grannnars we
read of pronouns distributivey relative j absolute,
demonstrative, substantive, indefinite, persofiuU,

* Who is exclusively called by our Grsmmarians, a re-
leHve pronoun ; Imt is not every pronoun relative } Do
they not all relate to the nouns for which they stand ?

y Google

maf^^ int. :H. .' -^^s^DcsaiBS v^ae^ lae

id viica la^ve nv cJUtttMEt ktt m tbe^

Ai^ vLtt &s teoL fa5d pige 2? concenuiig'
t^e vcr& «''.4>i. «^ii^« /AX#« M^, M«mv fibMr,
^/^4r, tatk^ OTtfjiher^ 6r€^ it is almost vnmrrsfMry
to obeerre, tbat tboc^h dl tbe gnmmns axe
flamed to e^// diera prrmounsj tber are m &cC
BoC aoy becaniie Aej do sot Tcpteseiit Boons ;
bot «e mdjeetire^^ b ce aia e tZiey precede and de-
rignate ddium ; vhidi nomia, vben tfaey are not
expressed are understood. This is so plain mil
dnrioas a distinction, tliat it is smpriang these^
two parts of speech should have been so uniyer-
sail J confounded*

When, in parsing, we meet with the words
him-self, them-selves^who-so, who-so-e^rer, &c.,we
can only say of them that they are compounded
pronouns^ being componnds of die pronouns Aw/i,
them^ wkOf and the affiiees se^, «o, ever.f

* Tho German GrammnrianiB make the distinetron I con-

t Tho above compounds, together with my-self, thy-
irlf, vour-ielf, our-iielves, arc not pronouns, properly sa
calirU, but ire uied merely to give en^th4$$i9 to the pro*
iiouuN ) like ki-m^t of the French, or ^^mkei of thfr
t«iitUu

d by Google

It may be proper to remark, that when we say
** he himself J or they themadvea did it,'' — in order
to account for the nominatiye and objective cases
thus coming together before the verb, we must
understand a preposition before the objective;
thus, " he (of or by) himself, they (of or by)
themselves did it"' — ^the preposition, as we shall
see presently, always governing the objective case
Df the pronoun.*

The sum is, that pronouns are representatives
of nouns, and are nine in number, viz. the nomi^
natives, /, thou, he, 4*c., with their objectives vie,
thee, hiufij S^c.

* This^ I think^ is a more natural way of accounting for
the anomaly, than by supposing with Lowth and John-
son, that himself and themselves are^ in such examples,
corruptions for hhself and theirtelves*

]|2

,y Google

Thk Verb u so called becaase it is tbe cbief word
(verbum) in a sentence^ and without which no
sentence can be complete*

Generally speaking, it denotes Action, or Coik
dition of Being ; and it is either transitive or in-
transitive ; that is, the action either passes from
the actor to the object acted upon^ or it is con-
fined to the actor.

When the action is tranative, it includes the
time and mode of its performance, together with
the person or persons by whom, and those on
whom the said action is performed; whence we
have Person, Time, Mode (or Mood) and what is
called Voice.* Thus, in the sentences, '' James
raised John from the ground,^ ^< James dressed
John,^ the person is James, the time is past, the
mode is indicative (or declarative^, and the voice
is active ; the expression Active Voice signifying

* Why the word Voice (vobi, vox, toco) should have
been employed by Grammarians to describe the active and
passive state of the verb, I have never been able to dis-
cover.

d by Google

that the action passes firom James to John, in con-
tradistinction to what is called the Passive Voice^
which denotes that John is raised from the ground,
and is dressed by James. Moreover, the active
voice of the transitive verb governs the objective
case of the pronoun ; as, << I dress him.'"

When the action is intransitive, we have only
person, time, and mode; as in the sentences,
** James rises at six o'clock,^ " James dresses
himself,*" the person is James, the time is present,
the mode is indicative.*

I would propose the following simple rule for
recognising the vebb ; it is a woed befobi:

WHICH THE KOMINATIVE CASES OF THE PEO-

N0UN8 MAY BE USED. This will bc found more
comprehensive than the ordinary definition of
beififfy doinffj and suffering ; for (to say nothing
of the impropriety of defining verbs hy verbs) to
look, to think, to stand, to sit, &c., are neither to
be, do, nor sufier ; but we may say, I look, thou
lookest, he looks, &c., I think, thou thinkest, &c.,
I stand, &c., which is the best proof that these

• The French express this distinction between the tran»
sitive and intransitiTe action more elegantly than we do.
With them Uver is to raise, se lever to rise ; hahiller to
dress another, ihaMUer to dress one's self.

d by Google

aieveibs. The same rule indudes the iMMmnativ^
pronoun who ; for we say^ I who love, thou who
lovest, he who lore^ ; osy intern^tivdy , who bves ?

I purpose giving first a swnmary view of the
Aoxiliaxy rerbs, and then of the Begqhr verb
and Fartidple, referring the reader to any Gram^
mar for a list of the Irsegnlar verbs, which^ how-
ever, are better learnt from conversation tha«
from books.*

I shall make two preliminary observations >— *
First, I have deviated from what ia usually givea
in Grammars, as to the number and arrangepient
of Auxiliary verbs. I redu>n fourteen oi them in
all, of which five are Indicative, and nine Con*
tingjE^nt. To ought, I have assigned, an Incum^
belli mood; while must and k^ are classed to^
gather under the head of the Imperative^ The
efiect of this last arrangement is to give a past
time to the Imperative> which it could not have^
while let only belonged to it. S£coNnii.Y„ The
Auxiliaries should, wouM,^ mighty and coidd^

* Accordmp; to Bishop Lowth^ there are 4300 verbs in
the English language, of which only 177 are irregular.
He might have addetl that the irregular are most in use,
and that it is probably for this very reason they have be*
come mutilated and imperfect

d by Google

3fJ

though orij^nally the past times of shaU^ willy
matfy and can respectively, yet are not considered
any longer in that light ; as it will appear, on the
inost superficial examination, that these digtinc*
tions are now lost, and that each of the above
terms has a force of its own, and must be taken
by itself. In the same manner ought was (»igi-
nally the past time of the verb to owcy but it
must now be considered as a distinct verb.

The following Table contains the fourteen
auxiliary verbs, and shows at the same time the
manner in which they are used as the moods of
English verbff in general.

^I HAVE, thou hast, &C. \ Indtcatitb Mood, bo
jl AM| thou art, &c / called, because indi*

I DO, thou dost, &c. > caftng- the action done*

'l SHALL, thou shalt, &c. I being done, or that is
J wiLL^ thou wilt, &c. / to be done.

/ S Conditional Mood, '

f I SBOULP, thou shouldst, &c. ( implyinff^ that the aco
I WOULD, thou wouldat, &c. ^ tion depends on a con»
J ditiofu

\l CAN, thou canst, &c Y """"K *« P°f'' ^

{\ couii,. thou couUlBt, &c. 3 P*'**"" "» ■»"'«"•

} Incumbent Mood^
showing the duty to
perform an action.
^ Imfbkativb Mood,
I MUST) thon must, &e, ( signifying an order ot

^Let r request Xo perform an

J action*

d by Google

It thus appean that the auxiliary verbs are di*
vided into two classes; namely, fire Indicatire
and nine Contingent, — the former constituting
one Indicative Mood, and the latter four Contin-
gent Moods, vis. a Conditional, Potential, In-
cumbent, and Imperative Mood. I do not con-
rider what is called the Infinitive as a mood, any
more than the Participle ; on the ground that
they contain no affirmation or command, proper-
ties which ought, I think, to be deemed essential
to a mood.

Respecting the conjugation of the Indicative
auxiliaries to have, to be, and to do, and that of
the Indicative Mood of verbs generally, I would
remark that, whatever may be predicated of past
time, must equally be predicated of present and
future time; in other words, whatever state or
stage an action was in yesterday, it may be in at
the present moment, or may be in to-morrow. So
that there are Three Times in every verb, ptMt,
present, and future : and there must be the same
number and denomination (whatever that number
and denomination may chance to be) of States of
Action in eooA of the said three times. The
number of these States of Action in the English
verb, I conceive to be three, and that they ought

d by Google

a©

to be denominated Finiahedj Unfinished, and
Ind^nite.

In accordance with this principle, I will here
give an outline of the conjugation of the three

INDICATIVE AUXILIARIES,

to hav€i to be, and to do, with their Infinitires
and Participles. The other two Indicative auxi-
liaries shaU and unU are only used to express the
future time of the Indicative mood.

(I had had, thou, &c.

finished < I had been, thou, &c
H I ij. had done, thou, &c.

S ) (I was having, thou, &c

^ <unfini8hed< I was being (or getting), thou, &e
S y (,1 was doing, thou, &c«

2( ri had, thou, &c.

indefinite ^ I was, thou, &c.
: did, thou, &c.

Qite -{ I

,"1 have had, thou, &c.
finished -{ I have been, thou, &c
I have done, thou, &c.
r I am having, thou, &c
(unfinished < I am being, thou, &&
(1 am doing, thou, &c.
f 1 have, thou, &c.
[ indefinite < I am, thou, &&
(l do, thou, &c»

^yGoogle

ri ahall or will* haye had, thou, &c.

finished < I shall or will have heen^ thou, &c.

{l shall or will have done, thou, &c.

ri shall or will he having, thou, &c.

2 (unfinished-j ^ '^f ^' "^"^ ^® ^^'°S (°^ getting), thou,

H / \l shall or will he doing, thou, &c.

g I ri shall or will have, thou, &c.

^indefinite < I ^all or will he, thou, &c.
(I shall or will do, thou, &c.

INFINITIVES.

Past. To have had, to have been, to have done*

Present. To have, to be, to do-

TTo be about to have.
FuTUEE. < To be about to be.

I To be about to do.

PARTICIPLES.

Fast. Had, been, done.

Present. Having, being, doing.

r About to have.
Future, -f About to be.

(^ About to do.

The four Contingent moods of these verbs are
now to be exhibited, together with those of verbs
in general, under the head of

CONTINGENT AUXILIARIES,

The following^ sentences (amounting to not less
than three hundred and thirty-six, if we include

* The rule for shall and will is somewhat conaplicated*
It can only be learnt from correct practice.

d by Google

all the perMiifl) exhibit all the possible varieties in
which the contingent auxiliaries can be used, ex-
cept what relates to let, which will be given after-
wards.

!^,T.'; Ifi^w" /have, thou. &c
riZj (be, thou, &c

^°f.r1jr* V^^'thAc^c..^

be dressed, thou, > Reoulab.*

r / &c. Pass,)

IMPB-
BATIVE.

TiAL. ) 1 can
V.I could
Incum-

be drawn, thou, > » *».•

{1 De drawn, tnou, ?-

I must \ &c. Pass, J

In these sentences (which it will be observed
only express the Condition, Power, Duty, and
Obligation of acting) there is evidently very Kttle
reference to time ; for the action being contingent,
that is, doubtful whether it be performed at aH, it
is impossible to fix the time of its performance.
Notwithstanding, we may perhaps be justified in
assigning to the above sentences, one presekt
TIME, on the ground, that when we speak of the
power, duty, or obligation to do any thing, these

* The verbs io dress and to draw are selected merely a»
examples of a regular and irregular verb. It is well known
that the only distinction between these two kinds of verbs,
consists in the fonner expressing its past time by the ter-
mination etf, and the latter by a different one.

d by Google

must be present to us at the moment^ eren though
we should never carry the act into exeeution.

When die same auxiliaries are compounded
with the verb to havcy and the past participle of
the following verb, they may, for a similar reason^
be said to have one past time,* thus,

Condi- flAould / had, tbmi, &c
TiON^L.tl could / y^X^^c

TIAL.

» \\^\. \ done, thou, &c

POTEK- _J I niight \ d,e«k,thoti.&c Act. l „„„

I could Y g^^ / Pass.)'^^'^
I ought to/ drawn, thou, &c Jc/. 1 j

I been drawn, thou, > heou-

Imuftt y &c. . PflwJ ^^•^

It deserves notice that, in the foregoing contin-

* One great mistake of our Grammarians is their hav-
ing divided the contingent moods of English verbs into
several successive tenses. It is true, that for the reaaoa
given above (and for the convenience of parsing) I have
assigned one present time to the contingent auxiliaries in
iheir simple state, and one past time to them when com-
pounded ; but this is the very utmost they possess ; and
It is only in a restricted sense that they can be said to p08«
sess so much. Yet what say our Grammars ? They in-
fbrm us that may and can ^e fresekt ; that should j
toauld, might, and could^ are imfeafect; that may and
can have are perfect ; and that should, would, mighty and
could have are pluperfect ! that is^ four successive tenses
are ascribed to verbs, for which the utmost stretch of the
imagination can only find two ! If mistakes are to be
made, let them at least be made on the side of simplicity
and not of confusion.

d by Google

gent auxiliaries, ought is the only one which re«
tains the infimtive sign to after it Once, how-
ever, the others had it also, as might easily be
shown by a reference to their etjrmology. And
not only they, but do> shaU^ wiU, and let be-
sides, though they have now dropped it.* But
in parsing^ we must understand it, and call the
verb which follows in the infinitive. Thus, in
the sentences, <^ I do, shall, will, may, might, can,
could, should, would, and must dress,^ and also
. in '' let him dress,^ the verb dress is in the in-
finitive.-f*

EngUsh verbs, moreover, have the power of as-
suming (under certain limitations) what may pro-
perly be called a Hypothetical Form ;% and this,
like the contingent moods, has two times, one pre-
sent and one past ; thus.

* *' AbbreTiations and corruptious are ilwtys buaiMt
with the words which are most frequently in use : letters,
like soldiers, being very apt to desert and drop in a long
march." — Diversions ofPurley,

f If the reader will translate these phrases into French,
he will see at once the necessity of the verb dress being in
the infinitive. The phrase ** let him dress** is, in other
words, " permit him to dress,"

X I call it tiform in contradistinction to a mood, because
it contains a supposition only, and not an assertion.

d by Google

PRESENT HYPOTHETICAL FORM OF VERBS*

(I were, thou wert, he were,
Ibe,

thou be, he be, we be, you be, they
Though,>^ thou have, behave^ be.

Unless, ^ thou do, he do,

&c.* / thou dress, he dress. Act.

\l be, thou be, he be, &c. dressed. Passm

PAST HYPOTHETICAL FORM OF VERBS.

thou have been, he have been,

thou have had, he have had,

thou have done, he have done,

thou have dressed, he have dressed. Act,

thouhavebeen dressed,he have been dressed.Po^^.

All the parts of verbs, whether auxiliary, regu-
lar, or irregular (with the single exception of the
Imperative let)^ are capable of being used hypo-
thetically, by putting before them the words if,
though, unless, &c. : but the above are the only
parts in which the hypothetical form can be dis-
tinguisked. The other parts undergo no varia-
tion when so used.

* The number and character of these words will come
under our consideration hereafter. It is scarcely necessary
to remark that, in the above sentences, some one or other
of the contingent auxiliaries is understood between the
pronoun and the verb : generally it is should; as^ if thou
(shouldst) have, though he (should) dress.

d by Google

Before quitting the contingent auxiliaries, I will
here give a fiill view of the Imperative Mood of
English verbs, as connected with the two auxiliaries
let and mtisf. Above we could do no more than
advert to it as it related to must

IMPERATIVE MOOD OF VERBS.

/had, thou, &e.

\been, thou, &c.

Past^ I must have, <done, thou, &c.

/dressed, thou^ &c. Act

\been dressed^ thou, &c„*Pass>

/Let me, (or I ™"**\hftve

h( Have, be, do, dress thou, or thou must/. '
H^Lethim, (or he mustv. '

S)LetU8, (or we mustT , ' -

*/Have, be, do, dress you, or you must l5L^«-«wi ipJl.
'^ VLet them, (or they must/*^**^'®"^- ^«'-

The foregoing will be found to comprehend all
that relates to the Indicative and Contingent auxi-
liary verbs, together with the Conditional, Poten-
tial, Incumbent, and Imperative Moods, and Hy-
pothetical forms of verbs generally. It now only
remains that we ^ve the Indicative Mood of the

REGULAR VERB.

The ouly thing to be premised is, that our Gram-
marians show far too great an anxiety to tread in
the steps of their Greek and Liatin predecessors,

d by Google

le 1 rf AeteMwcf die

«leIlipUeMMi«r<<
imle,^ "^ finl aid «cnad pRtcnmpofiect,^ «« fint
ad second pretcfplnperfect,^ ^ riMjiimil «f die
pveaent,^ ^ c omp o un d of die paat,^ ^ ptcaentper-
teet^ ^ post perfect, ^ preCente antcnor,^ ^ fii-
tore anteiior,^ &c &c. The fidlowiiig oodiiie of
tlie Actire and Pasave Toice of tlie veib ie dress
Qsk c cpfufiuity with the piinci^ adopted m the
indicatiyeaiixiliaTies) wiDy peih^a, be found more
rimfde and satiafutory :«*-

t A^u^^ f vie/. I had dressed, thou, Ac

^IHBisDed |p^. I had been dressed, thott,&c.

S \ CAcU I was dressing, thocu &c

^YmfiDisbed-^Pax^.I was being (or getting) dressed,

B/ i tbou, &c-

Aiiidellnite H^' I dies^d or did dress, thou, &c;
yiDueniuie -J^p^, I ^33 dressed, thou, &c.

Si(filiifhed H^- I have dressed,* tbou, &c
SI \Pass. I have been dressed, thou, &C.

^ \ (Act. I am dressing, diou, &c*

!!<unfini8hed< Fass.I axn being (or getting) dressed, thou,

B) V &«•

Sf i«.<ioA«u^ /-4c/. I dress, or do dress, thou, &c.
g^indeflmte |p^,., ^^ dressed, thou, &c,

* '* I have dressed," which is given as the finished action
of the present time, may, perhaps, appear to iome, very like
a past time ; but, upon reflection, it will be found that the
IdM of present time is, in the above instance, aeoeasarily

d by Google

'Act I shall or will liaTe dressed, thou, &c.

finished -l Pass. I shall or will have heen dressed,

thou, &c.

^AeL I shall or will bedresshig, thou, &c.

^unfinished < Pass. I shall or will be being (or getting)

dressed, thou, &e.

fAct I shall or will dress, thou, &c.

indefinite

XPoss, I shall or will be dressed, thou^ &c.

conveyed by the auxiliary have, which denotes, no doubt,
that the action is finished, but that the sneaker continues
to have, hx>ld, or possess the action in a finished state ; that
is, he remains dressed at the time of speaking ; for if he
were subsequently to undress, he would no longer saVi ** I
have dressed," but " I dressed," or " I had dressed.

Other seeming tenses, besides these given above, might
be enumerated ; but the objection to them will be found
to be two- fold ; 1st, They are incapable of the three modi-
fications of past, present, and future ; and, Sd, they do not
exfMress specific aeu at specific times, but intended, inter-
rupted, or ambiguous acts ; as, '' I was to dress," *^ I waa
to have dressed," '* I had been dressing,** " I had to dress,**
" I am to dress," " I have to dress," &c.

The indicative mood of the Latin, French, and German
verb may be divided similarly to that of the £ng^h verb,
excepting, that instead of three, they only admit of two
states of action for each time ; thus.

/Laudabam,

I Je louois,
H )lch lobete,
^jLaudaveram,

/je louai,

\Ich hatte gelobt,J

/Laudo,
^V Je loue,
H yJch lobe,
S ^I^audavi,
"fJ'ailou^,

Vich

"-I praised or was praising.
'I had praised.

habe gelobt,

^I praise.

>- 1 have praised.

d by Google

INFINITIVES.

Paq^ fi4c^ To have dressed.

rAST. \pass. To have been dressed.

Present Z^"^'' To dress.
PRESENT. |p^^ rj.^ ^^ drcssed.

Future /^^^* 'r® ^® about (or going) to dress.

• \Pass» To be about (or going) to be dressed.

PARTICIPLES.

Past f'^ct. Having dressed.

• \Pass. Having been dressed.

Present I^^'* Dressing.
present. |p^^ ggj^g drcssed.

TT^T^tT^^ /-^^'- About to dress.

* UTURE. -j^ p^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^ ^g dressed.

Intransitive verbs may, in general, be conju-
gated like the active voice of the regular verb ;
only that some of them^ it will be found, do not
admit of an equal number of states of action ; par-
ticularly those which express conditions of being
that are involuntary ; as, to languish, to become,
to fall, to smile, to shine, to seem.

Having had occasion to introduce the past, pre-
sent, and future participles, in the conjugation of

gXlchwerdeloben, j P^*»^*"«-

H ^Laudavero, S

£ /J'aurai lou^, >I shall or will have praised,

yich werde gelobt haben, J

d by Google

the verb ; and to show (under the head of the Ad-
jecdye) that the two first are often used adjectively,
I will now proceed to what remams to be said on
the subject of the .

PARTICIPLE,

Which denotes a word partaking of the character
both of the verb and adjective : of the former, from
its indicating certain conditions of action, or being
in a given subject ; of the latter, from its point-
ing out certain attributes or properties in the said
subject.

What I have chiefly to notice here, is a peculiar
class of words, which I propose distinguishing by
the name of Indeterminate Participles. I use
the word Indeterminate with reference to time.
All other participles are sufficiently determined by
their past, present, and future appellatives ; but
the under-mentioned have no time belonging to
them, beyond what the accidental construction of
the sentence in which they occur, assigns to them.
It is singular that none of our grammarians have
distincdynoticed them, and our lexicographers seem
also to have been at a loss in what light to consi-
der them. The following list contains all,'or nearly

d by Google

md cshibitB, at die
the wiMii inwJBch Aeyanadaut of
bang med. vil vidi sht put cf At wrii io be
before thcfls. and a piepoatioB after diCB ; dms.

Bcinz mcnejsitry id

— eowKTtaMf with

— dtsifxmj of

— arfrwe to or froci

— comparabii to
-» ncMrtDorfiir

*■" QMMtC Oft

— MMEisarr of

— afrmdot

— KahUto

— capable cf

— incapable of

— consonant to

— mindful c€

Bcin^ Ttgmrdicss of

— cvc^mri?* to

— mlAo^ent to

— ccKtfatil-^e with

— rrfrrahle to

— devoid of
'— pmrsmamt to
-» smbpertiwe of

— imeidemt to

— coMfeqMemt up«3n

— prone to

— subject to

— commensurate with

— coeooi with.

Now, it will be seen that these words cannot be
verbs, according to our rule, since they do not ad*
mit the nominative cases of the pronouns imme-
diately before them ; nor can they be adjectives,
since they cannot be made to precede and desig*
nate nouns. At the same time, they partake of
the nature of adjectives, from their indicating cer*«
tain attributes in the subject referred to ; and they

d by Google

partake of the oatme of veibs, fiom their indicat-
ing certain conditions of being in the same sub-
ject. They are, therefore, Participles, and may,
accordingly, be always used as such.

There are two words which come nearer to the
Indeterminate Participle than to any other part of
speech, and yet sli^tly differ from it, on which
accotwt they may be called Anomalous Participles,
viz. wont and worth. Wont requires after it the
infinitive of a verb ; as, << he was wont to say.'^
Worth affects the word which follows it without
the intervention of a preposition ; as, <^ it is worth
a shilling.'^ These are anomalies from which no
language is exempt ; but in parsing, it is proper
to notice them. They are the only anomalies I
have discovered under the head of the participle
or verb.

While I am upon the Participle, I would ob-
serve that such words as unwilling, imdeserving,
unresisting, unpretending, &c., should be called
compounded present participles ; and that unde-
served, unresisted, imaccustomed, unprotected,
&c., be called compotmded past participles^ be>
ing compoui|ded of the inseparable prefix tm, and
participles of existing verbs. These words are

d by Google

called ad;>cltf)e« by onr lexkogni^era ; but, sure-
ly, when a word is distiiigaished by a peculiar and
obvious character, that ought to be designated in
parsing.

There are, indeed, 'several words which have the
past participle termination, but which, as they are
not derived from existing verbs, are adjectives
only; as, craved, crabbed, naked, insulated,
crested, turreted: particularly compound terms;
as, able-bodied, good-natured, bare-headed, evil-
miaded, &c.

In the use of the different tenses, moods, and
participles of the verbs, considerable latitude is
used in conversation, and certain minute shades of
distinction exist, which can only be understood by
familiarity with the language, and by intercourse
with correct speakers. This rather belongs to the
province of Syntax, on which I do not profess to
enter. The outline I have given of the verb,
though not, perhaps, altogether perfect, seems to
me more complete, and less liable to objection,
than any other I have met with. More might
have been attempted ; but changes even for the
better, sometimes do harm, when made with too

d by Google

great nicety, or pushed beyond certain limits For
every purpose of parsing, the foregoing will be
found abundantly sufSoient.

The sum of the whole is this, — the verb may al-
ways be known from its admitting the nominative
cases of the pronouns before it ; as, / dresSy thou
readesty he who rides^ Sfc.

The auxiliary verbs are fourteen in number.
Five of these are indicative ; as, I have, am, doy
shcUly will. The other nine are contingent ; as,
I should f wouldy may, mighty can, could, otight^
must, and let. These last are considered as pos-
sessing, in their simple state, one present time,
and one past time when compounded ; and they
serve also to express the conditional^ potential, in-
cumbent, and imperative moods of verbs generally.

The regular verb, aided by its incorporated ter-
minations, and the indicative auxiliaries, has one
past time, one present, and one future ; each of
which is subdivided into three states of action, viz.
finished, unfinished, and indefinite.

All the parts of verbs may be thrown into the
Hypothetical form; but there is only a limited
number of parts by the structure or inflection of
which this form can be distinguished.

d by Google

,y Google

^l^vtpttiitian.

The primary characteristic of the Prepofsition is,
that it affects words in contradistinction to sen--
fences ; namely, nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and
participles; and, in particular, any word, not

BEING A VERB, WHICH GOVERNS THE OBJECTIVE
CASE OF A PRONOUN, IS A PREPOSITION.

The following list includes all the prepositions,
of which there are thirty-seven: — around, amidst,
about, among, along, across, against, after, at,
above, below, before, beneath, behind, by, be-
yond, besides, between, but,* except, for, from,

* Bui, when it has a negative or exceptive force (as,
'* thoa shalt have no other Gods but me"), is a preposition,
and governs the objective case of the pronoun. Hence the
sentence in Mark xii. ^' there is none other God but he"
should, unquestionably, be " there is none other Grod but
hitn.*^ When but denotes that something is to be added
to what went before (as, ^' lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil/') it is an adverb^ as will appear
hereafter.

The preposition but is etyraologically be-out, or remove,
withdraw ; and is compounded of the imperative be and
the adverb out ; and it may be remarked that behw, before,
beneath, behind^ beyond, besides, between, are equally com-
pounded of the same verb, and their respective adverbs.
It is also a singular coincidence that the preposition with-
out is from the same root as but or be-out (sec Divcrsi-^

d by Google

in, into, our, on, of, off, save,* through, to, to-
wards, upon, under, with, within, witliout.

These may at once be known horn their requir-
ing after them the objeetiye cases himy her, them^
me J you, us, or wham.-f'

of Purley, vol. L p. 215), and hence, in Old English^ but
is frequently used for without ; as, in the Jacobite song,

'' But the hose and hut the breeks."
*' But doubt" is a common expression in Gravin Douglas.

The other hut was formerly (and ought still to be) writ-
ten hot, being the comparative of the old Saxon verb hotan^
to addk Hence our phrase to boot, or, in addition. The
French mats (magis) has the very same meaning. But is
one of the few words in the English language that are two
parts of speech ; and it arises from the two above-men-
tioned words, which are in origin and meaning so widely
different, having become accidentally confounded.

• On the principle that the preposition must govern the
oljective case, the word they in Matt. xix. '' Save they to
whom it is given," should be them ; accordingly we have
elsewhere, '' Save Jesus Christ and him crucified."

t The preposition might be named the obfectative (ob-
jectatus), to denote that it governed the objective case of
the pronoun.

The rule I have given for determining the preposition,
is supported by the analogy of the Greek and Latin lan-
guages^ the prepositions of which constantly govern a case
of all these parts of speech which possess cases. It is the
same in German.

I have not admitted since or till among the prepositions,
because we do not usually say since or till himy wie, ^c. ;
but, since my time, till his time, &c. For the same rea-
son I have excluded up and down^ because, instead of up
him^ down him, &c., we rather say, up his arm, down his
back, &c.

There is reason to believe that all the prepositions are
fragments of transitive verbs, and that it is in virtue of their

d by Google

There are a few expressions, such as, nigh to,
as to, with respect to, according to, on account of,
in spite of, which may be said to be used as pre-
positions ; at the same time, it is only in virtue of
the concluding words of and to, that they are en-
titled to this rank.

being so, that they require the objective case after them.
Many of them are known to be such ; others can be traced
to Saxon or Gothic nouns, which nouns had been probably
past participles of verbs ; it being well known that nouns
and verbs are often the same word, differing only by a pre-
fix or termination. The circumstance of the preposition
governing the objective case, seems to have escaped Tooke ;
at least he does not notice or account for it. He shows
e. g. that through means a door or passage ; but then a
noun can never govern an objective case ; and hence it
seems reasonable to conclude that the word was previously
a verb, or became one subsequently.

With reference to a Note in p. 25, respecting the words
like and Ttear, we use the objective case after them, and
say, like or near me, him, ^c, which may seem at first
sight, to give these words a claim to be ranked among pre-
positions. But the truth is, our ancestors write *' like to
or unto me, him^ ^c," " near to or unto me, him, S[C'" the
objective being, as usual, governed by the preposition to
or unto. Custom has, however, retained the objective, and
dropped the preposition. But this cannot change the cha-
racter of the words near and like, which I have already
shown to be adjectives. We sometimes say, in the same
manner, ^' he lives opposite us" i. e. opposite to us ; op-
posite being an adjective, and incapable of governing a case.

Sometimes prepositions are annexed or prefixed to verbs
in such a way that the original meaning of both is lost or
modified ; in which case, we must consider the combina-
tion as forming new verbs ; as, to take-off^, to take-in, to put-
off, to look-after, to take- up- with, to let-on, to over- take,
to under-take, to with-hold, to with*draw.

d by Google

The present participles respecting^ concerning,
touching^ eaieepAng^ aamng^ 4rc., may also be said
to be used as prepositions, but it is only in their
lyerhal capacity that they govern the objective case.

According to Johnscm and others, many of the
prepositions are adverbs as well as preporitions ;
but in Appendix C, I have, I trust, shown this to
be a mistake.

The sum is, that there are thirty-seven propo-
sitions, which may always be known from their ad-
mitting after them the objective case of the pro-
nouns ; as, by them^for us, in whom, S^c.

,y Google

€aninnctitttt.

As it is the primaiy characteristic of the Preposi-
tion to affect wordsj and, in particular, to govern
the objective case of the Pronoun : so it is that of
the Conjunction to affect sentences; and, in
particular, it governs the hypothetical form

OF VERBS.

Though there be diany words in our language
used conjunctively, there are only eight which
can properly be called Conjunctions ; namely, if,
though (or although), unless, lest, notwithstanding,
whether, till (or until), and ere. Thus we say,
or ought, in strictness of speech, to say, —

If, \

unless, 11 be, thou be, he be, we be, you be, they

-VT **'Iu ( thou have, behave, be.

NotwithA ^y^^^^^^ jj^j

wII.K^A thou dress, he dress. .. . Act.

1111 F ^^' ^'^^^ ^' ^^ ^' ^^ dressed. Pass.
Ere.* /

* As a general principle, one would say that the Con-
junction, denoting contingency, ought to have no affinity
with the Indicative Mood, which denotes certainty. This
rule, notwithstanding, is often violated, not only in £ng-

d by Google

There -is one partial exception to this rule,
namely, with respect to till as applicable to the
auxiliary were. When this verb refers to time
past, we cannot say, till I were, but, till I was ;
as, ^^ He stopped till I was dressed,^ not ^< till
I were dressed."" The rule, however, holds good
in all the other instances ; and these, if we in-
clude each person, amount to one hundred and
sixty-five.

The general signification of the above eight Con-
junctions is, that something is supposed, antici-
pated, doubted> or admitted, in contradistinction
to its being positively ascertained.* And hence

lish, but in Greek, Latin, and French. In English, the
above are the only parts of verbs by which the Hypothe-
tical form can be distinguished fVom the other parts ; yet
our modem writers seem to think it a matter of little con.
sequence whether these or the indicative mood follow the
conjunction : and not only so, but the same writer at one
time follows the rule, and at another neglects it, without
any reason beyond the caprice of the moment ! Ustu is the
great norma loquendi as well as scribendi, and to its autho-
rity we must bow, however capricious or unreasonable it
may be. But though often broken, the rule is, neverthe-
less, a sound one, abstractly considered, and may, there-
fore, serve to distinguish the conjunction from the other
parts of speech.

* 7/" is ytf, gif, give, give or grant. Thus we have in
the old song, of " Peblis to the Play," the same word used
for both the conjunction and the verb, —

And ^^ye will gif me richt nocht,
The meikill devUl gang wi' you.

Though^ lest, and unless, are fully explained by Tooke ;

d by Google

it is that the same rule applies to all imperatives
and participles of verbs (and generally to all terms
and expressions), which denote doubts supposition.

and together with if, so generally govern the hypothetical
form of verbs^ that it is useless giving examples.

It may be observed, however^ respecting though (which
is the imperative of a verb signifying admit or suppose),
that notwithstanding we find it nearly as often followed
by the indicative mood as by the hypothetical form^ yet
there is far from being any necessity for this. Thus we
have in our Bible translation — ^' who, though he was rich,
yet for our sakes became poor :" but since there is no
doubt as to the fact here alluded to, the indicative was
should be preserved, and though got rid of; which might
easilv be done thus — "•' who was rich (or who being rich),
yet for our sakes became poor." Now since we have the
phrase '' though he was rich," we might naturally expect
to find the same phrase in a corresponding passage, viz.
'* though he was a Son, yet learned he ob^ence bv the
things which he su£Pered." But such is the general dis-
regard to all rule in these instances, that we find instead^
'^ though he were a Son," &Cr Here again, for the same
reason as before, the indicative should be used, and the
conjunction discarded. The same remark will equally ap-
ply to the example, " and although we be unworthy,
through our manifold sins, &c. ;*' and in short, in all such
cases, it is easy to change the construction of the sentence^
so that both the sense and the grammar may be preserved
inviolate.

There is another observation to be made here. The
verb is frequently understood only, instead of bein^ ex-
pressed, after some of the conjunctions. The following is
an example of its being understood after though, " It will
be easy to get a deed of gift — we must talk about it,
though." — (Antiquary.) i. e. " Though it be easy to get
a deed of gift, we must talk about it."

The conjunction Notwithstanding is evidently not-with-
standing, i, e. not-opposing, or not-denying, or granting.

d by Google

command, caution, or contingency ; which verbs,
termo, and expresaons, Eouce they belong to other
Parts of Speech, may be said to be tssed conjunc"
tively; e. g. whoever, whatever, suppose, suppos-
ing, or it being supposed ; take care, or let him
take care ; grant or granted ; granting, allowing,
admitting, providing, and all similar present par-

The verb is genendly understood after this conjunction.
'^ Jesus saith unto Peter^ then are the children free ; not-
ivithstanding^ lest we should offend them, go," &:c u e,
notwithstanding this circumstance, or notwithstanding the
children be free^ lest we should offend them, go, &c.

Johnson calls Whether a pronoun and an adverb ! But
it will be found, upon the slightest examination, that all
his examples resolve themselves (by supplying the ellipsis)
into our conjunctional use of the word. The Latin utrum,
and the Vrench' soi-tpie point the same way: and in our
fiible translation we have, " so then whether it were I or
they, so we preached, and so ye believed ;" *' whether he
be a sinner or no, I know. not.

With respect to Till, which is a contraction fbr to-while
(while being synonymous with time), its conjunctional cha-
racter seems determined by the dum and donee of the Latin,
and the Jusqu'd ce que of the French, together with the
fact of its being invariably (when the construction admits
of it) followed by the hypothetical form in our Bible trans-
lation ; as, '' under the shadow of thy wings shall be my
refUge, until this tyranny be overpast." " Doth she not
seek diligently till she find it ?" Here also the verb is
sometimes understood ; as, ^^ Let both grow together until
the harvest." «. e. until the harvest come,

I am doubtful as to the etymology of Ere, HoUingshed
thus spells and uses the word, '*y^ it were perceived what
he had done." In the New Testament we have, *' come
down ere my child die,"

d by Google

ticiples ; piovided ; be it, albeit (aU*be^it) ; in
case ; on condition ; beware ; remember ; Qod
grant, or would to God; would that; O that,
&c. &c.

Some of these are of more general application
than others ; but none of them are, or at least
oi^ht to be, followed by the indicative mood of
the verb— ^dways excepting of course those per-
sons and tenses which are common to the hypo>
thetical form and indicative mood.

There are three prepositions which are sorne^
times used as conjunctions, excepij h^orCi and
wUhoutj — thus, ^^ That which thou sowest is not
quickened ewcepi it dieJ^ ^< like com bbuled
before it be grown up.^^ *^ Show me the turn my
Sandie daur do about the house, tritkout it be
just to tak his meat and drink and his diversieR
like ony of the weans.*" — (Antiquaby.)

The definite adjective that may be either in-
serted or omitted after the conjunctions, and the
words used as such : for it is the same thing
whether we say if, or if that ; though, or thou^
that; in case I be there, or in case that I be
there, &c. I notice this, because Murray and
others, not aware of the true force of that (which

d by Google

is fully explained in Appendix B), have given it
every name but the right one.*

It is evident that I restrict the conjunctions to a
very small number compared with what our Gram-
marians do ; yet surely not without good reason :
for it never can be right to class with the eight
words given above (which, we have seen, have a
distinguishing character belonging to themf) such
words as therefore, neither, nor, or, because, and,
as, yet, nevertheless, &c., which are totally desti-
tute of that character. All such words I transfer
to the adverbs, because they have not the charac-
teristics of any of the other parts of speech. This
is surely better than to class a certain number of
them (as Murray and other Grammarians have
done) under the head of disjunctive conjunctions^
—of which the very name is sufficient to confuse
and mislead by its- heterogeneous combination.

* In the examples, " Remember that thou keep holy the
Sabbath day," '* Let him take care that he come in time,"
the hypothetical form is governed by the imperative of the
verbs, and not by the word that, which might have been
omitted without the least injury to either the sense or the
grammar. — See Appendix B.

t They might be named dubitatives, or suppositives,
from the contingency which they denote.

d by Google

The sum is, that there are eight conjunctions,
if, though, lest, unless, notwithstanding, whether,
till, and ere ; whose distinguishing feature is, that
they govern the hypothetical form of verbs. There
are, besides, from twenty to thirty words or ex-
pressions (denoting contingency, and belonging to
other parts of speech) which affect the same form
of the verb in the same manner, and which, on
this account, may be said to be used conjunctive-
ly ; as, in case, suppose, ewcept^ provided^ grant-
ing.

d by Google

Under the head of adyerbs I include every word
which does not clearly belong to some one or other
of the parts of speech already mentioned : and
consequently all those useless distinctions which
pass under the name of copttUfHve, adversative,
sknpky casual, dedarative, suspensive^ iUative^
4*0. 4"^. conjunctions ; not to mention Ben Jon-
son^s separating^ severing^ sundering^ and rea^
sorting conjunctions ! Interjections I would also
include among adverbs^ as they are too insignifi-
cant a set of words (if they deserve to be called
words) to form a separate part of speech.* In
short, the adverb can only be considered as a re-
ceptacle for all straggling, nondescript, and un-
claimed words ; but which are of too multifarious
a character to admit of either rule or defimtion.-|-

* B. Jonson observes, in his quaint manner, that '* In-
teijections, commonly so called, are, in right, adverbs,
such as these that follow^ with their like : ah I alas / was^
4:c. ; ^. a note of silence : Rr, that serveth to set days by
the ears : hrr, to chase away birds."

f The adverb might be named the non-descriptive^ se-
parative, inordinate, or exverb, or any other name signi-
ficant of its detached^ lawless, or irregular character.

d by Google

They may be compared to the ** mixed multi-
tude^ of followers which generally constitute the
rear of an army, being less known by any definite
character than by the total loant of character.

If, however, I have succeeded in giving distinct
rules for the forgoing parts of speech, diere is ob-
viously the less reason for doing so in this instance.
The only one that can be given is this, whenevbe

A WOBD IB CLSABLY HO OTHER PART OF SPEECH

IT IS AN ADVERB. This may not be thought very
satisfactcHry; and yet the nature of the case will
not admit of any thing more so.^

It would be easy to doss adverbs, and they
generally are classed in our popular grammars.
For example, several are formed by the prefix
a, as, astray, adrift, afoot^ aside, abed, abreast,
abroad, aboard ; and others by the affix ward, as,
upward, downward, inward, outward, forward,
backward, hitherward, &c. Almost all the attri-

* Bishop Lowth says of adverbs, that '' they denote
some modiiicatioii or circumstance <i£ an aetioB or quality ;
as the manner^ order, time, place^ distance, motion, rela-
tion, quantity, quality, comparison, doubt, affirmation, ne-
gation, demonstration, interrogation." It is clear that
these can never be reduced under any one characteristic
denomination.

d by Google

butive adjectives (and they are by far the most
numerous class of adjectives) are changed into ad-
verbs by means of the termination ly^ as, perfectly,
advantageously, quickly, sweetly, pleasantly, &c.
These admit degrees of comparison, as sweetly,
more sweetly, most sweetly. In the same manner^
present and past participles are changed into ad-
verbs, as, charmingly, seemingly, affectedly, ad-
visedly. Besides these, there are adverbs of time^
as, then, now, to-day, to-morrow, yesterday; of
place^ as, here, there, up, down, hence, thence,
&c. ; of order^ as, moreover, finally, once, twice,
thrice, firstly, secondly, thirdly, &c. Lastly,
many adverbs consist of two or three words (often
belonging to other parts of speech) joined to-
gether; as, already (all-ready), alike (all-like),
alBo (all-so), because (by-cause), needs (need-is),
&c. ; so also, no-thing, some-thing, there-of, there-
upon, some-times, never-the-less, some-where, for-
as-much, &c. &c.

In this manner it would be easy to subdivide
the adverbs, if it could be made to answer any
good purpose. Classification is necessary to se-
parate things essentially different, or where in-
convenience would arise from confounding them ;

d by Google

but beyond this point it should perhaps cease : it
then only burdens the memory without aiding
perspicuity.

The sum is, that the adverb, from its varied
character, admits of no rule being given for de-
termining it, except that it comprehends all words
which do not obviously belong to one or other of
the foregoing parts of speech.

yGoOgl

CONCLUSION.

AccoBDiNa to the preceding arrangement, all con-
fusion may be avoided in determining the parts of
speech. Every word is accounted for, its charac-
ter fixed and unchangeable, and its discovery easy.
For every purpose of parsing with facility, the
text alone of the Analysis will be found sufficient.
But if, in addition, the notes be perused; and
the Appendix B, in which the general position is
maintained, that ^' the same word is not more than
one part of speech," I am persuaded that, with
the exception of a few solecisms, coUoquiaUsms,
and anomalous expressions which are common to
all languages, no ambiguity is unaccounted for,
nor any real difficulty unexplained.

d by Google

SPECIMEN OF PARSING,

LETTER OF LORD CHESTERFIELD'S TO HIS SON.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

1. When a noun occurs in the nominative case^
I call it a noun simply. The reader who knows
the meaning of the word, will easily supply what-
ever else it may be thought necessary to say con-
cerning it.

2. When an adjective occurs without its noun
expressed after it, I always supply the noun, with
a view to show that the said adjective is never any
other part of speech. I have also supplied the
noun, or the adjective and noun, when elliptically
omitted after the preposition.

3. As the reader is supposed to know the dif-
ference between the present and past participles
of verbs, and the nominative and objective case

d by Google

of pronouns, these, after the first time of occur-
ing, will merely be called participle and pronoun
respectively.

4. When the verb is in any of the persons of
the present time, indefinite action, indicative mood,
active voice, the infinitive only of the verb will be
mentioned, after the first time of occurring, to
save the trouble of repetition.

LETTER.

Your very bad pronunciation, : Pronominal ad-
j ective — adverb — ^attribu tive adjective* — noun.

my son, gives me : Pronominal adjective — ^noun— 3d
person singular, present time, indefinite action, indica-
tive mood, active voice of the verb to give — ^pronoun,
objective case.

real concern, and I : adj. — ^noun— adv.— pron.

congratulate both you and : 1st pers. sing, present
timcj indefinite, of verb to congra^uZa^e— definite adj.
(meaning both persons) — pron. — ^adv.

myself that I was : pronom. adj. mt/^ compounded
with the affix self (see p. 21) — def adj. (on that account.

* As the attributive adjectives occur frequently, I shall,
in future, to save space, call them simply adjectives.

d by Google

or that thing happened^ viz.) — proo. l8t pen, sing, put

indefinite of verb to be.
infonned of it, as : past participle of verb to inform-*

preposition — pron. — adv. ('' I was informed," past in*

definite, passive voice, of verb to inform)-
1 hope in time : pron. — verb to hope — ^prep. — noun,
to prevent it, and : infinitive of /epr^e«^ — pron. — adv.
I shall ever think : pron. — 1st pers. sing, indicative

auxiliary tkall — adv. — infinitive of to think (see p. 43),

{" I shall think/' fature indefinite of to think),
myself, as hereafter you : myself, see this word above

— adv. — adv. — pron.
will, I am sure, : indie aux. «&<//— pron. — ^rerb to be^

acy. (of sure belief).
think yourself infinitively obliged : inf. of to think —

see mi/self above — adv. — past part, of to oblige ('* you

will think," fut. indef. of to think).
to your friend for : prep. — ^pronom. adj. — ^noun — ^prep,
informing me of it. : present part, of to inform-^oa-

— prep. — ^pron.
If this ungraceftil and : oonjunction^def. adj.— fl4J*

—adv.
disagreeable manner of speaking : adj«— noun— prep.

— part, of verb to speak*
had, either by your : past indef. of to Aat^f*— adv^—

prep — ^pronom. a^j*

• We need only say here, and in similar case" "**'* ^^'^
conjunction {/'throws the verb into the hypoib

d by Google

negligence or mine, : noun— ndv.-^onom. adji (mine
negligence.)

become habitual to you, : '' it had become,** past
finished of verb to Ziecomtf— adj.^— prep.— -pron.

as in a couple of : adv.— prep.-— indef. adj. — ^noan'— -
prep.

years more it would : noun---adj. (more time)^ com--
parative degree of mtich — pron.-*<K>ntiiigent aux. vfould.

have been, what a figure : inf. of foAflw(8eep. 43) —
part, of to be (" it would have," present time, condi-
tional mood of to have; " it would have been," past
time, cond. of to be; see p. 42)— def. adj. see p. 24—
indef. adj. — ^noun.

would you have made : conting. aux. tiwuU—proB. —
inf. of to Aa»e— part, of to make (" you would have
made," see above, '* H would have been").-

in company or in : prep.— noun — adv. — ^prfep.

a public assembly ! : indef. adj. — adj. — noun.

Who would have liked : pron.— (t. e. " he or they
would have liked," see above, " it would have
been").

you in the one, or : pron.— prep.— ^ef. adj.— def.
a^j. (one state) — adv.

attended you in the other ? : " who would have at-

but that there is nothing in the verb itself to distinguish
it as such. In parsing, we need not, I think, advert to the
said form of the verb, unFess it belong to one of the distin-
guishing parts. See p. 44.

d by Google

tencfed," 8ce ab»Te, ^' who wonld hove Kfced**— pnm.—

prep.— dcf. adj.— def, adj. \^other state).
Bead what Cicero and : present imperative of to remd

— def. adj. {what Mtn^j)— noun — ^ad?.
Quintilian say ofeimndadoii, : noun— verb to joy^

prep. — noun.
and observe what stress : adv.— present imper. of to

observe — def. adj.-^nooa.
they ky upon the gracefulness of it : pron.— yerb

to %— prep.— def. adj.— noun — ^prep.— pion.
Nay, Cicero goes farther, : adv.— noun-»verb to go

— ^ldj. (a farther length) comparative ot/ar,
and even maintains that : adv — ^adv— verb to main-

torn— def. adj. (that position, via.)
« good figure is : indef. adj.— adj.— noun— verb to be.
necessary for an orator, : adj. (a necessary thing)-^

prep. — indef. adj. — ^noun.
and particularly that ; adv.— adv.— def. a^j. {that pa-
< sitiont viz.)
he must not be : pron.— conting. aux. mu^/— adv.-

inf. of to be (" he must be/' present imper. of to be),
overgrown and clumsy. : adj.— adv.— adj.
Men are oflener led : noun— verb to /6e— adv. (compar

of of/<ffi)— .part, of to lead (" they are led/' pres. indef.

passive of to lead),
by their ears than : prep.— pronom. adj.— noun— adv.
by their understandings. : prep.— pronom. adj.—

noun.

d by Google

The way to the heart : defi ad|}.'^nonii— prep.— def.

— def. a4j.— ^nann.
is through the senses. : yerb to i^e— ^rep.— def. a4}.-^

noon.
I hare frequently known : pron.— rerb to Aat^e— ftdv.

—part of to know Q*^ I hare known,** present finished

oEtoknow)^
a mane's fortune decided : indef. adj.— noun^ posses*

me ease — ^noun — part, of to decide.
for ever by his first address. : " for ever," an adv.*

— prep.— pronom. adj. — dcf. adj. — noun.
If it be pleasing, : coi\j.— pron. — ^present hypothetical

form of to he, see p. 44 — ^part of to please,
people are hurried involuntarily : noun— verb to be

—part, of to ^ttrry— adv. (" they are hurried," see " they
. are led" above.)
into a persuasion that : prep. — ^indef. adj.-^oun —

def. a4j. (of that fact, viz.)
he has merit ; if it be : pron. — ^verb to have — ^noun —

see ''if it be/' above,
ungraceful, they are immediately : adj.— pron —

verb to be-^y,
prejudiced against him, and : part, of to prejudice —

prep.— pron. — adv. (" they are prgudiced," see '' they

are led," above).

• The words " for ever" should be joined, Mkt for -soothe
for-as'mucht 4[c. They are probably an abbreviation for
** fbr every time."

d by Google

nnTH&mg to allow him : compounded present ptrt.^ see

p, 61 — inf. of to aUow — ^pron.
the merit which : def. adj.— nonn^-def. adj. (which

merit).
it may be he has. : pron.*— oonting. aox. may^-inf. of

io &e— pron.— verb to have, (" it may be," pree. poten.

of io be.)
Nor is this statement : adv.— verb to be-^et adj.—-

noun.
so unjust as at : adv.^adj.— «dv.-*prep.
first sight it may seem; : def. adj.— noun— »pron.— con-
ting, aux. may — ^infin. of io seem (" it may seem," pres,

poten. of to seem).
for, if a man : prep, (for thefoUomng rf<uofi>— oo^j.—

indef. adj.— noun.
have parts, he must : pres. hypoth. form of to have-^

noun — prou.— -conting. aux. must.
know of how much : inf. of io know — prep.-Hidv.—

a^. — (« he must know," pres. imper. of io know)*
consequence it is to him : noun— pron.— verb to Ae—

prep. — ^pron.
^to have a graceful : inf. of to Aaire— indef. adj.— «dj.
manner of speaking, and : noun— prep.^— part, of to

ipeaA>— adv.
a genteel and pleasing address; : inde£ a4]*— a4)«**

adv. — ^part. of to please — noun. See p. 29.
and he will cultivate : adv^-^pron.— indic; aiub wiil^

d by Google

7»

inC cT i» cvlfcmife (<« W will cifemirE^** fiit. iade£ of /#

and inpnyre them to die utmort. : adT.^<< lie will

improfc,* fee ** he will caltivate* abofe)~i»iNiu— prep.

— de£ adj.— «dj. (v/Mosf es<n/).
What is the constant obserrafion : de£ »]j. {what

oifstrraiwm)—^etb to be — def. adj. — adj. — noon,
as to an actors : adr.— prep.— de£ adj.— noon,
upon the stage ? is it : prep.— def. adj.— noon^Yerb

to bt — pnm.
not that those who : adr.— def. adj. (jAat obtervation)

— def. adj. {those actor*) — pron.
have the best sense : verb to have — def. adj. — a^j.

(snperlative of good) — noon,
always speak the best, : adr. — verb to speah—def.

adj. — adj. (the best way, or in the best manner),
though they happen not : codj.— pron.-^re8. indef.

of to happen — adv.
to have the best voices ? : verb to have—det, adj. — adj.

— ^noun.
They will speak distinctfy : " they will speak/ see

he will cultivate" above — adv.
and with a proper emphasis, : adv.— prep.— Indef. adj.

— adj. — ^nouD.
be their voices : (t. e. though they be) pres. bypoth.
• form of to be — pronom. adj. — ^noiin.
ever so bad. : adv. — adv/^-adj.
Had Roscius spoken : past indef. of to have^-^k^foxk^

d by Google

.^art of to speak (" lie hid iqpokeD/' pMt finidied of fo

speaky
quick and ungracefully, I will : adj. (in a qmek

ffwmii^)---adF.-HidT.--pron.«— indie, aoz. wiil.
answer for it that Cicero : '' I will answer/ see " he

will eultivate" above— prep.— pnnu—def. a^J. (that thing

would have happened)— nonn.
would not have thought : see '' you would have

made" above,
him worth the oration which : pron.-^nomalott8

participle, see^p. 61 — def. adj.— -noun— de£ adj. (which

oration)*
he made in his £ivour. : past indef. of to maAr<>--prep.

-— pronoDL. a4j.-— ^onn.
Words were givoi us : noon— past indef. of to de-
part of to give p ro p . (^ they were given/* past indef.

passive of to give).

to communicate our ideas by; : inf. ci to commwUeaie

— pronom. a^j.— noa n ■ p rep. (L e. 5y which words).
and there must be something : adv^HMlv^— ^'itnrast

4)e/' see ^ he most know** above— adv.
inconceivably absurd in nttemg : aiv^— «4{. Q, e.

an absurd tttsy)— pe ep , pmi «r ^ mtter.
them in such a manner : ftm pwfu indet a4{<^

indet adj. see p. Ti noua

as that people eithor : sdr^-ACa^j. (a«/ ijtey may
happen)— noon— adv.

d by Google

cannot understand them : conting. aux. can com'

bined with the adverb not — ^inf. of to understand— ^ron,

— (^' they can understand," ptes. poten. of to under'

standi)*
or will not desire : adv. — see " he will cultivate" above.
to understand them. : inf. of to understand— ^tou.
I tell you sincerely that : pron.-^verb to tell-^Ton.

— ^adv.— def. adj. (that truth),
I shall judge of your parts : '' I shall judge/* see

^* he will cultivate"— -prep.— ^roiwin. adj. — noun.
by your speaking gracefully or ungracefully. : prep-

— ^pronom. adj. — ^part. of /o speak — adv. — adv. — adv.
If youhayeparts, : conj. — ^pion.*^verb to Aa»«^— noun.
you will never be at rest :* " you will be," see ** he

will, cultivate" idx>ve — od^.-r-prep. — noun,
till you have brought : conj. — proa. — verb to have--

part, of to bring — (" you have brought" pres. finished of

to hring)'
yourself to a habit : see myself above — prep.— 4n«lef.

adj. — noun,
of speaking most gracefully ; : prep.— part, of to speak

— adj. (superl. of much)— tidy. (" most graceftilly" su-

perl. of adv. graceful!;^).
for, I aver that : prep, (for this reason) — pron.— verb

to aver— def. adj. {that truth).

* Siidi expressions as, at rest, at first, at length, at ^)
in order, in short, &c., may be considered adverbial ;9X
the same time it is idways useful to analyite them.

d by Google

It 18 m ycfur ]

nom. wdjy
You win desire your : flee^ktvflli

proDom. adjj*
iator that yoa i

y!OD . c o ntnig.1
tead aloud to Urn : ** job wucf tmA," mt

every day, and that :

(thaifopomr).
he win conect you : wet "he will addwaUT

eveiy time yoa read : dif. adlj.-

to read,

too fiwt, do not observe : m iw ^ s^ j . (widi teofoMt aa

utterance*) — reib la 4»— «dT. — iaf. of lo observe (** yoa

do observe," pict. iadef. of /a oftocne).
the proper stops, or : AtL wdy — m ^ umm — ody.
lay a wrong ein^iasis. : verb io I9— iiidet adj.— id)].

noiiD.
You win even read load : see ** he wiU cnhiTate''

abo^e — adT. — adj. (with a kmd voter),
to yourself, and tune yodr : prepu— see MgiwJf above

—adT.—'' yoQ win tone" aee above— pramo. adj.

* The intcrrentioii of the mdrtinitr a^ective a between
an attribadve a^ective and a ooini^ does not difeet the
mf ''mtaila maSf"* ^ too

charaeter of the fivmer ; we 1
large a hoDae."

db, Google

ifttteraitce to your own : nouni^prep'-^pronoin. a4|*-«*-

def. adj.
ear, and read at first : Dona-t-adv.-^*' you will raad/'

see above — prep. — def. acy. (the^r*< time).
much slower than you need :.a4}.-*adj. {^ower nua^

ner\ compar. oislow — adv. — ^pron.-*verb <o n€€d*
to do, m order to correct : inf.of fodo-— prep.-^aouii

— ^inf. of to correct,
that shameful habit of : def. a4i*<*-adj.— -noun —

prep,
speaking faster than you ought. : part of fo speak-^

a4j. (in a faster manner) — adv.-— conting. aux. ought

(<' you ought to speak/' present incumbent of to

speak).
In dbort, you will make : prep.— adj. (in a short sen-

ience) — " you will make^** see above,
it your business and : pron. — ^pronom. a4j.— noun^

adv.
your pleasure to speak well, : pronom. adj. — ^noun —

inf. of to speak — adv.
if you think right. : conj.— pron.— verb to think^atlj,

(in a right manner).
Therefore what I have said : adv.— def. adj. (what

matter or advice) — see " you have brought" above,
is more than sufficient, z verb to be— adj. {more mat-
ter) — adv. — a^. {sufficient matter),
if you have sense^ : conj.— pron.— verb to have-^

noun*

d by Google

and ten fimes more : adr.«-*de£ «dj.**noiiii*-^j.

{more matter).
would not be suiBcient, : see '^ would not have" above

— a4j. (jn^eUnt matter),
if you have not. : conj—- >proD. — ^verb to Aave^— ady«
So here I rest it : adT.—adT-—proih— verb ior^*/—

pfon*

yGoO

d by Google

APPENDIX.

THB PBBftBNT I7M8BTTLBD STATB OF THB BNOIiIBR
PABTS OF 8PBBCH.

This in part appears from the same word being
denominated three and four different parts of speech^
according to its apparent use— a subject which is
elsewhere fully discussed.*

The same fact appears from the numerous opi-
nions as to the number of cases belonging to our
nouns. Besides those I have already mentioned
(Analysis^ p. 18), I may add, that Drs Johnson and
Blair express doi^t whether our noons have a pos-
sessive case or not. The former says, '^ The relatioti
of English nouns to words going before them or
following, are not expressed by cases, or changiis
of termination, but, as in most of the European
languages, by prepositions, — unless tve may be said
to have a genitive" The latte/ remarks, " English
nouns have no case whatever,, except a sort qf genu
iiverf

• See Appendix B.

t This may be a proper place to remark on what seems,
at first sight, a double genitive. In such phrases as these.

d by Google

I have briefly adverted in anether place ( Analy*
ns, p. 42) to the anoertainty which preyaiU in oar
mmmars concerning the Aoxiliaiy V erbt^ partica«
urly those from which we form oar Contii^peot
Moods. Of these, Cobbett says, '^ I neednot dwell
here on the uses c^ shall, will, mmw, might, shamU
mould, cam, cotUd, and muH, whi<£ uses, various as
they are, are as well known to us all, as the uses of
our Ueih and our nates j and to misapply which
words, argues not only a deficiency in the reasoning
faculties, but almost a deficiency in intellectual dis-
crimination/' This is one way of getting rid of di£*
ficulties. That very paat of grammar which has
been more misunderstood than perhi^s any other,
and which^ therefore, needed most explmataaBf

<' Howmsfff servants of my Father'* hare bicad enough and
to spare,*' ttc, ** In a letter ^ Lord Che8terfield'# to his
^oD," &c., the question is, what noun is understood after
Father 8 and Chesterfield's ? At one time I was dvsgoBsd
to think this phraseology corrupt, and that the '« in Fa^
ther's and Chesterfield's ought to be dropped, fiut on
further consideration, I am satisfied that the above sen-
tences are merely elliptical ; thus, '' How many servants
(out) of (or among) my Father's {servants) have bread
enough." **• In a letter (out) of (or among) -Cbesteffield^s
(letters) to his Son."

It is a eurious coincidence^ md not uawordiy of obser-
vation, that in old writings the third person singular, pie*
sent time indefinite of verbs, the plurals of nouns, and
their possessive cases, all end alike, viz. in is. The fol-
lowing extract from an old " Bond of Manrent*' will ex-
emplify what I have just stated : — '' And I sail give the
saia Lord my maister, the best liell and trew counsale
that I can qunen he only askis at me ; and do him trew
and thankfbl service, in all and sundry huactionis, causis,
and quarrelUsy movit, or to be movit be him ; my allegeant
to Qwre sDovran ladye the ^uanis grace, her tutor and j^
vemor, aUanerly except."

d by Google

Cpbbett tak^srfor' granted hi» pkMigh-boys and ap-
lurentices comprehend as well aa ihey do the use of
their teeth and their noses ! Might he not have
made the same sapposition concerning every part
xx£ grammar, and thus aaved himself the trouble of
writing a book upon the subject ? He might have
jaid at onoe, " whoever does not understand the
rules of Syntax^ and the definitions and uses of the
diiSerent parts of speech^ must be deficient in intel-
lectual discnminatiOD."

This grammarian seems to have a strange anti*
pBthy to the auxiliary verbs, being considered aa the
moods of the regular verbs (which yet are the only
moods they have), though he gives no reason for
this antipathy. He says, " all the^/tM« which gram«
marians have made about the potential moods, and
other fanciful dUUnctions cf ihe kind, serve only to
pu2zle ana perplex the reader I" Cobbett appears
to have been himself sadly perplexed by these same .
moods, «and, therefore, he very naturally decries what
he did not understand : and yet, such is his incon*
sistency, that in the passage quoted above, he as-
sumes that his sailors and soldiers, &c., already un-
derstand this perplexing subject too well to render
any explanation necessary I

but, besides the auxiliary verbs, it will be found
that the utmost confusion prevails with regard to
4he Preposition, Conjunction and Adverb, of which
the very names are calculated to mislead. In fact,
&e names Adjective, Preposition, Conjunction, and
Adverb, have so little to do with the parts of speech
which they are emploved to designate, that, had all
these four reciprocally interchanged places, they
would have equally served the puipose which thev
do at present. But in an age when there is so laud-
able an anxiety shown to furnish correct nomencla**
Xures for subjects i>f adence, why should grammar

d by Google

i)e almost the only one which is^ in this respect^ ne-
glected ?

L. Murray defines a Preposition as that which serves
to " connect words with one another^ and to show the
relation between them." But is not this equally true
of the Noun, Adjective, Pronoun^ Verb, Conjunc-
tion, and Adverb ? Have not all these a mutaial ref-
lation and connexion when put together, so as to
&>rm a sentence ? And if so, L. Murray has done
no more than ascribe to the preposition a property
which it possesses in common with every other part
of speech ; and consequently has not defined it at all.

Equally unmeaning and puerile is his account of
\he Conjunction, which he tells us is " chiefly used
to connect sentences ;" but he adds, " it sometimes
connects only words." A man must have more than
common penetration, who can form the most remote
idea of a preposition or conjunction ftom Such defi-
nitions.

Cobbett rids his hands of this matter much in the
same way that he does of the auxiliary verbs. He de-
votes only three pages of his whole book on grammar
to prepositions and conjunctions, which might indeed
have been enough, had he said any thing concern-
ing them to the purpose ; but he does no more than
respect the errors of his predecessors ; and excuses
himself from not doing more, on the plea that the
words in question are only *^ the little fingers of the
body,'* and unworthy of much consideration !

Tiie writer of the article '^ Grammar," in the En-
cyclopedia Brltannica, thus expresses himself on the
same two parts of speech : — " We shall content our-
selves with retailing the common doctrine respect-
ing these parts of speech, as far as it is intelligible^
requesting our readers who would understand the
subject, to attend rather to the relations between their
fmruMS ideas (this, by the way, is a new method^

d by Google

findiag out the parts of speecli) than to tkejrivolotts
distinctions, which, in compliance with custom, we are
compelled to lay before them*' What an admission
to 1)6 made in England in the nineteenth century^
and on the subject of English Grammar ! Is it not
full time that some attempt should be made to dis-
entangle a subject which is confessedly involved in
so much confusion ?

The celebrated Harris defines prepositions and
conjunctions to be *' words void of signification ;
but so formed as to unite words that are significant^
and that would not otherwise unite." This position
carries its refutation on its face. It is absurd to
suppose that any words are void of signification^
however ignorant we may be what that signification
iS : and it is still more absurd to suppose that two
words^ each confessedly signifying something when
taken apart^ should be combined, and have a new
meaning communicated to them by a word signify-
ing nothing,

A respectable grammarian of the name of Grants
says of prepositions and conjunctions^ '' both parts
of speech being grammatical connectives, it is not
always easy to discriminate them."

But the circumstance which, more than any other,
proves the unsettled state of these two parts of speech
is, diat their exact number has never yet been de-
termined—in other words^ no precise rule for ascer-
taining them has hitherto been discovered. The
grammarians content themselves with giving us
what they call the principal ones ; or they furnish
«ight or ten of them, and then finish with an et
eastern !

Even H. Tooke did not perceive any other dif-
ibrence between the two, than that prepositions were
upplied to words, and conjunctions to sentences.
This is, no doubt, true generally, though not inva-
riably > bat ev^ if it were, it is much too vag"*~ *^

d by Google

serve as a rule fat distinguishhig between tfaefli.
It is necessary to know to what kind of words the
one IS applied^ and to what kind of sentences the
other. Tooke, however^ did not give his attention
to the parts of speech as suck. He was content to
take these as he found them^ and confined himself
to the derivation of the words.

A writer on grammar calls Adverbs *' the modifi-
cations of the attributes of substances ;" an explana- .
tion which may be very profound^ but is not very
intelligible. But whatever it may mean^ it cannot
be true, since no one explanation or definition will
apply to so multifarious a class of words as adverbs.
S. Johnson^ in his " Grammar of the English
Tongue/' prefixed to his Dictionary^ unaccountable
as it may seem^ does not so much as mention pre-
positions, conjunctions, or adverbs i

Mr Feam, the author of a book entitled Anti-
Tooke^ speaks so abstractedly and obscurely on the
subject of grammar^ that I have found it impossible
to understand him. He ascribes all the errors of
his predecessors to their '' ignorance of the real
structure of the category of relatives and relation."
The phrase " I love," he would change into ** I
inning a loving state ;" " I have loved," into " I
hsLVelove; " I had loved," into '' I have-have (or
ha-have) loved." Lastly, he promises, that, in a
second volume (which I have not seen), he will
treat '^ of the nature of limited silence, and gram-
matical contact, -considered as an element of speech" !
There are ibur ways of disposing <^ a subject,
when we are too dull to understand it, and too c<m-
ceited to acknowledge that such is the case^^all of
which seem to be in vogue among dur grammarians.
Thejirst is, to aifect to despise the subject as un-
worthy of attention : the second is, to express our-
selves upon it unintelligibly or obscurely : the third
is, to assert boldly that it is too simple to need any

d by Google

explanatiooj and that a beuUi must be a fool wlio
does not intuitively comprehend it : and the fourth
\»^ to say nothing at all about it, one way or the
other.

As a farther proof of the unsettled state of the
parts of speech, it may be mentioned, that, upon a
comparison of Johnson's and Walker's Dictionaries,
it will be found that many words which the former
calls adverbs, the latter calls conjunctions.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Adverbs
that '' tiiey are applied to many purposes, and their
general nature may be better understood by read-
ing a list of them, and attending to their etymology,
than by any general description or definition."

A posthumous work by the Rev. Dr A. Murray
of Edinburgh, on the History of European Ian-
guages, was published a few years ago, and con-
tains occasional remarks on grammar. I never met,
in any book, with more gratuitous, and, I will add,
more improbable assertion. The editor (the Rev.
Dr Scott) says of Dr Murray, " He is an expounder
of languages on the principles of Home Tooke, and
only entered on the path which that ingenious phi-
lologist opened up." No two works on the same
subject, were ever, I will venture to say, more op-
posite in principle than the Diversions of Purley and
the History of European languages. Dr Murray
thinks, and Mtempls to prove, that all the known
languages of Europe and Asia are derived from nine
monosyllables, viz. ag, bag, dwag, gwag, lag, mag,
nag, rag, and swag ! It is but justice, however, to
the author to add, that the work evidently was not
intended for the public in its present state, which is
ill arranged, and in many parts unintelligible.

For the exposure of Mr Harris' numerous errors
and inconsistencies, I must refer the reader to the
Diversions of Purley, where (vol. 1, p. S^'" - -^ ^ ~
, will find a number of additional exr

d by Google

from our own and foreign authors^ of the truth of
the position under consideration. The few I have
given are chiefly taken from those English writers
who have appeared since Tooke's time^ and whose
works happened to fall in my way.

All this seems to prove the present unsettled state
of our parts of speech ; and that no rules have hxth->
erto been invented^ calculated to fix their character^
and determine them with certainty. I hope those
I have given will be found to answer this import-
ant end ; particularly with respect to the pronoun^
preposition^ conjunction^ and adverb^ which ap«
peared to stand most in need of illustration. What-
ever objection my rules may be liable to^ they seem
preferable to the total absence of rule. Even arbi-
trary power is better than anarchy.

,y Google

THE SAME WORD IS KOT MORE THAN ONE PART

OF SPEECH. — In this appendix it is shown that
the word that is always a definite adjective,
having a noun expressed or understood after it.

"I DO not allow," says Tooke^ ''that any words
change their nature so as to belong, sometimes to
one part of speech, sometimes to another, from the
different ways of using them. I never could perceive
any such fluctuation in any word whatever, though
I know it is a general charge brought erroneously
against words of almost every denomination."

Neither Tooke, however, nor any other author
that I have met with, has undertaken to make good
the position, that the same word is only one part of
speech.

By the doctrine thus stated, it is not to be under-
stood that a word may not be a noun or a verb, ac-
cording as the indefinite adjective a, or the sign of
the infinitive to, may be put before it ; thus, to fight,
to run, to walk, are verbs ; a fight, a run, a walk,
are nouns. These are radier to be considered as
different words, than as examples of the same word
being different parts of speech.

Nor is it to be understood as a departure from the
position under consideration, that the same word is
sometimes, apparently, both a noun and an adjec-
tive; as, under the head of the adjective, I have
shown that all such instances are merely nouns used
adjectively ; any noun being liable to be so used.*

There are, however, few rules without exception ;

* See Analysis, p. 17*

Digitized by LjOOQ IC

and, in ordinary books on grammar, we find more
exceptions to general rules than, perhaps^ in any
other science whatever. Yet I have scarcely had
occasion to make one exception to the rules of my
Analysis ; for which reason I am the less scrupulous
in ofl^ring one or two to the general position which
I have undertaken to establish in this Appendix.

I have already remarked, under the head of the
preposition, that the word but is both a preposition
and an adverb, according to its meaning; or, to
speak more grammatically, according as it governs,
or does not govern, the objective case of the pronoun.
The word her, it may be added, is both a pronominal
adjective, and the objective case of the pronoun she.
The only other exception I am aware of is the fol-
lowing:— many present participles of verbs are, at
the same time, nouns ; as, great learning, good eat'
ing, hard drinking. Some of these admit of plural
terminations, which is another proof of their being
nouns ; as, excellent understandings, acute feeUngs,
angelic being*, clever sayings, fine doings, &c. &c.
Such words consequently (when in the singular num-
ber) are either present participles or nouns, accord-
ing to their use and signification.

The great error of our modem lexicographers and
grammarians, has been in doubling, tripling, and
quadrupling the parts of speech of those adjectives
and prepositions which are used apparently as ad-
verbs, pronouns, or conjunctions.

Whenever adjectives occur in sentences without
any noun expressed or obviously understood afVer
them, they are most improperly called adverbs.
But it should be remembered that when it can be
shown, by a few plain examples, that a word is an
adjective (which may be done by trying ff a noun
can be placed after it*) it is a legitimate inference

• See Analysis, p. 14.

Digitized by LjOOQ IC

that the word is always an adjective, though no
noun may be expressed after it^ and though it may
even be doubtful what noun is to be understood ;
and a word is never to be called an adverb, till it be
found impossible to refer it to any of the preceding
parts of speech. Thus, in the colloquial phrases, as
much as, as good as, in short, in general, upon the
whole, at least, it is enough, I shall expect you earfy,
only be sure you come, &c.; much, good, short,
general, whole, best, enough, early, only, and sure,
are adjectives and nothing, else ; because, taking
them in their ordinary sense, unconnected with par^
ticular sentences, they may be made to precede
and designate nouns. The foregoing and similar
phrases are mere abbreviations : and the reason why
they are so, is because we are continually using them,
and wish to convey our meaning in the most expe-
ditious manner possible. They are, as it were, the
short-hand of conversation,— -sentences nearly worn
away by constant use and friction ; or, to change the
figure, they are by-paths and near-cuts to the object
in view, to save the time and trouble of following the
more circuitous high- way. ** Almost all the irregu-
larities in the construction of any language," says
Priestley, " arise from the ellipsis of some words
which were originally inserted in the sentence and
made it regular." But it seems evident that the
ellipsis cannot, or at least ought not to alter the ori-
ginal parts of speech of the words. At the same
time, when we set about the task of showing that
the foregoing words still retain their character of
adjectives, it must be acknowledged that this brevity
sometimes produces obscurity; and that. what we
gain in respect to time and despatch, we are apt to
lose in perspicuity. For the said adjectives have
long ceased to be used in connexion with their
nouns; and we cannot now revert to the period'
when they came to be thus ellrptically used^ or tra

d by Google

9ft

the precise association which mast have existed iit
tile speaker's mind ; and hence there is occasionally
a difficulty in determining what is the exact noun
to be supplied after them. But it is not less certain
that some noun is to be supplied^ and that is reason
enough for calling the words in question adjectives^
and not adverbs.

In proof of this^ I may offer the following solu*
tions of the above-mentioned sentences : —

In shorty t. e» (to say all) in (a) short (sentence).

In getieral, i, c. in (a) general (way).

Upon the whole, t. e. upon (a review of) the whole
(matter).

At least, i, e. at (the) least (estimate or considera-
tion).

It is enough, u e, enough (food, discourse, reward,
punishment, or whatever else may chance to be re-
ferred to by the speaker).

I shall expect you early, i. e. at an early (hour).

Onli/ be sure you come, i. e. (the) only (thing is)
be (a) sure (person, or in a sure state that) you
come. In the same manner we say, elliptically, be
quick, be good, be constant, where quick, good, smd
constant are evidently adjectives.

The words much, more, most, little, less, least,
(each of which, according to Johnson, is three parts
of speech) may, in like manner, be shown never to
lose their original character of adjectives, though
oflen used elliptically.

In the familiar sentence, e.g. " I am much obliged
to you," the question is, what noun is to be under-
stood after the adjective much ? I have no doubt it
is obligation or gratitude, or some noun of similar
import; thus, "I am (with) much (obligation or
gratitude) obliged to you ;" though, of course, the
noun is dropped to prevent tautology. But in our
Bible translation, many such tautological phrases
may be found, which is a proof that about the time

d by Google

the said translation was made^ tautology was not
thought so great a blemish as it is now, and which
renders it probable that such sentences as the above>
are to be Ailed up in the manner I am contending
for* The fbllowing are a few scriptural tautological
e3Epressions that occur to me : — ^ He will rejoice over
thee with 70^ ;" " he cried with a bitter crn ;** '* with
sorrow he hath afflicted me ;" '* strengthened with
might in the inner man ;*' "JUled with all the fuU
ness of God ;*' *' the comfort wherewith we are com^
forledr " I win command the clouds that they rain
no rain upon it.**

According to this rule, we need have no difficulty
in filling up many sentences in which such adjec-
tives as much seem to be used adverbially; thus,
*' I like him much** i. e, I like him (with) much
(love) ; " I am much delighted with him/' i. e. I am
(with) mnch (pleasure^ delight, or satisfaction,) de-
lighted with him.

Other uses of muck are still more easily reduced
to the same rule ;— " where much is given, much will
be required," t. «. where much (talent) is given,
much (return) will be required; *^ much larger"
means, larger (by) much ^space or extent) ; *' are
ye not much better than they?" t. e. better (by)
much (measure), or in a much (better state), or
much better (creatures) than they.

MoRB. — '* It is more blessed to give than to re.
ceive," u e. a more Messed (thing).

" He loved Rachael more than Leah," i. e. with
more (affection).

'^As the sun sinks, the stars appear more and
more" u e. with more and more (distinctness).

"The dove returned not again unto him any
more" u e. any more (times).

" Jane dances more gracefully than Mary." Here,
todetonnine the noun understood after the compara-
tive ftc^tive more, we must bear in mind that the

d by Google

termination fy h & contraction for like; and hence
the true rendering is, ''Jane dances more ^aceful-
like than Mary/' t. e. in a more graceful-like (man-
ner) than Mary.

Most.-—'' Anne dances the most gracefully of the
three/' i. e, in the most graceful-like (manner) of
the three.

" He will love most who has most forgiven/' t. e.
he will love with most (affection) who has most
(debt) forgiven.

" Sorrowing most of all for the words which he
spake/' &c., t. e. sorrowing with most (sorrow) of all
(causes of sorrow) for the words which he spake, &c.

" A penurious man makes the most of what he
has/' u e. the most (use or value).

Little. — " When thou wast little in thine own
sight," f. e, of little (consideration) or a little (person).

" He finished it by little and little," i. e. by little
and little (degrees or steps).

"If that had been too UttU for thee/' i. e. too
little (a matter) or too little (happiness) for thee.

" He has Utile of this world's goods/' t. e. little
(portion) of this world's goods.

" He IS a little better to-day/' t. e. in a little better
(state).

Less. — " 'Tis less to conquer than to make wars
cease/' t. e. of less (consequence) or a less (matter)..

" Thy servant knew nothing of this, less or more,*'
I. e. with more or less (knowledge).

" The English are less volatile tnan the French,"
i. e. a less volatile (people).

" I saw him less and less after that," t. e. a less
and less (number of times).

Least. — The only doubtful instance in which this
word is used is in the common phrase " at least,"
which has been already explained, page 96.

These examples may suffice to satisfy the reader
that the above adjectives never lose their original

d by Google

character, howeTer used^ or wherever dtuated. Some
of the proposed methods of filling up the sentences,
may perhaps appear awkward ; but this proceeds
solely from our nabit of contracting our colloquial
phrases, and from being more anxious to express
ourselves with rapidity 3ian with accuracy.* It is
to be observed, at the same time, that this habit of
abbreviating is not without its advantages, notwith-
standing the awkwardness and ambiguity it some-
times occasiomi. '^ Abbreviations," says Tooke,
'' are the wheels of language, the wings of Mercury,
and though we might be dragged along without
them, it would be with difficulty, very heavily and
tediously." To be convinced of the truth of this,
we have only to examine a Law Instrument, where
uncommon accuracy is required. It abounds with
tautological expressions and tedious repetitions,
which are necessary to prevent the possibility of
mistake, but of all which we get rid by certain con-
ventional abbreviations.

* '' L'esprit humain," says M. de firosses, '^ veut alter
vit€ dans son op^ation, plus empresse de s'expriraer
promptement, que curieux de s'exprimer avec una justesse
exacte et r^flechie. S'il n'a pas riustrument qu'il tbudroit
employer, 11 se sert de celui qu'il a tout pret

Almost every verse of our English translation of the Scrip-
tures furnishes us with an example of an elliptical sen-
tence. It is well known that the words in italics are inserted
to supply the ellipses of the Hebrew and Greek originals.

Syllables are omitted in words, for the same reason that
words are omitted in sentences, viz., that the mind may
^^aller vite dans son operation." Some remarkable in-
stances might be given how much the French have curtailed .
the words they have borrowed from the Latin. The fol-
lowing are a few : — Mhte, roeipsum ; eveque, episcopus ;
eareme, quadragesima ; amif amicus ; dme, animus ; vingt^
viginti ; precher, priedicare ; maUre, magister ; tnvie, in-
vidia ; MAme, blasphemia.

d by Google

loa

Let U8 take another example of an adjective be-
ing confounded with other parts of speech. It might
be reasonably supposed that the word one would be
(without a pun) only one part of speech^ and have only
one meaning;-— according to Johnson^ however^ it has
six meanings as an adjective, and thirteen as a noun !
And to increase the confusion^ he adds^ ** There are
many uses of the word one which serve to d^nomi-^
nate it a substantive^ though some of them may seem
rather to make it a pronoun relative, and some may^
perhaps be considered as consistent with the nature
of an adjecti ve^ the substantive being understood" ! I
have looked carefully over the examples he quotes^
and find that the word is invariably an adjective,
having a noun expressed or understood after it« I
will give a few examples of what Johnson calls ita
use as a noun> with a view to show that it is never
any thing but an adjective : —

^* The treea beat one against another," i« e. one
(tree) against another (tree)*,

'^ The men were taken out one by one," i. e. one
(man), by one (man).

" One o'clock/' t. e, one (hour) of the clock.

'^ One would imagine," *. c. one (person) would
imagine.

" That orange is bad, give me a better one," i. e^
SL better one (orange), or one better orange.

'^Let us love one another," j. e. let us each one
(person) love another (person).

One's is evidently a contraction for one person's.

It thus appears that in all the foregoing elliptical
sentences, nouns are understood after the words we
have been considering, which words consequently
are adjectives.* It is surely better to have recourse

* I know of only one apparent exception to the rule,

that words which precede and designate nouns are a4jec-

'- - -we say, " either house will suii me,'* " neiiher horse

d by Google

101

to this method of efkplaining the apparent ambiguity^
than admit a position so repugnant to common sense^
-and so subversive of all order, as that the same word
mAV be several different parts of speech.

It were easy to prove, by the very same method,
that such words as this, that, which, what, these,
those, such, each, another, &c., which Johnson and
others call pronouns, and I know not what besides,
are never any thing but adjectives, on the ground
that they precede and designate nouns, which no
pronoun can do. A pronoun is the representative
of its noun, as an ambassador is the representative
of his sovereign at a distant court. An adjective is
the herald which precedes and designates the sove-
reign in his own court; but we must not confound
the herald at home with the ambassador abroad.
Their characters, situations, and offices, are essen-
tially different.

The only one of the above class of adjectives
which requires a separate notice is that. «fohnson

can carry me ;'* from which It might be concluded that
either and neither were adjectives. If, however, we ana-
lyze these sentences, we shall find that they are mere ab-
breviations. '^ Either house," means (and is a contrac-
tion for) '^ either this house or that house.** If then we
call either an adjective, it will be imnossible to avoid call-
ing or an adjective also, which would clearly be absurd.
Hence we must call them both adverbs ; and it is observ-
able that in other languages, eitfter and dr are expressed
by one and ^e same word, as indeed is done by our poets
in our own ; thus,

Or in the starry regions or the abyss.
Neither is ^^ not either," and therefore the same remark
applies equally to the latter as to the former; hence also
we have.

We nor ally nor brother know.
Either is often improperly put for each ; as, *' on either
side of the river was there the tree of life."

d by Google

102

calls this ivord a pronoun and a conjunction ; and
Murray, Cobbett, and the rest of the grammarians,
say it is a relative pronoun, a demonstrative pro-
noun, and a conjunction ! That it cannot be a pro-
noun of any kind, the foregoing remarks will I hope
satisfy the reader >* and I will now proceed to show,
by a few examples, that its supposed use as a con-
junction, may always (by supplying the understood
noun) be resolved into its real use as an adjective: —

'^ We believe thai thou shalt come to be our judge ;"
t. e. we believe that (truth), thou shalt come to be
our Judge.

/' Thou say est that I am;" u e. thou sayest that
(person) I am.

^' I tell you that that man is innocent ;" t. e. I tell
you that (fact), that man is innocent

" Read the book again that you may understand
it better ;" t. e. read the book again (to the end) that
(or to that end) you may understand it better.

^' They glorified God, saying that a great prophet
is risen up among us ;" i. e. saying that (speech, or
making that declaration) a great prophet is risen up
among us.

** We give thee thanks for that it hath pleased
thee," &c. ; i, e. we give thee thanks for that (cir-
cumstance, namely,) it hath pleased thee, &c. In
such examples, the for is commonly omitted ; but
its insertion here is grammatically correct ; and it
affords us a good instance of the manner in which
expressions come to be gradually abbreviated, and
abbreviated in such a way^ that their original con-
nexion is not always easily discovered.

** So run that ye may obtain ;"' i. e. so run that
(result may happen, or to that end)— ye may ob-
tain.

" Eat that you may live, and live that you may

See Analysis, p. 19.

Digitized by LjOOQ IC

103

do good ;" i, e. eat to that (end) — ^you may live,
and live to that (end) — ^you may do good.

" The first particular to he ohserved concerning
Cain and Ahel is this, thai they engaged in differ-
ent employments suitable to their Afferent inclina-
tions ;" t. e. is this (circumstance, namely,) that
(circumstance) — ^they engaged in different employ-
ments, &c. Here we have, no doubt, an instance
of redundancy, but by no means an inelegant one ;
and it is of use in more particularly calling the at-
tention of the reader to the subject about to be men-
tioned.

In all these examples the word that is clearly an
adjective ; and we may add, that were its full pro-
nunciation attended to, and also its correct punctua-
tion (namely with a comma or dash after it), we
should have less difficulty than we now have in per-
ceiving that such is the case.

But there is another common use of the same
word, where its employment as an adjective is less
obvious, but not less certain : I mean, where it is
substituted for who and which,

** Blessed is he that hath not walked in the coun-
sel of the ungodly ;" in other words, '' blessed is
the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the
ungodly ;" t. e. blessed is the man that (man) hath
not walked in the counsel of the ungodly. That
this is the true sense of that, will appear more evi-
dent by inverting the order of the words : " The
man hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly
-^blessed is that man ;" which order of the words
brings the sentence close to the etymology of the
and that. For according to what has been already
shown,* the means assume, or suppose; and that,
assumed, or supposed. Hence we have, by substi-

* Analysis, Note, p. 22.

Digitized by LjOOQ IC

104

tution — Suppose a man hath not walked in the
counsel of the ungodly ; blessed is supposed man.

'^ He shall be like a tree that will bring forth hi9
fruit in due season ;" t. e. he shall be like a tree that
(tree) will bring forth his fruit in due season. If
which be substituted for thai, it will clearly be
'' which tree ;" and for the same reason it must be
" that tree."

Examples might be multiplied ad infinitum ;
" And why beholdest thou the mote that (mote.) is
in thy brother's eye, and considerest not the beam
that (beam) is in thine own eye ?"

But this is not all : for as me adjective that sig-
nifies assumed, and as we may put a plural noun
after the latter^ and say *' assumed persons or
things^" so we may say '^ that persons or things.'*
This may startle those readers who have not at-
tended to the origin and progress of the English
language. But nothing is more true than what I
have stated. The placing plural nouns after that,
was a general rule of syntax down to the reign
of Henry VIII.,* and though few are aware of
,it> it is siiil practised every day by ourselves,
whenever that is used for who or which, the antece-
dent noun being in the plural nmnber; thus^-—
^^ to render thanks for the great benefits that we
have received at his hands ;" i. €. to render thanks
for the great benefits that (benefits) we have re-*
ceived at his hands. This may be proved in two
ways ; 1^/, by referring, as before^ to the etymdogy
of the and that — " assume great benefits ; €Lssumed
benefits we have received at his hands." Or, 2df fay
substituting which for that — ^' the great benefits
which (benefits) we have received at his hands."

''As we forgive them (cnr those persons) that

• Sir Thomas More says, — " That evyll aungells the
devilles." .

d by Google

106

trespass affaiiist us ;" t . e. as we forgive those per-
sons that (persons) trespass against us.

*^ Mercifully assist our prayers that we make be-
fore thee ;" u e* that (prayers) we make before
thee.

Let one example more suffice t ** And they
brought unto him those which (i. e. those persons,
which persons) were possessed with devils, and
those that (t. e. those persons^ that persons) had the
dropsy^ and he healed them."

The above instances include every possible variety
of the use of that; and the conclusion to be drawn
from the whole is this — ^the word that has always a
noun after it, singular or plural, expressed or un-
derstood ; consequently, it is always a definite ad-
jective, and never, therefore, a pronoun or a con-
junction.*

Out of the thirty-seven prepositions, which I have
enumerated in their proper place, eighteen of them,
according to Johnson, are adverbs as well as prepo-
sitions ! I consider it of so much importance to get
rid of this confusion of speech, that I hope the reader
will bear with me, while I show, very briefly, that
the eighteen words alluded to are prepositions only ;
it being remembered that the primary characteristic
of the preposition is to affect nouns, adjectives, pro-
nouns, and participles; and, in particular, that it
governs the objective case of the pronoun.

In the following sentences, the prepositions do
not appear, at first sight, to affect the said parts of
speecn, and hence they have been called adverbs.
By supplying the ellipsis, however, it will appear

• The several uses of that may be reduced to four, nvhen
the noun is understood ; and it may be added, that the
first, second, and third time it occurs in the fi)urth com-
mandment, and the single time in which it ^occurs in the
fifth commandment, exhibit the said four uses of the word.

£2

d by Google

106

that they are thereby restored to their original and
unchangeable character of prepositions only.

Above and abound. — *' Above was sky^ and ocean
all around ;" t. e. above* (them) and around (them).

About. — " Why go ye about to kill me ?" i. e.
about (preparing) to kill me — actually employed in
preparing.

After. — ^' And about the space of an hour qf-^
ter ;" i, e. after (that time).

Beneath. — ** The Lord he is God in heaven
above, and in the earth beneath ;" t. e. in heaven
above (the earth) and in earth beneath (the heaven).

Below.—" Pass the time of your sojourning here
beUm ;" L e. below (the heaven).

Before. — '^ I knew that before ;" u e. before
(some particular time).

Behind. — " She came in the press behind and
touched him ;" i. e. behind (him). '

Besides. — " Besides^ it ought to be remember-
ed ;" t. e. besides (the circumstance previously
mentioned).

By. — *' He stood % while I read;" t. e, by (some
person or place).

For. — " Work out your salvation with fear and
trembling, Jor it is God who worketh in you, &c. ;
t, e. for (this reason).

In. — " He went in and shut the door ;" i. e. in
(or into the room).

Oyer. — '* He crossed over to the other side of the
Lake ;" t. e. over (the water).

On. — " They went on till they came," &c. ; f • e.
on (their journey).

* In the phrase '' the above list,** the preposition above
seems to usurp the place of the ac^ective ; but this is not
the case. The above list, means ^e list above, that is,
the list above that part of the page where the phrase
occurs.

d by Google

107

TflBOUOH.— *' They bored the rock through ;" i. e.
they bored through the rock.

Undbb.— -'' From two years old and under ;" t. e.
under (that age).

Within and without.—" Within were fightinffs^
and without were fears ;" i. e. within (us) and with-
out (us).

Many other examples might be given in illustra-
tion of the same general position^ that (with the ex-
ceptions already made) the same word is not more
than one part of speech, and that every part of
speech has a distinguishing character whicn it never
loses ; but these may perhaps be thought sufficient
to point out the manner in which the ellipsis is to
be supplied, and the word in question restored to its
proper name and unalterable character.

,y Google

108

OU& AUXILIARY YEEBS AK£ ESSENTIAL PABTS
OF. OU& BEGULAE VEBBS. .

A GREAT deal of unnecessary pains have been taken
to show that our auxiliary verbs are not essential to
the tenses and moods of our regular verbs, and that
the latter have nothing belonging to them but what
is indicated by their terminations.

We are told that the English verb has but one
voice, namely, the active ; one mood, the indicative ;
and two tenses, the present and the nast. There is
certainly no more tiian this markea by the verb's
terminations ; and on the same principle, it ought
to be contended that it has only one number, namely,
the singular , since the three persons plural are not
distinguished by terminations, but only by prefix,
ing the nominative cases of pronouns.

The only terminations which are incorporated
with our regular verb are the following : —

dress dress-ed.

dress-est dress-edst.

dress-es. dress-ing.

But these, it is evident, would be of very little use
without assistance from other quarters. Our regu-
lar verbs would be exceedingly '* defective" verbs,
if this were all they could supply. But why re-
strict them to a few incorporated terminations,
when the genius of the language has furnished them
with other means of expressing their various modi-
fications and powers ? jSvery regular verb of every
civilized language mtisl have voices, moods, tenses,
and numbers, whatever be the method in which

d by Google

109

these are ooiiBtnicted ; beoaoae nMiikiiid> whose
feelings and passiixis are every where the same,
have uniformi]^ found it necessary to adopt sudi
Qiethods in th^ intercourse with each other ; and
so long as the time and mamner of an action are
clearly expressed^ it can be of no consequence
whether this be done by one word, with its incor.
porated prefixes and terminations, or by a peripkrm^
sis, or by both.

In this respect, the English, French, and Latin
verbs differ from each omer only tn degree. The
English moods and tenses are composed almost en-
tirely of periphrases ; the French about equally of
periphrases and terminations; and the Latin, al-
most entirely, but not exclusively, of terminations.

One of the alleged objections to calling a pert-
phrasis a verb is, that the latter (verbum) necessarily
implies one word only, and that therefore it must be
improper to call two or three words by that appel-
lation. But it should be remembered, that the pre-
fixes and terminations of the Oreek and Latin verbs
were once distinct words, though afterwards they
coalesced with the verb ; and thus, from having been
two or three words, became one;* these prefixes
and terminations " being (as Tooke justly remarks)
equally auxiliary with our uncoalescing words, and
used for the same purpose." And it is a very con-
ceivable case, that a corresponding change may
hereafter take place in the English verb ; that is,
that the auxiliaries which at present make up our
various moods and tenses, may coalesce with the
verb, and with each other, and thus become one
word instead of several.

Thus amabam was compouuded of ama-ibam.
amaveram of ama-eram.

amavi of ama-habui, amabui, amavi.

amabo of ama-volo^ amavo, amabo.

d by Google

110

Viewing the matter in this lights the objection
that the verb^ on account of its name^ ought neces-
sarily to be one word> falls to the grouna ; and we
are justified in concluding that our auxiliary verbs^
are essential to our regular verbs^ since the latter,
without these, cannot exhibit their several relations ;
nor express the various modifications of time, man-
ner, and circumstances of an action^ which it is the
object of the verbs of all languages io express.

,y Google

Ill

El^GLISH NOUNS HAV£ KO GENDER.

Our only methods of marking the difference of
sex in animals is by distinguishing names for each ;
by the pronouns^ Ae, and she, and it ; and by the
pronominal adjectives his, her, and its. Thus much
seems to be necessary to prevent confusion.* Yet
it cannot be contended that the structure of our
language is formed with reference to gender,
since our adjectives and participles are unchange-
ably the same for both sexes^ as well as for inani-
mate objects. We say^ " the or that good man ;"
''the or that good woman;'' ''the or that good
thing :*' whereas if our language possessed gender^
the adjectives the, thai, and sfiod (together with
any other adjectives or participles that might be
used in connexion with the above nouns)^ would have
terminations varying with the gender of the nouns
to which they were annexed.t

To say that males are masculine and females fe.
minine^ is only saying that males are males^ and fe-
males females ; it is a distinction o^ fact, but not a
distinction of the English language. It does not
follow^ because the person has a sex^ that therefore

* Even this is not uniformly adhered to ; for, Istj The
names poet, author, dancer, singer, ^c, are applied indi-
scriminately to males and femues. Sd, He, shoj and t /,
are^ at this day, used indiscriminately by the common
people in various parts of Great Britain ; and^ Sd, In our
Bible translation, we find '^ and to every seed his own
body ;" '*• but it the salt have lost his savour."

t As is the case, for example, with the German adjec-
tives corresponding to the above ; der, die, das ; jener,
jene, jenes ; guter^ gute, gut.

d by Google

112

ihe noun has a gender. A woman is a female ; but
the noun woman is no more of the feminine gender
than the nouns skip, moon, England, church, soul, or
any other of the numerous^ and often arbitrary^ fe-
minine personifications which are in common use.
In speaking of these^ we say she and her; but
that, I repeat, does not constitute sender, unless
the adjectives and participles to which they are an-
nexed, have feminine terminations, which they have
not. If the nouns ship, England, moon, be without
gender (and this is admitted by all modem English
grammarians) then must the noun woman be equally
without gender, since they are all four designated
precisely in the same manner.

It may not perhaps be easy for one who knows
no language but English, to understand this dis*
tinction ; but it is presumed that the Greek, Latin,
French, or German scholar will not hesitate to agree
to it.

Ben Jonson says^ '^ of genders there are six"!
As the reader perhaps never heard of more than
two, or at most three, he may be curious to learn
how six can be made out. I will here give them
for his information or amusement.

1. Masculine, including (B. Jonson says) angels,
men, and stars.

2. Feminine, including women, islands, countries,
and ships.

3. Neuter, as houses, stones, and trees.

4. Promiscuous, as people, dogs, horses, and cat-
tle.

5. Doubtful, as cousin, friend, neighbour.

6. Common of three genders. By this he means
that adjectives being applied to masculine, feminine,
and neuter nouns, maybe said to have three genders.

I think these frivolous distinctions will rather
serve to confirm than overthrow the doctrine that
our n hout gender.

d by Google

113

ON THE ETYMOLOGY AND USE OF THE WORDS
THEN AND THATfy WHICH ARE SHOWN TO BE

THE SAME WORD. — In this Appendix is ex-
plained the etymological signification of the com-
parative degree in English, French, and Latin.

These two wcnrds^ I hare no doubt» are one an4
the same word. They were both written than so
late as the 17th century, as every reader of old
English knows ; and they are, I believe, either the
infinitive or present participle (it is immaterial
which) of the Anglo-Saxon verb thean, to assume
or suppose ; of which verb^ as has already been ob-
served^ our words the and thai, are the imperative
and past particii^.

It will be found, on a very slight examination,
that the word then always signifies that some cir-
. cumstanoe previously referred to b assumed, sup-
posed, or granted; thus,

" Then went out to him all Jerusalem ;" i. e, as*
suming (what has already been said concerning
J<^), all Jerusalem went out to him.

" What then f" or then, what ? t . e. €usuming
(thus much), what follows ?

'<If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching
vain ;" t. e. if Christ be not risen, then (assuming
this) our preaching is vain.

" So then, they that are in the fiesh cannot please
God j" f . e. so then (assuming what has been just ad-
vanced) they that are in the flesh cannot please Gkui.

'' It (the Church of England^ has rescued us first
from heathenism ; then (aasummg this) from papal
idolatry and superstition* It has saved us frr

d by Google

114

temporal and spiritual despotism. We owe to it
our moral and intellectual character as a nation;
much of our private happiness^ much of our public
strength. Whatever should weaken it^ would^ in
the same degree^ injure the common weal ; what-
ever should overthrow it, would, in sure and imme-
diate consequence, bring down the goodly fabric of
that constitution, whereof it is a constituent and
necessary part. If the friends of the constitution
understand this as clearly as its enemies, and act
upon it as consistently and actively, then (assuming
this) will the church and state be safe, and with
them, the liberty and prosperity of our country."
Concluding words of Southey's Book of the Church.

But our use of Ihan in the same sense, is not so
evident. I conceive it to be this :—

** You are better than I ;" t. e. than I (assuming
I am goo^, — ^the positive degree of the adjective being
understood in ail such cases) you are better.

'^ John was greater than a prophet ;" t. e. than a
prophet (assuming a prophet is great) John was
greater.

" The judgments of the Lord are more to be de-
sired than fine gold ;" t. e. than fine gold (assuming
that fine gold is much to be desired) the judgments
of the Lord are more to be desired.

*' It is better to suffer than to do wronff." Here
the construction would seem to imply uiat doing
wrong is good, and that suffering is better ; whereas
the true meaning is, that '' it is had to suffer, but
worse to do wrong;" t. e. than to suffer (assuming
that to suffer is hai) it is worse to do wrong.

We also use than after oiher ; thus, '' you are to
do it for no other reason than that I command you ;"
t. e. than that I command you (assuming that I com-
mand you) you are to do it for no other reason.

It seems unaccountable, at first sight, that while
'^han /, than he, than we, we never say, than

d by Google

116

who; and I am not aware that this seeming anomaly
has ever been explained. The above etjrmmogy will,
however, serve to clear it up, and at die same time,
show why we say, than whom, instead.

The phrase " you are better than I," or '' than he,"
is evidently to be filled up, than I am, or than he is;
but take the following example :— '^ Cromwell, than
whom no man was ever better skilled in artifice ;"
t. e. than whom (assuming whom, or whom assuming
to have been skilled in artifice) no man was ever
better skilled. But we cannot say ^' mho assuming,"
since the transitive verb assume must govern Uie
objective case of the pronoun. Consequently, than
whom is right, and than who would be wrong.*

We often hear in conversation (particularly,
I think, in Scotland) the phrases than me, than
him, than us, &c.,t and all our grammarians

* The importanoe of etymology for determining the true
meaning and use of words, will appear from the following
extract from *^ Baker*s Remarks on the English Language,
oonoerning the expression than whom : — " The late Dr
Sdter, A&ter of the Charter House, on seeing the first
edition of my book (in which Baker had contended fbr
than who\ inquired of the bookseller the name of the au-
thor, and soon after wrote to me, desiring me to call upon
him. When I saw him, be objected to my observation on
Pope's expression of than wham. He insisted that than
whom was always right, and that tlian who was a bad ex-
pression. I heard what he had to say without being at all
convinced. But I find that the author of the Introduction
of English Grammar (Bishop Lowth), in an edition of
his book, published since that time, is of the same opinion,
though he seems to own the expression to be ungrammatical.
But neither am I yet eonvincedt jfc." Could they have
referred to the derivation of the word than, the dispute
would have been at an end.

t Captain M'Intyre, in the Antiquanr, says, '' there is
old Edie, sir, or Caxon, oould not they do better them me ?

d by Google

116

caution U8 against them as improper, though not
one of them attempts to show wherein the impro-
priety lies ; or how it is that^ since ikan whom is cor-
rect, than him should be incorrect. Now the truth
is that the above phrases are not ungrammatical,
however unfieishionable they may be. Let one ex-
ample suffice for the whole : '' She is better than
him;" t. e. than him (assuming him to be good) she is
better. Than he, is eaually good, but in Uiat case the
sentence is to be rendered, '^ assuming he is good."
All this may perhaps seem trifling to those who
affect to prefer things to words. But it ought never
to be considered as useless to investigate uie origin
of what has always been considered as an anomaly
in our language ; and to show that it is strictly con-
formable to the rules of grammar.*

* Let any one read the nonsense which Cobbett has
written (Grammar p. 106) on the expression than whom,
and Uie confident terms in which he ignorantly condemns
it, and it ma^ then perhaps be admitted by the most de-
termined anti<*etymologist how very necessary it is to know
t^e derivation of a word before venturing to lay down rules
■ftft its use. The following is a specimen of Cobbett*s
reasoning on t&e expression in question : — " It is a very
:Oommon parliament-nouse-phrase, and therefore presump-
tively corrupt ; but it is a Doctor-Johnson-phrase too."
He tells us that we ought to say than tuho, becauie we say
than /, than he, &c. I repeat that the opinion of such a
man on grammar would be beneath notice, but for the
unaccountable popularity of his book ; and that, not among
the persons for whom it was intended, but among the
educated classes of society, who ought to have known bet-
ter than to encourage such trumpery.

Dr A. Murray has a remark on the words then and than,
whidi affiirds a fiiir specimen of his usual habit of substi-
tuting random unsupported assertion, in lieu of legitimate
derivation:—** One of the earliest applications," he says,
'' of thwag or iha, the or that, was to mark time. Than

d by Google

117

It may not be amias to add that tiie i^ench metfabci
of construcdng the oompantive d^^ree, is similar ta
ours ; excepting that they midersCand not only the
positive degree of the adjecdre, bat also Ae impenu
tive mood of the verb to assuwte ; their qme (qui,
qii2e, qnod^) being nearfy equivalent to our common
acceptation of the word thai / thiu :^-

^'.Le soleil est plus grand que la Inne;" t. e, (as*
same) que la lune (soit grande), le soleil est plus
grand.*

^' £lle est plus belle que quand je la vis ;" c. e.
(assume) que quand je la vis (elle f&t belle), elle
est plus belle.

" Je suis plus fort que je n^^tais I'ann^ pass^ ;"
L e. (assume) que je n'^tais (fort) I'ann^e pass^e^ je
suis plus fort.

" II dit plus qu'il ne fiut ;" t. e. (assume) qu'il ne
fait (beaucoup) 11 dit plus.

According to these two last solutions^ the necessity
of the ne is apparent, which otherwise seems redun-
dant. The ne in French is sometimes redundantj
though by no means so oflen as it appears to be.t

and thanne, in all the dialects, signified, at that, or at the
time ; then, at that distant time, either past or to come*
This word began to be coasidered as peculiar to that idea,
and it gradually assumed a difibrent pronunciation.*'

* It is a very common idiom of the French language,
to understand an imperative before qtie at the beginning
<£ a sentence; e. g-., "— que le nom de Dieu soit beni ;"
*i — qu'il te plaise me garder ;'* "-—que celui qui a deux
vetemens en donne un k celui qui n*en a point." The que,
in such examples, is usually translated let; but it is almost
needless to remark that there is not the least affinity be-
tween que and our auxiliary let. The true way of render-
ing these sentences is by understanding the imperative of
some verb before que, such as, arrange, contrive, or take
measures.

t It is redundant in the following sentence :— 'Je n*o'

d by Google

118

The Latin and Greek rule for the comparative
degree is analogous to those of the English and
French, though to appearance very different ; thus,

'' Majora his videois ;" i. e. his (existentibus)
uutgfitV'— 4lie ablative absolute) majora videbis.

** O fons Blandusise splendidior vitro ;" t. e. vitro
(existente splendido) fons Blandusiae splendidior.

The Greek is of course the same^ substituting the
genitive for the ablative.*

I cannot conclude this article better than with the
following quotation from M. de Brosses, as prefixed
to the Diversions of Purley : '* he grand objet de
Tart 6tymologique n'est pas de rendre raison de Tori-
gine de tons les mots sans exception, et j'ose dire
que ce seroit un but assez frivole. Get art est prin-
cipalement recommandable en ce qu'il foumit k la
philosophic des mat^riaux et des observations pour

ELEVEB LB GRAND ^DIFICB OS LA TH^ORIE q£ni£*
RALB DBS LANGUB8."

ffuUe raison de vous cndndre : but it should be observed
that pas^ paint. Jamais^ rien, and personne are not nega-
tives; and hence, whenever these words occur, there is
always a real n^;ative expressed or understood. We may
remark that in our old authors, Chaucer, 'Cranmer, G.
Douglas, Grower, &c, and even in Shakspeare, the double
negative (instead of signifying, as it now does, an affirma-
tive) is frequently employed to give additional force to a
single one.

• I have little doubt that the German alt^ than, is alle-
es, all-it, our old aU-be^it (the imperative be being un-
derstood), which is evidently analogous to the other com-
paratives we have been considering; thus : — '* £r ist mehr
gelehrt als weise ; he is more learned than wise; t. e. als
weise (all-be-it, or granting he is wise) er ist mehr gelehrt,
he is more learned.

d by Google

119

OK THE TWOFOLD USE OF THE WORD THEHS.

We use this word in two ways.

The one has reference to place; as "there is a
man, a house, &c./' — pointing to the same as visible ;
or, ''he was there at the time I was." This use
of the word answers to the French Id and voild ( vois-
la.)

But we have another way of usin^ there, which
corresponds with the French t7y a, ily avoit, &c.,
there is, there was, and which, with us, seems to be
nothing more than an elegant redundancy : thus,

'' There was a man sent from God whose name
was John ;" or, a man was sent from Ood whose
name was John.

'' There is this to be said ;" or, this is to be said.

'' Now there is a pool at Jerusalem ;" or, now a
pool is at Jerusalem.

" There shall arise false Christs;" or, false Christs
shall arise.

" There were set there six water-pots of stone ;"
here we have both acceptations of the word, the
first being redundant^six water-pots of stone were
set there.

It is desirable to know where a word really is
redundant, that we may not employ ourselves need-
lessly in attempting to explain it. Perhaps, however,
this apparent redundancy might be accounted for,
and the two uses of the word shown to be the same,
if we knew its etymology, which we do not know.

There is nothing in Oreek or Latin corresponding
with this redundant sense of the word there; nor
does it seem to have been in use among our ances-
tors ; for in Wickliffe's Bible, instead of the sentence
*' There was a man sent from God whose name was

d by Google

xao

John ;*' we find^ *' a man was sent fro Ood to
whom the name was JonJ'

Cobbett^ who never finds difficulties in grammar
any mate than in politics, thus exd[ains the matter
in question. His example is, "There are many
men who have been at Latin schools for years
who cann^ write six sentences in English." " Now
you know (he adds) the word there, in its usual
sense, has reference to place, yet it has no such re*
ference here. The true meaning is that, many men
are in existence who have been at Latin schools."

As to the meaning of the word, we shall never
know that accurately till we know its etymology ;
but certainly it does not always mean ''in existence,"
if ever it do : for, take any of the foregoing ex«
amples and try what soise can be made by substi-
tuting the expression '' in existence," for the word
in question ; thus,

" There is this to be said ;" t. e. (according to
Cobbett) in existence is this to be said ! The simplest
solution of the difficulty is to consider the word as
redundant — '' many men have been at Latin schools
for years who cannot write six sentences in English."

d by Google

121
G.

OK TH£ MEANING AND USE OF THE PRONOUN IT.

1 HAYB never met, in any book, with a clear ac-
count of this little word, which yet ought to be
given on account of the peculiar manner in which
it 18 commonly used.

To make the matter plain, it will be necessary to
advert to the etymology of it ; for I repeat, it is im-
possible Mtcghave a correct idea of any word without
Knowing its etymology. Tooke has ably shown that
IT was originally the past participle of a Gothic
verb, kteian, which meant to say;* consequently, it
means '' said." This accordingly is its exact signi-
fication when It fdUms the person or thing alluded
to: thus, " What is that .(that thiijg) you have in
your hand? it is an oranges:''. t. ^. iT\said thing in
my hand) is an orange. *^i^

" Who is there ? it is I ;" L e. it (said person
who is here) is I.

But IT very fre(|uently goes before the thing al-
luded to ; and this is the point which chiefly requires
explanation. Many sentences begin with it, where
this pronoun cannot mean said, because nothing has
yet been said. Take, for example, the following
sentence from the Introduction to my Analysis : —
" It will be seen that I have availed myself of some
valuable hints suggested by the learned author of
the Diversions of Furley." The question is, what
noun does the pronoun it here stand for ? £vi-

* In Scotland, the aspirate is still preserved among the
peasantry: they generally say Ai/.

d by Google

122

dently not for any thing said, nothing havinff been
previously spoken of or referred to ; but then it
will be found, that in all such cases, it relates to
something which is going, or aboui to be said ; which
thing about to be said, is the noun represented by
IT ; or rather, it is the anticipation of this noun, as
I shall now proceed to prove.

The following phraseology is common in our
language: — *' In ki^ "EsasLy, Mr Locke observes/' &c, ;
where the pronominal adjective his precedes the
noun Mr Locke to which it refers. His, therefore,
has, in such instances, an anticipaiive reference
to the following .noun.

Now the very same thing happens with the pro-
noun IT ; it has often an anticipative reference to
the following noun ; so that its exact meaning, in
such instances, is not the said, but the about to be
said: thus, in the example already quoted, <Mt
(the about to be said) will be seen (namely) that, I
have availed myself of some valuable hints suggest-
ed by the learned author of the Diversions of Pur-
ley."

All similarly*constructed sentences are to be re-
solved in the same manner ; and so common is this
idiom in our language, that there is scarcely a page
of an English book that does not contain an exam-
ple of it, which is an additional reason for giving it
a clear explanation. The following are a few more
examples :—

*' It pleases me to hear that you are so diligent ;"
i. e. It (the about to be said) pleases me (namely) to
hear that you are so diligent.

" It is written, my house shall be called the house
of prayer ;" t. e. It (the about to be said) is written,
(namely) my house shall be called the house of
prayer.

'^ It is easy to conquer our faults when we sin-
cere^ ' ' rio so ;" t. e. It (the about to be said)

d by Google

123

is easy^ (namely) to conquer our faults when we
sincerely wish to do so.

*' We beseech thee to hear us that it may please
thee to bless and preserve all the Royal Family ;"
t. e.^-that it (the about to be said) may please thee^
(namely) to bless and preserve all the Royal Family.

From this it appears that the pronoun it is never
strictly impersoniu. It relates either to something
going before^ or immediately to follow. It serves
the office of a page, or an usher.

In the familiar phrases *' it is fair^" " it rains/'
" it is dark, light/' &c., "what o'clock is it ?" there
is a tacit allusion to the state of the atmosphere, or
of the weather, or to time. When it is remembered
how often the time and the weather are the subject
of our conversation, and how naturally we study
brevity on fiuniliar topics, we shall cease to wonder
that the noun represented by the pronoun it, should
not be expressed, but understood only, in all allu-
sions of that kind.

Gobbett has devoted six pages of his Grammar to
the pronoun it; but from nis ignorance of the ori-
gin and true meaning of the word (which be might
have learnt from the Diversions of Purley, if he
ever heard of such a book), he only gropes in the
dark, and misses his object, which yet ne is very
confident of having attained. *' The pronoun it
(he says) though a personal pronoun, does not al-
ways stand for, or at least appear to stand for, any
noun whatever ; but is used to point out a state qf
things, or the cause of something produced." It is
not very easy to understand what this means ; at
least the " ploughboys and apprentices" will scarce-
ly comprehend it ; but the following example which
he gives, may perhaps be thought to throw some
light upon his meaning :— " It is delightful to see
brothers and sisters living in uninterrupted love to
the end of their days /' '' that is," says Cobbett,

d by Google

124

'' the state of things which exhibits brothers and
sisters living io uninterrupted love^ is delightful/'
Here is '^ delightful" confusion certainly ! A state
of things exhibiting persons living in uninterrupted
love ! How much more natural is the following
solution, and that only because it is the etymolo-
gical one. — It (the about to be said) is delightful,
(namely) to see brothers and sisters living in unin-
terrupted love.

It would be easy to point out many similar faults
in Cobbett's Grammar. There are even whole pages
of discussion, in which we find the utmost confu-
sion of ideasj and palpable granunatical errors,
coupled with an appearance of great simplicity of
style, and a confident tone in laying down the law,
which, with the superficial of this superficial age,
pass for perspicuity and accuracy. But I forbear
saying more on this subject; my object l>eing ra«
ther to establish truth than confute error.

,y Google

12S

PROFESSOB DUGALD STEWAET AND THE QUAR-
TERLY REVIEW, VERSUS HOBNE TOOKe'^S DI-
VERSIONS OF PURLEY.

The two first have been unwarrantably severe on
H. Tooke, on account of his etvmological researches^
which ihey allege he has employed for purposes at
once unphilosophical and preposterous. They ac-
cuse him of disregarding tne modem signification
of words, and restraining them to their primitive
and literal use, to the confusion of language, and
the subversion of common sense. Their accusa-
tions, however, are unsubstantiated, and altogether
groundless— except perhaps as to a single mcau-
tious remark which Tooke has made on the word
Truth, which they have most unfairly selected and
blazoned forth as a specimen of his whole reason-
ing.* Tooke was a man of too vigorous and highly

• Truth, troweth, that which is frourec? or affirmed. Ac-
cording to this etymology, '' two persons (says Tooke)
Hiav contradict one another, and yet both speak truUi ;**
and again, ^* instead of truth being a rare commodity,
there is nothing but truth in the workl." But who would
infer from this, that Tooke wished to disr^ard or invali-
date the modem meaning of the word truth ? And even
admitting that he did, are we not still indebted to him for
the discovery of this carious etymology of one of the most
interesting words of our language ? But, after all, the ob-
jection to Tooke amounts to nothing ; for we often speak
of denying or questioning the truth of an assertion, as we
are also said to deny or question facts ; i. e. we question
or deny what is alleged to be truth or foct until it be
proved. Neither trutn nor trowing is of any value, unless
supported by sufficient evidence.

d by Google

126

cultivated an understanding, to maintain that words
ought at this day to be understood only in the sense
they bore when first employed. No man in his
senses could support so extravagant an opinion as
this, which is contradicted by me changes which
almost every word in our language has undergone^
and is still undergoing, — changes which Tooke un-
derstood better than any man either before his time
or since; but he justly thought it would at least be
an interesting and instructive '^ Diversion," to trace
words to their source, and show the connexion be-
tween their original and present signification ; and
he quotes M. de Brosses, Lord Bacon, Bishop WiU
kins, and Locke (no contemptible authorities), as
strongly recommending such an undertaking, and
as anticipating the most useful results from its ac-
complishment.

*' I will venture to say (observes Pinkerton in
the preface to his edition of Ancient Scottish Poems)
that a man who writes a language without acquaint,
ance with its early state, may compose well from
chance, but never from intelligence. For know-
ledge of the primitive and progressive powers of
words, is the only solid foundation of that rich and
terse style which posterity pronounces classic."

As to Professor Stewart, he seems to have op-
posed Tooke for no better reason than that the lat-
ter was opposed to his favourite metaphysics. And
yet, if a comparison were made between metaphy-
sics (in the modem sense of the word) and etymo-
logy, it might easily be proved, that the latter is a
far more certain, satisfactory, and useful pursuit
than the former. In fact, etymology is the only
true metaphysics ; for we cannot get at our thoushts
but throuffh the medium of words, which are their
signs. We cannot even think without the help of
words. All the terms by which we express mental
or Sorrowed from sensible objects ; and

d by Google

127

we cannot have any notion of the mind^ or its pow«
ers, farther than as we have a knowledge of the true
signification of the words by which w'e express them.
Hence, bj analysing our words, we are in fact ana-
lyzing our thoughts, and resolving them into their
constituent elements.

In short, etymology elucidates the general laws
by which Uie operations of the human mind are re->
gulated, by exmbidng the method she adopts for
conveying her ideas ; it lays open the channels in
which our words flow when leu to the impulse of
nature ; and it establishes the interesting fact, that
however distantly they may seem to wander from
their source, they may always, with care and in-
dustry, be traced back to it, and never wholly lose
the distinguishing marks of their origin.

" I have often thought (says Tooke) it was for
mankind a lucky mistake, for it was a mistake which
Mr Locke made, when he called his book an Essay
on the Human Understanding, For some part of
the inestimable benefit of that work has, merely on
account of its title, reached to many thousands more
than, I fear, it would have done, had he called it,
what it is merely, a Grammatical Essay, or a Trea-
tise on Words i^nd fjanguage,"

With respect to the too general prejudice against
Tooke and nis writings, I shall only add, that, as to
his religious and political opinions, I dislike them
as much as any one ; but that does not shut my eyes
to his unrivalled merits as a Philologist, and the in-
calculable service he has rendered to the English
Language.

THE END.

Oliver & Doyd, Frinten.

Digitized by LjOOQ IC

,y Google

Digitized by LjOOQ IC

,y Google

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Analysis of the seven parts of speech of the English language"

See other formats