The Grammar of English Grammars/Footnotes
|←Index||The Grammar of English Grammars by
 Ben Jonson's notion of grammar, and of its parts, was as follows: "Grammar is the art of true and well-speaking a language: the writing is but an accident.
The Parts of Grammar are
Etymology \ which is / the true notation of words, Syntaxe / \ the right ordering of them.
A word is a part of speech or note, whereby a thing is known or called; and consisteth of one or more letters. A letter is an indivisible part of a syllable, whose prosody, or right sounding, is perceived by the power; the orthography, or right writing, by the form. Prosody, and Orthography, are not parts of grammar, but diffused, like blood and spirits, through the whole."--Jonson's Grammar, Book I.
 Horne Tooke eagerly seized upon a part of this absurdity, to prove that Dr. Lowth, from whom Murray derived the idea, was utterly unprepared for what he undertook in the character of a grammarian: "Dr. Lowth, when he undertook to write his Introduction, with the best intention in the world, most assuredly sinned against his better judgment. For he begins most judiciously, thus--'Universal grammar explains the principles which are common to all languages. The grammar of any particular language, applies those common principles to that particular language.' And yet, with this clear truth before his eyes, he boldly proceeds to give a particular grammar; without being himself possessed of one single principle of universal grammar."--Diversions of Purley, Vol. 1, p. 224. If Dr. Lowth discredited his better judgement in attempting to write an English grammar, perhaps Murray, and his weaker copyists, have little honoured theirs, in supposing they were adequate to such a work. But I do not admit, that either Lowth or Murray "begins most judiciously," in speaking of Universal and Particular grammar in the manner above cited. The authors who have started with this fundamental blunder, are strangely numerous. It is found in some of the most dissimilar systems that can be named. Even Oliver B. Peirce, who has a much lower opinion of Murray's ability in grammar than Tooke had of Lowth's, adopts this false notion with all implicitness, though he decks it in language more objectionable, and scorns to acknowledge whence he got it. See his Gram., p. 16. De Suey, in his Principles of General Grammar, says, "All rules of Syntax relate to two things, Agreement and Government."--Foxdick's Tr., p. 108. And again: "None of these rules properly belong to General Grammar, as each language follows, in regard to the rules of Agreement and Government, a course peculiar to itself."--Ibid., p. 109." "It is with Construction [i.e., Arrangement] as with Syntax. It follows no general rule common to all languages."--Ibid. According to these positions, which I do not admit to be strictly true, General or Universal Grammar has no principles of Syntax at all, whatever else it may have which Particular Grammar can assume and apply.
 This verb "do" is wrong, because "to be contemned" is passive.
 "A very good judge has left us his opinion and determination in this matter; that he 'would take for his rule in speaking, not what might happen to be the faulty caprice of the multitude, but the consent and agreement of learned men.'"--Creighton's Dict., p. 21. The "good judge" here spoken of, is Quintilian; whose words on the point are these: "Necessarium est judicium, constituendumque imprimis, id ipsum quid sit, quod consuetudinem vocemus. * * * In loquendo, non, si quid vitiose multis insederit, pro regula sermonis, amplendum est. * * * Ergo consuetudinem sermonis, vocabo consensum eruditorum sicut vivendi, consenum honorum."--De Inst. Orat., Lib. i. Cap. 6, p. 57.
 "The opinion of plenty is amongst the causes of want; and the great quantity of books maketh a show rather of superfluity than lack; which surcharge, nevertheless, is not to be removed by making no more books, but by making more good books, which, as the serpent of Moses, might devour the serpents of the enchanters."--Bacon. In point of style, his lordship is here deficient; and he has also mixed and marred the figure which he uses. But the idea is a good one.
 Not, "Oldham, in Hampshire," as the Universal Biographical Dictionary has it; for Oldham is in Lancashire, and the name of Lily's birthplace has sometimes been spelled "Odiam."
 There are other Latin grammars now in use in England; but what one is most popular, or whether any regard is still paid to the ancient edict or not, I cannot say. Dr. Adam, in his preface, dated 1793, speaking of Lily, says: "His Grammar was appointed, by an act which is still in force, to be taught in the established schools of England." I have somehow gained the impression, that the act is now totally disregarded.--G. Brown.
 For this there is an obvious reason, or apology, in what his biographer states, as "the humble origin of his Grammar;" and it is such a reason as will go to confirm what I allege. This famous compilation was produced at the request of two or three young teachers, who had charge of a small female school in the neighbourhood of the author's residence: and nothing could have been more unexpected to their friend and instructor, than that he, in consequence of this service, should become known the world over, as Murray the Grammarian. "In preparing the work, and consenting to the publicaton, he had no expectation that it would be read, except by the school for which it was designed, and two or three other schools conducted by persons who were also his friends."--Life of L Murray, p. 250.
 Grammatici namque auctoritas per se nulla est; quom ex sola doctissimorum oraturum, historicorum, poetarum, et aliorum ideonorum scriptorum observatione, constet ortam esse veram grammaticam. Multa dicenda forent, si grammatistarum ineptias refellere vellem: sed nulla est gloria præterire asellos."--DESPAUTERII Præf. Art. Versif., fol. iii, 1517.
 The Latin word for participle is participium, which makes participio in the dative or the ablative case; but the Latin word for partake is participo, and not "participio."--G. BROWN.
 This sentence is manifestly bad English: either the singular verb "appears" should be made plural, or the plural noun "investigations" should be made singular.--G. BROWN.
 "What! a book have no merit, and yet be called for at the rate of sixty thousand copies a year! What a slander is this upon the public taste! What an insult to the understanding and discrimination of the good people of these United States! According to this reasoning, all the inhabitants of our land must be fools, except one man, and that man is GOOLD BROWN!"--KIRKHAM, in the Knickerbocker, Oct. 1837, p. 361.
Well may the honest critic expect to be called a slanderer of "the public taste," and an insulter of the nation's "understanding," if both the merit of this vaunted book and the wisdom of its purchasers are to be measured and proved by the author's profits, or the publisher's account of sales! But, possibly, between the intrinsic merit and the market value of some books there may be a difference. Lord Byron, it is said, received from Murray his bookseller, nearly ten dollars a line for the Fourth Canto of Childe Harold, or about as much for every two lines as Milton obtained for the whole of Paradise Lost. Is this the true ratio of the merit of these authors, or of the wisdom of the different ages in which they lived?
 Kirkham's real opinion of Murray cannot be known from this passage only. How able is that writer who is chargeable with the greatest want of taste and discernment? "In regard to the application of the final pause in reading blank verse, nothing can betray a greater want of rhetorical taste and philosophical acumen, than the directions of Mr. Murray."--Kirkham's Elocution, p. 145. Kirkham is indeed no judge either of the merits, or of the demerits, of Murray's writings; nor is it probable that this criticism originated with himself. But, since it appears in his name, let him have the credit of it, and of representing the compiler whom he calls "that able writer" and "that eminent philologist," as an untasteful dunce, and a teacher of nonsense: "To say that, unless we 'make every line sensible to the ear,' we mar the melody, and suppress the numbers of the poet, is all nonsense."--Ibid. See Murray's Grammar, on "Poetical Pauses;" 8vo, p. 260; 12mo, 210.
 "Now, in these instances, I should be fair game, were it not for the trifling difference, that I happen to present the doctrines and notions of other writers, and NOT my own, as stated by my learned censor."--KIRKHAM, in the Knickerbocker, Oct. 1837, p. 360. If the instructions above cited are not his own, there is not, within the lids of either book, a penny's worth that is. His fruitful copy-rights are void in law: the "learned censor's" pledge shall guaranty this issue.--G. B. 1838.
 I am sorry to observe that the gentleman, Phrenologist, as he professes to be, has so little reverence in his crown. He could not read the foregoing suggestion without scoffing at it. Biblical truth is not powerless, though the scornful may refuse its correction.--G. B. 1838.
 Every schoolboy is familiar with the following lines, and rightly understands the words "evil" and "good" to be nouns, and not adjectives.
"The evil that men do, lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones."--SHAKSPEARE.
Julius Cæsar, Act 3: Antony's Funeral Oration over Cæsar's Body.
Kirkham has vehemently censured me for omitting the brackets in which he encloses the words that be supposes to be understood in this couplet. But he forgets two important circumstances: First, that I was quoting, not the bard, but the grammatist; Second, that a writer uses brackets, to distinguish his own amendments of what he quotes, and not those of an other man. Hence the marks which he has used, would have been improper for me. Their insertion does not make his reading of the passage good English, and, consequently, does not avert the point of my criticism.
The foregoing Review of Kirkham's Grammar, was published as an extract from my manuscript, by the editors of the Knickerbocker, in their number for June, 1837. Four months afterwards, with friendships changed, they gave, him the "justice" of appearing in their pages, in a long and virulent article against me and my works, representing me, "with emphatic force," as "a knave, a liar, and a pedant." The enmity of that effusion I forgave; because I bore him no personal ill-will, and was not selfish enough to quarrel for my own sake. Its imbecility clearly proved, that in this critique there is nothing with which he could justly find fault. Perceiving that no point of this argument could be broken, he changed the ground, and satisfied himself with despising, upbraiding, and vilifying the writer. Of what use this was, others may judge.
This extraordinary grammarian survived the publication of my criticism about ten years, and, it is charitably hoped, died happily; while I have had, for a period somewhat longer, all the benefits which his earnest "castigation" was fit to confer. It is not perceived, that what was written before these events, should now be altered or suppressed by reason of them. With his pretended "defence," I shall now concern myself no further than simply to deny one remarkable assertion contained in it; which is this--that I, Goold Brown, "at the funeral of Aaron Ely," in 1830, "praised, and highly praised, this self-same Grammar, and declared it to be 'A GOOD WORK!'"--KIRKHAM, in the Knickerbocker, Oct., 1837, p. 362. I treated him always courteously, and, on this solemn occasion, walked with him without disputing on grammar; but, if this statement of his has any reasonable foundation, I know not what it is.--G. B. in 1850.
 See Notes to Pope's Dunciad, Book II, verse 140.
 A modern namesake of the Doctor's, the Rev. David Blair, has the following conception of the utility of these speculations: "To enable children to comprehend the abstract idea that all the words in a language consist but of nine kinds, it will be found useful to explain how savage tribes WHO having no language, would first invent one, beginning with interjections and nouns, and proceeding from one part of speech to another, as their introduction might successively be called for by necessity or luxury."--Blair's Pract. Gram., Pref., p. vii.
 "Interjections, I shewed, or passionate exclamations, were the first elements of speech. Men laboured to communicate their feelings to one another, by those expressive cries and gestures which nature taught them."--Dr. Hugh Blair's Lectures, p. 57.
 "It is certain that the verb was invented before the noun, in all the languages of which a tolerable account has been procured, either in ancient or modern times."--Dr. Alex. Murray's History of European Languages, Vol. I, p. 326.
 The Greek of this passage, together with a translation not very different from the foregoing, is given as a marginal note, in Harris's Hermes, Book III, Chap. 3d.
 The Bible does not say positively that there was no diversity of languages before the flood; but, since the life-time of Adam extended fifty-six years into that of Lamech, the father of Noah, and two hundred and forty-three into that of Methuselah, the father of Lamech, with both of whom Noah was contemporary nearly six hundred years, it is scarcely possible that there should have occurred any such diversity, either in Noah's day or before, except from some extraordinary cause. Lord Bacon regarded the multiplication of languages at Babel as a general evil, which had had no parallel but in the curse pronounced after Adam's transgression. When "the language of all the earth" was "confounded," Noah was yet alive, and he is computed to have lived 162 years afterwards; but whether in his day, or at how early a period, "grammar" was thought of, as a remedy for this evil, does not appear. Bacon says, "Concerning speech and words, the consideration of them hath produced the science of grammar. For man still striveth to redintegrate himself in those benedictions, of which, by his fault, he hath been deprived; and as he hath striven against the first general curse by the invention of all other arts, so hath he striven to come forth from the second general curse, which was the confusion of tongues, by the art of grammar; whereof the use in a mother tongue is small, in a foreign tongue more, but most in such foreign tongues as have ceased to be vulgar tongues, and are turned only to learned tongues."--See English Journal of Education, Vol. viii, p. 444.
 It should be, "to all living creatures;" for each creature had, probably, but one name.--G. Brown.
 Some recent German authors of note suppose language to have sprung up among men of itself, like spontaneous combustion in oiled cotton; and seem to think, that people of strong feelings and acute minds must necessarily or naturally utter their conceptions by words--and even by words both spoken and written. Frederick Von Schlegel, admitting "the spontaneous origin of language generally," and referring speech to its "original source--a deep feeling, and a clear discriminating intelligence," adds: "The oldest system of writing developed itself at the same time, and in the same manner, as the spoken language; not wearing at first the symbolic form, which it subsequently assumed in compliance with the necessities of a less civilized people, but composed of certain signs, which, in accordance with the simplest elements of language, actually conveyed the sentiments of the race of men then existing."--Millington's Translation of Schlegel's Æsthetic Works, p. 455.
 "Modern Europe owes a principal share of its enlightened and moral state to the restoration of learning: the advantages which have accrued to history, religion, the philosophy of the mind, and the progress of society; the benefits which have resulted from the models of Greek and Roman taste--in short, all that a knowledge of the progress and attainments of man in past ages can bestow on the present, has reached it through the medium of philology."--Dr. Murray's History of European Languages, Vol. II, p. 335.
 "The idea of God is a development from within, and a matter of faith, not an induction from without, and a matter of proof. When Christianity has developed its correlative principles within us, then we find evidences of its truth everywhere; nature is full of them: but we cannot find them before, simply because we have no eye to find them with."--H. N. HUDSON: Democratic Review, May, 1845.
 So far as mind, soul, or spirit, is a subject of natural science, (under whatever name,) it may of course be known naturally. To say to what extent theology may be considered a natural science, or how much knowledge of any kind may have been opened to men otherwise than by words, is not now in point. Dr. Campbell says, "Under the general term [physiology] I also comprehend natural theology and psychology, which, in my opinion, have been most unnaturally disjoined by philosophers. Spirit, which here comprises only the Supreme Being and the human soul, is surely as much included under the notion of natural object as a body is, and is knowable to the philosopher purely in the same way, by observation and experience."--Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 66. It is quite unnecessary for the teacher of languages to lead his pupils into any speculations on this subject. It is equally foreign to the history of grammar and to the philosophy of rhetoric.
 "Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore, if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh, a barbarian; and he that speaketh, shall be a barbarian unto me."--1 Cor., xiv. 9, 10, 11. "It is impossible that our knowledge of words should outstrip our knowledge of things. It may, and often doth, come short of it. Words may be remembered as sounds, but [they] cannot be understood as signs, whilst we remain unacquainted with the things signified."--Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 160. "Words can excite only ideas already acquired, and if no previous ideas have been formed, they are mere unmeaning sounds."--Spurzheim on Education, p. 200.
 Sheridan the elecutionist makes this distinction: "All that passes in the mind of man, may be reduced to two classes, which I call ideas and emotions. By ideas, I mean all thoughts which rise, and pass in succession in the mind. By emotions, all exertions of the mind in arranging, combining, and separating its ideas; as well as the effects produced on all the mind itself by those ideas; from the more violent agitation of the passions, to the calmer feelings produced by the operation of the intellect and the fancy. In short, thought is the object of the one; internal feeling, of the other. That which serves to express the former, I call the language of ideas; and the latter, the language of emotions. Words are the signs of the one: tones, of the other. Without the use of these two sorts of language, it is impossible to communicate through the ear, all that passes in the mind of man."--Sheridan's Art of Reading; Blair's Lectures, p. 333.
 "Language is the great instrument, by which all the faculties of the mind are brought forward, moulded, polished, and exerted."--Sheridan's Elocution, p. xiv.
 It should be, "These are."--G. B.
 It should be, "They fitly represent."--G. B.
 This is badly expressed; for, according to his own deduction, each part has but one sign. It should be, "We express the several parts by as many several signs."--G. Brown.
 It would be better English to say, "the instruments and the signs."--G. Brown.
 "Good speakers do not pronounce above three syllables in a second of time; and generally only two and a half, taking in the necessary pauses."--Steele's Melody of Speech.
 The same idea is also conveyed in the following sentence from Dr. Campbell: "Whatever regards the analysis of the operations of the mind, which is quicker than lightning in all her energies, must in a great measure be abstruse and dark."--Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 289. Yet this philosopher has given it as his opinion, "that we really think by signs as well as speak by them."--Ib., p. 284. To reconcile these two positions with each other, we must suppose that thinking by signs, or words, is a process infinitely more rapid than speech.
 That generalization or abstraction which gives to similar things a common name, is certainly no laborious exercise of intellect; nor does any mind find difficulty in applying such a name to an individual by means of the article. The general sense and the particular are alike easy to the understanding, and I know not whether it is worth while to inquire which is first in order. Dr. Alexander Murray says, "It must be attentively remembered, that all terms run from a general to a particular sense. The work of abstraction, the ascent from individual feelings to classes of these, was finished before terms were invented. Man was silent till he had formed some ideas to communicate; and association of his perceptions soon led him to think and reason in ordinary matters."--Hist. of European Languages, Vol. I, p. 94. And, in a note upon this passage, he adds: "This is to be understood of primitive or radical terms. By the assertion that man was silent till he had formed ideas to communicate, is not meant, that any of our species were originally destitute of the natural expressions of feeling or thought. All that it implies, is, that man had been subjected, during an uncertain period of time, to the impressions made on his senses by the material world, before he began to express the natural varieties of these by articulated sounds. * * * * * * Though the abstraction which formed such classes, might be greatly aided or supported by the signs; yet it were absurd to suppose that the sign was invented, till the sense demanded it."--Ib., p. 399.
 Dr. Alexander Murray too, In accounting for the frequent abbreviation of words, seems to suggest the possibility of giving them the celerity of thought: "Contraction is a change which results from a propensity to make the signs as rapid as the thoughts which they express. Harsh combinations soon suffer contraction. Very long words preserve only the principal, that is, the accented part. If a nation accents its words on the last syllable, the preceding ones will often be short, and liable to contraction. If it follow a contrary practice, the terminations are apt to decay."--History of European Languages, Vol. I, p. 172.
 "We cannot form a distinct idea of any moral or intellectual quality, unless we find some trace of it in ourselves."--Beattie's Moral Science, Part Second, Natural Theology, Chap. II, No. 424.
 "Aristotle tells us that the world is a copy or transcript of those ideas which are in the mind of the first Being, and that those ideas which are in the mind of man, are a transcript of the world. To this we may add, that words are the transcripts of those ideas which are in the mind of man, and that writing or printing are [is] the transcript of words."--Addison, Spect., No. 166.
 Bolingbroke on Retirement and Study, Letters on History, p. 364.
 See this passage in "The Economy of Human Life," p. 105--a work feigned to be a compend of Chinese maxims, but now generally understood to have been written or compiled by Robert Dodsley, an eminent and ingenious bookseller in London.
 "Those philosophers whose ideas of being and knowledge are derived from body and sensation, have a short method to explain the nature of Truth.--It is a factitious thing, made by every man for himself; which comes and goes, just as it is remembered and forgot; which in the order of things makes its appearance the last of all, being not only subsequent to sensible objects, but even to our sensations of them! According to this hypothesis, there are many truths, which have been, and are no longer; others, that will be, and have not been yet; and multitudes, that possibly may never exist at all. But there are other reasoners, who must surely have had very different notions; those, I mean, who represent Truth not as the last, but as the first of beings; who call it immutable, eternal, omnipresent; attributes that all indicate something more than human."--Harris's Hermes, p. 403.
 Of the best method of teaching grammar, I shall discourse in an other chapter. That methods radically different must lend to different results, is no more than every intelligent person will suppose. The formation of just methods of instruction, or true systems of science, is work for those minds which are capable of the most accurate and comprehensive views of the things to be taught. He that is capable of "originating and producing" truth, or true "ideas," if any but the Divine Being is so, has surely no need to be trained into such truth by any factitious scheme of education. In all that he thus originates, he is himself a Novum Organon of knowledge, and capable of teaching others, especially those officious men who would help him with their second-hand authorship, and their paltry catechisms of common-places. I allude here to the fundamental principle of what in some books is called "The Productive System of Instruction," and to those schemes of grammar which are professedly founded on it. We are told that, "The leading principle of this system, is that which its name indicates--that the child should be regarded not as a mere recipient of the ideas of others, but as an agent capable of collecting, and originating, and producing most of the ideas which are necessary for its education, when presented with the objects or the facts from which they may be derived."--Smith's New Gram., Pref., p. 5: Amer. Journal of Education, New Series, Vol. I, No. 6, Art. 1. It ought to be enough for any teacher, or for any writer, if he finds his readers or his pupils ready recipients of the ideas which he aims to convey. What more they know, they can never owe to him, unless they learn it from him against his will; and what they happen to lack, of understanding or believing him, may very possibly be more his fault than theirs.
 Lindley Murray, anonymously copying somebody, I know not whom, says: "Words derive their meaning from the consent and practice of those who use them. There is no necessary connexion between words and ideas. The association between the sign and the thing signified, is purely arbitrary."--Octavo Gram., Vol. i, p. 139. The second assertion here made, is very far from being literally true. However arbitrary may be the use or application of words, their connexion with ideas is so necessary, that they cannot be words without it. Signification, as I shall hereafter prove, is a part of the very essence of a word, the most important element of its nature. And Murray himself says, "The understanding and language have a strict connexion."--Ib., Vol. i, p. 356. In this, he changes without amendment the words of Blair: "Logic and rhetoric have here, as in many other cases, a strict connexion."--Blair's Rhet., p. 120.
 "The language which is, at present, spoken throughout Great Britain, is neither the ancient primitive speech of the island, nor derived from it; but is altogether of foreign origin. The language of the first inhabitants of our island, beyond doubt, was the Celtic, or Gælic, common to them with Gaul; from which country, it appears, by many circumstances, that Great Britain was peopled. This Celtic tongue, which is said to be very expressive and copious, and is, probably, one of the most ancient languages in the world, obtained once in most of the western regions of Europe. It was the language of Gaul, of Great Britain, of Ireland, and very probably, of Spain also; till, in the course of those revolutions which by means of the conquests, first, of the Romans, and afterwards, of the northern nations, changed the government, speech, and, in a manner, the whole face of Europe, this tongue was gradually obliterated; and now subsists only in the mountains of Wales, in the Highlands of Scotland, and among the wild Irish. For the Irish, the Welsh, and the Erse, are no other than different dialects of the same tongue, the ancient Celtic."--Blair's Rhetoric, Lect. IX, p. 85.
 With some writers, the Celtic language is the Welsh; as may be seen by the following extract: "By this he requires an Impossibility, since much the greater Part of Mankind can by no means spare 10 or 11 Years of their Lives in learning those dead Languages, to arrive at a perfect Knowledge of their own. But by this Gentleman's way of Arguing, we ought not only to be Masters of Latin and Greek, but of Spanish, Italian, High- Dutch, Low-Dutch, French, the Old Saxon, Welsh, Runic, Gothic, and Islandic; since much the greater number of Words of common and general Use are derived from those Tongues. Nay, by the same way of Reasoning we may prove, that the Romans and Greeks did not understand their own Tongues, because they were not acquainted with the Welsh, or ancient Celtic, there being above 620 radical Greek Words derived from the Celtic, and of the Latin a much greater Number."--Preface to Brightland's Grammar, p. 5.
 The author of this specimen, through a solemn and sublime poem in ten books, generally simplified the preterit verb of the second person singular, by omitting the termination st or est, whenever his measure did not require the additional syllable. But his tuneless editors have, in many instances, taken the rude liberty both to spoil his versification, and to publish under his name what he did not write. They have given him bad prosody, or unutterable harshness of phraseology, for the sake of what they conceived to be grammar. So Kirkham, in copying the foregoing passage, alters it as he will; and alters it differently, when he happens to write some part of it twice: as,
"That morning, thou, that slumberedst not before, Nor slept, great Ocean! laidst thy waves at rest, And hushed thy mighty minstrelsy."--Kirkham's Elocution, p. 203.
"That morning, thou, that slumberedst not before, Nor sleptst, great Ocean, laidst thy waves at rest, And hush'dst thy mighty minstrelsy."--Kirkham's Elocution, p. 44.
 Camenes, the Muses, whom Horace called Camænæ. The former is an English plural from the latter, or from the Latin word camena, a muse or song. These lines are copied from Dr. Johnson's History of the English Language; their orthography is, in some respects, too modern for the age to which they are assigned.
 The Saxon characters being known nowadays to but very few readers, I have thought proper to substitute for them, in the latter specimens of this chapter, the Roman; and, as the old use of colons and periods for the smallest pauses, is liable to mislead a common observer, the punctuation too has here been modernized.
 Essay on Language, by William S. Cardell, New York, 1825, p. 2. This writer was a great admirer of Horne Tooke, from whom he borrowed many of his notions of grammar, but not this extravagance. Speaking of the words right and just, the latter says, "They are applicable only to man; to whom alone language belongs, and of whose sensations only words are the representatives."--Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 9.
 CARDELL: Both Grammars, p. 4.
 "Quoties dicimus, toties de nobis judicatur."--Cicero. "As often as we speak, so often are we judged."
 "Nor had he far to seek for the source of our impropriety in the use of words, when he should reflect that the study of our own language, has never been made a part of the education of our youth. Consequently, the use of words is got wholly by chance, according to the company that we keep, or the books that we read." SHERIDAN'S ELOCUTION, Introd., p. viii, dated "July 10, 1762," 2d Amer. Ed.
 "To Write and Speak correctly, gives a Grace, and gains a favourable Attention to what one has to say: And since 'tis English, that an English Gentleman will have constant use of, that is the Language he should chiefly Cultivate, and wherein most care should be taken to polish and perfect his Stile. To speak or write better Latin than English, may make a Man be talk'd of, but he would find it more to his purpose to Express himself well in his own Tongue, that he uses every moment, than to have the vain Commendation of others for a very insignificant quality. This I find universally neglected, and no care taken any where to improve Young Men in their own Language, that they may thoroughly understand and be Masters of it. If any one among us have a facility or purity more than ordinary in his Mother Tongue, it is owing to Chance, or his Genius, or any thing, rather than to his Education or any care of his Teacher. To Mind what English his Pupil speaks or writes is below the Dignity of one bred up amongst Greek and Latin, though he have but little of them himself. These are the learned Languages fit only for learned Men to meddle with and teach: English is the Language of the illiterate Vulgar."--Locke, on Education, p. 339; Fourth Ed., London, 1699.
 A late author, in apologizing for his choice in publishing a grammar without forms of praxis, (that is, without any provision for a stated application of its principles by the learner,) describes the whole business of Parsing as a "dry and uninteresting recapitulation of the disposal of a few parts of speech, and their often times told positions and influence;" urges "the unimportance of parsing, generally;" and represents it to be only "a finical and ostentatious parade of practical pedantry."--Wright's Philosophical Gram., pp. 224 and 226. It would be no great mistake to imagine, that this gentleman's system of grammar, applied in any way to practice, could not fail to come under this unflattering description; but, to entertain this notion of parsing in general, is as great an error, as that which some writers have adopted on the other hand, of making this exercise their sole process of inculcation, and supposing it may profitably supersede both the usual arrangement of the principles of grammar and the practice of explaining them by definitions. It is asserted in Parkhurst's "English Grammar for Beginners, on the Inductive Method of Instruction," that, "to teach the child a definition at the outset, is beginning at the wrong end;" that, "with respect to all that goes under the name of etymology in grammar, it is learned chiefly by practice in parsing, and scarcely at all by the aid of definitions."-- Preface, pp. 5 and 6.
 Hesitation in speech may arise from very different causes. If we do not consider this, our efforts to remove it may make it worse. In most instances, however, it may be overcome by proper treatment, "Stammering," says a late author, "is occasioned by an over-effort to articulate; for when the mind of the speaker is so occupied with his subject as not to allow him to reflect upon his defect, he will talk without difficulty. All stammerers can sing, owing to the continuous sound, and the slight manner in which the consonants are touched in singing; so a drunken man can run, though he cannot walk or stand still."--Gardiner's Music of Nature, p. 30.
"To think rightly, is of knowledge; to speak fluently, is of nature; To read with profit, is of care; but to write aptly, is of practice." Book of Thoughts, p. 140.
 "There is nothing more becoming [to] a Gentleman, or more useful in all the occurrences of life, than to be able, on any occasion, to speak well, and to the purpose."--Locke, on Education, §171. "But yet, I think I may ask my reader, whether he doth not know a great many, who live upon their estates, and so, with the name, should have the qualities of Gentlemen, who cannot so much as tell a story as they should; much less speak clearly and persuasively in any business. This I think not to be so much their fault, as the fault of their education.--They have been taught Rhetoric, but yet never taught how to express themselves handsomely with their tongues or pens in the language they are always to use; as if the names of the figures that embellish the discourses of those who understood the art of speaking, were the very art and skill of speaking well. This, as all other things of practice, is to be learned, not by a few, or a great many rules given; but by EXERCISE and APPLICATION according to GOOD RULES, or rather PATTERNS, till habits are got, and a facility of doing it well."--Ib., §189. The forms of parsing and correcting which the following work supplies, are "patterns," for the performance of these practical "exercises;" and such patterns as ought to be implicitly followed, by every one who means to be a ready and correct speaker on these subjects.
 The principal claimants of "the Inductive Method" of Grammar, are Richard W. Green, Roswell C. Smith, John L. Parkhurst, Dyor H. Sanborn, Bradford Frazee, and, Solomon Barrett, Jr.; a set of writers, differing indeed in their qualifications, but in general not a little deficient in what constitutes an accurate grammarian.
 William C. Woodbridge edited the Journal, and probably wrote the article, from which the author of "English Grammar on the Productive System" took his "Preface."
 Many other grammars, later than Murray's, have been published, some in England, some in America, and some in both countries; and among these there are, I think, a few in which a little improvement has been made, in the methods prescribed for the exercises of parsing and correcting. In most, however, nothing of the kind has been attempted. And, of the formularies which have been given, the best that I have seen, are still miserably defective, and worthy of all the censure that is expressed in the paragraph above; while others, that appear in works not entirely destitute of merit, are absolutely much worse than Murray's, and worthy to condemn to a speedy oblivion the books in which they are printed. In lieu of forms of expression, clear, orderly, accurate, and full; such as a young parser might profitably imitate; such as an experienced one would be sure to approve; what have we? A chaos of half-formed sentences, for the ignorant pupil to flounder in; an infinite abyss of blunders, which a world of criticism could not fully expose! See, for example, the seven pages of parsing, in the neat little book entitled, "A Practical Grammar of the English Language, by the Rev. David Blair: Seventh Edition: London, 1815:" pp. 49 to 57. I cannot consent to quote more than one short paragraph of the miserable jumble which these pages contain. Yet the author is evidently a man of learning, and capable of writing well on some subjects, if not on this. "Bless the Lord, O my soul!" Form: "Bless, a verb, (repeat 97); active (repeat 99); active voice (102); infinitive mood (107); third person, soul being the nominative (118); present tense (111); conjugate the verb after the pattern (129); its object is Lord (99)."--Blair's Gram., p. 50. Of the paragraphs referred to, I must take some notice: "107. The imperative mood commands or orders or intreats."--Ib., p. 19. "118. The second person is always the pronoun thou or you in the singular, and ye or you in the plural."--Ib., p. 21. "111. The imperative mood has no distinction of tense: and the infinitive has no distinction of persons."--Ib., p. 20. Now the author should have said: "Bless is a redundant active-transitive verb, from bless, blessed or blest, blessing, blessed or blest; found in the imperative mood, present tense, second person, and singular number:" and, if he meant to parse the word syntactically, he should have added: "and agrees with its nominative thou understood; according to the rule which says, 'Every finite verb must agree with its subject or nominative, in person and number.' Because the meaning is--Bless thou the Lord." This is the whole story. But, in the form above, several things are false; many, superfluous; some, deficient; several, misplaced; nothing, right. Not much better are the models furnished by Kirkham, Smith, Lennie, Bullions, and other late authors.
 Of Dr. Bullions's forms of parsing, as exhibited in his English Grammar, which is a modification of Lennie's Grammar, it is difficult to say, whether they are most remarkable for their deficiencies, their redundancies, or their contrariety to other teachings of the same author or authors. Both Lennie and Bullions adopt the rule, that, "An ellipsis is not allowable when it would obscure the sentence, weaken its force, or be attended with an impropriety."--L., p. 91; B., p. 130. And the latter strengthens this doctrine with several additional observations, the first of which reads thus: "In general, no word should be omitted that is necessary to the full and correct construction, or even harmony of a sentence."--Bullions, E. Gr., 130. Now the parsing above alluded to, has been thought particularly commendable for its brevity--a quality certainly desirable, so far as it consists with the end of parsing, or with the more needful properties of a good style, clearness, accuracy, ease, and elegance. But, if the foregoing rule and observation are true, the models furnished by these writers are not commendably brief, but miserably defective. Their brevity is, in fact, such as renders them all bad English; and not only so, it makes them obviously inadequate to their purpose, as bringing into use but a part of the principles which the learner had studied. It consists only in the omission of what ought to have been inserted. For example, this short line, "I lean upon the Lord," is parsed by both of these gentlemen thus: "I, the first personal pronoun, masculine, or feminine, singular, the nominative--lean, a verb, neuter, first person singular, present, indicative--upon, a preposition--the, an article, the definite--Lord, a noun, masculine, singular, the objective, (governed by upon.)"--Lennie's Principles of English Gram., p. 51; Bullions's, 74. This is a little sample of their etymological parsing, in which exercise they generally omit not only all the definitions or "reasons" of the various terms applied, but also all the following particulars: first, the verb is, and certain definitives and connectives, which are "necessary to the full and correct construction" of their sentences; secondly, the distinction of nouns as proper or common; thirdly, the person of nouns, first, second, or third; fourthly, the words, number, gender, and case, which are necessary to the sense and construction of certain words used; fifthly, the distinction of adjectives as belonging to different classes; sixthly, the division of verbs as being regular or irregular, redundant or defective; seventhly, sometimes, (Lennie excepted,) the division of verbs as active, passive, or neuter; eighthly, the words mood and tense, which Bullions, on page 131, pronounces "quite unnecessary," and inserts in his own formule on page 132; ninthly, the distinction of adverbs as expressing time, place, degree, or manner; tenthly, the distinction of conjunctions as copulative or disjunctive; lastly, the distinction of interjections as indicating different emotions. All these things does their completest specimen of etymological parsing lack, while it is grossly encumbered with parentheses of syntax, which "must be omitted till the pupil get the rules of syntax."--Lennie, p. 51. It is also vitiated with several absurdities, contradictions, and improper changes of expression: as, "His, the third personal pronoun;" (B., p. 23;)--"me, the first personal pronoun;" (Id., 74;)--"A, The indefinite article;" (Id., 73;)--"a, an article, the indefinite;" (Id., 74;)--"When the verb is passive, parse thus: 'A verb active, in the passive voice, regular, irregular,' &c."--Bullions, p. 131. In stead of teaching sufficiently, as elements of etymological parsing, the definitions which belong to this exercise, and then dismissing them for the principles of syntax, Dr. Bullions encumbers his method of syntactical parsing with such a series of etymological questions and answers as cannot but make it one of the slowest, longest, and most tiresome ever invented. He thinks that the pupil, after parsing any word syntactically, "should be requested to assign a reason for every thing contained in his statement!"--Principles of E. Grammar, p. 131. And the teacher is to ask questions as numerous as the reasons! Such is the parsing of a text-book which has been pronounced "superior to any other, for use in our common schools"--"a complete grammar of the language, and available for every purpose for which Mr. Brown's can possibly be used."--Ralph K. Finch's Report, p, 12.
 There are many other critics, besides Murray and Alger, who seem not to have observed the import of after and before in connexion with the tenses. Dr. Bullions, on page 139th of his English Grammar, copied the foregoing example from Lennie, who took it from Murray. Even Richard Hiley, and William Harvey Wells, grammarians of more than ordinary tact, have been obviously misled by the false criticism above cited. One of Hiley's Rules of Syntax, with its illustration, stands thus: "In the use of the different tenses, we must particularly observe to use that tense which clearly and properly conveys the sense intended; thus, instead of saying, 'After I visited Europe, I returned to America;' we should say, 'After I had visited Europe, I returned to America."--Hiley's Gram., p. 90. Upon this he thought it needful to comment thus: "'After I visited Europe, I returned to America;' this sentence is incorrect; visited ought to be had visited, because the action implied by the verb visited WAS COMPLETED before the other past action returned."--Ib., p. 91. See nearly the same thing in Wells's School Grammar, 1st Edition, p. 151; but his later editions are wisely altered. Since "visited and was completed" are of the same tense, the argument from the latter, if it proves any thing, proves the former to be right, and the proposed change needless, or perhaps worse than needless. "I visited Europe before I returned to America," or, "I visited Europe, and afterwards returned to America," is good English, and not to be improved by any change of tense; yet here too we see the visiting "was completed before" the return, or HAD BEEN COMPLETED at the time of the return. I say, "The Pluperfect Tense is that which expresses what had taken place at some past time mentioned: as, 'I had seen him, when I met you.'" Murray says, "The Pluperfect Tense represents a thing not only as past, but also as prior to some other point of time specified in the sentence: as, I had finished my letter before he arrived." Hiley says, "The Past-Perfect expresses an action or event which was past before some other past action or event mentioned in the sentence, and to which it refers; as, I had finished my lessons before he came." With this, Wells appears to concur, his example being similar. It seems to me, that these last two definitions, and their example too, are bad; because by the help of before or after, "the past before the past" may be clearly expressed by the simple past tense: as, "I finished my letter before he arrived."--"I finished my lessons before he came." "He arrived soon after I finished the letter."--"Soon after it was completed, he came in."
 Samuel Kirkham, whose grammar is briefly described in the third chapter of this introduction, boldly lays the blame of all his philological faults, upon our noble language itself; and even conceives, that a well-written and faultless grammar cannot be a good one, because it will not accord with that reasonless jumble which he takes every existing language to be! How diligently he laboured to perfect his work, and with what zeal for truth and accuracy, may be guessed from the following citation: "The truth is, after all which can be done to render the definitions and rules of grammar comprehensive and accurate, they will still be found, when critically examined by men of learning and science, more or less exceptionable. These exceptions and imperfections are the unavoidable consequence of the imperfections of the language. Language as well as every thing else of human invention, will always be imperfect. Consequently, a perfect system of grammatical principles, would not suit it. A perfect grammar will not be produced, until some perfect being writes it for a perfect language; and a perfect language will not be constructed, until some super-human agency is employed in its production. All grammatical principles and systems which are not perfect are exceptionable."--Kirkham's Grammar, p. 66. The unplausible sophistry of these strange remarks, and the palliation they afford to the multitudinous defects of the book which contains them, may be left, without further comment, to the judgement of the reader.
 The phrase complex ideas, or compound ideas, has been used for the notions which we have of things consisting of different parts, or having various properties, so as to embrace some sort of plurality: thus our ideas of all bodies and classes of things are said to be complex or compound. Simple ideas are those in which the mind discovers no parts or plurality: such are the ideas of heat, cold, blueness, redness, pleasure, pain, volition, &c. But some writers have contended, that the composition of ideas is a fiction; and that all the complexity, in any case, consists only in the use of a general term in lieu of many particular ones. Locke is on one side of this debate, Horne Tooke, on the other.
 Dilworth appears to have had a true idea of the thing, but he does not express it as a definition; "Q. Is an Unit of one, a Number? A. An Unit is a number, because it may properly answer the question how many!"--Schoolmaster's Assistant, p. 2. A number in arithmetic, and a number in grammar, are totally different things. The plural number, as men or horses, does not tell how many; nor does the word singular mean one, as the author of a recent grammar says it does. The plural number is one number, but it is not the singular. "The Productive System" teaches thus: "What does the word singular mean? It means one."--Smith's New Gram., p. 7.
 It is truly astonishing that so great a majority of our grammarians could have been so blindly misled, as they have been, in this matter; and the more so, because a very good definition of a Letter was both published and republished, about the time at which Lowth's first appeared: viz., "What is a letter? A Letter is the Sign, Mark, or Character of a simple or uncompounded Sound. Are Letters Sounds? No. Letters are only the Signs or Symbols of Sounds, not the Sounds themselves."--The British Grammar, p. 3. See the very same words on the second page of Buchanan's "English Syntax," a work which was published as early as 1767.
 In Murray's octavo Grammar, this word is the in the first chapter, and their in the second; in the duodecimo, it is their in both places.
 "The definitions and the rules throughout the Grammar, are expressed with neatness and perspicuity. They are as short and comprehensive as the nature of the subject would admit: and they are well adapted both to the understanding and the memory of young persons."--Life of L. Murray, p. 245. "It may truly be said that the language in every part of the work, is simple, correct, and perspicuous."--Ib., p. 246.
 For this definition, see Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 40; Duodecimo, 41; Smaller Gram., 18; Alger's, 18; Bacon's, 15; Frost's, 8, Ingersoll's, 17; A Teacher's, 8; Maltby's, 14; T. H. Miller's, 20; Pond's, 18; S. Putnam's, 15; Russell's, 11; Merchant's Murray, 25; and Worcester's Univ. and Crit. Dictionary. Many other grammarians have attempted to define number; with what success a few examples will show: (1.) "Number is the distinction of one from many."--W. Allen's Gram., p. 40; Merchant's School Gram., 28; Greenleaf's, 22; Nutting's, 17; Picket's, 19; D. Adams's, 31. (2.) "Number is the distinction of one from more."--Fisher's Gram., 51; Alden's, 7. (3.) "Number is the distinction of one from several or many."--Coar's Gram., p. 24. (4.) "Number is the distinction of one from more than one."--Sanborn's Gram., p. 24; J. Flint's, 27; Wells's, 52. (5.) "Number is the distinction of one from more than one, or many."--Grant's Latin Gram., p. 7. (6.) "What is number? Number is the Distinction of one, from two, or many."--British Gram., p. 89; Buchanan's, 16. (7.) "You inquire, 'What is number?' Merely this: the distinction of one from two, or many. Greek substantives have three numbers."--Bucke's Classical Gram., p. 38. All these authors say, that, in English, "there are two numbers, the singular and the plural." According to their explanations, then, we have two "distinctions of one from two, several, more, or many;" and the Greeks, by adding a dual number, have three! Which, then, of the two or three modifications or forms, do they mean, when they say, "Number is the distinction" &c.? Or, if none of them, what else is meant? All these definitions had their origin in an old Latin one, which, although it is somewhat better, makes doubtful logic in its application: "NUMERUS est, unius et multorum distinctio. Numeri igitur sunt duo; Singularis et Pluralis."-- Ruddiman's Gram., p. 21. This means: (8.) "Number is a distinction of one and many. The numbers therefore are two; the Singular and the Plural." But we have yet other examples: as, (9.) "Number is the distinction of objects, as one or more."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 39. "The distinction of objects as one," is very much like "the consideration of an object as more than one." (10.) "Number distinguishes objects as one or more."--Cooper's Murray, p. 21; Practical Gram., p. 18. That is, number makes the plural to be either plural or singular for distinction's sake! (11.) "Number is the distinction of nouns with regard to the objects signified, as one or more."--Fisk's Murray, p. 19. Here, too, number has "regard" to the same confusion: while, by a gross error, its "distinction" is confined to "nouns" only! (12.) "Number is that property of a noun by which it expresses one or more than one."--Bullions's E. Gram., p. 12; Analyt. Gram., 25. Here again number is improperly limited to "a noun;" and is said to be one sign of two, or either of two, incompatible ideas! (13.) "Number shows how many are meant, whether one or more."--Smith's new Gram., p. 45. This is not a definition, but a false assertion, in which Smith again confounds arithmetic with grammar! Wheat and oats are of different numbers; but neither of these numbers "means a sum that may be counted," or really "shows how many are meant." So of "Man in general, Horses in general, &c."--Brightland's Gram., p. 77. (14.) "Number is the difference in a noun or pronoun, to denote either a single thing or more than one."--Davenport's Gram., p. 14. This excludes the numbers of a verb, and makes the singular and the plural to be essentially one thing. (15.) "Number is a modification of nouns and verbs, &c. according as the thing spoken of is represented, as, one or more, with regard to number."--Burn's Gram., p. 32. This also has many faults, which I leave to the discernment of the reader. (16.) "What is number? Number shows the distinction of one from many."--Wilcox's Gram., p. 6. This is no answer to the question asked; besides, it is obviously worse than the first form, which has "is," for "shows." (17.) "What is Number? It is the representation of objects with respect to singleness, or plurality." --O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 34. If there are two numbers, they are neither of them properly described in this definition, or in any of the preceding ones. There is a gross misconception, in taking each or either of them to be an alternate representation of two incompatible ideas. And this sort of error is far from being confined to the present subject; it runs through a vast number of the various definitions contained in our grammars. (18.) "Number is the inflection of a noun, to indicate one object or more than one. Or, Number is the expression of unity or of more than unity."--Hiley's Gram., p. 14. How hard this author laboured to think what number is, and could not! (19.) "Number is the distinction of unity and plurality."--Hart's E. Gram., p. 40, Why say, "distinction;" the numbers, or distinctions, being two? (20.) "Number is the capacity of nouns to represent either one or more than one object."--Barrett's Revised Gram., p. 40. (21.) "Number is a property of the noun which denotes one or more than one."--Weld's Gram., 2d Ed., p. 55. (22.) "Number is a property of the noun or pronoun [,] by which it denotes one, or more than one."--Weld's Gram., Abridged Ed., p. 49. (23.) "Number is the property that distinguishes one from more than one."--Weld's Gram., Improved Ed., p. 60. This, of course, excludes the plural. (24.) "Number is a modification of nouns to denote whether one object is meant, or more than one."--Butler's Gram., p. 19. (25.) "Number is that modification of the Noun which distinguishes one from more than one."--Spencer's Gram., p. 26. Now, it is plain, that not one of these twenty-five definitions comports with the idea that the singular is one number and the plural an other! Not one of them exhibits any tolerable approach to accuracy, either of thought or of expression! Many of the grammarians have not attempted any definition of number, or of the numbers, though they speak of both the singular and the plural, and perhaps sometimes apply the term number to the distinction which is in each: for it is the property of the singular number, to distinguish unity from plurality: and of the plural, to distinguish plurality from unity. Among the authors who are thus silent, are Lily, Colet, Brightland, Harris, Lowth, Ash, Priestly, Bicknell, Adam, Gould, Harrison, Comly, Jaudon, Webster, Webber, Churchill, Staniford, Lennie, Dalton, Blair, Cobbett, Cobb, A. Flint, Felch, Guy, Hall, and S. W. Clark. Adam and Gould, however, in explaining the properties of verbs, say: "Number marks how many we suppose to be, to act, or to suffer."--A., 80; G., 78.
 These are the parts of speech in some late grammars; as, Barrett's, of 1854, Butler's, Covell's, Day's, Frazee's, Fowle's New, Spear's, Weld's, Wells's, and the Well-wishers'. In Frost's Practical Grammar, the words of the language are said to be "divided into eight classes," and the names are given thus: "Noun, Article, Pronoun, Verb, Adverb, Preposition, Conjunction, and Interjection."--P. 29. But the author afterwards treats of the Adjective, between the Article and the Pronoun, just as if he had forgotten to name it, and could not count nine with accuracy! In Perley's Grammar, the parts of speech are a different eight: namely, "Nouns, Adjectives, Verbs, Adverbs, Prepositions, Conjunctions, Interjections, and Particles!"--P. 8. S. W. Clark has Priestley's classes, but calls Interjections "Exclamations."
 Felton, who is confessedly a modifier of Murray, claims as a merit, "the rejection of several useless parts of speech" yet acknowledges "nine," and treats of ten; "viz., Nouns, Pronouns, Verbs, Participles, Prepositions, Adjectives, [Articles,] Adverbs, Conjunctions, Exclamations."--O. C. Felton's Gram. p. 5, and p. 9.
 Quintilian is at fault here; for, in some of his writings, if not generally, Aristotle recognized four parts of speech; namely, verbs, nouns, conjunctions, and articles. See Aristot. de Poetica, Cap. xx.
 "As there are ten different characters or figures in arithmetic to represent all possible quantities, there are also ten kinds of words or parts of speech to represent all possible sentences: viz.: article, noun, adjective, pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection."--Chauvier's Punctuation, p. 104.
 The Friend, 1829, Vol. ii, p. 117.
 The Friend, Vol. ii, p. 105.
 See the Preface to my Compendious English Grammar in the American editions of the Treasury of Knowledge, Vol. i, p. 8.
 Some say that Brightland himself was the writer of this grammar; but to suppose him the sole author, hardly comports with its dedication to the Queen, by her "most Obedient and Dutiful Subjects, the Authors;" or with the manner in which these are spoken of, in the following lines, by the laureate:
"Then say what Thanks, what Praises must attend The Gen'rous Wits, who thus could condescend! Skill, that to Art's sublimest Orb can reach, Employ'd its humble Elements to Teach! Yet worthily Esteem'd, because we know To raise Their Country's Fame they stoop'd so low."--TATE.
 Dr. Campbell, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, page 158th, makes a difficulty respecting the meaning of this passage: cites it as an instance of the misapplication of the term grammar; and supposes the writer's notion of the thing to have been, "of grammar in the abstract, an universal archetype by which the particular grammars of all different tongues ought to be regulated." And adds, "If this was his meaning, I cannot say whether he is in the right or in the wrong, in this accusation. I acknowledge myself to be entirely ignorant of this ideal grammar." It would be more fair to suppose that Dr. Swift meant by "grammar" the rules and principles according to which the English language ought to be spoken and written; and, (as I shall hereafter show,) it is no great hyperbole to affirm, that every part of the code--nay, well-nigh every one of these rules and principles--is, in many instances, violated, if not by what may be called the language itself, at least by those speakers and writers who are under the strongest obligations to know and observe its true use.
 The phrase "of any" is here erroneous. These words ought to have been omitted; or the author should have said--"the least valuable of all his productions."
 This word latter should have been last; for three works are here spoken of.
 With this opinion concurred the learned James White, author of a Grammatical Essay on the English Verb, an octavo volume of more than three hundred pages, published in London in 1761. This author says, "Our Essays towards forming an English Grammar, have not been very many: from the reign of Queen Elizabeth, to that of Queen Ann, there are but Two that the author of the Present knows of: one in English by the renown'd Ben Jonson, and one in Latin by the learn'd Dr. Wallis. In the reign of Queen Ann indeed, there seems to have arisen a noble Spirit of ingenious Emulation in this Literary way: and to this we owe the treatises compos'd at that period for the use of schools, by Brightland, Greenwood, and Maittaire. But, since that time, nothing hath appear'd, that hath come to this Essayist's knowledge, deserving to be taken any notice of as tending to illustrate our Language by ascertaining the Grammar of it; except Anselm Bayly's Introduction to Languages, Johnson's Grammar prefix'd to the Abridgement of his Dictionary, and the late Dr. Ward's Essays upon the English Language.--These are all the Treatises he hath met with, relative to this subject; all which he hath perus'd very attentively, and made the best use of them in his power. But notwithstanding all these aids, something still remains to be done, at least it so appears to him, preparatory to attempting with success the Grammar of our Language. All our efforts of this kind seem to have been render'd ineffectual hitherto, chiefly by the prevaliency of two false notions: one of which is, that our Verbs have no Moods; and the other, that our Language hath no Syntax."--White's English Verb, p. viii.
 A similar doctrine, however, is taught by no less an author than "the Rev. Alexander Crombie, LL. D.," who says, in the first paragraph of his introduction, "LANGUAGE consists of intelligible signs, and is the medium, by which the mind communicates its thoughts. It is either articulate, or inarticulate; artificial, or natural. The former is peculiar to man; the latter is common to all animals. By inarticulate language, we mean those instinctive cries, by which the several tribes of inferior creatures are enabled to express their sensations and desires. By articulate language is understood a system of expression, composed of simple sounds, differently modified by the organs of speech, and variously combined."--Treatise on the Etymology and Syntax of the English Language, p. 1. See the same doctrine also in Hiley's Gram., p. 141. The language which "is common to all animals," can be no other than that in which Æsop's wolves and weasels, goats and grasshoppers, talked--a language quite too unreal for grammar. On the other hand, that which is composed of sounds only, and not of letters, includes but a mere fraction of the science.
 The pronoun whom is not properly applicable to beasts, unless they are personified: the relative which would therefore, perhaps, have been preferable here, though whom has a better sound.--G. B.
 "The great difference between men and brutes, in the utterance of sound by the mouth, consists in the power of articulation in man, and the entire want of it in brutes."--Webster's Improved Gram., p. 8.
 Strictly speaking, an articulate sound is not a simple element of speech, but rather a complex one, whether syllable or word; for articulate literally means jointed. But our grammarians in general, have applied the term to the sound of a letter, a syllable, or a word, indiscriminately: for which reason, it seems not very suitable to be used alone in describing any of the three. Sheridan says, "The essence of a syllable consists in articulation only, for every articulate sound of course forms a syllable."--Lectures on Elocution, p. 62. If he is right in this, not many of our letters--or, perhaps more properly, none of them--can singly represent articulate sounds. The looseness of this term induces me to add or prefer an other. "The Rev. W. Allen," who comes as near as any of our grammarians, to the true definition of a letter, says: 1. "The sounds used in language are called articulate sounds." 2. "A letter is a character used in printing or writing, to represent an articulate sound."--Allen's Elements of E. Gram., p. 2. Dr. Adam says: 1. "A letter is the mark of a sound, or of an articulation of sound." 2. "A vowel is properly called a simple sound; and the sounds formed by the concourse of vowels and consonants, articulate sounds."--Latin and English Gram., pp. 1 and 2.
 Of this sort of blunder, the following false definition is an instance: "A Vowel is a letter, the name of which makes a full open sound."--Lennie's Gram., p. 5; Brace's, 7; Hazen's, 10. All this is just as true of a consonant as of a vowel. The comma too, used in this sentence, defeats even the sense which the writers intended. It is surely no description either of a vowel or of a consonant, to say, that it is a letter, and that the name of a letter makes a full open sound. Again, a late grammarian teaches, that the names of all the letters are nothing but Roman capitals, and then seems to inquire which of these names are vowels, thus: "Q. How many letters are in the alphabet? A. Twenty-six. Q. What are their names? A. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. Q. Which of these are called Vowels?"--Fowle's Common School Gram., Part First, p. 7. If my worthy friend Fowle had known or considered what are the names of the letters in English, he might have made a better beginning to his grammar than this.
 By the colloquial phrase, "to a Tee" we mean, "to a nicety, to a tittle, a jot, an iota. Had the British poet Cawthorn, himself a noted schoolmaster, known how to write the name of "T," he would probably have preferred it in the following couplet:
"And swore by Varro's shade that he Conceived the medal to a T."--British Poets, Vol. VII, p. 65.
Here the name would certainly be much fitter than the letter, because the text does not in reality speak of the letter. With the names of the Greek letters, the author was better acquainted; the same poem exhibits two of them, where the characters themselves are spoken of:
"My eye can trace divinely true, In this dark curve a little Mu; And here, you see, there seems to lie The ruins of a Doric Xi."--Ibidem.
The critical reader will see that "seems" should be seem, to agree with its nominative "ruins."
 Lily, reckoning without the H, J, or V, speaks of the Latin letters as "twenty-two;" but says nothing concerning their names. Ruddiman, Adam, Grant, Gould, and others, who include the H, J, and V, rightly state the number to be "twenty-five;" but, concerning their names, are likewise entirely silent. Andrews and Stoddard, not admitting the K, teach thus: "The letters of the Latin language are twenty-four. They have the same names as the corresponding characters in English."--Andrews and Stoddard's Latin Gram., p. 1. A later author speaks thus: "The Latin Alphabet consists of twenty-five letters, the same in name and form as the English, but without the w."--Bullions's Latin Gram., p. 1. It would probably be nearer to the truth, to say, "The Latin Alphabet, like the French, has no W; it consists of twenty-five letters, which are the same in name and form as the French." Will it be pretended that the French names and the English do not differ?
 The Scotch Iz and the Craven Izzet, if still in use anywhere, are names strictly local, not properly English, nor likely to spread. "IZZET, the letter Z. This is probably the corruption of izzard, the old and common name for the letter, though I know not, says Nares, on what authority."--Glossary of Craven, w. Izzet. "Z z, zed, more commonly called izzard or uzzard, that is, s hard."--Dr. Johnson's Gram., p. 1.
"And how she sooth'd me when with study sad I labour'd on to reach the final Zad."--Crabbe's Borough, p. 228.
 William Bolles, in his new Dictionary, says of the letter Z: "Its sound is uniformly that of a hard S." The name, however, he pronounces as I do; though he writes it not Zee but zé; giving not the orthography of the name, as he should have done, but a mere index of its pronunciation. Walker proves by citations from Professor Ward and Dr. Wallis, that these authors considered the sharp or hissing sound of s the "hard" sound; and the flat sound, like that of z, its "soft" sound. See his Dictionary, 8vo, p. 53.
 Dr. Webster died in 1843. Most of this work was written while he was yet in vigour.
 This old definition John L. Parkhurst disputes:--says it "is ambiguous;"--questions whether it means, "that the name of such a letter, or the simple sound," requires a vowel! "If the latter," says he, "the assertion is false. The simple sounds, represented by the consonants, can be uttered separately, distinctly, and perfectly. It can be done with the utmost ease, even by a little child."--Parkhurst's Inductive Gram. for Beginners, p. 164. He must be one of these modern philosophers who delight to make mouths of these voiceless elements, to show how much may be done without sound from the larynx.
 This test of what is, or is not, a vowel sound or a consonant sound, is often appealed to, and is generally admitted to be a just one. Errors in the application of an or a are not unfrequent, but they do not affect the argument. It cannot be denied, that it is proper to use a, and not proper to use an, before the initial sound of w or y with a vowel following. And this rule holds good, whether the sound be expressed by these particular letters, or by others; as in the phrases, "a wonder, a one, a yew, a use, a ewer, a humour, a yielding temper." But I have heard it contended, that these are vowel sounds, notwithstanding they require a; and that the w and y are always vowels, because even a vowel sound (it was said) requires a and not an, whenever an other vowel sound immediately follows it. Of this notion, the following examples are a sufficient refutation: an aëronaut, an aërial tour, an oeiliad, an eyewink, an eyas, an iambus, an oäsis, an o'ersight, an oil, an oyster, an owl, an ounce. The initial sound of yielding requires a, and not an; but those who call the y a vowel, say, it is equivalent to the unaccented long e. This does not seem to me to be exactly true; because the latter sound requires an, and not a; as, "Athens, as well as Thebes, had an Eëtion."
 Dr. Rush, in his Philosophy of the Human Voice, has exhibited some acuteness of observation, and has written with commendable originality. But his accuracy is certainly not greater than his confidence. On page 57th, he says, "The m, n, and ng, are purely nasal;" on page 401st, "Some of the tonic elements, and one of the subtonics, are made by the assistance of the lips; they are o-we, oo-ze, ou-r, and m." Of the intrinsic value of his work, I am not prepared or inclined to offer any opinion; I criticise him only so far as he strikes at grammatical principles long established, and worthy still to be maintained.
 Dr. Comstock, by ¸enumerating as elementary the sound of the diphthong ou, as in our, and the complex power of wh, as in what, (which sounds ought not to be so reckoned,) makes the whole number of vocal elements in English to be "thirty-eight." See Comstock's Elocution, p. 19.
 This word is commonly heard in two syllables, yune'yun; but if Walker is right in making it three, yu'ne-un, the sound of y consonant is heard in it but once. Worcester's notation is "y=un'yun." The long sound of u is yu; hence Walker calls the letter, when thus sounded, a "semi-consonant diphthong."
 Children ought to be accustomed to speak loud, and to pronounce all possible sounds and articulations, even those of such foreign languages as they will be obliged to learn; for almost every language has its particular sounds which we pronounce with difficulty, if we have not been early accustomed to them. Accordingly, nations who have the greatest number of sounds in their speech, learn the most easily to pronounce foreign languages, since they know their articulations by having met with similar sounds in their own language."--Spurzheim, on Education, p. 159.
 If it be admitted that the two semivowels l and n have vocality enough of their own to form a very feeble syllable, it will prove only that there are these exceptions to an important general rule. If the name of Haydn rhymes with maiden, it makes one exception to the rule of writing; but it is no part of the English language. The obscure sound of which I speak, is sometimes improperly confounded with that of short u; thus a recent writer, who professes great skill in respect to such matters, says, "One of the most common sounds in our language is that of the vowel u, as in the word urn, or as the diphthong ea in the word earth, for which we have no character. Writers have made various efforts to express it, as in earth, berth, mirth, worth, turf, in which all the vowels are indiscriminately used in turn. [Fist] This defect has led to the absurd method of placing the vowel after the consonants, instead of between them, when a word terminates with this sound; as in the following, Bible, pure, centre, circle, instead of Bibel, puer, center, cirkel."--Gardiner's Music of Nature, p. 498. "It would be a great step towards perfection to spell our words as they are pronounced!"--Ibid., p. 499. How often do the reformers of language multiply the irregularities of which they complain!
 "The number of simple sounds in our tongue is twenty-eight, 9 Vowels and 19 Consonants. H is no letter, but merely a mark of aspiration."--Jones's Prosodial Gram. before his Dict., p. 14.
"The number of simple vowel and consonant sounds in our tongue is twenty-eight, and one pure aspiration h, making in all twenty-nine."--Bolles's Octavo Dict., Introd., p. 9.
"The number of letters in the English language is twenty-six; but the number of elements is thirty-eight."--Comstock's Elocution, p. 18. "There are thirty-eight elements in the English alphabet, and to represent those elements by appropriate characters, we should have thirty-eight letters. There is, then, a deficiency in our alphabet of twelve letters--and he who shall supply this imperfection, will be one of the greatest benefactors of the human race."--Ib., p. 19. "Our alphabet is both redundant and defective. C, q, and z, are respectively represented by k or s, k, and ks, or gz; and the remaining twenty-three letters are employed to represent forty-one elementary sounds."--Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 36.
"The simple sounds were in no wise to be reckoned of any certain number: by the first men they were determined to no more than ten, as spine suppose; as others, fifteen or twenty; it is however certain that mankind in general never exceed twenty simple sounds; and of these only five are reckoned strictly such."--Bicknell's Grammar, Part ii, p. 4.
 "When these sounds are openly pronounced, they produce the familiar assent ay: which, by the old English dramatic writers, was often expressed by I."--Walker. We still hear it so among the vulgar; as, "I, I, sir, presently!" for "Ay, ay, sir, presently!" Shakspeare wrote,
"To sleepe, perchance to dreame; I, there's the rub." --Bucke's Classical Gram., p. 143.
 Walker pronounces yew and you precisely alike, "yoo;" but, certainly, ew is not commonly equivalent to oo, though some make it so: thus Gardiner, in his scheme of the vowels, says, "ew equals oo, as in new, noo."--Music of Nature, p. 483. Noo for new, is a vulgarism, to my ear.--G. BROWN.
 "As harmony is an inherent property of sound, the ear should he first called to the attention of simple sounds; though, in reality, all are composed of three, so nicely blended as to appear but as one."--Gardiner's Music of Nature, p. 8. "Every sound is a mixture of three tones; as much as a ray of light is composed of three prismatic colours."--Ib., p. 387.
 The titulary name of the sacred volume is "The Holy Bible." The word Scripture or Scriptures is a common name for the writings contained in this inestimable volume, and, in the book itself, is seldom distinguished by a capital; but, in other works, it seems proper in general to write it so, by way of eminence.
 "Benedictus es Domine Deus Israel patris nostri ab eterno in eternum."--Vulgate. "O Eternel! Dieu d'Israël, notre père, tu es béni de tout temps et à toujours."--Common French Bible. "[Greek: Eulogætos ei Kyrie ho theos Israel ho patær hæmon apo tou aionos kai heos tou aionos.]"--Septuagint.
 Where the word "See" accompanies the reference, the reader may generally understand that the citation, whether right or wrong in regard to grammar, is not in all respects exactly as it will be found in the place referred to. Cases of this kind, however, will occur but seldom; and it is hoped the reasons for admitting a few, will be sufficiently obvious. Brevity is indispensable; and some rules are so generally known and observed, that one might search long for half a dozen examples of their undesigned violation. Wherever an error is made intentionally in the Exercises, the true reading and reference are to be expected in the Key.
 "Et irritaverunt ascendentes in mare, Mare rubrum."--Latin Vulgate, folio, Psal. cv, 7. This, I think, should have been "Mare Rubrum," with two capitals.--G. BROWN.
 The printers, from the manner in which they place their types before them, call the small letters "lower-case letters," or "letters of the lower case."
 I imagine that "plagues" should here be plague, in the singular number, and not plural. "Ero more ius, o mors; morsus tuus ero, inferne."--Vulgate. "[Greek: Pou hæ dikæ sou, thanate; pou to kentron sou, aidæ;]"--Septuagint, ibid.
 It is hoped that not many persons will be so much puzzled as are Dr. Latham and Professor Fowler, about the application of this rule. In their recent works on The English Language, these gentlemen say, "In certain words of more than one syllable, it is difficult to say to which syllable the intervening Consonant belongs. For instance, does the v in river and the v in fever belong to the first or to the second syllable? Are the words to be divided thus, ri-ver, fe-ver? or thus, riv-er, fev-er?"--Fowler's E. Gram., 1850, §85; Latham's Hand-Book, p. 95. Now I suppose it plain, that, by the rule given above, fever is to be divided in the former way, and river in the latter; thus, fe-ver, riv-er. But this paragraph of Latham's or Fowler's is written, not to disembarrass the learner, but just as if it were a grammarian's business to confound his readers with fictitious dilemmas--and those expressed ungrammatically! Of the two Vees, so illogically associated in one question, and so solecistically spoken of by the singular verb "does," one belongs to the former syllable, and the other, to the latter; nor do I discover that "it is difficult to say" this, or to be well assured that it is right. What an admirable passage for one great linguist to steal from an other!
 "The usual rules for dividing [words into] syllables, are not only arbitrary but false and absurd. They contradict the very definition of a syllable given by the authors themselves. * * * * A syllable in pronunciation is an indivisible thing; and strange as it may appear, what is indivisible in utterance is divided in writing: when the very purpose of dividing words into syllables in writing, is to lead the learner to a just pronunciation."--Webster's Improved Gram., p. 156; Philosophical Gram., 221.
 This word, like distich and monostich, is from the Greek stichos, a verse; and is improperly spelled by Walker with a final k. It should be hemistich, with the accent on the first syllable. See Webster, Scott, Perry, Worcester, and others.
 According to Aristotle, the compounding of terms, or the writing of them as separate words, must needs be a matter of great importance to the sense. For he will have the parts of a compound noun, or of a compound verb, to be, like other syllables, destitute of any distinct signification in themselves, whatever may be their meaning when written separately. See his definitions of the parts of speech, in his Poetics, Chapter 20th of the Greek; or Goulston's Version in Latin, Chapter 12th.
 Whether worshipper should follow this principle, or not, is questionable. If Dr. Webster is right in making worship a compound of worth and ship, he furnishes a reason against his own practice of using a single p in worshiper, worshiped, and worshiping. The Saxon word appears to have been weorthscype. But words ending in ship are derivatives, rather than compounds; and therefore they seem to belong to the rule, rather than to the exception: as, "So we fellowshiped him."--Herald of Freedom: Liberator, Vol. ix, p. 68.
 When ee comes before e, or may be supposed to do so, or when ll comes before l, one of the letters is dropped that three of the same kind may not meet: as, free, freer, freest, freeth, freed; skill, skilless; full, fully; droll, drolly. And, as burgess-ship, hostess-ship, and mistress-ship are derivatives, and not compounds, I think they ought to follow the same principle, and be written burgesship, hostesship, mistresship. The proper form of gall-less is perhaps more doubtful. It ought not to be gallless, as Dr. Webster has it; and galless, the analogical form, is yet, so far as I know without authority. But is it not preferable to the hyphened form, with three Ells, which has authority? "GALL-LESS, a. Without gall or bitterness. Cleaveland."--Chalmers, Bolles, Worcester.
"Ah! mild and gall-less dove, Which dost the pure and candid dwellings love, Canst thou in Albion still delight?"--Cowley's Odes.
Worcester's Dictionary has also the questionable word bellless. Treen, for trees, or for an adjective meaning a tree's, or made of a tree, is exhibited in several of our dictionaries, and pronounced as a monosyllable: but Dr. Beattie, in his Poems, p. 84, has made it a dissyllable, with three like letters divided by a hyphen, thus:--
"Plucking from tree-en bough her simple food."
 Handiwork, handicraft, and handicraftsman, appear to have been corruptly written for handwork, handcraft, and handcraftsman. They were formerly in good use, and consequently obtained a place in our vocabulary, from which no lexicographer, so far as I know, has yet thought fit to discard them; but, being irregular, they are manifestly becoming obsolete, or at least showing a tendency to throw off these questionable forms. Handcraft and handcraftsman are now exhibited in some dictionaries, and handiwork seems likely to be resolved into handy and work, from which Johnson supposes it to have been formed. See Psalm xix, 1. The text is varied thus: "And the firmament sheweth his handiwork."--Johnson's Dict.. "And the firmament sheweth his handy-work."--Scott's Bible; Bruce's Bible; Harrison's Gram., p. 83. "And the firmament showeth his handy work."--Alger's Bible; Friends' Bible; Harrison's Gram., p. 103.
 Here a word, formed from its root by means of the termination ize, afterwards assumes a prefix, to make a secondary derivative: thus, organ, organize, disorganize. In such a case, the latter derivative must of course be like the former; and I assume that the essential or primary formation of both from the word organ is by the termination ize; but it is easy to see that disguise, demise, surmise, and the like, are essentially or primarily formed by means of the prefixes, dis, de, and sur. As to advertise, exercise, detonize, and recognize, which I have noted among the exceptions, it is not easy to discover by which method we ought to suppose them to have been formed; but with respect to nearly all others, the distinction is very plain; and though there may be no natural reason for founding upon it such a rule as the foregoing, the voice of general custom is as clear in this as in most other points or principles of orthography, and, surely, some rule in this case is greatly needed.
 Criticise, with s, is the orthography of Johnson, Walker, Webster, Jones, Scott, Bolles, Chalmers, Cobb, and others; and so did Worcester spell it in his Comprehensive Dictionary of 1831, but, in his Universal and Critical Dictionary of 1846, he wrote it with z, as did Bailey in his folio, about a hundred years ago. Here the z conforms to the foregoing rule, and the s does not.
 Like this, the compound brim-full ought to be written with a hyphen and accented on the last syllable; but all our lexicographers have corrupted it into brim'ful, and, contrary to the authorities they quote, accented it on the first. Their noun brim'fulness, with a like accent, is also a corruption; and the text of Shakspeare, which they quote for it, is nonsense, unless brim, be there made a separate adjective:--
"With ample and brimfulness of his force."--Johnson's Dict. et al.
"With ample and brim fullness of his force," would be better.
 According to Littleton, the coraliticus lapis was a kind of Phrygian marble, "called Coralius or by an other name Sangarius." But this substance seems to be different from all that are described by Webster, under the names of "coralline," "corallinite," and "corallite." See Webster's Octavo Dict.
 The Greek word for argil is [Greek: argilos], or [Greek: argillos], (from [Greek: argos], white,) meaning pure white earth; and is as often spelled with one Lamda as with two.
 Dr. Webster, with apparent propriety, writes caviling and cavilous with one l, like dialing and perilous; but he has in general no more uniformity than Johnson, in respect to the doubling of l final. He also, in some instances, accents similar words variously: as, cor'alliform, upon the first syllable, metal'liform, upon the second; cav'ilous and pap'illous, upon the first, argil'lous, upon the second; ax'illar, upon the first, medul'lar, upon the second. See Webster's Octavo Dict.
 Perry wrote crystaline, crystalize, crystalization, metaline, metalist, metalurgist, and metalurgy; and these forms, as well as crystalography, metalic, metalography, and metaliferous, are noticed and preferred by the authors of the Red Book, on pp. 288 and 302.
 "But if a diphthong precedes, or the accent is on the preceding syllable, the consonant remains single: as, to toil, toiling; to offer, an offering."--Murray's Octavo Gram., p. 24; Walker's Rhym. Dict., Introd., p. ix.
 Johnson, Walker, and Webster, all spell this word sep'ilible; which is obviously wrong; as is Johnson's derivation of it from sepio, to hedge in. Sepio would make, not this word, but sepibilis and sepible, hedgeable.
 If the variable word control, controul, or controll, is from con and troul or troll, it should be spelled with ll, by Rule 7th, and retain the ll by Rule 6th. Dr. Webster has it so, but he gives control also.
 Ache, and its plural, aches, appear to have been formerly pronounced like the name of the eighth letter, with its plural, Aitch, and Aitches; for the old poets made "aches" two syllables. But Johnson says of ache, a pain, it is "now generally written ake, and in the plural akes, of one syllable."--See his Quarto Dict. So Walker: "It is now almost universally written ake and akes."--See Walker's Principles, No. 355. So Webster: "Ake, less properly written ache."--See his Octavo Dict. But Worcester seems rather to prefer ache.--G. B.
 This book has, probably, more recommenders than any other of the sort. I have not patience to count them accurately, but it would seem that more than a thousand of the great and learned have certified to the world, that they never before had seen so good a spelling-book! With personal knowledge of more than fifty of the signers, G. B. refused to add his poor name, being ashamed of the mischievous facility with which very respectable men had loaned their signatures.
 Scrat, for scratch. The word is now obsolete, and may be altered by taking ch in the correction.
 "Hairbrained, adj. This should rather be written harebrained; unconstant, unsettled, wild as a hare."--Johnson's Dict. Webster writes it harebrained, as from hare and brain. Worcester, too, prefers this form.
 "The whole number of verbs in the English language, regular and irregular, simple and compounded, taken together, is about 4,300. See, in Dr. Ward's Essays on the English language, the catalogue of English verbs. The whole number of irregular verbs, the defective included, is about 176."--Lowth's Gram., Philad., 1799, p. 59. Lindley Murray copied the first and the last of these three sentences, but made the latter number "about 177."--Octavo Gram., p. 109; Duodecimo, p. 88. In the latter work, he has this note: "The whole number of words, in the English language, is about thirty-five thousand."--Ib. Churchill says, "The whole number of verbs in the English language, according to Dr. Ward, is about 4,300. The irregulars, including the auxilaries [sic--KTH], scarcely exceed 200."--New Gram., p. 113. An other late author has the following enumeration: "There are in the English language about twenty thousand five hundred nouns, forty pronouns, eight thousand verbs, nine thousand two hundred adnouns, two thousand six hundred adverbs, sixty-nine prepositions, nineteen conjunctions, and sixty-eight interjections; in all, above forty thousand words."--Rev. David Blair's Gram., p. 10. William Ward, M. A., in an old grammar undated, which speaks of Dr. Lowth's as one with which the public had "very lately been favoured," says: "There are four Thousand and about Five Hundred Verbs in the English [language]."--Ward's Practical Gram., p. 52.
 These definitions are numbered here, because each of them is the first of a series now begun. In class rehearsals, the pupils may be required to give the definitions in turn; and, to prevent any from losing the place, it is important that the numbers be mentioned. When all have become sufficiently familiar with the definitions, the exercise may be performed without them. They are to be read or repeated till faults disappear--or till the teacher is satisfied with the performance. He may then save time, by commanding his class to proceed more briefly; making such distinctions as are required in the praxis, but ceasing to explain the terms employed; that is, omitting all the definitions, for brevity's sake. This remark is applicable likewise to all the subsequent praxes of etymological parsing.]
 The modifications which belong to the different parts of speech consist chiefly of the inflections or changes to which certain words are subject. But I use the term sometimes in a rather broader sense, as including not only variations of words, but, in certain instances, their original forms, and also such of their relations as serve to indicate peculiar properties. This is no questionable license in the use of the term; for when the position of a word modifies its meaning, or changes its person or case, this effect is clearly a grammatical modification, though there be no absolute inflection. Lord Kames observes, "That quality, which distinguishes one genus, one species, or even one individual, from an other, is termed a modification: thus the same particular that is termed a property or quality, when considered as belonging to an individual, or a class of individuals, is termed a modification, when considered as distinguishing the individual or the class from an other."--Elements of Criticism, Vol. ii, p. 392.
 Wells, having put the articles into the class of adjectives, produces authority as follows: "'The words a or an, and the, are reckoned by some grammarians a separate part of speech; but, as they in all respects come under the definition of the adjective, it is unnecessary, as well as improper, to rank them as a class by themselves.'--Cannon." To this he adds, "The articles are also ranked with adjectives by Priestley, E. Oliver, Bell, Elphinston, M'Culloch, D'Orsey, Lindsay, Joel, Greenwood. Smetham, Dalton, King, Hort, Buchanan, Crane, J. Russell, Frazee, Cutler, Perley, Swett, Day. Goodenow, Willard, Robbins, Felton, Snyder, Butler, S. Barrett, Badgley, Howe, Whiting, Davenport, Fowle, Weld, and others."--Wells's School Gram., p. 69. In this way, he may have made it seem to many, that, after thorough investigation, he had decided the point discreetly, and with preponderance of authority. For it is claimed as a "peculiar merit" of this grammar, that, "Every point of practical importance is thoroughly investigated, and reference is carefully made to the researches of preceding writers, in all cases which admit of being determined by weight of authority."--WILLIAM RUSSELL, on the cover. But, in this instance, as in sundry others, wherein he opposes the more common doctrine, and cites concurrent authors, both he and all his authorities are demonstrably to the wrong. For how can they be right, while reason, usage, and the prevailing opinion, are still against them? If we have forty grammars which reject, the articles as a part of speech, we have more than twice as many which recognize them as such; among which are those of the following authors: viz., Adam, D. Adams, Ainsworth, Alden, Alger, W. Allen, Ash, Bacon, Barnard, Beattie, Beck, Bicknell, Bingham, Blair, J. H. Brown, Bucke, Bullions, Burn, Burr, Chandler, Churchill, Coar, Cobbett, Cobbin, Comly, Cooper, Davis, Dearborn, Ensell, Everett, Farnum, Fisk, A. Flint, Folker, Fowler, Frost, R. G. Greene, Greenleaf, Guy, Hall, Hallock, Hart, Harrison, Matt. Harrison, Hazen, Hendrick, Hiley, Hull, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Johnson, Kirkham, Latham, Lennie, A. Lewis, Lowth, Maltby, Maunder, Mennye, Merchant, T. H. Miller, Murray, Nixon, Nutting, Parker and Fox, John Peirce, Picket, Pond, S. Putnam, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, R. C. Smith, Rev. T. Smith, Spencer, Tower, Tucker, Walker, Webber, Wilcox, Wilson, Woodworth, J. E. Worcester, S. Worcester, Wright. The articles characterize our language more than some of the other parts of speech, and are worthy of distinction for many reasons, one of which is the very great frequency of their use.
 In Murray's Abridgement, and in his "Second Edition," 12mo, the connective in this place is "or;" and so is it given by most of his amenders; as in Alger's Murray, p. 68; Alden's, 89; Bacon's, 48; Cooper's, 111; A. Flint's, 65; Maltby's, 60; Miller's, 67; S. Putnam's, 74; Russell's, 52; T. Smith's, 61. All these, and many more, repeat both of these ill-devised rules.
 When this was written, Dr. Webster was living.
 In French, the preposition à, (to,) is always carefully distinguished from the verb a, (has,) by means of the grave accent, which is placed over the former for that purpose. And in general also the Latin word à, (from,) is marked in the same way. But, with us, no appropriate sign has hitherto been adopted to distinguish the preposition a from the article a; though the Saxon a, (to,) is given by Johnson with an acute, even where no other a is found. Hence, in their ignorance, thousands of vulgar readers, and among them the authors of sundry grammars, have constantly mistaken this preposition for an article. Examples: "Some adverbs are composed of the article a prefixed to nouns; as a-side, a-thirst, a-sleep, a-shore, a-ground, &c."--Comly's Gram., p67. "Repeat some [adverbs] that are composed of the article a and nouns."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 89. "To go a fishing;" "To go a hunting;" i.e. "to go on a fishing voyage or business;" "to go on a hunting party."--Murray's Gram., p. 221; Fisk's, 147; Ingersoll's, 157; Smith's, 184; Bullions's, 129; Merchant's, 101; Weld's, 192, and others. That this interpretation is false and absurd, may be seen at once by any body who can read Latin; for, a hunting, a fishing, &c., are expressed by the supine in um: as, "Venatum ire."--Virg. Æn. I.e., "To go a hunting." "Abeo piscatum."--Beza. I.e. "I go a fishing."--John, xxi, 3. Every school-boy ought to know better than to call this a an article. A fishing is equivalent to the infinitive to fish. For the Greek of the foregoing text is [Greek: Hupágo hálieúein,] which is rendered by Montanus, "Vado piscari;" i.e., "I go to fish." One author ignorantly says, "The article a seems to have no particular meaning, and is hardly proper in such expressions as these. 'He went a-hunting,' She lies a-bed all day.'"--Wilcox's Gram., p. 59. No marvel that he could not find the meaning of an article in this a! With doltish and double inconsistency, Weld first calls this "The article a employed in the sense of a preposition," (E. Gram., p. 177,) and afterwards adopts Murray's interpretation as above cited! Some, too, have an absurd practice of joining this preposition to the participle; generally with the hyphen, but sometimes without: thus, "A-GOING, In motion; as, to set a mill agoing."--Webster's Dict. The doctor does not tell us what part of speech agoing is; but, certainly, "to set the mill to going," expresses just the same meaning, and is about as often heard. In the burial-service of the Common Prayer Book, we read, "They are even as asleep;" but, in the ninetieth Psalm, from which this is taken, we find the text thus: "They are as a sleep;" that is, as a dream that is fled. Now these are very different readings, and cannot both he right.
 Here the lexicographer forgets his false etymology of a before the participle, and writes the words separately, as the generality of authors always have done. A was used as a preposition long before the article a appeared in the language; and I doubt whether there is any truth at all in the common notions of its origin. Webster says, "In the words abed, ashore, &c., and before the participles acoming, agoing, ashooting, [he should have said, 'and before participles; as, a coming, a going, a shooting,'] a has been supposed a contraction of on or at. It may be so in some cases; but with the participles, it is sometimes a contraction of the Saxon prefix ge, and sometimes perhaps of the Celtic ag."--Improved Gram., p. 175. See Philos. Gram., p. 244. What admirable learning is this! A, forsooth, is a contraction of ge! And this is the doctor's reason for joining it to the participle!
 The following construction may he considered an archaism, or a form of expression that is now obsolete: "You have bestowed a many of kindnesses upon me."--Walker's English Particles, p. 278.
 "If I or we is set before a name, it [the name] is of the first person: as, I, N-- N--, declare; we, N-- and M-- do promise."--Ward's Gram., p. 83. "Nouns which relate to the person or persons speaking, are said to be of the first person; as, I, William, speak to you."--Fowle's Common School Gram., Part ii, p. 22. The first person of nouns is admitted by Ainsworth, R. W. Bailey, Barnard, Brightland, J. H. Brown, Bullions, Butler, Cardell, Chandler, S. W. Clark, Cooper, Day, Emmons, Farnum, Felton, Fisk, John Flint, Fowle, Frazee, Gilbert, Goldsbury, R. G. Greene, S. S. Greene, Hall, Hallock, Hamlin, Hart, Hendrick, Hiley, Perley, Picket, Pinneo, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, Smart, R. C. Smith, Spear, Weld, Wells, Wilcox, and others. It is denied, either expressly or virtually, by Alger, Bacon, Comly, Davis, Dilworth, Greenleaf, Guy, Hazen, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Kirkham, Latham, L. Murray, Maltby, Merchant, Miller, Nutting, Parkhurst, S. Putnam, Rev. T. Smith, and others. Among the grammarians who do not appear to have noticed the persons of nouns at all, are Alden, W. Allen, D. C. Allen, Ash, Bicknell, Bingham, Blair, Buchanan, Bucke, Burn, Burr, Churchill, Coar, Cobb, Dalton, Dearborn, Abel Flint, R. W. Green, Harrison, Johnson, Lennie, Lowth, Mennye, Mulligan, Priestley, Staniford, Ware, Webber, and Webster.
 Prof. S. S. Greene most absurdly and erroneously teaches, that, "When the speaker wishes to represent himself, he cannot use his name, but must use some other word, as, I; [and] when he wishes to represent the hearer, he must use thou or you."--Greene's Elements of E. Gram., 1853, p. xxxiv. The examples given above sufficiently show the falsity of all this.
 In shoe and shoes, canoe and canoes, the o is sounded slenderly, like oo; but in doe or does, foe or foes, and the rest of the fourteen nouns above, whether singular or plural, it retains the full sound of its own name, O. Whether the plural of two should be "twoes" as Churchill writes it, or "twos," which is more common, is questionable. According to Dr. Ash and the Spectator, the plural of who, taken substantively, is "whos."--Ash's Gram., p. 131.
 There are some singular compounds of the plural word pence, which form their own plurals regularly; as, sixpence, sixpences. "If you do not all show like gilt twopences to me."--SHAKSPEARE. "The sweepstakes of which are to be composed of the disputed difference in the value of two doubtful sixpences."--GOODELL'S LECT.: Liberator. Vol. ix, p. 145.
 In the third canto of Lord Byron's Prophecy of Dante, this noun is used in the singular number:--
"And ocean written o'er would not afford Space for the annal, yet it shall go forth."
 "They never yet had separated for their daylight beds, without a climax to their orgy, something like the present scene."--The Crock of Gold, p. 13. "And straps never called upon to diminish that long whity-brown interval between shoe and trowser."--Ib., p. 24. "And he gave them victual in abundance."--2 Chron., xi, 23. "Store of victual."--Ib., verse 11.
 The noun physic properly signifies medicine, or the science of medicine: in which sense, it seems to have no plural. But Crombie and the others cite one or two instances in which physic and metaphysic are used, not very accurately, in the sense of the singular of physics and metaphysics. Several grammarians also quote some examples in which physics, metaphysics, politics, optics, and other similar names of sciences are used with verbs or pronouns of the singular number; but Dr. Crombie justly says the plural construction of such words, "is more common, and more agreeable to analogy."--On Etym. and Syntax, p. 27.
 "Benjamin Franklin, following the occupation of a compositor in a printing-office, at a limited weekly wage," &c.--Chambers' Edinburgh Journal, No. 232. "WAGE, Wages, hire. The singular number is still frequently used, though Dr. Johnson thought it obsolete."--Glossary of Craven. 1828.
 Our lexicographers generally treat the word firearms as a close compound that has no singular. But some write it with a hyphen, as fire-arms. In fact the singular is sometimes used, but the way of writing it is unsettled. Dr. Johnson, in his Dictionary, defines a carbine as, "a small sort of fire arm;" Webster has it, "a short gun, or fire arm;" Worcester, "a small fire-arm;" Cobb, "a sort of small firearms." Webster uses "fire-arm," in defining "stock."
 "But, soon afterwards, he made a glorious amend for his fault, at the battle of Platæa."--Hist. Reader, p. 48.
 "There not a dreg of guilt defiles."--Watts's Lyrics, p. 27.
 In Young's Night Thoughts, (N. vii, l. 475.) lee, the singular of lees, is found; Churchill says, (Gram., p. 211,) "Prior has used lee, as the singular of lees;" Webster and Bolles have also both forms in their dictionaries:--
"Refine, exalt, throw down their poisonous lee, And make them sparkle in the bowl of bliss."--Young.
 "The 'Procrustean bed' has been a myth heretofore; it promises soon to be a shamble and a slaughterhouse in reality."--St. Louis Democrat, 1855.
 J. W. Wright remarks, "Some nouns admit of no plural distinctions: as, wine, wood, beer, sugar, tea, timber, fruit, meat, goodness, happiness, and perhaps all nouns ending in ness."--Philos. Gram., p. 139. If this learned author had been brought up in the woods, and had never read of Murray's "richer wines," or heard of Solomon's "dainty meats,"--never chaffered in the market about sugars and teas, or read in Isaiah that "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags," or avowed, like Timothy, "a good profession before many witnesses,"--he might still have hewed the timbers of some rude cabin, and partaken of the wild fruits which nature affords. If these nine plurals are right, his assertion is nine times wrong, or misapplied by himself seven times in the ten.
 "I will not suppose it possible for my dear James to fall into either the company or the language of those persons who talk, and even write, about barleys, wheats, clovers, flours, grasses, and malts."-- Cobbett's E. Gram., p. 29.
 "It is a general rule, that all names of things measured or weighed, have no plural; for in them not number, but quantity, is regarded: as, wool, wine, oil. When we speak, however, of different kinds, we use the plural: as, the coarser wools, the richer wines, the finer oils."--Murray's Gram., p. 41.
 So pains is the regular plural of pain, and, by Johnson, Webster, and other lexicographers, is recognized only as plural; but Worcester inserts it among his stock words, with a comment, thus: "Pains, n. Labor; work; toil; care; trouble. [Fist] According to the best usage, the word pains, though of plural form, is used in these senses as singular, and is joined with a singular verb; as, 'The pains they had taken was very great.' Clarendon. 'No pains is taken.' Pope. 'Great pains is taken.' Priestley. Much pains.' Bolingbroke."--Univ. and Crit. Dict. The multiplication of anomalies of this kind is so undesirable, that nothing short of a very clear decision of Custom, against the use of the regular concord, can well justify the exception. Many such examples may be cited, but are they not examples of false syntax? I incline to think "the best usage" would still make all these verbs plural. Dr. Johnson cites the first example thus: "The pains they had taken were very great. Clarendon."--Quarto Dict., w. Pain. And the following recent example is unquestionably right: "Pains have been taken to collect the information required."--President Fillmore's Message, 1852.
 "And the fish that is in the river shall die."--Exod., vii, 18. "And the fish that was in the river died."--Ib., 21. Here the construction is altogether in the singular, and yet the meaning seems to be plural. This construction appears to be more objectionable, than the use of the word fish with a plural verb. The French Bible here corresponds with ours: but the Latin Vulgate, and the Greek Septuagint, have both the noun and the verb in the plural: as, "The fishes that are in the river,"--"The fishes that were," &c. In our Bible, fowl, as well fish, is sometimes plural; and yet both words, in some passages, have the plural form: as, "And fowl that may fly," &c.--Gen., i, 20. "I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea."--Zeph., i, 3.
 Some authors, when they give to mere words the construction of plural nouns, are in the habit of writing them in the form of possessives singular; as, "They have of late, 'tis true, reformed, in some measure, the gouty joints and darning work of whereunto's, whereby's, thereof's, therewith's, and the rest of this kind."--Shaftesbury. "Here," says Dr. Crombie, "the genitive singular is improperly used for the objective case plural. It should be, whereuntos, wherebys, thereofs, therewiths."-- Treatise on Etym. and Synt., p. 338. According to our rules, these words should rather be, whereuntoes, wherebies, thereofs, therewiths. "Any word, when used as the name of itself, becomes a noun."--Goodenow's Gram., p. 26. But some grammarians say, "The plural of words, considered as words merely, is formed by the apostrophe and s; as, 'Who, that has any taste, can endure the incessant, quick returns of the also's, and the likewise's, and the moreover's, and the however's, and the notwithstanding's?'--CAMPBELL."--Wells's School Gram., p. 54. Practice is not altogether in favour of this principle, and perhaps it would be better to decide with Crombie that such a use of the apostrophe is improper.
 "The Supreme Being (God, [Greek: Theos], Deus, Dieu, &c.) is, in all languages, masculine; in as much as the masculine sex is the superior and more excellent; and as He is the Creator of all, the Father of gods and men."--Harris's Hermes, p. 54. This remark applies to all the direct names of the Deity, but the abstract idea of Deity itself, [Greek: To Theion], Numen, Godhead, or Divinity, is not masculine, but neuter. On this point, some notions have been published for grammar, that are too heterodox to be cited or criticised here. See O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 208.
 That is, we give them sex, if we mean to represent them as persons. In the following example, a character commonly esteemed feminine is represented as neuter, because the author would seem to doubt both the sex and the personality: "I don't know what a witch is, or what it was then."--N. P. Rogers's Writings, p. 154.
 There is the same reason for doubling the t in cittess, as for doubling the d in goddess. See Rule 3d for Spelling. Yet Johnson, Todd, Webster, Bolles, Worcester, and others, spell it citess, with one t.
"Cits and citesses raise a joyful strain."--DRYDEN: Joh. Dict.
 "But in the English we have no Genders, as has been seen in the foregoing Notes. The same may be said of Cases."--Brightland's Gram., Seventh Edition, Lond., 1746, p. 85.
 The Rev. David Blair so palpably contradicts himself in respect to this matter, that I know not which he favours most, two cases or three. In his main text, he adopts no objective, but says: "According to the sense or relation in which nouns are used, they are in the NOMINATIVE or [the] POSSESSIVE CASE, thus, nom. man; poss. man's." To this he adds the following marginal note: "In the English language, the distinction of the objective case is observable only in the pronouns. Cases being nothing but inflections, where inflections do not exist, there can be no grammatical distinction of cases, for the terms inflection and case are perfectly synonymous and convertible. As the English noun has only one change of termination, so no other case is here adopted. The objective case is noticed in the pronouns; and in parsing nouns it is easy to distinguish subjects from objects. A noun which governs the verb may be described as in the nominative case, and one governed by the verb, or following a preposition, as in the objective case."--Blair's Practical Gram., Seventh Edition, London, 1815, p. 11. The terms inflection and case are not practically synonymous, and never were so in the grammars of the language from which they are derived. The man who rejects the objective case of English nouns, because it has not a form peculiar to itself alone, must reject the accusative and the vocative of all neuter nouns in Latin, for the same reason; and the ablative, too, must in general be discarded on the same principle. In some other parts of his book, Blair speaks of the objective case of nouns as familiarly as do other authors!
 This author says, "We choose to use the term subjective rather than nominative, because it is shorter, and because it conveys its meaning by its sound, whereas the latter word means, indeed, little or nothing in itself."--Text-Book, p. 88. This appears to me a foolish innovation, too much in the spirit of Oliver B. Peirce, who also adopts it. The person who knows not the meaning of the word nominative, will not be very likely to find out what is meant by subjective; especially as some learned grammarians, even such men as Dr. Crombie and Professor Bullions, often erroneously call the word which is governed by the verb its subject. Besides, if we say subjective and objective, in stead of nominative and objective, we shall inevitably change the accent of both, and give them a pronunciation hitherto unknown to the words.--G. BROWN.
 The authorities cited by Felch, for his doctrine of "possessive adnouns," amount to nothing. They are ostensibly two. The first is a remark of Dr. Adam's: "'John's book was formerly written Johnis book. Some have thought the 's a contraction of his, but improperly. Others have imagined, with more justness, that, by the addition of the 's, the substantive is changed into a possessive adjective.'--Adam's Latin and English Grammar, p. 7."--Felch's Comp. Gram., p. 26. Here Dr. Adam by no means concurs with what these "others have imagined;" for, in the very same place, he declares the possessive case of nouns to be their only case. The second is a dogmatical and inconsistent remark of some anonymous writer in some part of the "American Journal of Education," a work respectable indeed, but, on the subject of grammar, too often fantastical and heterodox. Felch thinks it not improper, to use the possessive case before participles; in which situation, it denotes, not the owner of something, but the agent, subject, or recipient, of the action, being, or change. And what a jumble does he make, where he attempts to resolve this ungrammatical construction!--telling us, in almost the same breath, that, "The agent of a nounal verb [i. e. participle] is never expressed," but that, "Sometimes it [the nounal or gerundial verb] is qualified, in its nounal capacity, by a possessive adnoun indicative of its agent as a verb; as, there is nothing like one's BEING useful he doubted their HAVING it:" and then concluding, "Hence it appears, that the present participle may be used as agent or object, and yet retain its character as a verb."--Felch's Comprehensive Gram., p. 81. Alas for the schools, if the wise men of the East receive for grammar such utter confusion, and palpable self-contradiction, as this!
 A critic's accuracy is sometimes liable to be brought into doubt, by subsequent alterations of the texts which, he quotes. Many an error cited in this volume of criticism, may possibly not be found in some future edition of the book referred to; as several of those which were pointed out by Lowth, have disappeared from the places named for them. Churchill also cites this line as above; (New Gram., p. 214;) but, in my edition of the Odyssey, by Pope, the reading is this: "By lov'd Telemachus's blooming years!"--Book xi, L 84.
 Corpse forms the plural regularly, corpses; as in 2 Kings, xix, 35: "In the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses."
 Murray says, "An adjective put without a substantive, with the definite article before it, becomes a substantive in sense and meaning, and is written as a substantive: as, 'Providence rewards the good, and punishes the bad.'" If I understand this, it is very erroneous, and plainly contrary to the fact. I suppose the author to speak of good persons and bad persons; and, if he does, is there not an ellipsis in his language? How can it be said, that good and bad are here substantives, since they have a plural meaning and refuse the plural form? A word "written as a substantive," unquestionably is a substantive; but neither of these is here entitled to that name. Yet Smith, and other satellites of Murray, endorse his doctrine; and say, that good and bad in this example, and all adjectives similarly circumstanced, "may be considered nouns in parsing."--Smith's New Gram., p. 52. "An adjective with the definite article before it, becomes a noun, (of the third person, plural number,) and must be parsed as such."--R. G. Greene's Grammatical Text-Book, p. 55.
 Here the word English appears to be used substantively, not by reason of the article, but rather because it has no article; for, when the definite article is used before such a word taken in the singular number, it seems to show that the noun language is understood. And it is remarkable, that before the names or epithets by which we distinguish the languages, this article may, in many instances, be either used or not used, repeated or not repeated, without any apparent impropriety: as, "This is the case with the Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish."--Murray's Gram., i, p. 38. Better, perhaps: "This is the case with the Hebrew, the French, the Italian, and the Spanish." But we may say: "This is the case with Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish." In the first of these forms, there appears to be an ellipsis of the plural noun languages, at the end of the sentence; in the second, an ellipsis of the singular noun language, after each of the national epithets; in the last, no ellipsis, but rather a substantive use of the words in question.
 The Doctor may, for aught I know, have taken his notion of this "noun," from the language "of Dugald Dalgetty, boasting of his '5000 Irishes in the prison of Argyle." See Letter of Wendell Phillips, in the Liberator, Vol. xi, p. 211.
 Lindley Murray, or some ignorant printer of his octavo Grammar, has omitted this s; and thereby spoiled the prosody, if not the sense, of the line:
"Of Sericana, where Chinese drive," &c. --Fourth American Ed., p. 345.
If there was a design to correct the error of Milton's word, something should have been inserted. The common phrase, "the Chinese," would give the sense, and the right number of syllables, but not the right accent. It would be sufficiently analogous with our mode of forming the words, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Scotchmen, Dutchmen, and Irishmen, and perhaps not unpoetical, to say:
"Of Sericana, where Chinese-men drive, With sails and wind, their cany wagons light."
 The last six words are perhaps more frequently pronouns; and some writers will have well-nigh all the rest to be pronouns also. "In like manner, in the English, there have been rescued from the adjectives, and classed with the pronouns, any, aught, each, every, many, none, one, other, some, such, that, those, this, these; and by other writers, all, another, both, either, few, first, last, neither, and several."--Wilson's Essay on Gram., p. 106. Had the author said wrested, in stead of "rescued," he would have taught a much better doctrine. These words are what Dr. Lowth correctly called "Pronominal Adjectives."--Lowth's Gram., p. 24. This class of adjectives includes most of the words which Murray, Lennie, Bullions, Kirkham, and others, so absurdly denominate "Adjective Pronouns." Their "Distributive Adjective Pronouns, each, every, either, neither;" their "Demonstrative Adjective Pronouns, this, that, these, those;" and their "Indefinite Adjective Pronouns, some, other, any, one, all, such, &c.," are every one of them here; for they all are Adjectives, and not Pronouns. And it is obvious, that the corresponding words in Latin, Greek, or French, are adjectives likewise, and are, for the most part, so called; so that, from General Grammar, or "the usages of other languages," arises an argument for ranking them as adjectives, rather than as pronouns. But the learned Dr. Bullions, after improperly assuming that every adjective must "express the quality of a noun," and thence arguing that no such definitives can rightly be called adjectives, most absurdly suggests, that "other languages," or "the usages of other languages," generally assign to these English words the place of substitutes! But so remarkable for self-contradiction, as well as other errors, is this gentleman's short note upon the classification of these words, that I shall present the whole of it for the reader's consideration.
"NOTE. The distributives, demonstratives, and indefinites, cannot strictly be called pronouns; since they never stand instead of nouns, but always agree with a noun expressed or understood: Neither can they be properly called adjectives, since they never express the quality of a noun. They are here classed with pronouns, in accordance with the usages of other languages, which generally assign them this place. All these, together with the possessives, in parsing, may with sufficient propriety be termed adjectives, being uniformly regarded as such in syntax."--Bullions's Principles of English Gram., p. 27. (See also his Appendix III, E. Gram., p. 199.)
What a sample of grammatical instruction is here! The pronominal adjectives "cannot properly be called adjectives," but "they may with sufficient propriety be termed adjectives!" And so may "the possessives," or the personal pronouns in the possessive case! "Here," i.e., in Etymology, they are all "classed with pronouns;" but, "in Syntax," they are "uniformly regarded as adjectives!" Precious MODEL for the "Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek, all on THE SAME PLAN!"
 Some, for somewhat, or in some degree, appears to me a vulgarism; as, "This pause is generally some longer than that of a period."--Sanborn's Gram., p. 271. The word what seems to have been used adverbially in several different senses; in none of which is it much to be commended: as, "Though I forbear, what am I eased?"--Job, xvi, 6. "What advantageth it me?"--1 Cor., xv, 32. Here what, means in what degree? how much? or wherein? "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?"--1 Cor., vii, 16. Here how would have been better. "The enemy, having his country wasted, what by himself and what by the soldiers, findeth succour in no place."--Spenser. Here what means partly;--"wasted partly by himself and partly by the soldiers." This use of what was formerly very common, but is now, I think, obsolete. What before an adjective seems sometimes to denote with admiration the degree of the quality; and is called, by some, an adverb; as, "What partial judges are our love and hate!"--Dryden. But here I take what to be an adjective; as when we say, such partial judges, some partial judges, &c. "What need I be forward with Death, that calls not on me?"--Shakspeare. Here what seems to be improperly put in place of why.
 Dr. Blair, in his Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres, often uses the phrase "this much;" but it is, I think, more common to say "thus much," even when the term is used substantively.
 There seems to be no good reason for joining an and other: on the contrary, the phrase an other is always as properly two words, as the phrase the other, and more so. The latter, being long ago vulgarly contracted into t'other, probably gave rise to the apparent contraction another; which many people nowadays are ignorant enough to divide wrong, and mispronounce. See "a-no-ther" in Murray's Spelling-Book, p. 71; and "a-noth-er" in Emerson's, p. 76. An here excludes any other article; and both analogy and consistency require that the words be separated. Their union, like that of the words the and other, has led sometimes to an improper repetition of the article: as, "Another such a man," for, "An other such man."--"Bind my hair up. An 'twas yesterday? No, nor the t'other day."--BEN JONSON: in Joh. Dict. "He can not tell when he should take the tone, and when the tother."--SIR T. MOORE: Tooke's D. P., Vol. 15, p. 448. That is--"when he should take the one and when the other." Besides, the word other is declined, like a noun, and has the plural others; but the compounding of another constrains our grammarians to say, that this word "has no plural." All these difficulties will be removed by writing an other as two words. The printers chiefly rule this matter. To them, therefore, I refer it; with directions, not to unite these words for me, except where it has been done in the manuscript, for the sake of exactness in quotation.--G. BROWN.
 This is a misapplication of the word between, which cannot have reference to more than two things or parties: the term should have been among.--G. BROWN.
 I suppose that, in a comparison of two, any of the degrees may be accurately employed. The common usage is, to construe the positive with as, the comparative with than, and the superlative with of. But here custom allows us also to use the comparative with of, after the manner of the superlative; as, "This is the better of the two." It was but an odd whim of some old pedant, to find in this a reason for declaring it ungrammatical to say "This is the best of the two." In one grammar, I find the former construction condemned, and the latter approved, thus: "This is the better book of the two. Not correct, because the comparative state of the adjective, (better,) can not correspond with the preposition, of. The definite article, the, is likewise improperly applied to the comparative state; the sentence should stand thus, This is the best book of the two."--Chandler's Gram., Ed. of 1821, p. 130; Ed. of 1847, p. 151.
 This example appears to have been borrowed from Campbell; who, however, teaches a different doctrine from Murray, and clearly sustains my position; "Both degrees are in such cases used indiscriminately. We say rightly, either 'This is the weaker of the two,' or--'the weakest of the two.'"--Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 202. How positively do some other men contradict this! "In comparing two persons or things, by means of an adjective, care must be taken, that the superlative state be not employed: We properly say, 'John is the taller of the two;' but we should not say, 'John is the tallest of the two.' The reason is plain: we compare but two persons, and must therefore use the comparative state."--Wright's Philosophical Gram., p. 143. Rev. Matt. Harrison, too, insists on it, that the superlative must "have reference to more than two," and censures Dr. Johnson for not observing the rule. See Harrison's English Language, p. 255.
 L. Murray copied this passage literally, (though anonymously,) as far as the colon; and of course his book teaches us to account "the termination ish, in some sort, a degree of comparison."--Octavo Gram., p. 47. But what is more absurd, than to think of accounting this, or any other suffix, "a degree of comparison?" The inaccuracy of the language is a sufficient proof of the haste with which Johnson adopted this notion, and of the blindness with which he has been followed. The passage is now found in most of our English grammars. Sanborn expresses the doctrine thus: "Adjectives terminating with ish, denote a degree of comparison less than the positive; as, saltish, whitish, blackish."--Analytical Gram., p. 87. But who does not know, that most adjectives of this ending are derived from nouns, and are compared only by adverbs, as childish, foolish, and so forth? Wilcox says, "Words ending in ish, generally express a slight degree; as, reddish, bookish."--Practical Gram., p. 17. But who will suppose that foolish denotes but a slight degree of folly, or bookish but a slight fondness for books? And, with such an interpretation, what must be the meaning of more bookish or most foolish?
 "'A rodde shall come furth of the stocke of Jesse.' Primer, Hen. VIII."--Craven Glossary.
 Midst is a contraction of the regular superlative middest, used by Spenser, but now obsolete. Midst, also, seems to be obsolete as an adjective, though still frequently used as a noun; as, "In the midst."--Webster. It is often a poetic contraction for the preposition amidst. In some cases it appears to be an adverb. In the following example it is equivalent to middlemost, and therefore an adjective: "Still greatest he the midst, Now dragon grown."--Paradise Lost, B. x, l. 528.
 What I here say, accords with the teaching of all our lexicographers and grammarians, except one dauntless critic, who has taken particular pains to put me, and some three or four others, on the defensive. This gentleman not only supposes less and fewer, least and fewest, to be sometimes equivalent in meaning, but actually exhibits them as being also etymologically of the same stock. Less and least, however, he refers to three different positives, and more and most, to four. And since, in once instance, he traces less and more, least and most, to the same primitive word, it follows of course, if he is right, that more is there equivalent to less and most is equivalent to least! The following is a copy of this remarkable "DECLENSION ON INDEFINITE SPECIFYING ADNAMES," and just one half of the table is wrong: "Some, more, most; Some, less, least; Little, less, least; Few, fewer or less, fewest or least; Several, more, most; Much, more, most; Many, more most."--Oliver B Peirce's Gram., p. 144.
 Murray himself had the same false notion concerning six of these adjectives, and perhaps all the rest; for his indefinite andsoforths may embrace just what the reader pleases to imagine. Let the following paragraph be compared with the observations and proofs which I shall offer: "Adjectives that have in themselves a superlative signification, do not properly admit of the superlative or [the] comparative form superadded: such as, 'Chief, extreme, perfect, right, universal, supreme,' &c.; which are sometimes improperly written, 'Chiefest, extremest, perfectest, rightest, most universal, most supreme,' &c. The following expressions are therefore improper. 'He sometimes claims admission to the chiefest offices;' 'The quarrel became so universal and national;' 'A method of attaining the rightest and greatest happiness.' The phrases, so perfect, so right, so extreme, so universal, &c., are incorrect; because they imply that one thing is less perfect, less extreme, &c. than another, which is not possible."--Murray's Gram., 8vo, Vol. i, p. 167. For himself, a man may do as he pleases about comparing these adjectives; but whoever corrects others, on such principles as the foregoing, will have work enough on his hands. But the writer who seems to exceed all others, in error on this point, is Joseph W. Wright. In his "Philosophical Grammar," p. 51st, this author gives a list of seventy-two adjectives, which, he says, "admit of no variation of state;" i. e., are not compared. Among them are round, flat, wet, dry, clear, pure, odd, free, plain, fair, chaste, blind, and more than forty others, which are compared about as often as any words in the language. Dr. Blair is hypercritically censured by him, for saying "most excellent," "more false," "the chastest kind," "more perfect" "fuller, more full, fullest, most full, truest and most true;" Murray, for using "quite wrong;" and Cobbett, for the phrase, "perfect correctness." "Correctness," says the critic, "does not admit of degrees of perfection."--Ib., pp. 143 and 151. But what does such a thinker know about correctness? If this excellent quality cannot be perfect, surely nothing can. The words which Dr. Bullions thinks it "improper to compare," because he judges them to have "an absolute or superlative signification," are "true, perfect, universal, chief, extreme, supreme, &c."--no body knows how many. See Principles of E. Gram., p. 19 and p. 115.
 The regular comparison of this word, (like, liker, likest,) seems to be obsolete, or nearly so. It is seldom met with, except in old books: yet we say, more like, or most like, less like, or least like. "To say the flock with whom he is, is likest to Christ."--Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 180. "Of Godlike pow'r? for likest Gods they seem'd."--Milton, P. L. B. vi, l. 301.
 This example, and several others that follow it, are no ordinary solecisms; they are downright Irish bulls, making actions or relations reciprocal, where reciprocity is utterly unimaginable. Two words can no more be "derived from each other," than two living creatures can have received their existence from each other. So, two things can never "succeed each other," except they alternate or move in a circle; and a greater number in train can "follow one an other" only in some imperfect sense, not at all reciprocal. In some instances, therefore, the best form of correction will be, to reject the reciprocal terms altogether--G. BROWN.
 This doctrine of punctuation, if not absolutely false in itself, is here very badly taught. When only two words, of any sort, occur in the same construction, they seldom require the comma; and never can they need more than one, whereas these grammarians, by their plural word "commas," suggest a constant demand for two or more.--G. BROWN.
 Some grammarians exclude the word it from the list of personal pronouns, because it does not convey the idea of that personality which consists in individual intelligence. On the other hand, they will have who to be a personal pronoun, because it is literally applied to persons only, or intelligent beings. But I judge them to be wrong in respect to both; and, had they given definitions of their several classes of pronouns, they might perhaps have found out that the word it is always personal, in a grammatical sense, and who, either relative or interrogative.
 "Whoso and whatso are found in old authors, but are now out of use."--Churchill's Gram., p. 76. These antiquated words are equivalent in import to whosoever and whatsoever. The former, whoso, being used many times in the Bible, and occasionally also by the poets, as by Cowper, Whittier, and others, can hardly be said to be obsolete; though Wells, like Churchill, pronounced it so, in his first edition.
 "'The man is prudent which speaks little.' This sentence is incorrect, because which is a pronoun of the neuter gender."--Murray's Exercises, p. 18. "Which is also a relative, but it is of [the] neuter gender. It is also interrogative."--Webster's Improved Gram., p. 26. For oversights like these, I cannot account. The relative which is of all the genders, as every body ought to know, who has ever heard of the horse which Alexander rode, of the ass which spoke to Balaam, or of any of the animals and things which Noah had with him in the ark.
 The word which also, when taken in its discriminative sense (i.e. to distinguish some persons or things from others) may have a construction of this sort; and, by ellipsis of the noun after it, it may likewise bear a resemblance to the double relative what: as, "I shall now give you two passages; and request you to point out which words are mono-syllables, which dis-syllables, which tris-syllables, and which poly-syllables."--Bucke's Gram., p. 16. Here, indeed, the word what might be substituted for which; because that also has a discriminative sense. Either would be right; but the author might have presented the same words and thoughts rather more accurately, thus: "I shall now give you two passages; and request you to point out which words are monosyllables; which, dissyllables; which, trissyllables; and which, polysyllables."
 The relative what, being equivalent to that which, sometimes has the demonstrative word that set after it, by way of pleonasm; as, "What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light, and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops."--Matt., x, 27. In Covell's Digest, this text is presented as "false syntax," under the new and needless rule, "Double relatives always supply two cases."--Digest of E. Gram., p. 143. In my opinion, to strike out the word that, would greatly weaken the expression: and so thought our translators; for no equivalent term is used in the original.
 As for Butler's method of parsing these words by always recognizing a noun as being "UNDERSTOOD" before them,--a method by which, according to his publishers notice, "The ordinary unphilosophical explanation of this class of words is discarded, and a simple, intelligible, common-sense view of the matter now for the first time substituted,"--I know not what novelty there is in it, that is not also just so much error. "Compare," says he, "these two sentences: 'I saw whom I wanted to see;' 'I saw what I wanted to see. If what in the latter is equivalent to that which or the thing which, whom, in the former is equivalent to him whom, or the person whom."--Butler's Practical Gram., p. 51. The former example being simply elliptical of the antecedent, he judges the latter to be so too; and infers, "that what is nothing more than a relative pronoun, and includes nothing else."--Ib. This conclusion is not well drawn, because the two examples are not analogous; and whoever thus finds "that what is nothing more than a relative," ought also to find it is something less,--a mere adjective. "I saw the person whom I wanted to see," is a sentence that can scarcely spare the antecedent and retain the sense; "I saw what I wanted to see," is one which cannot receive an antecedent, without changing both the sense and the construction. One may say, "I saw what things I wanted to see;" but this, in stead of giving what an antecedent, makes it an adjective, while it retains the force of a relative. Or he may insert a noun before what, agreeably to the solution of Butler; as, "I saw the things, what I wanted to see:" or, if he please, both before and after; as, "I saw the things, what things I wanted to see." But still, in either case, what is no "simple relative;" for it here seems equivalent to the phrase, so many as. Or, again, he may omit the comma, and say, "I saw the thing what I wanted to see;" but this, if it be not a vulgarism, will only mean, "I saw the thing to be what I wanted to see." So that this method of parsing the pronoun what, is manifestly no improvement, but rather a perversion and misinterpretation.
But, for further proof of his position, Butler adduces instances of what he calls "the relative THAT with the antecedent omitted. A few examples of this," he says, "will help us to ascertain the nature of what. 'We speak that we do know,' Bible. [John, iii, 11.] 'I am that I am.' Bible. [Exod., iii, 14.] 'Eschewe that wicked is.' Gower. 'Is it possible he should know what he is, and be that he is?' Shakespeare. 'Gather the sequel by that went before.' Id. In these examples," continues he, "that is a relative; and is exactly synonymous with what. No one would contend that that stands for itself and its antecedent at the same time. The antecedent is omitted, because it is indefinite, OR EASILY SUPPLIED."--Butler's Practical Gram., p. 52; Bullions's Analytical and Practical Gram., p. 233. Converted at his wisest age, by these false arguments, so as to renounce and gainsay the doctrine taught almost universally, and hitherto spread industriously by himself, in the words of Lennie, that, "What is a compound relative, including both the relative and the antecedent," Dr. Bullions now most absurdly urges, that, "The truth is, what is a simple relative, having, wherever used, like all other relatives, BUT ONE CASE; but * * * that it always refers to a general antecedent, omitted, BUT EASILY SUPPLIED by the mind," though "not UNDERSTOOD, in the ordinary sense of that expression."--Analyt. and Pract. Gram. of 1849, p. 51. Accordingly, though he differs from Butler about this matter of "the ordinary sense," he cites the foregoing suggestions of this author, with the following compliment: "These remarks appear to me just, and conclusive on this point."--Ib., p. 233. But there must, I think, be many to whon they will appear far otherwise. These elliptical uses of that are all of them bad or questionable English; because, the ellipsis being such as may be supplied in two or three different ways, the true construction is doubtful, the true meaning not exactly determined by the words. It is quite as easy and natural to take "that" to be here a demonstrative term, having the relative which understood after it, as to suppose it "a relative," with an antecedent to be supplied before it. Since there would not be the same uncertainty, if what were in these cases substituted for that, it is evident that the terms are not "exactly synonymous;" but, even if they were so, exact synonymy would not evince a sameness of construction.
 See this erroneous doctrine in Kirkham's Grammar, p. 112; in Wells's, p. 74; in Sanborn's, p. 71, p. 96, and p. 177; in Cooper's, p. 38; in O. B. Peirce's, p. 70. These writers show a great fondness for this complex mode of parsing. But, in fact, no pronoun, not even the word what, has any double construction of cases from a real or absolute necessity; but merely because, the noun being suppressed, yet having a representative, we choose rather to understand and parse its representative doubly, than to supply the ellipsis. No pronoun includes "both the antecedent and the relative," by virtue of its own composition, or of its own derivation, as a word. No pronoun can properly be called "compound" merely because it has a double construction, and is equivalent to two other words. These positions, if true, as I am sure they are, will refute sundry assertions that are contained in the above-named grammars.
 Here the demonstrative word that, as well as the phrase that matter, which I form to explain its construction, unquestionably refers back to Judas's confession, that he had sinned; but still, as the word has not the connecting power of a relative pronoun, its true character is that of an adjective, and not that of a pronoun. This pronominal adjective is very often mixed with some such ellipsis, and that to repeat the import of various kinds of words and phrases: as, "God shall help her, and that right early."--Psal., xlvi, 5. "Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren."--l Cor., vi, 8. "I'll know your business, that I will."--Shakespeare.
 Dr. Bullions has undertaken to prove, "That the word AS should not be considered a relative in any circumstances." The force of his five great arguments to this end, the reader may well conceive of, when he has compared the following one with what is shown in the 22d and 23d observations above: "3. As can never be used as a substitute for another relative pronoun, nor another relative pronoun as a substitute for it. If, then, it is a relative pronoun, it is, to say the least, a very unaccommodating one."--Bullions's Analytical and Practical Gram. of 1849, p. 233.
 The latter part of this awkward and complex rule was copied from Lowth's Grammar, p. 101. Dr. Ash's rule is, "Pronouns must always agree with the nouns for which they stand, or to which they refer, in Number, person, and gender."--Grammatical Institutes, p. 54. I quote this exactly as it stands in the book: the Italics are his, not mine. Roswell C. Smith appears to be ignorant of the change which Murray made in his fifth rule: for he still publishes as Murray's a principle of concord which the latter rejected as early as 1806: "RULE V. Corresponding with Murray's Grammar, RULE V. Pronouns must agree with the nouns for which they stand, in gender, number, AND PERSON."--Smith's New Gram., p. 130. So Allen Fisk, in his "Murray's English Grammar Simplified," p. 111; Aaron M. Merchant, in his "Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar, Revised, Enlarged and Improved," p. 79; and the Rev. J. G. Cooper, in his "Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar," p. 113; where, from the titles, every reader would expect to find the latest doctrines of Murray, and not what he had so long ago renounced or changed.
 L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 51; 12mo, 51; 18mo, 22; D. Adams's, 37; Alger's, 21; Bacon's, 19; Fisk's, 20; Kirkham's, 17; Merchant's Murray, 35; Merchant's American Gram., 40; F. H. Miller's Gram., 26; Pond's, 28; S. Putnam's, 22; Russell's, 16; Rev. T. Smith's, 22.
 Dr. Crombie, and some others, represent I and thou, with their inflections, as being "masculine and feminine." Lennie, M'Culloch, and others, represent them as being "masculine or feminine." But, if either of them can have an antecedent that is neuter, neither of these views is strictly correct. (See Obs. 5th, above.) Mackintosh says, "We use our, your, their, in speaking of a thing or things belonging to plural nouns of any gender."--Essay on English Gram., p. 149. So William Barnes says, "I, thou, we, ye or you, and they, are of all genders,"-- Philosophical Gram., p. 196.
 "It is perfectly plain, then, that my and mine are but different forms of the same word, as are a and an. Mine, for the sake of euphony, or from custom, stands for the possessive case without a noun; but must be changed for my when the noun is expressed: and my, for a similar reason, stands before a noun, but must be changed for mine when the noun is dropped. * * * Mine and my, thine and thy, will, therefore, be considered in this book, as different forms of the possessive case from I and Thou. And the same rule will be extended to her and hers, our and ours, your and yours, their and theirs."--Barnard's Analytic Grammar, p. 142.
 It has long been fashionable, in the ordinary intercourse of the world, to substitute the plural form of this pronoun for the singular through all the cases. Thus, by the figure ENALLAGE, "you are," for instance, is commonly put for "thou art." See Observations 20th and 21st, below; also Figures of Syntax, in Part IV.
 The original nominative was ye, which is still the only nominative of the solemn style; and the original objective was you, which is still the only objective that our grammarians in general acknowledge. But, whether grammatical or not, ye is now very often used, in a familiar way, for the objective case. (See Observations 22d and 23d, upon the declensions of pronouns.) T. Dilworth gave both cases alike: "Nom. Ye or you;" "Acc. [or Obj.] Ye or you."--His New Guide, p. 98. Latham gives these forms: "Nom. ye or you; Obj. you or ye."--Elementary Gram., p. 90. Dr. Campbell says, "I am inclined to prefer that use which makes ye invariably the nominative plural of the personal pronoun thou, and you the accusative, when applied to an actual plurality."--Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 174. Professor Fowler touches the case, rather blindly, thus: "Instead of the true nominative YE, we use, with few exceptions, the objective case; as, 'YOU speak;' 'YOU two are speaking.' In this we substitute one case for another."--Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, §478. No other grammarian, however, discards you as a nominative of "actual plurality;" and the present casual practice of putting ye in the objective, has prevailed to some extent for at least two centuries: as,
"Your change approaches, when all these delights Will vanish and deliver ye to woe." --Milton, P. L., B. iv, l. 367.
 Dr. Young has, in one instance, and with very doubtful propriety, converted this pronoun into the second person, by addressing himself thus:--
"O thou, myself I abroad our counsels roam And, like ill husbands, take no care at home." --Love of Fame, Sat. II, l. 271.
 The fashion of using the plural number for the singular, or you for thou, has also substituted yourself for thyself, in common discourse. In poetry, in prayer, in Scripture, and in the familiar language of the Friends, the original compound is still retained; but the poets use either term, according to the gravity or the lightness of their style. But yourself, like the regal compound ourself, though apparently of the singular number, and always applied to one person only, is, in its very nature, an anomalous and ungrammatical word; for it can neither mean more than one, nor agree with a pronoun or a verb that is singular. Swift indeed wrote: "Conversation is but carving; carve for all, yourself is starving." But he wrote erroneously, and his meaning is doubtful: probably he meant, "To carve for all, is, to starve yourself." The compound personals, when they are nominatives before the verb, are commonly associated with the simple; as, "I myself also am a man."--Acts, x, 16. "That thou thyself art a guide."--Rom., ii, 19. "If it stand, as you yourself still do"--Shakspeare. "That you yourself are much condemned."--Id. And, if the simple pronoun be omitted, the compound still requires the same form of the verb; as, "Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell."--Milton. The following example is different: "I love mankind; and in a monarchy myself is all that I can love."--Life of Schiller, Follen's Pref., p. x. Dr. Follen objects to the British version, "Myself were all that I could love;" and, if his own is good English, the verb is agrees with all, and not with myself. Is is of the third person: hence, "myself is" or, "yourself is," cannot be good syntax; nor does any one say, "yourself art," or, "ourself am," but rather, "yourself are:" as, "Captain, yourself are the fittest."--Dryden. But to call this a "concord," is to turn a third part of the language upsidedown; because, by analogy, it confounds, to such extent at least, the plural number with the singular through all our verbs; that is, if ourself and yourself are singulars, and not rather plurals put for singulars by a figure of syntax. But the words are, in some few instances, written separately; and then both the meaning and the construction are different; as, "Your self is sacred, profane it not."--The Dial, Vol. i, p. 86. Perhaps the word myself above ought rather to have been two words; thus, "And, in a monarchy, my self is all that I can love." The two words here differ in person and case, perhaps also in gender; and, in the preceding instance, they differ in person, number, gender, and case. But the compound always follows the person, number, and gender of its first part, and only the case of its last. The notion of some grammarians, (to wit, of Wells, and the sixty-eight others whom he cites for it,) that you and your are actually made singular by usage, is demonstrably untrue. Do we, our, and us, become actually singular, as often as a king or a critic applies them to himself? No: for nothing can be worse syntax than, we am, we was, or you was, though some contend for this last construction.
 Whose is sometimes used as the possessive case of which; as, "A religion whose origin is divine."--Blair. See Observations 4th and 5th, on the Classes of Pronouns.
 After but, as in the following sentence, the double relative what is sometimes applied to persons; and it is here equivalent to the friend who:--
"Lorenzo, pride repress; nor hope to find A friend, but what has found a friend in thee."--Young.
 Of all these compounds. L. Murray very improperly says, "They are seldom used, in modern style."--Octavo Gram., p. 54; also Fisk's, p. 65. None of them are yet obsolete, though the shorter forms seem to be now generally preferred. The following suggestion of Cobbett's is erroneous; because it implies that the shorter forms are innovations and faults; and because the author carelessly speaks of them as one thing only: "We sometimes omit the so, and say, whoever, whomever, whatever, and even whosever. It is a mere abbreviation. The so is understood: and, it is best not to omit to write it."--Eng. Gram., ¶ 209. R. C. Smith dismisses the compound relatives with three lines; and these he closes with the following notion: "They are not often used!"--New Gram., p. 61.
 Sanborn, with strange ignorance of the history of those words, teaches thus: "Mine and thine appear to have been formed from my and thy by changing y into i and adding n, and then subjoining e to retain the long sound of the vowel."--Analytical Gram., p. 92. This false notion, as we learn from his guillemets and a remark in his preface, he borrowed from "Parkhurst's Systematic Introduction." Dr. Lowth says, "The Saxon Ic hath the possessive case Min; Thu, possessive Thin; He, possessive His: From which our possessive cases of the same pronouns are taken without alteration."--Lowth's Gram., p. 23.
 Latham, with a singularity quite remarkable, reverses this doctrine in respect to the two classes, and says, "My, thy, our, your, her, and their signify possession, because they are possessive cases. * * * Mine, thine, ours, yours, hers, theirs, signify possession for a different reason. They partake of the nature of adjectives, and in all the allied languages are declined as such."--Latham's Elementary E. Gram., p. 94. Weld, like Wells, with a few more whose doctrine will be criticised by-and-by, adopting here an other odd opinion, takes the former class only for forms of the possessive case; the latter he disposes of thus: "Ours, yours, theirs, hers, and generally mine and thine, are POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS, used in either the nominative or objective case,"--Weld's Gram., Improved Ed., p. 68. Not only denying the possessives with ellipsis to be instances of the possessive case, but stupidly mistaking at once two dissimilar things for a third which is totally unlike to either,--i. e., assuming together for substitution both an ellipsis of one word and an equivalence to two--(as some others more learned have very strangely done--) he supposes all this class of pronouns to have forsaken every property of their legitimate roots,--their person, their number, their gender, their case,--and to have assumed other properties, such as belong to "the thing possessed!" In the example, "Your house is on the plain, ours is on the hill," he supposes ours to be of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case; and not, as it plainly is, of the first person, plural number, masculine gender, and possessive case. Such parsing should condemn forever any book that teaches it.
 This word should have been numerals, for two or three reasons. The author speaks of the numeral adjectives; and to say "the numbers must agree in number with their substantives," is tautological--G. Brown.
 Cardell assails the common doctrine of the grammarians on this point, with similar assertions, and still more earnestness. See his Essay on Language, p. 80. The notion that "these pretended possessives [are] uniformly used as nominatives or objectives"--though demonstrably absurd, and confessedly repugnant to what is "usually considered" to be their true explanation--was adopted by Jaudon, in 1812; and has recently found several new advocates; among whom are Davis, Felch, Goodenow, Hazen, Smart, Weld, and Wells. There is, however, much diversity, as well as much inaccuracy, in their several expositions of the matter. Smart inserts in his declensions, as the only forms of the possessive case, the words of which he afterwards speaks thus: "The following possessive cases of the personal pronouns, (See page vii,) must be called PERSONAL PRONOUNS POSSESSIVE: mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, theirs. For these words are always used substantively, so as to include the meaning of some noun in the third person singular or plural, in the nominative or the objective ease. Thus, if we are speaking of books, and say [,] 'Mine are here,' mine means my books, [Fist] and it must be deemed a personal pronoun possessive in the third person plural, and nominative to the verb are."--Smart's Accidence, p. xxii. If to say, these "possessive cases must be called a class of pronouns, used substantively, and deemed nominatives or objectives," is not absurd, then nothing can be. Nor is any thing in grammar more certain, than that the pronoun "mine" can only be used by the speaker or writer, to denote himself or herself as the owner of something. It is therefore of the first person, singular number, masculine (or feminine) gender, and possessive case; being governed by the name of the thing or things possessed. This name is, of course, always known; and, if known and not expressed, it is "understood." For sometimes a word is repeated to the mind, and clearly understood, where "it cannot properly be" expressed; as, "And he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none."--Luke, xiii, 6. Wells opposes this doctrine, citing a passage from Webster, as above, and also imitating his argument. This author acknowledges three classes of pronouns--"personal, relative, and interrogative;" and then, excluding these words from their true place among personals of the possessive case, absurdly makes them a supernumerary class of possessive nominatives or objectives! "Mine, thine, his, ours, yours, and theirs, are POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS, used in construction either as nominatives or objectives; as, 'Your pleasures are past, mine are to come.' Here the word mine, which is used as a substitute for my pleasures, is the subject of the verb are."--Wells's School Gram., p. 71; 113 Ed., p. 78. Now the question to find the subject of the verb are, is, "My what are to come?" Ans. "pleasures." But the author proceeds to argue in a note thus: "Mine, thine, etc. are often parsed as pronouns in the possessive case, and governed by nouns understood. Thus, in the sentence, 'This book is mine,' the word mine is said to possess book. That the word book is not here understood, is obvious from the fact, that, when it is supplied, the phrase becomes not 'mine book,' but 'my book,' the pronoun being changed from mine to my; so that we are made, by this practice, to parse mine as possessing a word understood, before which it cannot properly be used. The word mine is here evidently employed as a substitute for the two words, my and book."--Wells, ibid. This note appears to me to be, in many respects, faulty. In the first place, its whole design was, to disprove what is true. For, bating the mere difference of person, the author's example above is equal to this: "Your pleasures are past, W. H. Wells's are to come." The ellipsis of "pleasures", is evident in both. But ellipsis is not substitution; no, nor is equivalence. Mine, when it suggests an ellipsis of the governing noun, is equivalent to my and that noun; but certainly, not "a substitute for the two words." It is a substitute, or pronoun, for the name of the speaker or writer; and so is my; both forms representing, and always agreeing with, that name or person only. No possessive agrees with what governs it; but every pronoun ought to agree with that for which it stands. Secondly, if the note above cited does not aver, in its first sentence, that the pronouns in question are "governed by nouns understood," it comes much nearer to saying this, than a writer should who meant to deny it. In the third place, the example, "This book is mine," is not a good one for its purpose. The word "mine" may be regularly parsed as a possessive, without supposing any ellipsis; for "book," the name of the thing possessed, is given, and in obvious connexion with it. And further, the matter affirmed is ownership, requiring different cases; and not the identity of something under different names, which must be put in the same case. In the fourth place, to mistake regimen for possession, and thence speak of one word "as possessing" an other, a mode of expression occurring twice in the foregoing note, is not only unscholarlike, but positively absurd. But, possibly, the author may have meant by it, to ridicule the choice phraseology of the following Rule: "A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the noun it possesses."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 181; Frazee's, 1844, p. 25.
 In respect to the numbers, the following text is an uncouth exception: "Pass ye away, thou inhabitant of Saphir."--Micah, i, 11. The singular and the plural are here strangely confounded. Perhaps the reading should be, "Pass thou away, O inhabitant of Saphir." Nor is the Bible free from abrupt transitions from one number to the other, or from one person to an other, which are neither agreeable nor strictly grammatical; as, "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which [who] are spiritual, restore such an [a] one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."--Gal., vi, 1. "Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near; that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches," &c--Amos, vi, 9.
 "The solemn style is used, chiefly, in the Bible and in prayer. The Society of Friends retain it in common parlance. It consists in using thou in the singular number, and ye in the plural, instead of using you in both numbers as in the familiar style. * * * The third person singular [of verbs] ends with th or eth, which affects only the present indicative, and hath of the perfect. The second person, singular, ends with st, est, or t only."--Sanborn's Gram., p. 58. "In [the] solemn and poetic styles, mine, thine, and thy, are used; and THIS is the style adopted by the Friends' society. In common discourse it appears very stiff and affected."--Bartlett's C. S. Man'l, Part II, p. 72.
 "And of the History of his being tost in a Blanket, he saith, 'Here, Scriblerus, thou lessest in what thou assertest concerning the blanket: it was not a blanket, but a rug.--Curlliad, p. 25."--Notes to Pope's Dunciad, B. ii, verse 3. A vulgar idea solemnly expressed, is ludicrous. Uttered in familiar terms, it is simply vulgar: as, "You lie, Scriblerus, in what you say about the blanket."
 "Notwithstanding these verbal mistakes, the Bible, for the size of it, is the most accurate grammatical composition that we have in the English language. The authority of several eminent grammarians might be adduced in support of this assertion, but it may be sufficient to mention only that of Dr. Lowth, who says, 'The present translation of the Bible, is the best standard of the English language.'"--Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 166. I revere the Bible vastly too much to be pleased with an imitation of its peculiar style, in any man's ordinary speech or writing.--G. BROWN.
 "Ye, except in the solemn style, is obsolete; but it is used in the language of tragedy, to express contempt: as, 'When ye shall know what Margaret knows, ye may not be so thankful.' Franklin."--W. Allen's Gram., p. 57. "The second person plural had formerly YE both in the nominative and the objective. This form is now obsolete in the objective, and nearly obsolete in the nominative."--Hart's Gram., p. 55.
 So has Milton:--
"To waste it all myself, and leave ye none! So disinherited how would you bless me!"--Par. Lost, B. x, l. 820.
 "The word what is a compound of two specifying adjectives, each, of course, referring to a noun, expressed or understood. It is equivalent to the which; that which; which that; or that that; used also in the plural. At different periods, and in different authors, it appears in the varying forms, tha qua, qua tha, qu'tha, quthat, quhat, hwat, and what. This word is found in other forms; but it is needless to multiply them."--Cardell's Essay on Language, p. 86.
 This author's distribution of the pronouns, of which I have taken some notice in Obs. 10th above, is remarkable for its inconsistencies and absurdities. First he avers, "Pronouns are generally divided into three kinds, the Personal, the Adjective, and the Relative pronouns. They are all known by the lists."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 96. These short sentences are far from being accurate, clear, or true. He should have made the several kinds known, by a good definition of each. But this was work to which he did not find himself adequate. And if we look to his lists for the particular words of each kind, we shall get little satisfaction. Of the Personal pronouns, he says, "There are five of them; I, thou, he, she, it."--Ib., p. 97. These are simple words, and in their declension they are properly multiplied to forty. (See Ib., p. 99.) Next he seems to double the number, thus: "When self is added to the personal pronouns, as himself, myself, itself, themselves, &c. they are called Compound Personal Pronouns."--Ib., p. 99. Then he asserts that mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, and theirs, are compounds of ne or s with mi, thi, hi, &c.: that their application invariably "gives them a compound character:" and that, "They may, therefore, be properly denominated Compound Personal Pronouns."--Ib., p. 101. Next he comes to his Adjective pronouns; and, after proving that he has grossly misplaced and misnamed every one of them, he gives his lists of the three kinds of these. His Relative pronouns are who, which, and that. "What is generally a compound relative."--Ib., p. 111. The compounds of who, which, and what, with ever or soever, he calls "compound pronouns, but not compound relatives."--Ib., pp. 110 and 112. Lastly he discovers, that, "Truth and simplicity" have been shamefully neglected in this his third section of pronouns; that, "Of the words called 'relatives,' who only is a pronoun, and this is strictly personal;" that, "It ought to be classed with the personal pronouns;" and that, "Which, that, and what, are always adjectives. They never stand for, but always belong to nouns, either expressed or implied."--Ib., p. 114. What admirable teachings are these!
 "It is now proper to give some examples of the manner in which the learners should be exercised, in order to improve their knowledge, and to render it familiar to them. This is called parsing. The nature of the subject, as well as the adaptation of it to learners, requires that it should be divided into two parts: viz. parsing, as it respects etymology alone; and parsing, as it respects both etymology and syntax."--Murray's Gram., Octavo, Vol. 1, p. 225. How very little real respect for the opinions of Murray, has been entertained by these self-seeking magnifiers and modifiers of his work!
What Murray calls "Syntactical Parsing" is sometimes called "Construing," especially by those who will have Parsing to be nothing more than an etymological exercise. A late author says, "The practice of Construing differs from that of parsing, in the extension of its objects. Parsing merely indicates the parts of speech and their accidents, but construing searches for and points out their syntactical relations."--D. Blair's Gram., p. 49.
Here the distinction which Murray judged to be necessary, is still more strongly marked and insisted on. And though I see no utility in restricting the word Parsing to a mere description of the parts of speech with their accidents, and no impropriety in calling the latter branch of the exercise "Syntactical Parsing;" I cannot but think there is such a necessity for the division, as forms a very grave argument against those tangled schemes of grammar which do not admit of it. Blair is grossly inconsistent with himself. For, after drawing his distinction between Parsing and Construing, as above, he takes no further notice of the latter; but, having filled up seven pages with his most wretched mode of "PARSING," adds, in an emphatic note: "The Teacher should direct the Pupil to CONSTRUE, IN THE SAME MANNER, any passage from MY CLASS-BOOK, or other Work, at the rate of three or four lines per day."--D. Blair's Gram., p. 56.
 This is a comment upon the following quotation from Milton, where Hers for His would be a gross barbarism:--
"Should intermitted vengeance arm again His red right hand to plague us."--Par. Lost, B. ii, l. 174.
 The Imperfect Participle, when simple, or when taken as one of the four principal terms constituting the verb or springing from it, ends always in ing. But, in a subsequent chapter, I include under this name the first participle of the passive verb; and this, in our language, is always a compound, and the latter term of it does not end in ing: as, "In all languages, indeed, examples are to be found of adjectives being compared whose signification admits neither intension nor remission."--CROMBIE, on Etym. and Syntax, p. 106. According to most of our writers on English grammar, the Present or Imperfect Participle Passive is always a compound of being and the form of the perfect participle: as, being loved, being seen. But some represent it to have two forms, one of which is always simple; as, "PERFECT PASSIVE, obeyed or being obeyed."--Sanborn's Analytical Gram., p. 55. "Loved or being loved."--Parkhurst's Grammar for Beginners, p. 11; Greene's Analysis, p. 225. "Loved, or, being loved."--Clark's Practical Gram., p. 83. I here concur with the majority, who in no instance take the participle in ed or en, alone, for the Present or Imperfect.
 In the following example, "he" and "she" are converted into verbs; as "thou" sometimes is, in the writings of Shakspeare, and others: "Is it not an impulse of selfishness or of a depraved nature to he and she inanimate objects?"--Cutler's English Gram., p. 16. Dr. Bullions, who has heretofore published several of the worst definitions of the verb anywhere extant, has now perhaps one of the best: "A VERB is a word used to express the act, being, or state of its subject. "--Analyt. & Pract. Gram., p. 59. Yet it is not very obvious, that "he" and "she" are here verbs under this definition. Dr. Mandeville, perceiving that "the usual definitions of the verb are extremely defective," not long ago helped the schools to the following: "A verb is a word which describes the state or condition of a noun or pronoun in relation to time,"--Course of Reading, p. 24. Now it is plain, that under this definition too, Cutler's infinitives, "to he and she" cannot be verbs; and, in my opinion, very small is the number of words that can be. No verb "describes the state or condition of a noun or pronoun," except in some form of parsing; nor, even in this sort of exercise, do I find any verb "which describes the state or condition" of such a word "in relation to time." Hence, I can make of this definition nothing but nonsense. Against my definition of a verb, this author urges, that it "excludes neuter verbs, expresses no relation to subject or time, and uses terms in a vague or contradictory sense."--Ib., p. 25. The first and the last of these three allegations do not appear to be well founded; and the second, if infinitives are verbs, indicates an excellence rather than a fault. The definition assumes that the mind as well as the body may "act" or "be acted upon." For this cause, Dr. Mandeville, who cannot conceive that "to be loved" is in any wise "to be acted upon," pronounces it "fatally defective!" His argument is a little web of sophistry, not worth unweaving here. One of the best scholars cited in the reverend Doctor's book says, "Of mental powers we have no conception, but as certain capacities of intellectual action." And again, he asks, "Who can be conscious of judgment, memory, and reflection, and doubt that man was made to act!"--EVERETT: Course of Reading, p. 320.
 Dr. Johnson says, "English verbs are active, as I love; or neuter, as I languish. The neuters are formed like the actives. The passive voice is formed by joining the participle preterit to the substantive verb, as I am loved." He also observes, "Most verbs signifying action may likewise signify condition or habit, and become neuters; as, I love, I am in love; I strike, I am now striking."--Gram. with his Quarto Dict., p. 7.
 The doctrine here referred to, appears in both works in the very same words: to wit, "English Verbs are either Active, Passive, or Neuter. There are two sorts of Active Verbs, viz. active-transitive and active-intransitive Verbs."--British Gram., p. 153; Buchanan's, 56. Buchanan was in this case the copyist.
 "The distinction between verbs absolutely neuter, as to sleep, and verbs active intransitive, as to walk, though founded in NATURE and TRUTH, is of little use in grammar. Indeed it would rather perplex than assist the learner; for the difference between verbs active and [verbs] neuter, as transitive and intransitive, is easy and obvious; but the difference between verbs absolutely neuter and [those which are] intransitively active is not always clear. But however these latter may differ in nature, the construction of them both is the same; and grammar is not so much concerned with their real, as with their grammatical properties."--Lowth's Gram; p. 30. But are not "TRUTH, NATURE, and REALITY," worthy to be preferred to any instructions that contradict them? If they are, the good doctor and his worthy copyist have here made an ill choice. It is not only for the sake of these properties, that I retain a distinction which these grammarians, and others above named, reject; but for the sake of avoiding the untruth, confusion, and absurdity, into which one must fall by calling all active-intransitive verbs neuter. The distinction of active verbs, as being either transitive or intransitive, is also necessarily retained. But the suggestion, that this distinction is more "easy and obvious" than the other, is altogether an error. The really neuter verbs, being very few, occasion little or no difficulty. But very many active verbs, perhaps a large majority, are sometimes used intransitively; and of those which our lexicographers record as being always transitive, not a few are occasionally found without any object, either expressed or clearly suggested: as, "He convinces, but he does not elevate nor animate,"--Blair's Rhet., p. 242. "The child imitates, and commits to memory; whilst the riper age digests, and thinks independently."--Dr. Lieber, Lit. Conv., p. 313. Of examples like these, three different views maybe taken; and it is very questionable which is the right one: First, that these verbs are here intransitive, though they are not commonly so; Second, that they are transitive, and have objects understood; Third, that they are used improperly, because no determinate objects are given them. If we assume the second opinion or the last, the full or the correct expressions may be these: "He convinces the judgement, but he does not elevate the imagination, or animate the feelings."--"The child imitates others, and commits words to memory; whilst the riper age digests facts or truths, and thinks independently." These verbs are here transitive, but are they so above? Those grammarians who, supposing no other distinction important, make of verbs but two classes, transitive and intransitive, are still as much at variance, and as much at fault, as others, (and often more so,) when they come to draw the line of this distinction. To "require" an objective, to "govern" an objective, to "admit" an objective, and to "have" an objective, are criterions considerably different. Then it is questionable, whether infinitives, participles, or sentences, must or can have the effect of objectives. One author says, "If a verb has any objective case expressed, it is transitive: if it has none, it is intransitive. Verbs which appear transitive in their nature, may frequently be used intransitively."-- Chandler's Old Gram., p. 32; his Common School Gram., p. 48. An other says, "A transitive verb asserts action which does or can, terminate on some object."--Frazee's Gram., p. 29. An other avers, "There are two classes of verbs perfectly distinct from each other, viz: Those which do, and those which do not, govern an objective case." And his definition is, "A Transitive Verb is one which requires an objective case after it."--Hart's E. Gram., p. 63. Both Frazee and Hart reckon the passive verb transitive! And the latter teaches, that, "Transitive verbs in English, are sometimes used without an objective case; as, The apple tastes sweet!"--Hart's Gram., p, 73.
 In the hands of some gentlemen, "the Principles of Latin Grammar," and "the Principles of English Grammar,"--are equally pliable, or changeable; and, what is very remarkable, a comparison of different editions will show, that the fundamental doctrines of a whole "Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek," may so change in a single lustrum, as to rest upon authorities altogether different. Dr. Bullions's grammars, a few years ago, like those of his great oracles, Adam, Murray, and Lennie, divided verbs into "three kinds, Active, Passive, and Neuter." Now they divide them into two only, "Transitive and Intransitive;" and absurdly aver, that "Verbs in the passive form are really transitive as in the active form."--Prin. of E. Gram., 1843, p. 200. Now, as if no verb could be plural, and no transitive act could be future, conditional, in progress, or left undone, they define thus: "A Transitive verb expresses an act done by one person or thing to another."--Ib., p. 29; Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 60; Latin Gram., 77. Now, the division which so lately as 1842 was pronounced by the Doctor to be "more useful than any other," and advantageously accordant with "most dictionaries of the English language," (see his Fourth Edition, p. 30,) is wholly rejected from this notable "Series." Now, the "vexed question" about "the classification of verbs," which, at some revision still later, drew from this author whole pages of weak arguments for his faulty changes, is complacently supposed to have been well settled in his favour! Of this matter, now, in 1849, he speaks thus: "The division of verbs into transitive and intransitive has been so generally adopted and approved by the best grammarians, that any discussion of the subject is now unnecessary."--Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 59.
 This late writer seems to have published his doctrine on this point as a novelty; and several teachers ignorantly received and admired it as such: I have briefly shown, in the Introduction to this work, how easily they were deceived. "By this, that Question may be resolv'd, whether every Verb not Passive governs always an Accusative, at least understood: Tis the Opinion of some very able GRAMMARIANS, but for our Parts we don't think it."--Grammar published by John Brightland, 7th Ed., London, 1746, p. 115.
 Upon this point, Richard Johnson cites and criticises Lily's system thus: "'A Verb Neuter endeth in o or m, and cannot take r to make him a Passive; as, Curro, I run; Sum, I am.'--Grammar, Eng. p. 13. This Definition, is founded upon the Notion abovementioned, viz. That none but Transitives are Verbs Active, which is contrary to the reason of Things, and the common sense of Mankind. And what can shock a Child more, of any Ingenuity, than to be told, That Ambuto and Curro are Verbs Neuter; that is, to speak according to the common Apprehensions of Mankind, that they signifie neither to do, nor suffer."--Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries, 8vo, London, 1706, p. 273.
 Murray says, "Mood or Mode is a particular form of the verb, showing the manner in which the being, action, or passion is represented."--Octavo Gram., p. 63. By many grammarians, the term Mode is preferred to Mood; but the latter is, for this use, the more distinctive, and by far the more common word. In some treatises on grammar, as well as in books of logic, certain parts of speech, as adjectives and adverbs, are called Modes, because they qualify or modify other terms. E.g., "Thus all the parts of speech are reducible to four; viz., Names, Verbs, Modes, Connectives."--Enclytica, or Universal Gram., p. 8. "Modes are naturally divided, by their attribution to names or verbs, into adnames and adverbs."--Ibid., p. 24. After making this application of the name modes, was it not improper for the learned author to call the moods also "modes?"
 "We have, in English, no genuine subjunctive mood, except the preterimperfect, if I were, if thou wert, &c. of the verb to be. [See Notes and Observations on the Third Example of Conjugation, in this chapter.] The phrase termed the subjunctive mood, is elliptical; shall, may, &c. being understood: as, 'Though hand (shall) join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished.' 'If it (may) be possible, live peaceably with all.' Scriptures."--Rev. W. Allen's Gram., p. 61. Such expressions as, "If thou do love, If he do love," appear to disprove this doctrine. [See Notes and Remarks on the Subjunctive of the First Example conjugated below.]
 "Mr. Murray has changed his opinion, as often as Laban changed Jacob's wages. In the edition we print from, we find shall and will used in each person of the first and second future tenses of the subjunctive, but he now states that in the second future tense, shalt, shall, should be used instead of wilt, will. Perhaps this is the only improvement he has made in his Grammar since 1796."--Rev. T. Smith's Edition of Lindley Murray's English Grammar, p. 67.
 Notwithstanding this expression, Murray did not teach, as do many modern grammarians, that inflected forms of the present tense, such as, "If he thinks so," "Unless he deceives me," "If thou lov'st me," are of the subjunctive mood; though, when he rejected his changeless forms of the other tenses of this mood, he improperly put as many indicatives in their places. With him, and his numerous followers, the ending determines the mood in one tense, while the conjunction controls it in the other five! In his syntax, he argues, "that in cases wherein contingency and futurity do not occur, it is not proper to turn the verb from its signification of present time, nor to vary [he means, or to forbear to change] its form or termination. [Fist] The verb would then be in the indicative mood, whatever conjunctions might attend it."--L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 208: 12mo, p. 167.
 Some grammarians--(among whom are Lowth, Dalton, Cobbett, and Cardell--) recognize only three tenses, or "times," of English verbs; namely, the present, the past, and the future. A few, like Latham and Child, denying all the compound tenses to be tenses, acknowledge only the first two, the present and the past; and these they will have to consist only of the simple or radical verb and the simple preterit. Some others, who acknowledge six tenses, such as are above described, have endeavoured of late to change the names of a majority of them; though with too little agreement among themselves, as may be seen by the following citations: (1.) "We have six tenses; three, the Present, Past, and Future, to represent time in a general way; and three, the Present Perfect, Past Perfect, and Future Perfect, to represent the precise time of finishing the action."--Perley's Gram., 1834, p. 25. (2.) "There are six tenses; the present, the past, the present-perfect, the past-perfect, the future, and the future-perfect."--Hiley's Gram., 1840, p. 28. (3.) "There are six tenses; the Present and Present Perfect, the Past and Past Perfect, and the Future and Future Perfect."--Farnum's Gram., 1842, p. 34. (4.) "The names of the tenses will then be, Present, Present Perfect; Past, Past Perfect; Future, Future Perfect. They are usually named as follows: Present, Perfect, Imperfect, Pluperfect, Future, Second Future."--N. Butler's Gram, 1845, p. 69. (5.) "We have six tenses;--the present, the past, the future, the present perfect, the past perfect, and the future perfect."--Wells's School Gram., 1846. p. 82. (6.) "The tenses in English are six--the Present, the Present-perfect, the Past, the Past-perfect, the Future, and the Future-perfect."--Bullions's Gram., 1849. p. 71. (7.) "Verbs have Six Tenses, called the Present, the Perfect-Present, the Past, the Perfect-Past, the Future, and the Perfect-Future."--Spencer's Gram., 1852, p. 53. (8.) "There are six tenses: the present, past, future, present perfect, past perfect, and future perfect."--Covell's Gram., 1853, p. 62. (9.) "The tenses are--the present, the present perfect; the past, the past perfect; the future, the future perfect."--S. S. Greene's Gram., 1853, p. 65. (10.) "There are six tenses; one present, and but one, three past, and two future." They are named thus: "The Present, the First Past, the Second Past, the Third Past, the First Future, the Second Future."--"For the sake of symmetry, to call two of them present, and two only past, while one only is present, and three are past tenses, is to sacrifice truth to beauty."--Pinneo's Gram., 1853, pp. 69 and 70. "The old names, imperfect, perfect, and pluperfect," which, in 1845, Butler justly admitted to be the usual names of the three past tenses. Dr. Pinneo, who dates his copy-right from 1850, most unwarrantably declares to be "now generally discarded!"--Analytical Gram., p. 76; Same Revised, p. 81. These terms, still predominant in use, he strangely supposes to have been suddenly superseded by others which are no better, if so good: imagining that the scheme which Perley or Hiley introduced, of "two present, two past, and two future tenses,"--a scheme which, he says, "has no foundation in truth, and is therefore to be rejected,"--had prepared the way for the above-cited innovation of his own, which merely presents the old ideas under new terms, or terms partly new, and wholly unlikely to prevail. William Ward, one of the ablest of our old grammarians, rejecting in 1765 the two terms imperfect and perfect, adopted others which resemble Pinneo's; but few, if any, have since named the tenses as he did, thus: "The Present, the First Preterite, the Second Preterite, the Pluperfect, the First Future, the Second Future."--Ward's Gram., p. 47.
 "The infinitive mood, as 'to shine,' may be called the name of the verb; it carries neither time nor affirmation; but simply expresses that attribute, action, or state of things, which is to be the subject of the other moods and tenses."--Blair's Lectures, p. 81. By the word "subject" the Doctor does not here mean the nominative to the other moods and tenses, but the material of them, or that which is formed into them.
 Some grammarians absurdly deny that persons and numbers are properties of verbs at all: not indeed because our verbs have so few inflections, or because these authors wish to discard the little distinction that remains; but because they have some fanciful conception, that these properties cannot pertain to a verb. Yet, when they come to their syntax, they all forget, that if a verb has no person and number, it cannot agree with a nominative in these respects. Thus KIRKHAM: "Person, strictly speaking, is a quality that belongs not to verbs, but to nouns and pronouns. We say, however, that the verb must agree with its nominative in person, as well as in number."--Gram. in Familiar Lect., p. 46. So J. W. WRIGHT: "In truth, number and person are not properties of verbs. Mr. Murray grants that, 'in philosophical strictness, both number and person might (say, may) be excluded from every verb, as they are, in fact, the properties of substantives, not a part of the essence of the verb.'"--Philosophical Gram., p. 68. This author's rule of syntax for verbs, makes them agree with their nominatives, not in person and number, but in termination, or else in nobody knows what: "A verb must vary its terminations, so as to agree with the nominative to which it is connected."--Ib., p. 168. But Murray's rule is, "A verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person:" and this doctrine is directly repugnant to that interpretation of his words above, by which these gentlemen have so egregiously misled themselves and others. Undoubtedly, both the numbers and the persons of all English verbs might be abolished, and the language would still be intelligible. But while any such distinctions remain, and the verb is actually modified to form them, they belong as properly to this part of speech as they can to any other. De Sacy says, "The distinction of number occurs in the verb;" and then adds, "yet this distinction does not properly belong to the verb, as it signifies nothing which can be numbered."--Fosdick's Version, p. 64. This deceptive reason is only a new form of the blunder which I have once exposed, of confounding the numbers in grammar with numbers in arithmetic. J. M. Putnam, after repeating what is above cited from Murray, adds: "The terms number and person, as applied to the verb are figurative. The properties which belong to one thing, for convenience' sake are ascribed to another."--Gram., p. 49. Kirkham imagines, if ten men build a house, or navigate a ship round the world, they perform just "ten actions," and no more. "Common sense teaches you," says he, "that there must be as many actions as there are actors; and that the verb when it has no form or ending to show it, is as strictly plural, as when it has. So, in the phrase, 'We walk,' the verb walk is [of the] first person, because it expresses the actions performed by the speakers. The verb, then, when correctly written, always agrees, in sense, with its nominative in number and person."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 47. It seems to me, that these authors do not very well know what persons or numbers, in grammar, are.
 John Despauter, whose ample Grammar of the Latin language appeared in its third edition in 1517, represents this practice as a corruption originating in false pride, and maintained by the wickedness of hungry flatterers. On the twentieth leaf of his Syntax, he says, "Videntur hodie Christiani superbiores, quam olim ethnici imperatores, qui dii haberi voluerunt; nam hi nunquam inviti audierunt pronomina tu, tibi, tuus. Quæ si hodie alicui monachorum antistiti, aut decano, aut pontifici dicantur aut scribantur, videbitur ita loquens aut scribens blasphemasse, et anathemate dignus: nec tamen Abbas, aut pontifex, tam ægrè feret, quam Malchi, aut famelici gnathones, his assistentes, et vociferantes, Sic loqueris, aut scribis, pontifici? Quintilianus et Donatus dicunt barbarismum, aut soloecismum esse, siquis uni dicat. Salvete." The learned Erasmus also ridiculed this practice, calling those who adopted it, "voscitatores," or youyouers.
 "By a perversion of language the pronoun you is almost invariably used for the second person singular, as well as plural; always, however, retaining the plural verb; as, 'My friend, you write a good hand.' Thou is confined to a solemn style, or [to] poetical compositions."--Chandler's Grammar, Edition of 1821, p. 41; Ed. of 1847, p. 66.
 In regard to the inflection of our verbs, William B. Fowle, who is something of an antiquarian in grammar, and who professes now to be "conservative" of the popular system, makes a threefold distinction of style, thus: "English verbs have three Styles[,] or Modes,[;] called [the] Familiar, [the] Solemn[,] and [the] Ancient. The familiar style, or mode, is that used in common conversation; as, you see, he fears. The solemn style, or mode, is that used in the Bible, and in prayer; as, Thou seest, he feareth. The ancient style, or mode, now little used, allows no change in the second and third person, [persons,] singular, of the verb, and generally follows the word if, though, lest, or whether; as, if thou see; though he fear; lest he be angry; whether he go or stay."--Fowle's Common School Grammar, Part Second, p. 44. Among his subsequent examples of the Solemn style, he gives the following: "Thou lovest, Thou lovedst, Thou art, Thou wast, Thou hast, Thou hadst, Thou doest or dost, Thou didst." And, as corresponding examples of the Ancient style, he has these forms: "Thou love, Thou loved, Thou or you be, Thou wert, Thou have, Thou had, Thou do, Thou did."--Ib., pp. 44-50. This distinction and this arrangement do not appear to me to be altogether warranted by facts. The necessary distinction of moods, this author rejects; confounding the Subjunctive with the Indicative, in order to furnish out this useless and fanciful contrast of his Solemn and Ancient styles.
 In that monstrous jumble and perversion of Murray's doctrines, entitled, "English Grammar on the Productive System, by Roswell C. Smith," you is everywhere preferred to thou, and the verbs are conjugated without the latter pronoun. At the close of his paradigms, however, the author inserts a few lines respecting "these obsolete conjugations," with the pronoun thou; for a further account of which, he refers the learner, with a sneer, to the common grammars in the schools. See the work, p. 79. He must needs be a remarkable grammarian, with whom Scripture, poetry, and prayer, are all "obsolete!" Again: "Thou in the singular is obsolete, except among the Society of Friends; and ye is an obsolete plural!"--Guy's School Gram., p. 25. In an other late grammar, professedly "constructed upon the basis of Murray's, by the Rev. Charles Adams, A. M., Principal of Newbury Seminary," the second person singular is everywhere superseded by the plural; the former being silently dropped from all his twenty pages of conjugations, without so much as a hint, or a saving clause, respecting it; and the latter, which is put in its stead, is falsely called singular. By his pupils, all forms of the verb that agree only with thou, will of course be conceived to be either obsolete or barbarous, and consequently ungrammatical. Whether or not the reverend gentleman makes any account of the Bible or of prayer, does not appear; he cites some poetry, in which there are examples that cannot be reconciled with his "System of English Grammar." Parkhurst, in his late "Grammar for Beginners," tells us that, "Such words as are used in the Bible, and not used in common books, are called obsolete!"--P. 146. Among these, he reckons all the distinctive forms of the second person singular, and all the "peculiarities" which "constitute what is commonly called the Solemn Style."--Ib., p. 148. Yet, with no great consistency, he adds: "This style is always used in prayer, and is frequently used in poetry."--Ibid. Joab Brace, Jnr., may be supposed to have the same notion of what is obsolete: for he too has perverted all Lennie's examples of the verb, as Smith and Adams did Murray's.
 Coar gives durst in the "Indicative mood," thus: "I durst, thou durst, he durst;" &c.--Coar's E. Gram., p. 115. But when he comes to wist, he does not know what the second person singular should be, and so he leaves it out: "I wist, ------, he wist; we wist, ye wist, they wist."--Coar's E. Gram., p. 116.
 Dr. Latham, who, oftener perhaps than any other modern writer, corrupts the grammar of our language by efforts to revive in it things really and deservedly obsolete, most strangely avers that "The words thou and thee are, except in the mouths of Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms, ye and you, have replaced them."--Hand-Book, p. 284. Ignoring also any current or "vital" process of forming English verbs in the second person singular, he gravely tells us that the old form, as "callest" (which is still the true form for the solemn style,) "is becoming obsolete."--Ib., p. 210. "In phrases like you are speaking, &c.," says he rightlier, "even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, the courtesy consists in treating one person as more than one, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered, you=thou is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural."--Ib., p. 163. If these things be so, the English Language owes much to the scrupulous conservatism of the Quakers; for, had their courtesy consented to the grammar of the fashionables, the singular number would now have had but two persons!
 For the substitution of you for thou, our grammarians assign various causes. That which is most commonly given in modern books, is certainly not the original one, because it concerns no other language than ours: "In order to avoid the unpleasant formality which accompanies the use of thou with a correspondent verb, its plural you, is usually adopted to familiar conversation; as, Charles, will you walk? instead of--wilt thou walk? You read too fast, instead of--thou readest too fast."--Jaudon's Gram., p. 33.
 This position, as may be seen above, I do not suppose it competent for any critic to maintain. The use of you for thou is no more "contrary to grammar," than the use of we for I; which, it seems, is grammatical enough for all editors, compilers, and crowned heads, if not for others. But both are figures of syntax; and, as such, they stand upon the same footing. Their only contrariety to grammar consists in this, that the words are not the literal representatives of the number for which they are put. But in what a posture does the grammarian place himself, who condemns, as bad English, that phraseology which he constantly and purposely uses? The author of the following remark, as well as all who have praised his work, ought immediately to adopt the style of the Friends, or Quakers: "The word thou, in grammatical construction, is preferable to you, in the second person singular: however, custom has familiarized the latter, and consequently made it more general, though BAD GRAMMAR. To say, 'You are a man.' is NOT GRAMMATICAL LANGUAGE; the word you having reference to a plural noun only. It should be, Thou art a man.'"--Wright's Philosoph. Gram., p. 55. This author, like Lindley Murray and many others, continually calls himself WE; and it is probable, that neither he, nor any one of his sixty reverend commenders, dares address any man otherwise than by the above-mentioned "BAD GRAMMAR!"
 "We are always given to cut our words short; and, with very few exceptions, you find people writing lov'd, mov'd, walk'd; instead of loved, moved, walked. They wish to make the pen correspond with the tongue. From lov'd, mov'd, walk'd, it is very easy to slide into lovt, movt, walkt. And this has been the case with regard to curst, dealt, dwelt, leapt, helpt, and many others in the last inserted list. It is just as proper to say jumpt, as it is to say leapt; and just as proper to say walkt as either; and thus we might go on till the orthography of the whole language were changed. When the love of contraction came to operate on such verbs as to burst and to light, it found such a clump of consonants already at the end of the words, that, it could add none. It could not enable the organs even of English speech to pronounce burstedst, lightedst. It, therefore, made really short work of it, and dropping the last syllable altogether, wrote, burst, light, [rather, lit] in the past time and passive participle."--Cobbett's English Gram., ¶ 169. How could the man who saw all this, insist on adding st for the second person, where not even the d of the past tense could he articulated? Am I to be called an innovator, because I do not like in conversation such new and unauthorized words as littest, leaptest, curstest; or a corrupter of the language, because I do not admire in poetry such unutterable monstrosities as, light'dst, leap'dst, curs'dst? The novelism, with the corruption too, is wholly theirs who stickle for these awkward forms.
 "You were, not you was, for you was seems to be as ungrammatical, as you hast would be. For the pronoun you being confessedly plural, its correspondent verb ought to be plural."--John Burn's Gram., 10th Ed., P. 72.
 Among grammarians, as well as among other writers, there is some diversity of usage concerning the personal inflections of verbs; while nearly all, nowadays, remove the chief occasion for any such diversity, by denying with a fashionable bigotry the possibility of any grammatical use of the pronoun thou in a familiar style. To illustrate this, I will cite Cooper and Wells--two modern authors who earnestly agree to account you and its verb literally singular, and thou altogether erroneous, in common discourse: except that Wells allows the phrase, "If thou art," for "Common style."--School Gram., p. 100.
1. Cooper, improperly referring all inflection of the verb to the grave or solemn style, says: "In the colloquial or familiar style, we observe no change. The same is the case in the plural number." He then proceeds thus: "In the second person of the present of the indicative, in the solemn style, the verb takes st or est; and in the third person th or eth, as: thou hast, thou lovest, thou teachest; he hath, he loveth, he goeth. In the colloquial or familiar style, the verb does not vary in the second person; and in the third person, it ends in s or es, as: he loves, he teaches, he does. The indefinite, [i. e. the preterit,] in the second person singular of the indicative, in the grave style, ends in est, as: thou taughtest, thou wentest. [Fist] But, in those verbs, where the sound of st will unite with the last syllable of the verb, the vowel is omitted, as: thou lovedst, thou heardst, thou didst."--Cooper's Murray, p. 60; Plain and Practical Gram., p. 59. This, the reader will see, is somewhat contradictory; for the colloquial style varies the verb by "s or es," and taught'st may be uttered without the e. As for "lovedst," I deny that any vowel "is omitted" from it; but possibly one may be, as lov'dst.
2. Wells's account of the same thing is this: "In the simple form of the present and past indicative, the second person singular of the solemn style ends regularly in st or est, as, thou seest, thou hearest, thou sawest, thou heardest; and the third person singular of the present, in s or es, as, he hears, he wishes, and also in th or eth, as, he saith, he loveth. In the simple form of the present indicative, the third person singular of the common or familiar style, ends in s or es; as, he sleeps; he rises. The first person singular of the solemn style, and the first and second persons singular of the common style, have the same form as the three persons plural."--Wells's School Grammar, 1st Ed. p. 83; 3d Ed. p. 86. This, too, is both defective and inconsistent. It does not tell when to add est, and when, st only. It does not show what the regular preterit, as freed or loved, should make with thou: whether freedest and lovedest, by assuming the syllable est; fre-edst and lov-edst, by increasing syllabically from assuming st only; or freedst and lov'dst, or lovedst, still to be uttered as monosyllables. It absurdly makes "s or es" a sign of two opposite styles. (See OBS. 9th, above.) And it does not except "I am, I was, If I am, If I was, If thou art, I am loved," and so forth, from requiring "the same form, [are or were,] as the three persons plural." This author prefers "heardest;" the other, "heardst," which I think better warranted:
"And heardst thou why he drew his blade? Heardst thou that shameful word and blow Brought Roderick's vengeance on his foe?"--Scott, L. L., C. v, st. 6.
 Better, as Wickliffe has it, "the day in which;" though, after nouns of time, the relative that is often used, like the Latin ablative quo or quâ, as being equivalent to in which or on which.
 It is not a little strange, that some men, who never have seen or heard such words as their own rules would produce for the second person singular of many hundreds of our most common verbs, will nevertheless pertinaciously insist, that it is wrong to countenance in this matter any departure from the style of King James's Bible. One of the very rashest and wildest of modern innovators,--a critic who, but for the sake of those who still speak in this person and number, would gladly consign the pronoun thou, and all its attendant verbal forms, to utter oblivion,--thus treats this subject and me: "The Quakers, or Friends, however, use thou, and its attendant form of the asserter, in conversation. FOR THEIR BENEFIT, thou is given, in this work, in all the varieties of inflection; (in some of which it could not properly be used in an address to the Deity;) for THEY ERR MOST EGREGIOUSLY in the use of thou, with the form of the asserter which follows he or they, and are countenanced in their errors by G. Brown, who, instead of 'disburdening the language of 144,000 useless distinctions, increases their number just 144,000."--Oliver B. Peirce's Gram., p. 85 Among people of sense, converts are made by teaching, and reasoning, and proving; but this man's disciples must yield to the balderdash of a false speller, false quoter, and false assertor! This author says, that "dropt" is the past tense of "drop;" (p. 118;) let him prove, for example, that droptest is not a clumsy innovation, and that droppedst is not a formal archaism, and then tell of the egregious error of adopting neither of these forms in common conversation. The following, with its many common contractions, is the language of POPE; and I ask this, or any other opponent of my doctrine, TO SHOW HOW SUCH VERBS ARE RIGHTLY FORMED, either for poetry or for conversation, in the second person singular.
"It fled, I follow'd; now in hope, now pain; It stopt, I stopt; it mov'd, I mov'd again. At last it fix't,'twas on what plant it pleas'd, And where it fix'd, the beauteous bird I seiz'd." --Dunciad, B. IV, l. 427.
 The Rev. W. Allen, in his English Grammar, p. 132, says: "Yth and eth (from the Saxon lað [sic--KTH]) were formerly, plural terminations; as, 'Manners makyth man.' William of Wykeham's motto. 'After long advisement, they taketh upon them to try the matter.' Stapleton's Translation of Bede. 'Doctrine and discourse maketh nature less importune.' Bacon." The use of eth as a plural termination of verbs, was evidently earlier than the use of en for the same purpose. Even the latter is utterly obsolete, and the former can scarcely have been English. The Anglo-Saxon verb lufian, or lufigean, to love, appears to have been inflected with the several pronouns thus: Ic lufige, Thu lufast, He lufath, We lufiath, Ge lufiath, Hi lufiath. The form in Old English was this: I love, Thou lovest, He loveth, We loven, Ye loven, They loven. Dr. Priestley remarks, (though in my opinion unadvisedly,) that, "Nouns of a plural form, but of a singular signification, require a singular construction; as, mathematicks is a useful study. This observation will likewise," says he, "in some measure, vindicate the grammatical propriety of the famous saying of William of Wykeham, Manners maketh man."--Priestley's Gram., p. 189. I know not what half-way vindication there can be, for any such construction. Manners and mathematics are not nouns of the singular number, and therefore both is and maketh are wrong. I judge it better English to say, "Mathematics are a useful study."--"Manners make the man." But perhaps both ideas may be still better expressed by a change of the nominative, thus: "The study of mathematics is useful."--"Behaviour makes the man."
 What the state of our literature would have been, had no author attempted any thing on English grammar, must of course be a matter of mere conjecture, and not of any positive "conviction." It is my opinion, that, with all their faults, most of the books and essays in which this subject has been handled, have been in some degree beneficial, and a few of them highly so; and that, without their influence, our language must have been much more chaotic and indeterminable than it now is. But a late writer says, and, with respect to some of our verbal terminations, says wisely: "It is my sincere conviction that fewer irregularities would have crept into the language had no grammars existed, than have been authorized by grammarians; for it should be understood that the first of our grammarians, finding that good writers differed upon many points, instead of endeavouring to reconcile these discrepancies, absolutely perpetuated them by citing opposite usages, and giving high authorities for both. To this we owe all the irregularity which exists in the personal terminations of verbs, some of the best early writers using them promiscuously, some using them uniformly, and others making no use of them; and really they are of no use but to puzzle children and foreigners, perplex poets, and furnish an awkward dialect to that exemplary sect of Christians, who in every thing else study simplicity."--Fowle's True E. Gram., Part II, p. 26. Wells, a still later writer, gives this unsafe rule: "When the past tense is a monosyllable not ending in a single vowel, the second person singular of the solemn style is generally formed by the addition of est; as heardest, fleddest, tookest. Hadst, wast, saidst, and didst, are exceptions."--Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 106; 3d Ed., p. 110; 113th Ed., p. 115. Now the termination d or ed commonly adds no syllable; so that the regular past tense of any monosyllabic verb is, with a few exceptions, a monosyllable still; as, freed, feed, loved, feared, planned, turned: and how would these sound with est added, which Lowth, Hiley, Churchill, and some others erroneously claim as having pertained to such preterits anciently? Again, if heard is a contraction of heared, and fled, of fleed, as seems probable; then are heardst and fledtst, which are sometimes used, more regular than heardest, fleddest: so of many other preterits.
 Chaucer appears not to have inflected this word in the second person: "Also ryght as thou were ensample of moche folde errour, righte so thou must be ensample of manifold correction."--Testament of Love. "Rennin and crie as thou were wode."--House of Fame. So others: "I wolde thou were cold or hoot."--WICKLIFFE'S VERSION OF THE APOCALYPSE. "I wolde thou were cold or hote."--VERSION OF EDWARD VI: Tooke, Vol. ii, p. 270. See Rev., iii, 15: "I would thou wert cold or hot."--COMMON VERSION.
 See evidence of the antiquity of this practice, in the examples under the twenty-third observation above. According to Churchill, it has had some local continuance even to the present time. For, in a remark upon Lowth's contractions, lov'th, turn'th, this author says, "These are still in use in some country places, the third person singular of verbs in general being formed by the addition of the sound th simply, not making an additional syllable."--Churchill's Gram., p. 255 So the eth in the following example adds no syllable:--
"Death goeth about the field, rejoicing mickle To see a sword that so surpass'd his sickle." Harrington's Ariosto, B. xiii: see Singer's Shak., Vol. ii, p. 296.
 The second person singular of the simple verb do, is now usually written dost, and read dust; being permanently contracted in orthography, as well as in pronunciation. And perhaps the compounds may follow; as, Thou undost, outdost, misdost, overdost, &c. But exceptions to exceptions are puzzling, even when they conform to the general rule. The Bible has dost and doth for auxilliaries, and doest and doeth for principal verbs.
 N. Butler avers, "The only regular terminations added to verbs are est, s, ed, edst, and ing."--Butler's Practical Gram., p. 81. But he adds, in a marginal note, this information: "The third person singular of the present formerly ended in eth. This termination is still sometimes used in the solemn style. Contractions sometimes take place; as, sayst for sayest."--Ibid. This statement not only imposes a vast deal of needless irregularity upon the few inflections admitted by the English verb, but is, so far as it disagrees with mine, a causeless innovation. The terminations rejected, or here regarded as irregular, are d, st, es, th, and eth; while edst, which is plainly a combination of ed and st,--the past ending of the verb with the personal inflection,--is assumed to be one single and regular termination which I had overlooked! It has long been an almost universal doctrine of our grammarians, that regular verbs form their preterits and perfect participles by adding d to final e, and ed to any other radical ending. Such is the teaching of Blair, Brightland, Bullions, Churchill, Coar, Comly, Cooper, Fowle, Frazee, Ingersoll, Kirkham, Lennie, Murray, Weld, Wells, Sanborn, and others, a great multitude. But this author alleges, that, "Loved is not formed by adding d to love, but by adding ed, and dropping e from love."--Butler's Answer to Brown. Any one is at liberty to think this, if he will. But I see not the use of playing thus with mute Ees, adding one to drop an other, and often pretending to drop two under one apostrophe, as in lov'd, lov'st! To suppose that the second person of the regular preterit, as lovedst, is not formed by adding st to the first person, is contrary to the analogy of other verbs, and is something worse than an idle whim. And why should the formation of the third person be called irregular when it requires es, as in flies, denies, goes, vetoes, wishes, preaches, and so forth? In forming flies from fly, Butler changes "y into ie," on page 20th, adding s only; and, on page 11th, "into i" only, adding es. Uniformity would be better.
 Cooper says, "The termination eth is commonly contracted into th, to prevent the addition of a syllable to the verb, as: doeth, doth."--Plain and Practical Gram., p. 59. This, with reference to modern usage, is plainly erroneous. For, when s or es was substituted for th or eth, and the familiar use of the latter ceased, this mode of inflecting the verb without increasing its syllables, ceased also, or at least became unusual. It appears that the inflecting of verbs with th without a vowel, as well as with st without a vowel, was more common in very ancient times than subsequently. Our grammarians of the last century seem to have been more willing to encumber the language with syllabic endings, than to simplify it by avoiding them. See Observations, 21st, 22d, and 23d, above.
 These are what William Ward, in his Practical Grammar, written about 1765, denominated "the CAPITAL FORMS, or ROOTS, of the English Verb." Their number too is the same. "And these Roots," says he, "are considered as Four in each verb; although in many verbs two of them are alike, and in some few three are alike."--P. 50. Few modern grammarians have been careful to display these Chief Terms, or Principal Parts, properly. Many say nothing about them. Some speak of three, and name them faultily. Thus Wells: "The three principal parts of a verb are the present tense, the past tense, and the perfect participle."--School Gram., 113th Ed., p. 92. Now a whole "tense" is something more than one verbal form, and Wells's "perfect participle" includes the auxiliary "having." Hence, in stead of write, wrote, writing, written, (the true principal parts of a certain verb,) one might take, under Wells's description, either of these threes, both entirely false: am writing, did write, and having written; or, do write, wrotest, and having written. But writing, being the root of the "Progressive Form of the Verb," is far more worthy to be here counted a chief term, than wrote, the preterit, which occurs only in one tense, and never receives an auxiliary. So of other verbs. This sort of treatment of the Principal Parts, is a very grave defect in sundry schemes of grammar.
 A grammarian should know better, than to exhibit, as a paradigm for school-boys, such English as the following: "I do have, Thou dost have, He does have: We do have, You do have, They do have."--Everest's Gram., p. 106. "I did have, Thou didst have, He did have: We did have, You did have, They did have."--Ib., p. 107. I know not whether any one has yet thought of conjugating the verb be after this fashion; but the attempt to introduce, "am being, is being," &c., is an innovation much worse.
 Hiley borrows from Webster the remark, that, "Need, when intransitive, is formed like an auxiliary, and is followed by a verb, without the prefix to; as, 'He need go no farther.'"--Hiley's Gram., p. 90; Webster's Imp. Gram., p. 127; Philos. Gram., p. 178. But he forbears to class it with the auxiliaries, and even contradicts himself, by a subsequent remark taken from Dr. Campbell, that, for the sake of "ANALOGY, he needs,' he dares,' are preferable to he need,' he dare,'"--Hiley's Gram., p. 145; Campbell's Rhet., p. 175
 This grammarian here uses need for the third person singular, designedly, and makes a remark for the justification of the practice; but he neither calls the word an auxiliary, nor cites any other than anonymous examples, which are, perhaps, of his own invention.
 "The substantive form, or, as it is commonly termed, infinitive mood, contains at the same time the essence of verbal meaning, and the literal ROOT on which all inflections of the verb are to be grafted. This character being common to the infinitive in all languages, it [this mood] ought to precede the [other] moods of verbs, instead of being made to follow them, as is absurdly practised in almost all grammatical systems."--Enclytica, p. 14.
 By this, I mean, that the verb in all the persons, both singular and plural, is the same in form. But Lindley Murray, when he speaks of not varying or not changing the termination of the verb, most absurdly means by it, that the verb is inflected, just as it is in the indicative or the potential mood; and when he speaks of changes or variations of termination, he means, that the verb remains the same as in the first person singular! For example: "The second person singular of the imperfect tense in the subjunctive mood, is also very frequently varied in its termination: as, 'If thou loved him truly, thou wouldst obey him.'"--Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 209. "The auxiliaries of the potential mood, when applied to the subjunctive, do not change the termination of the second person singular; as, 'If thou mayst or canst go.'"--Ib., p. 210. "Some authors think, that the termination of these auxiliaries should be varied: as, I advise thee, that thou may beware."--Ib., p. 210. "When the circumstances of contingency and futurity concur, it is proper to vary the terminations of the second and third persons singular."--Ib., 210. "It may be considered as a rule, that the changes of termination are necessary, when these two circumstances concur."--Ib., p. 207. "It may be considered as a rule, that no changes of termination are necessary, when these two circumstances concur."--Ingersoll's Gram., p. 264. Now Murray and Ingersoll here mean precisely the same thing! Whose fault is that? If Murray's, he has committed many such. But, in this matter, he is contradicted not only by Ingersoll, but, on one occasion, by himself. For he declares it to be an opinion in which he concurs. "That the definition and nature of the subjunctive mood, have no reference to change of termination."--Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 211. And yet, amidst his strange blunders, he seems to have ascribed the meaning which a verb has in this mood, to the inflections which it receives in the indicative: saying. "That part of the verb which grammarians call the present tense of the subjunctive mood, has a future signification. This is effected by varying the terminations of the second and third persons singular of the indicative!"--Ib., p. 207. But the absurdity which he really means to teach, is, that the subjunctive mood is derived from the indicative,--the primitive or radical verb, from it's derivatives or branches!
 Wert is sometimes used in lieu of wast; and, in such instances, both by authority and by analogy, it appears to belong here, if anywhere. See OBS. 2d and 3d, below.
 Some grammarians, regardless of the general usage of authors, prefer was to were in the singular number of this tense of the subjunctive mood. In the following remark, the tense is named "present" and this preference is urged with some critical extravagance: "Was, though the past tense of the indicative mood, expresses the present of the hypothetical; as, 'I wish that I was well.' The use of this hypothetical form of the subjunctive mood, has given rise to a form of expression wholly unwarranted by the rules of grammar. When the verb was is to be used in the present tense singular, in this form of the subjunctive mood, the ear is often pained with a plural were, as, 'Were I your master'--'Were he compelled to do it,' &c. This has become so common that some of the best grammars of the language furnish authority for the barbarism, and even in the second person supply wert, as a convenient accompaniment. If such a conjugation is admitted, we may expect to see Shakspeare's thou beest in full use."--Chandler's Gram., Ed. of 1821, p. 55. In "Chandler's Common School Grammar," of 1847, the language of this paragraph is somewhat softened, but the substance is still retained. See the latter work, p. 80.
 "If I were, If thou were. If he were."--Harrison's Gram., p. 31. "If, or though, I were loved. If, or though, thou were, or wert loved. If, or though, he were loved."--Bicknell's Gram., Part i, p. 69. "If, though, &c. I were burned, thou were burned or you were burned, he were burned."--Buchanan's Gram., p. 53. "Though thou were. Some say, 'though thou wert.'"--Mackintosh's Gram., p. 178. "If or though I were. If or though thou were. If or though he were."--St. Quentin's General Gram., p. 86. "If I was, Thou wast, or You was or were, He was. Or thus: If I were, Thou wert, or you was or were, He were."--Webster's Philosophical Gram., p. 95; Improved Gram., p. 64. "PRESENT TENSE. Before, &c. I be; thou beest, or you be; he, she, or it, be: We, you or ye, they, be. PAST TENSE. Before, &c. I were; thou wert, or you were; he, she, or it, were; We, you or ye, they, were."--WHITE, on the English Verb, p. 52.
 The text in Acts, xxii, 20th, "I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death," ought rather to be, "I also stood by, and consented to his death;" but the present reading is, thus far, a literal version from the Greek, though the verb "kept," that follows, is not. Montanus renders it literally: "Et ipse eram astans, et consentiens interemptioni ejus, et custodiens vestimenta interficientium illum." Beza makes it better Latin thus: "Ego quoque adstabam, et una assentiebar cædi ipsius, et custodiebam pallia eorum qui interimebant eum." Other examples of a questionable or improper use of the progressive form may occasionally be found in good authors; as, "A promising boy of six years of age, was missing by his parents."--Whittier, Stranger in Lowell, p. 100. Missing, wanting, and willing, after the verb to be, are commonly reckoned participial adjectives; but here "was missing" is made a passive verb, equivalent to was missed, which, perhaps, would better express the meaning. To miss, to perceive the absence of, is such an act of the mind, as seems unsuited to the compound form, to be missing; and, if we cannot say, "The mother was missing her son," I think we ought not to use the same form passively, as above.
 Some grammarians, contrary to the common opinion, suppose the verbs here spoken of, to have, not a passive, but a neuter signification. Thus, Joseph Guy, Jun., of London: "Active verbs often take a neuter sense; as, A house is building; here, is building is used in a neuter signification, because it has no object after it. By this rule are explained such sentences as, Application is wanting; The grammar is printing; The lottery is drawing; It is flying, &c."--Guy's English Gram., p. 21. "Neuter," here, as in many other places, is meant to include the active-intransitives. "Is flying" is of this class; and "is wanting," corresponding to the Latin caret, appears to be neuter; hut the rest seem rather to be passives. Tried, however, by the usual criterion,--the naming of the "agent" which, it is said, "a verb passive necessarily implies,"--what may at first seem progressive passives, may not always be found such. "Most verbs signifying action" says Dr. Johnson, "may likewise signify condition, or habit, and become neuters, [i. e. active-intransitives;] as I love, I am in love; I strike, I am now striking."--Gram. before Quarto Dict., p. 7. So sell, form, make, and many others, usually transitive, have sometimes an active-intransitive sense which nearly approaches the passive, and of which are selling, is forming, are making, and the like, may be only equivalent expressions. For example: "It is cold, and ice forms rapidly--is forming rapidly--or is formed rapidly."--Here, with little difference of meaning, is the appearance of both voices, the Active and the Passive; while "is forming," which some will have for an example of "the Middle voice," may be referred to either. If the following passive construction is right, is wanting or are wanting may be a verb of three or four different sorts: "Reflections that may drive away despair, cannot be wanting by him, who considers," &c.--Johnson's Rambler, No. 129: Wright's Gram., p. 196.
 Dr. Bullions, in his grammar of 1849, says, "Nobody would think of saying, 'He is being loved'--'This result is being desired.'"--Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 237. But, according to J. W. Wright, whose superiority in grammar has sixty-two titled vouchers, this unheard-of barbarism is, for the present passive, precisely and solely what one ought to say! Nor is it, in fact, any more barbarous, or more foreign from usage, than the spurious example which the Doctor himself takes for a model in the active voice: "I am loving. Thou art loving, &c; I have been loving, Thou hast been loving, &c."--A. and P. Gr., p. 92. So: "James is loving me."--Ib., p 235.
 "The predicate in the form, 'The house is being built,' would be, according to our view, 'BEING BEING built,' which is manifestly an absurd tautology."--Mulligan's Gram., 1852, p. 151.
 "Suppose a criminal to be enduring the operation of binding:--Shall we say, with Mr. Murray,--'The criminal is binding?' If so, HE MUST BE BINDING SOMETHING,--a circumstance, in effect, quite opposed to the fact presented. Shall we then say, as he does, in the present tense conjugation of his passive verb,--'The criminal is bound?' If so, the action of binding, which the criminal is suffering, will be represented as completed, --a position which the action its self will palpably deny." See Wright's Phil. Gram., p. 102. It is folly for a man to puzzle himself or others thus, with fictitious examples, imagined on purpose to make good usage seem wrong. There is bad grammar enough, for all useful purposes, in the actual writings of valued authors; but who can show, by any proofs, that the English language, as heretofore written, is so miserably inadequate to our wants, that we need use the strange neologism, "The criminal is being bound," or any thing similar?
 It is a very strange event in the history of English grammar, that such a controversy as this should have arisen; but a stranger one still, that, after all that has been said, more argument is needed. Some men, who hope to be valued as scholars, yet stickle for an odd phrase, which critics have denounced as follows: "But the history of the language scarcely affords a parallel to the innovation, at once unphilosophical and hypercritical, pedantic and illiterate, which has lately appeared in the excruciating refinement is being and its unmerciful variations. We hope, and indeed believe, that it has not received the sanction of any grammar adopted in our popular education, as it certainly never will of any writer of just pretensions to scholarship."--The True Sun. N. Y., April 16, 1846.
 Education is a work of continuance, yet completed, like many others, as fast as it goes on. It is not, like the act of loving or hating, so complete at the first moment as not to admit the progressive form of the verb; for one may say of a lad, "I am educating him for the law;" and possibly, "He is educating for the law;" though not so well as, "He is to be educated for the law." But, to suppose that "is educated" or "are educated" implies unnecessarily a cessation of the educating is a mistake. That conception is right, only when educated is taken adjectively. The phrase, "those who are educated in our seminaries," hardly includes such as have been educated there in times past: much less does it apply to these exclusively, as some seem to think. "Being," as inserted by Southey, is therefore quite needless: so it is often, in this new phraseology, the best correction being its mere omission.
 Worcester has also this citation: "The Eclectic Review remarks, 'That a need of this phrase, or an equivalent one, is felt, is sufficiently proved by the extent to which it is used by educated persons and respectable writers.'"--Gram. before Dict., p. xlvi. Sundry phrases, equivalent in sense to this new voice, have long been in use, and are, of course, still needed; something from among them being always, by every accurate writer, still preferred. But this awkward innovation, use it who will, can no more be justified by a plea of "need," than can every other hackneyed solecism extant. Even the Archbishop, if quoted right by Worcester, has descended to "uncouth English," without either necessity or propriety, having thereby only misexpounded a very common Greek word--a "perfect or pluperfect" participle, which means "beaten, struck, or having been beaten"--G. Brown.
 Wells has also the following citations, which most probably accord with his own opinions, though the first is rather extravagant: "The propriety of these imperfect passive tenses has been doubted by almost all our grammarians; though I believe but few of them have written many pages without condescending to make use of them. Dr. Beattie says, 'One of the greatest defects of the English tongue, with regard to the verb, seems to be the want of an imperfect passive participle.' And yet he uses the imperfect participle in a passive sense as often as most writers."--Pickbourn's Dissertation on the English Verb.
"Several other expressions of this sort now and then occur, such as the new-fangled and most uncouth solecism, 'is being done,' for the good old English idiomatic expression, 'is doing,'--an absurd periphrasis, driving out a pointed and pithy turn of the English language."--N. A. Review. See Wells's Grammar, 1850, p. 161.
The term, "imperfect passive tenses," seems not a very accurate one; because the present, the perfect, &c., are included. Pickbourn applies it to any passive tenses formed from the simple "imperfect participle;" but the phrase, "passive verbs in the progressive form," would better express the meaning. The term, "compound passive participle," which Wells applies above to "being built," "being printed," and the like, is also both unusual and inaccurate. Most readers would sooner understand by it the form, having been built, having been printed, &c. This author's mode of naming participles is always either very awkward or not distinctive. His scheme makes it necessary to add here, for each of these forms, a third epithet, referring to his main distinction of "imperfect and perfect;" as, "the compound imperfect participle passive," and "the compound perfect participle passive." What is "being builded" or "being printed," but "an imperfect passive participle?" Was this, or something else, the desideratum of Beattie?
 Borne usually signifies carried; born signifies brought forth. J. K. Worcester, the lexicographer, speaks of these two participles thus: "[Fist] The participle born is used in the passive form, and borne in the active form, [with reference to birth]; as, 'He was born blind,' John ix.; 'The barren hath borne seven,' I Sam. ii. This distinction between born and borne, though not recognized by grammars, is in accordance with common usage, at least in this country. In many editions of the Bible it is recognized; and in many it is not. It seems to have been more commonly recognized in American, than in English, editions."--Worcester's Universal and Critical Dict., w. Bear. In five, out of seven good American editions of the Bible among my books, the latter text is, "The barren hath born seven;" in two, it is as above, "hath borne." In Johnson's Quarto Dictionary, the perfect participle of bear is given erroneously, "bore, or born;" and that of forbear, which should be forborne, is found, both in his columns and in his preface, "forborn."
 According to Murray, Lennie, Bullions, and some others, to use begun for began or run for ran, is improper; but Webster gives run as well as ran for the preterit, and begun may be used in like manner, on the authority of Dryden, Pope, and Parnell.
 "And they shall pass through it, hardly bestead, and hungry."--Isaiah, viii, 21.
 "Brake [for the preterit of Break] seems now obsolescent."--Dr. Crombie, Etymol. and Syntax, p. 193. Some recent grammarians, however, retain it; among whom are Bullions and M'Culloch. Wells retains it, but marks it as, "Obsolete;" as he does also the preterits bare, clave, drove, gat, slang, spake, span, spat, sware, tare, writ; and the participles hoven, loaden, rid from ride, spitten, stricken, and writ. In this he is not altogether consistent. Forms really obsolete belong not to any modern list of irregular verbs; and even such as are archaic and obsolescent, it is sometimes better to omit. If "loaden," for example, is now out of use, why should "load, unload, and overload," be placed, as they are by this author, among "irregular verbs;" while freight and distract, in spite of fraught and distraught, are reckoned regular? "Rid," for rode or ridden, though admitted by Worcester, appears to me a low vulgarism.
 Cleave, to split, is most commonly, if not always, irregular, as above; cleave, to stick, or adhere, is usually considered regular, but clave was formerly used in the preterit, and clove still may be: as, "The men of Judah clave unto their king."--Samuel. "The tongue of the public prosecutor clove to the roof of his mouth."--Boston Atlas, 1855.
 Respecting the preterit and the perfect participle of this verb, drink, our grammarians are greatly at variance. Dr. Johnson says, "preter. drank or drunk; part. pass, drunk or drunken." Dr. Webster: "pret. and pp. drank. Old pret. and pp. drunk; pp. drunken." Lowth: "pret. drank; part, drunk or drunken." So Stamford. Webber, and others. Murray has it: "Imperf. drank, Perf. Part, drunk." So Comly, Lennie, Bullions, Blair, Butler. Frost, Felton, Goldsbury, and many others. Churchill cites the text, "Serve me till I have eaten and drunken;" and observes, "Drunken is now used only as an adjective. The impropriety of using the preterimperfect [drank] for the participle of this verb is very common."--New Gram., p. 261. Sanborn gives both forms for the participle, preferring drank to drunk. Kirkham prefers drunk to drank; but contradicts himself in a note, by unconsciously making drunk an adjective: "The men were drunk; i. e. inebriated. The toasts were drank."--Gram., p. 140. Cardell, in his Grammar, gives, "drink, drank, drunk;" but in his story of Jack Halyard, on page 59, he wrote, "had drinked:" and this, according to Fowle's True English Grammar, is not incorrect. The preponderance of authority is yet in favour of saying, "had drunk;" but drank seems to be a word of greater delicacy, and perhaps it is sufficiently authorized. A hundred late writers may be quoted for it, and some that were popular in the days of Johnson. "In the choice of what is fit to be eaten and drank."--Beattie's Moral Science, Vol. 1, p. 51. "Which I had no sooner drank."--Addison, Tattler, No. 131.
"Thy brother's blood the thirsty earth hath drank, Broach'd with the steely point of Clifford's lance."--Shakspeare.
 "Holden is not in general use; and is chiefly employed by attorneys."--Crombie, on Etymology and Synt., p. 190. Wells marks this word as, "Obsolescent."--School Gram., p. 103. L. Murray rejected it; but Lowth gave it alone, as a participle, and held only as a preterit.
 "I have been found guilty of killing cats I never hurted."--Roderick Random, Vol. i, p. 8.
 "They keeped aloof as they passed her bye."--J. Hogg, Pilgrims of the Sun, p. 19.
 Lie, to be at rest, is irregular, as above; but lie, to utter falsehood, is regular, as follows: lie, lied, lying, lied.
"Thus said, at least, my mountain guide, Though deep, perchance, the villain lied." --Scott's Lady of the Lake.
 Perhaps there is authority sufficient to place the verb rend among those which are redundant.
"Where'er its cloudy veil was rended." --Whittier's Moll Pitcher.
"Mortal, my message is for thee; thy chain to earth is rended; I bear thee to eternity; prepare! thy course is ended." --The Amulet.
"Come as the winds come, when forests are rended." --Sir W. Scott.
"The hunger pangs her sons which rended." --NEW QUARTERLY REVIEW: Examiner, No. 119.
 We find now and then an instance in which gainsay is made regular: as, "It can neither be rivalled nor gainsayed."--Chapman's Sermons to Presbyterians, p. 36. Perhaps it would be as well to follow Webster here, in writing rivaled with one l: and the analogy of the simple verb say, in forming this compound irregularly, gainsaid. Usage warrants the latter, however, better than the former.
 "Shoe, shoed or shod, shoeing, shoed or shod."--Old Gram., by W. Ward, p. 64; and Fowle's True English Gram., p. 46.
 "A. Murray has rejected sung as the Preterite, and L. Murray has rejected sang. Each Preterite, however, rests on good authority. The same observation may be made, respecting sank and sunk. Respecting the preterites which have a or u, as slang, or slung, sank, or sunk, it would be better were the former only to be used, as the Preterite and Participle would thus be discriminated."--Dr. Crombie, on Etymology and Syntax, p. 199. The preterits which this critic thus prefers, are rang, sang, stung, sprang, swang, sank, shrank, slank, stank, swam, and span for spun. In respect to them all, I think he makes an ill choice. According to his own showing, fling, string, and sting, always make the preterit and the participle alike; and this is the obvious tendency of the language, in all these words. I reject slang and span, as derivatives from sling and spin; because, in such a sense, they are obsolete, and the words have other uses. Lindley Murray, in his early editions, rejected sang, sank, slang, swang, shrank, slank, stank, and span; and, at the same time, preferred rang, sprang, and swam, to rung, sprung, and swum. In his later copies, he gave the preference to the u, in all these words; but restored sang and sank, which Crombie names above, still omitting the other six, which did not happen to be mentioned to him.
 Sate for the preterit of sit, and sitten for the perfect participle, are, in my opinion, obsolete, or no longer in good use. Yet several recent grammarians prefer sitten to sat; among whom are Crombie, Lennie, Bullions, and M'Culloch. Dr. Crombie says, "Sitten, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable attempts, however, have been made to restore it."--On Etymol. and Syntax, p. 199. Lennie says, "Many authors, both here and in America, use sate as the Past time of sit; but this is improper, for it is apt to be confounded with sate to glut. Sitten and spitten are preferable [to sat and spit,] though obsolescent."--Principles of E. Gram., p. 45. Bullions says, "Sitten and spitten are nearly obsolete, though preferable to sat and spit."--Principles of E. Gram., p. 64. M'Culloch gives these verbs in the following form: "Sit, sat, sitten or sat. Spit, spit or spat, spit or spitten."--Manual of E. Gram., p. 65.
 "He will find the political hobby which he has bestrided no child's nag."--The Vanguard, a Newspaper.
"Through the pressed nostril, spectacle-bestrid."--Cowper.
"A lank haired hunter strided."--Whittier's Sabbath Scene.
 In the age of Pope, writ was frequently used both for the participle and for the preterit of this verb. It is now either obsolete or peculiar to the poets. In prose it seems vulgar: as, "He writ it, at least, published it, in 1670."--Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 77.
"He, who, supreme in judgement, as in wit, Might boldly censure, as he boldly writ."--Pope, Ess. on Crit.
Dr. Crombie remarked, more than thirty years ago, that, "Wrote as the Participle [of Write,] is generally disused, and likewise writ."--Treatise on Etym. and Synt., p. 202.
 A word is not necessarily ungrammatical by reason of having a rival form that is more common. The regular words, beseeched, blowed, bursted, digged, freezed, bereaved, hanged, meaned, sawed, showed, stringed, weeped, I admit for good English, though we find them all condemned by some critics.
 "And the man in whom the evil spirit was, leapt on them."--FRIENDS' BIBLE: Acts, xix, 16. In Scott's Bible, and several others, the word is "leaped." Walker says, "The past time of this verb is generally heard with the diphthong short; and if so, it ought to be spelled leapt, rhyming with kept."--Walker's Pron. Dict., w. Leap. Worcester, who improperly pronounces leaped in two ways, "l~ept or l=ept," misquotes Walker, as saying, "it ought to be spelled lept."--Universal and Critical Dict., w. Leap. In the solemn style, leaped is, of course, two syllables. As for leapedst or leaptest, I know not that either can be found.
 Acquit is almost always formed regularly, thus: acquit, acquitted, acquitting, acquitted. But, like quit, it is sometimes found in an irregular form also; which, if it be allowable, will make it redundant: as, "To be acquit from my continual smart."--SPENCER: Johnson's Dict. "The writer holds himself acquit of all charges in this regard."--Judd, on the Revolutionary War, p. 5. "I am glad I am so acquit of this tinder-box."--SHAK.
"Not know my voice! O, time's extremity! Hast thou so crack'd and splitted my poor tongue?" --SHAK.: Com. of Er.
 Whet is made redundant in Webster's American Dictionary, as well as in Wells's Grammar; but I can hardly affirm that the irregular form of it is well authorized.
 In S. W. Clark's Practical Grammar, first published in 1847--a work of high pretensions, and prepared expressly "for the education of Teachers"--sixty-three out of the foregoing ninety-five Redundant Verbs, are treated as having no regular or no irregular forms. (1.) The following twenty-nine are omitted by this author, as if they were always regular; belay, bet, betide, blend, bless, curse, dive, dress, geld, lean, leap, learn, mulet, pass, pen, plead, prove, rap, reave, roast, seethe, smell, spoil, stave, stay, wake, wed, whet, wont. (2.) The following thirty-four are given by him as being always irregular; abide, bend, beseech, blow, burst, catch, chide, creep, deal, freeze, grind, hang, knit, lade, lay, mean, pay, shake, sleep, slide, speed, spell, spill, split, string, strive, sweat, sweep, thrive, throw, weave, weep, wet, wind. Thirty-two of the ninety-five are made redundant by him, though not so called in his book.
In Wells's School Grammar, "the 113th Thousand," dated 1850, the deficiencies of the foregoing kinds, if I am right, are about fifty. This author's "List of Irregular Verbs" has forty-four Redundants, to which he assigns a regular form as well as an irregular. He is here about as much nearer right than Clark, as this number surpasses thirty-two, and comes towards ninety-five. The words about which they differ, are--pen, seethe, and whet, of the former number; and catch, deal, hang, knit, spell, spill, sweat, and thrive, of the latter.
 In the following example, there is a different phraseology, which seems not so well suited to the sense: "But we must be aware of imagining, that we render style strong and expressive, by a constant and multiplied use of epithets"--Blair's Rhet., p. 287. Here, in stead of "be aware," the author should have said, "beware," or "be ware;" that is, be wary, or cautious; for aware means apprised, or informed, a sense very different from the other.
 Dr. Crombie contends that must and ought are used only in the present tense. (See his Treatise, p. 204.) In this he is wrong, especially with regard to the latter word. Lennie, and his copyist Bullions, adopt the same notion; but Murray, and many others, suppose them to "have both a present and [a] past signification."
 Dr. Crombie says, "This Verb, as an auxiliary, is inflexible; thus we say, 'he will go;' and 'he wills to go.'"--Treatise on Etym. and Syntax, p. 203. He should have confined his remarks to the familiar style, in which all the auxiliaries, except do, be, and have, are inflexible. For, in the solemn style, we do not say, "Thou will go," but, "Thou wilt go."
 "HAD-I-WIST. A proverbial expression, Oh that I had known. Gower."--Chalmers's Dict., also Webster's. In this phrase, which is here needlessly compounded, and not very properly explained, we see wist used as a perfect participle. But the word is obsolete. "Had I wist," is therefore an obsolete phrase, meaning. If I had known, or, "O that I had known."
 That is, passive verbs, as well as others, have three participles for each; so that, from one active-transitive root, there come six participles--three active, and three passive. Those numerous grammarians who, like Lindley Murray, make passive verbs a distinct class, for the most part, very properly state the participles of a verb to be "three;" but, to represent the two voices as modifications of one species of verbs, and then say, "The Participles are three," as many recent writers do, is manifestly absurd: because two threes should be six. Thus, for example, Dr. Bullions: "In English [,] the transitive verb has always two voices, the Active and [the] Passive."--Prin. of E. Gram., p. 33. "The Participles are three, [:] the Present, the Perfect, and the Compound Perfect."--Ib., p. 57. Again: "Transitive verbs have two voices, called the Active and the Passive."--Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 66. "Verbs have three participles--the present, the past, and the perfect; as, loving, loved, having loved, in the active voice: AND being loved, loved, having been loved, in the passive."--Ib., p. 76. Now either not all these are the participles of one verb, or that verb has more than three. Take your choice. Redundant verbs usually have duplicate forms of all the participles except the Imperfect Active; as, lighting, lighted or lit, having lighted or having lit; so again, being lighted or being lit, lighted or lit, having been lighted or having been lit.
 The diversity in the application of these names, and in the number or nature of the participles recognized in different grammars, is quite as remarkable as that of the names themselves. To prepare a general synopsis of this discordant teaching, no man will probably think it worth his while. The following are a few examples of it:
1. "How many Participles, are there; There are two, the Active Participle which ends in (ing), as burning, and the Passive Participle which ends in (ed) as, burned."--The British Grammar, p. 140. In this book, the participles of Be are named thus: "ACTIVE. Being. PASSIVE. Been, having been."--Ib., p. 138.
2. "How many Sorts of Participles are there? A. Two; the Active Participle, that ends always in ing; as, loving, and the Passive Participle, that ends always in ed, t, or n; as, loved, taught, slain."--Fisher's Practical New Gram., p. 75.
3. "ACTIVE VOICE. Participles. Present, calling. Past, having called. Future, being about to call. PASSIVE VOICE. Present, being called. Past, having been called. Future, being about to be called."--Ward's Practical Gram., pp. 55 and 59.
4. ACT. "Present, loving; Perfect, loved; Past, having loved."--Lowth's Gram., p. 39. The participles passive are not given by Lowth; but, by inference from his rule for forming "the passive verb," they must be these: "Present, being loved; Perfect, loved, or been loved; Past, having been loved." See Lowth's Gram., p. 44.
5. "ACT. V. Present, Loving. Past, Loved. Perfect, Having loved. PAS. V. Pres. Being loved. Past, Loved. Perf. Having been loved."--Lennie's Gram., pp. 25 and 33; Greene's Analysis, p. 225; Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram., pp. 87 and 95. This is Bullions's revised scheme, and much worse than his former one copied from Murray.
6. ACT. "Present. Loving. Perfect. Loved. Compound Perfect, Having loved." PAS. "Present. Being loved. Perfect or Passive. Loved. Compound Perfect. Having been loved."--L. Murray's late editions, pp. 98 and 99; Hart's Gram., pp. 85 and 88; Bullions's Principles of E. Gram., pp. 47 and 55. No form or name of the first participle passive was adopted by Murray in his early editions.
7. ACT. "Present. Pursuing. Perfect. Pursued. Compound perfect. Having pursued." PAS. "Present and Perfect. Pursued, or being pursued. Compound Perfect. Having been pursued."--Rev. W. Allen's Gram., pp. 88 and 93. Here the first two passive forms, and their names too, are thrown together; the former as equivalents, the latter as coalescents.
8. "TRANSITIVE. Pres. Loving, Perf. Having loved. PASSIVE. Pres. Loved or Being loved, Perf. Having been loved."--Parkhurst's Gram. for Beginners, p. 110. Here the second active form is wanting; and the second passive is confounded with the first.
9. ACT. "Imperfect, Loving [;] Perfect, Having loved [.]" PAS. "Imperfect, Being loved [;] Perfect, Loved, Having been loved."--Wells's School Gram., pp. 99 and 101. Here, too, the second active is not given; the third is called by the name of the second; and the second passive is confounded with the third, as if they were but forms of the same thing.
10. ACT. "Imperfect, (Present,) Loving. Perfect. Having loved. Auxiliary Perfect, Loved." PAS. "Imperfect, (Present,) Being loved. Perfect, Having been loved. Passive, Loved."--N. Butler's Pract. Gram., pp. 84 and 91. Here the common order of most of the participles is very improperly disturbed, and as many are misnamed.
11. ACT. "Present, Loving [;] Perfect, Loved [;] Comp. Perf. Having loved [.]" PAS. "Present, Being loved [;] Perfect, Loved, or been loved [;] Compound Perfect, Having been loved."--Frazee's Improved Gram., 63 and 73. Here the second participle passive has two forms, one of which, "been loved," is not commonly recognized, except as part of some passive verb or preperfect participle.
12. ACT. V. "Imperfect, Seeing. Perfect, Seen. Compound, Having seen." PAS. V. "Preterimperfect, Being seen. Preterperfect, Having been seen."--Churchill's New Gram., p. 102. Here the chief and radical passive participle is lacking, and neither of the compounds is well named.
13. ACT. "Present, Loving, [;] Past, Loved, [;] Com. Past, Having loved." PAS. "Present, Being loved. [;] Past, Loved. [;] Com. Past. [,] Having been loved."--Felton's Analyt. and Pract. Gram., of 1843, pp. 37 and 50.
14. ACT. "Present. [,] Loving. [;] Perfect. [,] Loved. [;] Compound Perfect. [,] Having loved." PAS. "Perfect or Passive. Loved. Compound Perfect. Having been loved."--Bicknell's Gram. Lond., 1790, Part I, pp. 66 and 70; L. Murray's 2d Edition, York, 1796, pp. 72 and 77. Here "Being loved," is not noticed.
15. "Participles. Active Voice. Present. Loving. Past. Loved, or having loved. Participles. Passive Voice. Present. Being loved. Past. Having been loved."--John Burn's Practical Gram., p. 70. Here the chief Passive term, "Loved," is omitted, and two of the active forms are confounded.
16. "Present, loving, Past, loved, Compound, having loved."--S. W. Clark's Practical Gram., of 1848, p. 71. "ACT. VOICE.--Present ... Loving [;] Compound [,] Having loved...... Having been loving."--Ib., p. 81. "PAS. VOICE.--Present..... Loved, or, being loved [;] Compound..... Having been loved."--Ib., p. 83. "The Compound Participle consists of the Participle of a principal verb, added to the word having, or being, or to the two words having been. Examples--Having loved--being loved--having been loved."--Ib., p. 71. Here the second extract is deficient, as may be seen by comparing it with the first; and the fourth is grossly erroneous, as is shown by the third. The participles, too, are misnamed throughout.
The reader may observe that the punctuation of the foregoing examples is very discrepant. I have, in brackets, suggested some corrections, but have not attempted a general adjustment of it.
 "The most unexceptionable distinction which grammarians make between the participles, is, that the one points to the continuation of the action, passion, or state denoted by the verb; and the other, to the completion of it. Thus, the present participle signifies imperfect action, or action begun and not ended: as, 'I am writing a letter.' The past participle signifies action perfected, or finished: as, 'I have written a letter.'--'The letter is written.'"--Murray's Grammar, 8vo, p. 65. "The first [participle] expresses a continuation; the other, a completion."--W. Allen's Grammar, 12mo, London, 1813. "The idea which this participle [e.g. tearing] really expresses, is simply that of the continuance of an action in an incomplete or unfinished state. The action may belong to time present, to time past, or to time future. The participle which denotes the completion of an action, as torn, is called the perfect participle; because it represents the action as perfect or finished."--Barnard's Analytic Gram., p. 51. Emmons stealthily copies from my Institutes as many as ten lines in defence of the term Imperfect and yet, in his conjugations, he calls the participle in ing, "Present." This seems inconsistent. See his "Grammatical Instructer," p. 61.
 "The ancient termination (from the Anglo-Saxon) was and; as, 'His schynand sword.' Douglas. And sometimes ende; as, 'She, between the deth and life, Swounende lay full ofte.' Gower."--W. Allen's Gram., p. 88. "The present Participle, in Saxon, was formed by ande, ende, or onde; and, by cutting off the final e, it acquired a Substantive signification, and extended the idea to the agent: as, alysende, freeing, and alysend, a redeemer; freonde, loving or friendly, and freond, a lover or a friend."--Booth's Introd. to Dict., p. 75.
 William B. Fowle, a modern disciple of Tooke, treats the subject of grammatical time rather more strangely than his master. Thus: "How many times or tenses have verbs? Two, [the] present and [the] past," To this he immediately adds in a note: "We do not believe in a past any more than a future tense of verbs."--The True English Gram., p. 30. So, between these two authors, our verbs will retain no tenses at all. Indeed, by his two tenses, Fowle only meant to recognize the two simple forms of an English verb. For he says, in an other place, "We repeat our conviction that no verb in itself expresses time of any sort."--Ib., p. 69,
 "STONE'-BLIND," "STONE'-COLD," and "STONE'-DEAD," are given in Worcester's Dictionary, as compound adjectives; and this is perhaps their best classification; but, if I mistake not, they are usually accented quite as strongly on the latter syllable, as on the former, being spoken rather as two emphatic words. A similar example from Sigourney, "I saw an infant marble cold," is given by Frazee under this Note: "Adjectives sometimes belong to other adjectives; as, 'red hot iron.'"--Improved Gram., p. 141. But Webster himself, from whom this doctrine and the example are borrowed, (see his Rule XIX,) makes "RED'-HOT" but one word in his Dictionary; and Worcester gives it as one word, in a less proper form, even without a hyphen, "RED'HOT."
 "OF ENALLAGE.--The construction which may be reduced to this figure in English, chiefly appears when one part of speech, is used with the power and effect of another."--Ward's English Gram., p. 150.
 Forsooth is literally a word of affirmation or assent, meaning for truth, but it is now almost always used ironically: as, "In these gentlemen whom the world forsooth calls wise and solid, there is generally either a moroseness that persecutes, or a dullness that tires you."--Home's Art of Thinking, p. 24.
 In most instances, however, the words hereof, thereof, and whereof, are placed after nouns, and have nothing to do with any verb. They are therefore not properly adverbs, though all our grammarians and lexicographers call them so. Nor are they adjectives; because they are not used adjectively, but rather in the sense of a pronoun governed by of; or, what is nearly the same thing, in the sense of the possessive or genitive case. Example: "And the fame hereof went abroad."--Matt., ix, 26. That is, "the fame of this miracle;" which last is a better expression, the other being obsolete, or worthy to be so, on account of its irregularity.
 Seldom is sometimes compared in this manner, though not frequently; as, "This kind of verse occurs the seldomest, but has a happy effect in diversifying the melody."--Blair's Rhet., p. 385. In former days, this word, as well as its correlative often, was sometimes used adjectively; as, "Thine often infirmities."--1 Tim., v, 23. "I hope God's Book hath not been my seldomest lectures."--Queen Elizabeth, 1585. John Walker has regularly compared the adverb forward: in describing the latter L, he speaks of the tip of the tongue as being "brought a little forwarder to the teeth."--Pron. Dict., Principles, No. 55.
 A few instances of the regular inflection of adverbs ending in ly, may be met with in modern compositions, as in the following comparisons: "As melodies will sometimes ring sweetlier in the echo."--The Dial, Vol. i, p. 6. "I remember no poet whose writings would safelier stand the test."--Coleridge's Biog. Lit., Vol. ii, p. 53.
 De Sacy, in his Principles of General Grammar, calls the relative pronouns "Conjunctive Adjectives." See Fosdick's Translation, p. 57. He also says, "The words who, which, etc. are not the only words which connect the function of a Conjunction with another design. There are Conjunctive Nouns and Adverbs, as well as Adjectives; and a characteristic of these words is, that we can substitute for them another form of expression in which shall be found the words who, which, etc. Thus, when, where, what, how, as, and many others, are Conjunctive words: [as,] 'I shall finish when I please;' that is, 'I shall finish at the time at which I please.'--'I know not where I am;' i.e. 'I know not the place in which I am.'"--Ib., p. 58. In respect to the conjunctive adverbs, this is well enough, so far as it goes; but the word who appears to me to be a pronoun, and not an adjective; and of his "Conjunctive Nouns," he ought to have given us some examples, if he knew of any.
 "Now the Definition of a CONJUNCTION is as follows--a Part of Speech, void of Signification itself, but so formed as to help Signification by making TWO or more significant Sentences to be ONE significant Sentence."--Harris's Hermes, 6th Edition, London, p. 238.
 Whether these, or any other conjunctions that come together, ought to ho parsed together, is doubtful. I am not in favour of taking any words together, that can well be parsed separately. Goodenow, who defines a phrase to be "the union of two or more words having the nature and construcion [sic--KTH] of a single word," finds an immense number of these unions, which he cannot, or does not, analyze. As examples of "a conjunctional phrase," he gives "as if and "as though."--Gram., p. 25. But when he comes to speak of ellipsis, he says: "After the conjunctions than, as, but, &c., some words are generally understood; as, 'We have more than [that is which] will suffice;' 'He acted as [he would act] if he were mad.'"--Ib., p. 41. This doctrine is plainly repugnant to the other.
 Of the construction noticed in this observation, the Rev. Matt. Harrison cites a good example; pronounces it elliptical; and scarcely forbears to condemn it as bad English: "In the following sentence, the relative pronoun is three times omitted:--'Is there a God to swear by, and is there none to believe in, none to trust to?'--Letters and Essays, Anonymous. By, in, and to, as prepositions, stand alone, denuded of the relatives to which they apply. The sentence presents no attractions worthy of imitation. It exhibits a license carried to the extreme point of endurance."--Harrison's English Language, p. 196.
 "An ellipsis of from after the adverb off has caused the latter word sometimes to be inserted incorrectly among the prepositions. Ex. 'off (from) his horse.'"--Hart's Gram., p. 96. Off and on are opposites; and, in a sentence like the following, I see no more need of inserting "from" after the former, than to after the latter: "Thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up."--2 Kings, i, 16.
 "Who consequently reduced the greatest part of the island TO their own power."--Swift, on the English Tongue. "We can say, that one nation reduces another TO subjection. But when dominion or power is used, we always, as [so] far as I know, say, reduce UNDER their power" [or dominion]--Blair's Rhet., p. 229.
 "O foy, don't misapprehend me; I don't say so."--DOUBLE DEALER: Kames, El. of Crit., i, 305.
 According to Walker and Webster, la is pronounced law; and, if they are right in this, the latter is only a false mode of spelling. But I set down both, because both are found in books, and because I incline to think the former is from the French la, which is pronounced lah. Johnson and Webster make la and lo synonymous; deriving lo from the Saxon la, and la either from lo or from the French la. "Law, how you joke, cousin."--Columbian Orator, p. 178. "Law me! the very ghosts are come now!"--Ibid. "Law, sister Betty! I am glad to see you!"--Ibid.
"La you! If you speak ill of the devil, How he takes it at heart!"--SHAKESPEARE: Joh. Dict., w. La.
 The interjection of interrogating, being placed independently, either after a question, or after something which it converts into a question, is usually marked with its own separate eroteme; as, "But this is even so: eh?"--Newspaper. "Is't not drown'd i' the last rain? Ha?"--Shakespeare. "Does Bridget paint still, Pompey? Ha?"--Id. "Suits my complexion--hey, gal? so I think."--Yankee Schoolmaster. Sometimes we see it divided only by a comma, from the preceding question; as, "What dost thou think of this doctrine, Friend Gurth, ha?"--SCOTT'S IVANHOE: Fowler's E. Gram., §29.
 Though oh and ah are most commonly used as signs of these depressing passions, it must be confessed that they are sometimes employed by reputable writers, as marks of cheerfulness or exultation; as, "Ah, pleasant proof," &c.--Cowper's Task, p. 179. "Merrily oh! merrily oh!"--Moore's Tyrolese Song. "Cheerily oh! cheerily oh!"--Ib. But even if this usage be supposed to be right, there is still some difference between these words and the interjection O: if there were not, we might dispense with the latter, and substitute one of the former; but this would certainly change the import of many an invocation.
 This position is denied by some grammarians. One recent author says, "The object cannot properly be called one of the principal parts of a sentence; as it belongs only to some sentences, and then is dependent on the verb, which it modifies or explains."--Goodenow's Gram., p. 87. This is consistent enough with the notion, that, "An infinitive, with or without a substantive, may be the object of a transitive verb; as, 'I wish to ride;' 'I wish you to ride.'"--Ib., p. 37. Or, with the contrary notion, that, "An infinitive may be the object of a preposition, expressed or understood; as, 'I wish for you to ride.'"--Ibid. But if the object governed by the verb, is always a mere qualifying adjunct, a mere "explanation of the attribute," (Ib., p. 28,) how differs it from an adverb? "Adverbs are words added to verbs, and sometimes to other words, to qualify their meaning."--Ib., p. 23. And if infinitives and other mere adjuncts may be the objects which make verbs transitive, how shall a transitive verb be known? The fact is, that the true object of the transitive verb is one of the principal parts of the sentence, and that the infinitive mood cannot properly be reckoned such an object.
 Some writers distinguish sentences as being of three kinds, simple, and complex, and compound; but, in this work, care has not in general been taken to discriminate between complex sentences and compound. A late author states the difference thus: "A sentence containing but one proposition is simple; a sentence containing two propositions, one of which modifies the other, is complex; a sentence containing two propositions which in no way modify each other, is compound."--Greene's Analysis, p. 3. The term compound, as applied to sentences, is not usually so restricted. An other, using the same terms for a very different division, explains them thus: "A Simple Sentence contains but one subject and one attribute; as, 'The sun shines.' A Complex Sentence contains two or more subjects of the same attribute, or two or more attributes of the same subject; as, 'The sun and the stars shine.' 'The sun rises and sets.' 'The sun and the stars rise and set.' A Compound Sentence is composed of two or more simple or complex sentences united; as, 'The sun shines, and the stars twinkle.' 'The sun rises and sets, as the earth revolves.'"--Pinneo's English Teacher, p. 10; Analytical Gram., pp. 128, 142, and 146. This notion of a complex sentence is not more common than Greene's; nor is it yet apparent, that the usual division of sentences into two kinds ought to give place to any tripartite distribution.
 The terms clause and member, in grammar, appear to have been generally used as words synonymous; but some authors have thought it convenient to discriminate them, as having different senses. Hiley says, "Those parts of a sentence which are separated by commas, are called clauses; and those separated by semicolons, are called members."--Hiley' s Gram., p. 66. W. Allen too confines the former term to simple members: "A compound sentence is formed by uniting two or more simple sentences; as, Man is mortal, and life is uncertain. Each of these simple sentences is called a clause. When the members of a compound sentence are complex, they are subdivided into clauses; as, Virtue leads to honor, and insures true happiness; but vice degrades the understanding, and is succeeded by infamy."--Allen's Gram., p. 128. By some authors, the terms clause and phrase are often carelessly confounded, each being applied with no sort of regard to its proper import. Thus, where L. Murray and his copyists expound their text about "the pupil's composing frequently," even the minor phrase, "composing frequently," is absurdly called a clause; "an entire clause of a sentence."--See Murray's Gram., p. 179; Alger's, 61; Fisk's, 108; Ingersoll's, 180; Merchant's, 84; R. C. Smith's, 152; Weld's, 2d Ed., 150. The term sentence also is sometimes grossly misapplied. Thus, by R. C. Smith, the phrases "James and William," "Thomas and John," and others similar, are called "sentences."--Smith's New Gram., pp. 9 and 10. So Weld absurdly writes as follows; "A whole sentence is frequently the object of a preposition; as, 'The crime of being a young man.' Being a young man, is the object of the preposition of."--Weld's E. Gram., 2d Edition, p. 42. The phrase, "being a young man," here depends upon "of;" but this preposition governs nothing but the participle "being." The construction of the word "man" is explained below, in Obs. 7th on Rule 6th, of Same Cases.
 In the very nature of things, all agreement consists in concurrence, correspondence, conformity, similarity, sameness, equality; but government is direction, control, regulation, restrain, influence, authoritative requisition, with the implication of inequality. That these properties ought to be so far distinguished in grammar, as never to be supposed to co-exist in the same terms and under the same circumstances, must be manifest to every reasoner. Some grammarians who seem to have been not always unaware of this, have nevertheless egregiously forgotten it at times. Thus Nutting, in the following remark, expresses a true doctrine, though he has written it with no great accuracy: "A word in parsing never governs the same word which it qualifies, or with which it agrees."--Practical Gram., p. 108. Yet, in his syntax, in which he pretends to separate agreement from government, he frames his first rule under the better head thus: "The nominative case governs a verb."--Ib. p. 96. Lindsey Murray recognizes no such government as this; but seems to suppose his rule for the agreement of a verb with its nominative to be sufficient for both verb and nominative. He appears, however, not to have known that a word does not agree syntactically with another that governs it; for, in his Exercises, he has given us, apparently from his own pen, the following untrue, but otherwise not very objectionable sentence: "On these occasions, the pronoun is governed by, an consequently agrees with, the preceding word."--Exercises, 8vo, ii, 74. This he corrects thus: On these occasions, the pronoun is governed by the preceding word, and consequently agrees with it."--Key, 8vo, ii, 204. The amendments most needed he overlooks; for the thought is not just, and the two verbs which are here connected with one and the same nominative, are different in form. See the same example, with the same variation of it, in Smith's New Gram., p. 167; and, without the change, in Ingersoll's, p. 233; and Fisk's, 141.
 It has been the notion of some grammarians, that the verb governs the nominative before it. This is an old rule, which seems to have been very much forgotten by modern authors; though doubtless it is as true, and as worthy to be perpetuated, as that which supposes the nominative to govern the verb: "Omne verbum personale finiti modi regit ante se expresse vel subaudite ejusdem numeri et personæ nominativum vel aliquid pro nominativo: ut, ego scribo, tu legis, ille auscultat."--DESPAUTERII SYNT. fol. xvi. This Despauter was a laborious author, who, within fifty years after the introduction of printing, complains that he found his task heavy, on account of the immense number of books and opinions which he had to consult: "Necdum tamen huic operi ultimam manum aliter imposui, quam Apelles olim picturis: siquidem aptius exire, quum in multis tum in hac arte est difficillimum, propter librorum legendorum immensitatem, et opinionum innumeram diversitatem."--Ibid., Epist. Apologetica, A. D. 1513. But if, for this reason, the task was heavy then, what is it now!
 Nutting's rule certainly implies that articles may relate to pronouns, though he gives no example, nor can he give any that is now good English; but he may, if he pleases, quote some other modern grammatists, who teach the same false doctrine: as, "RULE II. The article refers to its noun (OR PRONOUN) to limit its signification."--R. G. Greene's Grammatical Text-Book, p. 18. Greene's two grammars are used extensively in the state of Maine, but they appear to be little known anywhere else. This author professes to inculcate "the principles established by Lindley Murray." If veracity, on this point, is worth any thing, it is a pity that in both books there are so many points which, like the foregoing parenthesis, belie this profession. He followed here Ingersoll's RULE IV, which is this: "The article refers to a noun OR PRONOUN, expressed or understood, to limit its signification."-- Conversations on E. Gram., p. 185.
 It is truly a matter of surprise to find under what titles or heads, many of the rules of syntax have been set, by some of the best scholars that have ever written on grammar. In this respect, the Latin and Greek grammarians are particularly censurable; but it better suits my purpose to give an example or two from one of the ablest of the English. Thus that elegant scholar the Rev. W. Allen: "SYNTAX OF NOUNS. 325. A verb agrees with its nominative case in number and person."--Elements of E. Gram., p. 131. This is in no wise the syntax of Nouns, but rather that of the Verb. Again: "SYNTAX OF VERBS. 405. Active Verbs govern the accusative case; as, I love him. We saw them. God rules the world."--Ib., p. 161. This is not properly the syntax of Verbs, but rather that of Nouns or Pronouns in the accusative or objective case. Any one who has but the least sense of order, must see the propriety of referring the rule to that sort of words to which it is applied in parsing, and not some other. Verbs are never parsed or construed by the latter of these rules nor nouns by the former.
 What "the Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek, ON THE SAME PLAN," will ultimately be,--how many treatises for each or any of the languages it will probably contain,--what uniformity will be found in the distribution of their several sorts and sizes,--or what sameness they will have, except that which is bestowed by the binders,--cannot yet be stated with any certainty. It appears now, in 1850, that the scheme has thus far resulted in the production of three remarkably different grammars, for the English part of the series, and two more, a Latin grammar and a Greek, which resemble each other, or any of these, as little. In these works, abound changes and discrepances, sometimes indicating a great unsettlement of "principles" or "plan," and often exciting our wonder at the extraordinary variety of teaching, which has been claimed to be, "as nearly in the same words as the as the genius of the languages would permit!" In what should have been uniform, and easily might have been so, these grammars are rather remarkably diverse! Uniformity in the order, number, or phraseology of the Rules of Syntax, even for our own language, seems scarcely yet to have entered this "SAME PLAN" at all! The "onward progress of English grammar," or, rather, of the author's studies therein, has already, within "fifteen years," greatly varied, from the first model of the "Series," his own idea of a good grammar; and, though such changes bar consistency, a future progress, real or imaginary, may likewise, with as good reason, vary it yet as much more. In the preface to the work of 1840, it is said: "This, though not essentially different from the former, is yet in some respects a new work. It has been almost entirely rewritten." And again: "The Syntax is much fuller than in the former work; and though the rules are not different, they are arranged in a different order." So it is proved, that the model needed remodelling; and that the Syntax, especially, was defective, in matter as well as in order. The suggestions, that "the rules are not different," and the works, "not essentially" so, will sound best to those who shall never compare them. The old code has thirty-four chief, and twenty-two "special rules;" the new has twenty chief, thirty-six "special," and one "general rule." Among all these, we shall scarcely find exact sameness preserved in so many as half a dozen instances. Of the old thirty-four, fourteen only were judged worthy to remain as principal rules; and two of these have no claim at all to such rank, one of them being quite useless. Of the twenty now made chief, five are new to "the Series of Grammars," and three of these exceedingly resemble as many of mine; five are slightly altered, and five greatly, from their predecessors among the old: one is the first half of an old rule; one is an old subordinate rule, altered and elevated; and three are as they were before, their numbers and relative positions excepted!
 "The grammatical predicate is a verb."--Butler's Pract. Gram., 1845, p. 135, "The grammatical predicate is a finite verb."--Wells's School Gram., 1850, p. 185. "The grammatical predicate is either a verb alone, or the copula sum [some part of the verb be] with a noun or adjective."--Andrews and Stoddard's Lat. Gram., p. 163. "The predicate consists of two parts,--the verb, or copula, and that which is asserted by it, called the attribute; as 'Snow is white.'"--Greene's Analysis. p. 15. "The grammatical predicate consists of the attribute and copula not modified by other word."--Bullions, Analyt, and Pract. Gram., P. 129. "The logical predicate is the grammatical, with all the words or phrases that modify it." Ib. p. 130. "The Grammatical predicate is the word or words containing the simple affirmation, made respecting the subject."--Bullions, Latin Gram., p. 269. "Every proposition necessarily consists of these three parts: [the subject, the predicate, and the copula;] but then it is not alike needful, that they be all severally expressed in words; because the copula is often included in the term of the predicate; as when we say, he sits, which imports the same as, he is sitting."--Duncan's Logic, p 105. In respect to this Third Method of Analysis. It is questionable, whether a noun or an adjective which follows the verb and forms part of the assertion, is to be included in "the grammatical predicate" or not. Wells says, No: "It would destroy at once all distinction between the grammatical and the logical predicate."--School Gram., p. 185. An other question is, whether the copula (is, was or the like,) which the logicians discriminate, should be included as part of the logical predicate, when it occurs as a distinct word. The prevalent practice of the grammatical analyzers is, so to include it,--a practice which in itself is not very "logical." The distinction of subjects and predicates as "grammatical and logical," is but a recent one. In some grammars, the partition used in logic is copied without change, except perhaps of words: as "There are, in sentences, a subject, a predicate and a copula." JOS. R. CHANDLER, Gram. of 1821, p. 105; Gram. of 1847, p. 116. The logicians, however, and those who copy them, may have been hitherto at fault in recognizing and specifying their "copula." Mulligan forcibly argues that the verb of being is no more entitled to this name than is every other verb. (See his Exposition," §46.) If he is right in this, the "copula" of the logicians (an in my opinion, his own also) is a mere figment of the brain, there being nothing that answers to the definition of the thing or to the true use of the word.
 I cite this example from Wells, for the purpose of explaining it without the several errors which that gentleman's "Model" incidentally inculcates. He suggests that and connects, not the two relative clauses, as such, but the two verbs can give and can take; and that the connexion between away and is must be traced through the former, and its object which. These positions, I think, are wrong. He also uses here, as elsewhere, the expressions, "which relates it" and, "which is related by," each in a very unusual, and perhaps an unauthorized, sense. His formule reads thus: "Away modifies can take; can take is CONNECTED with can give by and; WHICH is governed by CAN GIVE, and relates to security; security is the object of finding, which is RELATED BY of to conviction; conviction is the object of with, which RELATES IT to can look; to expresses the relation between whom and can look, and whom relates to Being, which is the subject of is." --Wells's School Gram., 113th Ed., p. 192. Neither this nor the subsequent method has been often called "analysis;" for, in grammar, each user of this term has commonly applied it to some one method only,--the method preferred by himself.
 The possessive phrase here should be, "Andrews and Stoddard's," as Wells and others write it. The adding of the apostrophe to the former name is wrong, even by the better half of Butler's own absurd and self-contradictory Rule: to wit, "When two or more nouns in the possessive case are connected by and, the possessive termination should be added to each of them; as, 'These are John's and Eliza's books.' But, if objects are possessed in common by two or more, and the nouns are closely connected without any intervening words, the possessive termination is added to the last noun only; as, 'These are John and Eliza's books.'"--Butler's Practical Gram., p. 163. The sign twice used implies two governing nouns: "John's and Eliza's books." = "John's books and Eliza's;" "Andrews' and Stoddard's Latin Grammar," = "Andrews' (or Andrews's) Latin Grammar and Stoddard's"
 In Mulligan's recent "Exposition of the Grammatical Structure of the English Language,"--the work of an able hand,--this kind of "Analysis," being most improperly pronounced "the chief business of the grammarian," is swelled by copious explanation under minute heads, to a volume containing more than three times as much matter as Greene's; but, since school-boys have little relish for long arguments, and prolixity had here already reached to satiety and disgust, it is very doubtful whether the practical utility of this "Improved Method of Teaching Grammar," will be greater in proportion to this increase of bulk.--G. B., 1853.
 "I will not take upon me to say, whether we have any Grammar that sufficiently instructs us by rule and example; but I am sure we have none, that in the manner here attempted, teaches us what is right, by showing what is wrong; though this perhaps may prove the more useful and effectual method of Instruction."--Lowth's Gram., Pref., p. viii.
 With the possessive case and its governing noun, we use but one article; and sometimes it seems questionable, to which of the two that article properly relates: as, "This is one of the Hebrews' children."--Exodus, ii, 6. The sentence is plainly equivalent to the following, which has two articles: "This is one of the children of the Hebrews." Not because the one article is equivalent to the two, or because it relates to both of the nouns; but because the possessive relation itself makes one of the nouns sufficiently definite. Now, if we change the latter construction back into the former, it is the noun children that drops its article; it is therefore the other to which the remaining article relates. But we sometimes find examples in which the same analogy does not hold. Thus, "a summer's day" means, "a day of summer;" and we should hardly pronounce it equivalent to "the day of a summer." So the questionable phrase, "a three days' journey," means, "a journey of three days;" and, whether the construction be right or wrong, the article a cannot be said to relate to the plural noun. Possibly such a phrase as, "the three years' war," might mean, "the war of three years;" so that the article must relate to the latter noun. But in general it is the latter noun that is rendered definite by the possessive relation: thus the phrase, "man's works" is equivalent to "the works of man," not to "works of the man;" so, "the man's works," is equivalent, not to "the works of man," but to "the works of the man."
 Horne Tooke says, "The use of A after the word MANY is a corruption for of; and has no connection whatever with the article A, i. e. one."--Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 324. With this conjecture of the learned etymologist, I do not concur: it is hardly worth while to state here, what may he urged pro and con.
 "Nothing can be more certain than that [in Greek syntax] all words used for the purpose of definition, either stand between the article and the noun, or have their own article prefixed. Yet it may sometimes happen that an apposition [with an article] is parenthetically inserted instead of being affixed."--J. W. DONALDSON: Journal of Philology, No. 2, p. 223.
 Churchill rashly condemns this construction, and still more rashly proposes to make the noun singular without repeating the article. See his New Gram., p. 311. But he sometimes happily forgets his own doctrine; as, "In fact, the second and fourth lines here stamp the character of the measure."--Ib., p. 391. O. B. Peirce says, "'Joram's second and third daughters,' must mean, if it means any thing, his second daughters and third daughters; and, 'the first and second verses.' if it means any thing, must represent the first verses and the second verses."-- Peirce's English Gram., p. 263. According to my notion, this interpretation is as false and hypercritical, as is the rule by which the author professes to show what is right. He might have been better employed in explaining some of his own phraseology, such as, "the indefinite-past and present of the declarative mode."--Ib., p. 100. The critic who writes such stuff as this, may well be a misinterpreter of good common English. It is plain, that the two examples which he thus distorts, are neither obscure nor inelegant. But, in an alternative of single things, the article must be repeated, and a plural noun is improper; as, "But they do not receive the Nicene or the Athanasian creeds."--Adam's Religious World, Vol. ii, p. 105. Say, "creed." So in an enumeration; as, "There are three participles: the present, the perfect, and the compound perfect participles"--Ingersoll's Gram., p. 42. Expunge this last word, "participles." Sometimes a sentence is wrong, not as being in itself a solecism, but as being unadapted to the author's thought. Example: "Other tendencies will be noticed in the Etymological and Syntactical part."--Fowler's E. Gram., N. Y., 1850, p. 75. This implies, what appears not to be true, that the author meant to treat Etymology and Syntax together in a single part of his work. Had he put an s to the noun "part," he might have been understood in either of two other ways, but not in this. To make sure of his meaning, therefore, he should have said--"in the Etymological Part and the Syntactical."
 Oliver B. Peirce, in his new theory of grammar, not only adopts Ingersoll's error, but adds others to it. He supposes no ellipsis, and declares it grossly improper ever to insert the pronoun. According to him, the following text is wrong: "My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord."--Heb., xii, 5. See Peirce's Gram., p. 255. Of this gentleman's book I shall say the less, because its faults are so many and so obvious. Yet this is "The Grammar of the English Language," and claims to be the only work which is worthy to be called an English Grammar. "The first and only Grammar of the English Language!"--Ib., p. 10. In punctuation, it is a very chaos, as one might guess from the following Rule: "A word of the second person, and in the subjective case, must have a semicolon after it; as, John; hear me."--Id., p. 282. Behold his practice! "John, beware."--P. 84. "Children, study."--P. 80. "Henry; study."--P. 249. "Pupil: parse."--P. 211; and many other places. "Be thou, or do thou be writing? Be ye or you, or do ye or you be writing?"--P. 110. According to his Rule, this tense requires six semicolons; but the author points it with two commas and two notes of interrogation!
 In Butler's Practical Grammar, first published in 1845, this doctrine is taught as a novelty. His publishers, in their circular letter, speak of it as one of "the peculiar advantages of this grammar over preceding works," and as an important matter, "heretofore altogether omitted by grammarians!" Wells cites Butler in support of his false principle: "A verb in the infinitive is often preceded by a noun or pronoun in the objective, which has no direct dependence on any other word. Examples:--'Columbus ordered a strong fortress of wood and plaster to be erected.'--Irving. 'Its favors here should make us tremble.'-- Young." See Wells's School Gram., p. 147.
 "Sometimes indeed the verb hath two regimens, and then the preposition is necessary to one of them; as, 'I address myself to my judges.'"--Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 178. Here the verb address governs the pronoun myself, and is also the antecedent to the preposition to; and the construction would be similar, if the preposition governed the infinitive or a participle: as, "I prepared myself to swim;" or, "I prepared myself for swimming." But, in any of these cases, it is not very accurate to say, "the verb has two regimens;" for the latter term is properly the regimen of the preposition. Cardell, by robbing the prepositions, and supposing ellipses, found two regimens for every verb. W. Allen, on the contrary, (from whom Nixon gathered his doctrine above,) by giving the "accusative" to the infinitive, makes a multitude of our active-transitive verbs "neuter." See Allen's Gram., p. 166. But Nixon absurdly calls the verb "active-transitive," because it governs the infinitive; i. e. as he supposes--and, except when to is not used, erroneously supposes.
 A certain new theorist, who very innocently fogs himself and his credulous readers with a deal of impertinent pedantry, after denouncing my doctrine that to before the infinitive is a preposition, appeals to me thus: "Let me ask you, G. B.--is not the infinitive in Latin the same as in the English? Thus, I desire to teach Latin--Ego Cupio docere. I saw Abel come--Ego videbam Abelem venire. The same principle is recognized by the Greek grammars and those of most of the modern languages."--O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 358. Of this gentleman I know nothing but from what appears in his book--a work of immeasurable and ill-founded vanity--a whimsical, dogmatical, blundering performance. This short sample of his Latin, (with six puerile errors in seven words,) is proof positive that he knows nothing of that language, whatever may be his attainments in Greek, or the other tongues of which he tells. To his question I answer emphatically, NO. In Latin, "One verb governs an other in the infinitive; as, Cupio discere, I desire to learn."--Adam's Gram., p. 181. This government never admits the intervention of a preposition. "I saw Abel come," has no preposition; but the Latin of it is, "Vidi Abelem venientem," and not what is given above; or, according to St. Jerome and others, who wrote, "Abel," without declension, we ought rather to say, "Vidi Abel venientem." If they are right, "Ego videbam Abelem venire," is every word of it wrong!
 Priestley cites these examples as authorities, not as false syntax. The errors which I thus quote at secondhand from other grammarians, and mark with double references, are in general such as the first quoters have allowed, and made themselves responsible for; but this is not the case in every instance. Such credit has sometimes, though rarely, been given, where the expression was disapproved.--G. BROWN.
 Lindley Murray thought it not impracticable to put two or more nouns in apposition and add the possessive sign to each; nor did he imagine there would often be any positive impropriety in so doing. His words, on this point, are these: "On the other hand, the application of the genitive sign to both or all of the nouns in apposition, would be generally harsh and displeasing, and perhaps in some cases incorrect: as, 'The Emperor's Leopold's; King George's; Charles's the Second's; The parcel was left at Smith's, the bookseller's and stationer's."--Octavo Gram., p. 177. Whether he imagined any of these to be "incorrect" or not, does not appear! Under the next rule, I shall give a short note which will show them all to be so. The author, however, after presenting these uncouth fictions, which show nothing but his own deficiency in grammar, has done the world the favour not to pronounce them very convenient phrases; for he continues the paragraph as follows: "The rules which we have endeavoured to elucidate, will prevent the inconveniences of both these modes of expression; and they appear to be simple, perspicuous, and consistent with the idiom of the language.'--Ib. This undeserved praise of his own rules, he might as well have left to some other hand. They have had the fortune, however, to please sundry critics, and to become the prey of many thieves; but are certainly very deficient in the three qualities here named; and, taken together with their illustrations, they form little else than a tissue of errors, partly his own, and partly copied from Lowth and Priestley.
Dr. Latham, too, and Prof. Child, whose erroneous teaching on this point is still more marvellous, not only inculcate the idea that possessives in form may be in apposition, but seem to suppose that two possessive endings are essential to the relation. Forgetting all such English as we have in the phrases, "John the Baptist's head,"--"For Jacob my servant's sake,"--"Julius Cæsar's Commentaries,"--they invent sham expressions, too awkward ever to have come to their knowledge from any actual use,--such as, "John's the farmer's wife,"--"Oliver's the spy's evidence,"--and then end their section with the general truth, "For words to be in apposition with each other, they must be in the same case."--Elementary Grammar, Revised Edition, p. 152. What sort of scholarship is that in which fictitious examples mislead even their inventors?
 In Professor Fowler's recent and copious work, "The English Language in its Elements and Forms," our present Reciprocals are called, not Pronominal Adjectives, but "Pronouns," and are spoken of, in the first instance, thus: "§248. A RECIPROCAL PRONOUN is one that implies the mutual action of different agents. EACH OTHER, and ONE ANOTHER, are our reciprocal forms, which are treated exactly as if they were compound pronouns, taking for their genitives, each other's, one another's. Each other is properly used of two, and one another of more." The definition here given takes for granted what is at least disputable, that "each other," or "one another," is not a phrase, but is merely "one pronoun." But, to none of his three important positions here taken, does the author himself at all adhere. In §451, at Note 3, he teaches thus: "'They love each other.' Here each is in the nominative case in apposition with they, and other is in the objective case. 'They helped one another.' Here one is in apposition with they, and another is in the objective case." Now, by this mode of parsing, the reciprocal terms "are treated," not as "compound pronouns," but as phrases consisting of distinct or separable words: and, as being separate or separable words, whether they be Adjectives or Pronouns, they conform not to his definition above. Out of the sundry instances in which, according to his own showing, he has misapplied one or the other of these phrases, I cite the following: (1.) "The two ideas of Science and Art differ from one another as the understanding differs from the will."--Fowler's Gram., 1850, §180. Say,--"from each other;" or,--"one from the other." (2.) "THOU, THY, THEE, are etymologically related to each other."--Ib., §216. Say,--"to one an other;" because there are "more" than "two." (3.) "Till within some centuries, the Germans, like the French and the English, addressed each other in familiar conversation by the Second Person Singular."--Ib., §221. Say,--"addressed one an other." (4.) "Two sentences are, on the other hand, connected in the way of co-ordination [,] when they are not thus dependent one upon another."--Ib., §332. Say,--"upon each other;" or,--"one upon the other;" because there are but two. (5.) "These two rivers are at a great distance from one another."--Ib., §617. Say,--"from each other;" or,--"one from the other." (6.) "The trees [in the Forest of Bombast] are close, spreading, and twined into each other."--Ib., §617. Say,--"into one an other."
 For this quotation, Dr. Campbell gives, in his margin, the following reference: "Introduction, &c., Sentences, Note on the 6th Phrase." But in my edition of Dr. Lowth's Introduction to English Grammar, (a Philadelphia edition of 1799,) I do not find the passage. Perhaps it has been omitted in consequence of Campbell's criticism, of which I here cite but a part.--G. BROWN.
 By some grammarians it is presumed to be consistent with the nature of participles to govern the possessive case; and Hiley, if he is to be understood literally, assumes it as an "established principle," that they all do so! "Participles govern nouns and pronouns in the possessive case, and at the same time, if derived from transitive verbs, require the noun or pronoun following to be in the objective case, without the intervention of the preposition of; as 'Much depends on William's observing the rule, and error will be the consequence of his neglecting it;' or, 'Much will depend on the rule's being observed by William, and error will be the consequence of its being neglected.'"--Hiley's Gram., p. 94. These sentences, without doubt, are nearly equivalent to each other in meaning. To make them exactly so, "depends" or "will depend" must be changed in tense, and "its being neglected" must be "its being neglected by him." But who that has looked at the facts in the case, or informed himself on the points here in dispute, will maintain that either the awkward phraseology of the latter example, or the mixed and questionable construction of the former, or the extensive rule under which they are here presented, is among "the established principles and best usages of the English language?"--Ib., p. 1.
 What, in Weld's "Abridged Edition," is improperly called a "participial noun," was, in his "original work," still more erroneously termed "a participial clause." This gentleman, who has lately amended his general rule for possessives by wrongfully copying or imitating mine, has also as widely varied his conception of the participial--"object possessed;" but, in my judgement, a change still greater might not be amiss. "The possessive is often governed by a participial clause; as, much will depend on the pupil's composing frequently. Pupil's is governed by the clause, 'composing frequently.' NOTE.--The sign ('s) should be annexed to the word governed by the participial clause following it."--Weld's Gram., 2d Edition, p. 150. Again: "The possessive is often governed by a participial noun; as, Much will depend on the pupil's composing frequently. Pupil's is governed by the participial noun composing. NOTE.--The sign ('s) should be annexed to the word governed by the participial noun following it."--Weld's Gram., Abridged, p. 117. Choosing the possessive case, where, both by analogy and by authority, the objective would be quite as grammatical, if not more so; destroying, as far as possible, all syntactical distinction between the participle and the participial noun, by confounding them purposely, even in name; this author, like Wells, whom he too often imitates, takes no notice of the question here discussed, and seems quite unconscious that participles partly made nouns can produce false syntax. To the foregoing instructions, he subjoins the following comment, as a marginal note: "The participle used as a noun, still retains its verbal properties, and may govern the objective case, or be modified by an adverb or adjunct, like the verb from which it is derived."--Ibid. When one part of speech is said to be used as an other, the learner may be greatly puzzled to understand to which class the given word belongs. If "the participle used as a noun, still retains its verbal properties," it is, manifestly, not a noun, but a participle still; not a participial noun, but a nounal participle, whether the thing be allowable or not. Hence the teachings just cited are inconsistent. Wells says, "Participles are often used in the sense of nouns; as, 'There was again the smacking of whips, the clattering of hoofs, and the glittering of harness.'--IRVING."--School Gram., p. 154. This is not well stated; because these are participial nouns, and not "participles." What Wells calls "participial nouns," differ from these, and are all spurious, all mongrels, all participles rather than nouns. In regard to possessives before participles, no instructions appear to be more defective than those of this gentleman. His sole rule supposes the pupil always to know when and why the possessive is proper, and only instructs him not to form it without the sign! It is this: "When a noun or a pronoun, preceding a participle used as a noun, is properly in the possessive case, the sign of possession should not be omitted."--School Gram., p. 121. All the examples put under this rule, are inappropriate: each will mislead the learner. Those which are called "Correct," are, I think erroneous; and those which are called "False Syntax," the adding of the possessive sign will not amend.
 It is remarkable, that Lindley Murray, with all his care in revising his work, did not see the inconsistency of his instructions in relation to phrases of this kind. First he copies Lowth's doctrine, literally and anonymously, from the Doctor's 17th page, thus: "When the thing to which another is said to belong, is expressed by a circumlocution, or by many terms, the sign of the possessive case is commonly added to the last term: as, 'The king of Great Britain's dominions.'"--Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 45. Afterwards he condemns this: "The word in the genitive case is frequently PLACED IMPROPERLY: as, 'This fact appears from Dr. Pearson of Birmingham's experiments.' It should be, 'from the experiments of Dr. Pearson of Birmingham.' "--Ib., p. 175. And again he makes it necessary: "A phrase in which the words are so connected and dependent, as to admit of no pause before the conclusion, necessarily requires the genitive sign at or near the end of the phrase: as, 'Whose prerogative is it? It is the king of Great Britain's;' 'That is the duke of Bridgewater's canal;' " &c.--Ib., p. 276. Is there not contradiction in these instructions?
 A late grammarian tells us: "In nouns ending in es and ss, the other s is not added; as, Charles hat, Goodness sake."--Wilcox's Gram., p. 11. He should rather have said, "To nouns ending in es or ss, the other s is not added." But his doctrine is worse than his syntax; and, what is remarkable, he himself forgets it in the course of a few minutes, thus: "Decline Charles. Nom. Charles, Poss. Charles's, Obj. Charles."--Ib., p. 12. See the like doctrine in Mulligan's recent work on the "Structure of Language," p. 182.
 VAUGELAS was a noted French critic, who died in 1650. In Murray's Grammar, the name is more than once mistaken. On page 359th, of the edition above cited, it is printed "Vangelas"--G. BROWN.
 Nixon parses boy, as being "in the possessive case, governed by distress understood;" and girl's, as being "coupled by nor to boy," according to the Rule, "Conjunctions connect the same cases." Thus one word is written wrong; the other, parsed wrong: and so of all his examples above.--G. BROWN.
 Wells, whose Grammar, in its first edition, divides verbs into "transitive, intransitive, and passive;" but whose late edition absurdly make all passives transitive; says, in his third edition, "A transitive verb is a verb that has some noun or pronoun for its object;" (p. 78;) adopts, in his syntax, the old dogma, "Transitive verbs govern the objective case;" (3d Ed., p. 154;) and to this rule subjoins a series of remarks, so singularly fit to puzzle or mislead the learner, and withal so successful in winning the approbation of committees and teachers, that it may be worth while to notice most of them here.
"REM. 1.--A sentence or phrase often supplies the place of a noun or pronoun in the objective case; as, 'You see how few of these men have returned.'"--Wells' s School Gram., "Third Thousand," p. 154; late Ed. §215. According to this, must we not suppose verbs to be often transitive, when not made so by the author's definition? And if "see" is here transitive, would not other forms, such as are told, have been told, or are aware, be just as much so, if put in its place?
"REM. 2.--An intransitive verb may be used to govern an objective, when the verb and the noun depending upon it are of kindred signification; as, 'To live a blameless life;'--'To run a race.'"--Ib. Here verbs are absurdly called "intransitive," when, both in fact and by the foregoing definition, they are clearly transitive; or, at least, are, by many teachers, supposed to be so.
"REM. 3.--Idiomatic expressions sometimes occur in which intransitive verbs are followed by objectives depending upon them; as, 'To look the subject fully in the face.'--Channing. 'They laughed him to scorn.'--Matt. 9:24. 'And talked the night away.'--Goldsmith."-- Ib. Here again, verbs evidently made transitive by the construction, are, with strange inconsistency, called "intransitive." By these three remarks together, the distinction between transitives and intransitives must needs be extensively obscured in the mind of the learner.
"REM. 4.--Transitive verbs of asking, giving, teaching, and some others, are often employed to govern two objectives; as, Ask him his opinion;'--'This experience taught me a valuable lesson.'--Spare me yet this bitter cup.'--Hemans. 'I thrice presented him a kingly crown.'--Shakspeare."--Ib. This rule not only jumbles together several different constructions, such as would require different cases in Latin or Greek, but is evidently repugnant to the sense of many of the passages to which it is meant to be applied. Wells thinks, the practice of supplying a preposition, "is, in many cases, arbitrary, and does violence to an important and well established idiom of the language."--Ib. But how can any idiom be violated by a mode of parsing, which merely expounds its true meaning? If the dative case has the meaning of to, and the ablative has the meaning of from, how can they be expounded, in English, but by suggesting the particle, where it is omitted? For example: "Spare me yet [from] this bitter cup."--"Spare [to] me yet this joyous cup." This author says, "The rule for the government of two objectives by a verb, without the aid of a preposition, is adopted by Webster, Murray, Alexander, Frazee, Nutting, Perley, Goldsbury, J. M. Putnam, Hamlin, Flower, Crane, Brace, and many others."--Ib. Yet, if I mistake not, the weight of authority is vastly against it. Such a rule as this, is not extensively approved; and even some of the names here given, are improperly cited. Lindley Murray's remark, "Some of our verbs appear to govern two words in the objective case," is applied only to words in apposition, and wrong even there; Perley's rule is only of "Some verbs of asking and teaching;" and Nutting's note, "It sometimes happens that one transitive verb governs two objective cases," is so very loose, that one can neither deny it, nor tell how much it means.
"REM. 5.--Verbs of asking, giving, teaching, and some others, are often employed in the passive voice to govern a noun or pronoun; as, 'He was asked his opinion.'--Johnson. 'He had been refused shelter.'-- Irving."--Ib., p. 155, §215. Passive governing is not far from absurdity. Here, by way of illustration, we have examples of two sorts; the one elliptical, the other solecistical. The former text appears to mean, "He was asked for, his opinion;"--or, "He was asked to give his opinion: the latter should have been, "Shelter had been refused him;"--i.e., "to him." Of the seven instances cited by the author, five at least are of the latter kind, and therefore to be condemned; and it is to be observed, that when they are corrected, and the right word is made nominative, the passive government, by Wells's own showing, becomes nothing but the ellipsis of a preposition. Having just given a rule, by which all his various examples are assumed to be regular and right, he very inconsistently adds this not: "This form of expression is anomalous, and might, in many cases, be improved. Thus, instead of saying, 'He was offered a seat on the council,' it would be preferable to say 'A seat in the council was offered [to] him.'"--Ib., p. 155, Sec. 215. By admitting here the ellipsis of the preposition to, he evidently refutes the doctrine of his own text, so far as it relates to passive government, and, by implication, the doctrine of his fourth remark also. For the ellipsis of to, before "him," is just as evident in the active expression, "I thrice presented him a kingly crown," as in the passive, "A kingly crown was thrice presented him." It is absurd to deny it in either. Having offset himself, Wells as ingeniously balances his authorities, pro and con; but, the elliptical examples being allowable, he should not have said that I and others "condemn this usage altogether."
"REM. 6.--The passive voice of a verb is sometimes used in connection with a preposition, forming a compound passive verb; as 'He was listened to.'--'Nor is this to be scoffed at.'--'This is a tendency to be guarded against.'--'A bitter persecution was carried on.'--Hallam."-- Ib., p. 155, Sec. 215. The words here called "prepositions," are adverbs. Prepositions they cannot be; because they have no subsequent term. Nor is it either necessary or proper, to call them parts of the verb: "was carried on," is no more a "compound verb," than "was carried off," or "was carried forward," and the like.
"REM. 7.--Idiomatic expressions sometimes occur in which a noun in the objective is preceded by a passive verb, and followed by a preposition used adverbially. EXAMPLES: 'Vocal and instrumental music were made use of.'--Addison. 'The third, fourth, and fifth, were taken possession of at half past eight."--Southey. 'The Pinta was soon lost sight of in the darkness of the night.'--Irving."--Ib., p. 155, Sec. 215. As it is by the manner of their use, that we distinguish prepositions and adverbs, it seems no more proper to speak of "a preposition used adverbially," than of "an adverb used prepositionally." But even if the former phrase is right and the thing conceivable, here is no instance of it; for "of" here modifies no verb, adjective, or adverb. The construction is an unparsable synchysis, a vile snarl, which no grammarian should hesitate to condemn. These examples may each be corrected in several ways: 1. Say--"were used;"--"were taken into possession;"--"was soon lost from sight." 2. Say--"They made use of music, both vocal and instrumental."--"Of the third, the fourth, and the fifth, they took possession at half past eight."--"Of the Pinta they soon list sight," &c. 3. Say--"Use was also made of both vocal and instrumental music."--"Possession of the third, the fourth, and the fifth, was taken at half past eight."--"The Pinta soon disappeared in the darkness of the night." Here again, Wells puzzles his pupil, with a note which half justifies and half condemns the awkward usage in question. See School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 147; 3d Ed., 156; late Ed., Sec. 215.
"REM. 8.--There are some verbs which may be used either transitively or intransitively; as, 'He will return in a week,' 'He will return the book.'"--Ib., p. 147; 156; &c. According to Dr. Johnson, this is true of "most verbs," and Lindley Murray asserts it of "many." There are, I think, but few which may not, in some phraseology or other, be used both ways. Hence the rule, "Transitive verbs govern the objective case," or, as Wells now has it, "Transitive verbs, in the active voice, govern the objective case," (Sec. 215,) rests only upon a distinction which itself creates, between transitives and intransitives; and therefore it amounts to little.
 To these examples, Webster adds two others, of a different sort, with a comment, thus: "'Ask him his opinion?' 'You have asked me the news.' Will it be said that the latter phrases are elliptical, for 'ask of him his opinion?' I apprehend this to be a mistake. According to the true idea of the government of a transitive verb, him must be the object in the phrase under consideration, as much as in this, 'Ask him for a guinea;' or in this, 'ask him to go.'"--Ibid, ut supra; Frazee's Gram., p. 152; Fowler's, p. 480. If, for the reason here stated, it is a "mistake" to supply of in the foregoing instances, it does not follow that they are not elliptical. On the contrary, if they are analogous to, "Ask him for a guinea;" or, "Ask him to go;" it is manifest that the construction must be this: "Ask him [for] his opinion;" or, "Ask him [to tell] his opinion." So that the question resolves itself into this: What is the best way of supplying the ellipsis, when two objectives thus occur after ask?--G. BROWN.
 These examples Murray borrowed from Webster, who published them, with references, under his 34th Rule. With too little faith in the corrective power of grammar, the Doctor remarks upon the constructions as follows: "This idiom is outrageously anomalous, but perhaps incorrigible."-- Webster's Philos. Gram., p. 180; Imp. G., 128.
 This seems to be a reasonable principle of syntax, and yet I find it contradicted, or a principle opposite to it set up, by some modern teachers of note, who venture to justify all those abnormal phrases which I here condemn as errors. Thus Fowler: "Note 5. When a Verb with its Accusative case, is equivalent to a single verb, it may take this accusative after it in the passive voice; as, 'This has been put an end to.'"--Fowler's English Language, 8vo, §552. Now what is this, but an effort to teach bad English by rule?--and by such a rule, too, as is vastly more general than even the great class of terms which it was designed to include? And yet this rule, broad as it is, does not apply at all to the example given! For "put an end," without the important word "to," is not equivalent to stop or terminate. Nor is the example right. One ought rather to say, "This has been ended;" or, "This has been stopped." See the marginal Note to Obs. 5th, above.
 Some, however, have conceived the putting of the same case after the verb as before it, to be government; as, "Neuter verbs occasionally govern either the nominative or [the] objective case, after them."--Alexander's Gram., p. 54. "The verb to be, always governs a Nominative, unless it be of the Infinitive Mood."--Buchanan's Gram., p. 94. This latter assertion is, in fact, monstrously untrue, and also solecistical.
 Not unfrequently the conjunction as intervenes between these "same cases," as it may also between words in apposition; as, "He then is as the head, and we as the members; he the vine, and we the branches."--Barclay's Works, Vol. ii, p. 189.
 "'Whose house is that?' This sentence, before it is parsed, should be transposed; thus, 'Whose is that house?' The same observation applies to every sentence of a similar construction."--Chandler's old Gram., p. 93. This instruction is worse than nonsense; for it teaches the pupil to parse every word in the sentence wrong! The author proceeds to explain Whose, as "qualifying house, understood;" is, as agreeing "with its nominative, house;" that, as "qualifying house;" and house, as "nominative case to the verb, is." Nothing of this is true of the original question. For, in that, Whose is governed by house; house is nominative after is; is agrees with house understood; and that relates to house understood. The meaning is, "Whose house is that house?" or, in the order of a declarative sentence, "That house is whose house?"
 1: In Latin, the accusative case is used after such a verb, because an other word in the same case is understood before it; as, "Facere quæ libet, ID est [hominem] esse regem."--SALLUST. "To do what he pleases, THAT is [for a man] to be a king." If Professor Bullions had understood Latin, or Greek, or English, as well as his commenders imagine, he might have discovered what construction of cases we have in the following instances: "It is an honour [for a man] to be the author of such a work."--Bullions's Eng. Gram., p. 82. "To be surety for a stranger [,] is dangerous."--Ib. "Not to know what happened before you were born, is to be always a child."--Ib. "Nescire quid acciderit antequam natus es, est semper esse puerum."--Ib. "[Greek: Esti tion aischron ...topon, hon hæmen pote kurioi phainesthai proiemenous]." "It is a shame to be seen giving up countries of which we were once masters."--DEMOSTHENES: ib. What support these examples give to this grammarian's new notion of "the objective indefinite" or to his still later seizure of Greene's doctrine of "the predicate-nominative" the learned reader may judge. All the Latin and Greek grammarians suppose an ellipsis, in such instances; but some moderns are careless enough of that, and of the analogy of General Grammar in this case, to have seconded the Doctor in his absurdity. See Farnum's Practical Gram., p. 23; and S. W. Clark's, p. 149.
2. Professor Hart has an indecisive remark on this construction, as follows: "Sometimes a verb in the infinitive mood has a noun after it without any other noun before it; as, 'To be a good man, is not so easy a thing as many people imagine.' Here man may be parsed as used indefinitely after the verb to be. It is not easy to say in what case the noun is in such sentences. The analogy of the Latin would seem to indicate the objective.--Thus, 'Not to know what happened in past years, is to be always a child,' Latin, 'semper esse puerum.' In like manner, in English, we may say, 'Its being me, need make no change in your determination.'"--Hart's English Gram., p. 127.
3. These learned authors thus differ about what certainly admits of no other solution than that which is given in the Observation above. To parse the nouns in question, "as used indefinitely," without case, and to call them "objectives indefinite," without agreement or government, are two methods equally repugnant to reason. The last suggestion of Hart's is also a false argument for a true position. The phrases, "Its being me," and "To be a good man," are far from being constructed "in like manner." The former is manifestly bad English; because its and me are not in the same case. But S. S. Greene would say, "Its being I, is right." For in a similar instance, he has this conclusion: "Hence, in abridging the following proposition, 'I was not aware that it was he,' we should say of its being he,' not his nor him.'"--Greene's Analysis, 1st Ed., p. 171. When being becomes a noun, no case after it appears to be very proper; but this author, thus "abridging" four syllables into five, produces an anomalous construction which it would be much better to avoid.
 Parkhurst and Sanborn, by what they call "A NEW RULE," attempt to determine the doubtful or unknown case which this note censures, and to justify the construction as being well-authorized and hardly avoidable. Their rule is this: "A noun following a neuter or [a] passive participial noun, is in the nominative independent. A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, always precedes the participial noun, either expressed or understood, signifying the same thing as the noun does that follows it." To this new and exceptionable' dogma, Sanborn adds: "This form of expression is one of the most common idioms of the language, and in general composition cannot be well avoided. In confirmation of the statement made, various authorities are subjoined. Two grammarians only, to our knowledge, have remarked OH this phraseology: 'Participles are sometimes preceded by a possessive case and followed by a nominative; as, There is no doubt of his being a great statesman.' B. GREENLEAF. 'We sometimes find a participle that takes the same case after as before it, converted into a verbal noun, and the latter word retained unchanged in connexion with it; as, I have some recollection of his father's being a judge.' GOOLD BROWN."--Sanborn's Analytical Gram., p. 189. On what principle the words statesman and judge can be affirmed to be in the nominative case, I see not; and certainly they are not nominatives "independent" because the word being, after which they stand, is not itself independent. It is true, the phraseology is common enough to be good English: but I dislike it; and if this citation from me, was meant for a confirmation of the reasonless dogmatism preceding, it is not made with fairness, because my opinion of the construction is omitted by the quoter. See Institutes of English Gram., p. 162. In an other late grammar,--a shameful work, because it is in great measure a tissue of petty larcenies from my Institutes, with alterations for the worse,--I find the following absurd "Note," or Rule: "An infinitive or participle is often followed by a substantive explanatory of an indefinite person or thing. The substantive is then in the objective case, and may be called the objective after the infinitive, or participle; [as,] It is an honor to be the author of such a work. His being a great man, did not make him a happy man. By being an obedient child, you will secure the approbation of your parents."--Farnum's Practical Gram., 1st Ed., p. 25. The first of these examples is elliptical; (see Obs. 12th above, and the Marginal Note;) the second is bad English,--or, at' any rate, directly repugnant to the rule for same cases; and the third parsed wrong by the rule: "child" is in the nominative case. See Obs. 7th above.
 When the preceding case is not "the verb's nominative" this phrase must of course be omitted; and when the word which is to be corrected, does not literally follow the verb, it may be proper to say, "constructively follows," in lieu of the phrase, "comes after."
 The author of this example supposes friend to be in the nominative case, though John's is in the possessive, and both words denote the same person. But this is not only contrary to the general rule for the same cases, but contrary to his own application of one of his rules. Example: "Maria's duty, as a teacher, is, to instruct her pupils." Here, he says, "Teacher is in the possessive case, from its relation to the name Maria, denoting the same object."--Peirce's Gram., p. 211. This explanation, indeed, is scarcely intelligible, on account of its grammatical inaccuracy. He means, however, that, "Teacher is in the possessive case, from its relation to the name Maria's, the two words denoting the same object." No word can be possessive "from its relation to the name Maria," except by standing immediately before it, in the usual manner of possessives; as, "Sterne's Maria."
 Dr. Webster, who was ever ready to justify almost any usage for which he could find half a dozen respectable authorities, absurdly supposes, that who may sometimes be rightly preferred to whom, as the object of a preposition. His remark is this: "In the use of who as an interrogative, there is an apparent deviation from regular construction--it being used without distinction of case; as, Who do you speak to?' Who is she married to?' Who is this reserved for? Who was it made by? This idiom is not merely colloquial: it is found in the writings of our best authors."--Webster's Philosophical Gram., p. 194; his Improved Gram., p. 136. "In this phrase, Who do you speak to? there is a deviation from regular construction; but the practice of thus using who, in certain familiar phrases, seems to be established by the best authors."--Webster's Rudiments of E. Gram., p. 72. Almost any other solecism may be quite as well justified as this. The present work shows, in fact, a great mass of authorities for many of the incongruities which it ventures to rebuke.
 Grammarians differ much as to the proper mode of parsing such nouns. Wells says, "This is the case independent by ellipsis."--School Gram., p. 123. But the idea of such a case is a flat absurdity. Ellipsis occurs only where something, not uttered, is implied; and where a preposition is thus wanting, the noun is, of course, its object; and therefore not independent. Webster, with too much contempt for the opinion of "Lowth, followed by the whole tribe of writers on this subject," declares it "a palpable error," to suppose "prepositions to be understood before these expressions;" and, by two new rules, his 22d and 28th, teaches, that, "Names of measure or dimension, followed by an adjective," and "Names of certain portions of time and space, and especially words denoting continuance of time or progression, are used without a governing word."--Philos. Gram., pp. 165 and 172; Imp. Gram., 116 and 122; Rudiments, 65 and 67. But this is no account at all of the construction, or of the case of the noun. As the nominative, or the case which we may use independently, is never a subject of government, the phrase, "without a governing word," implies that the case is objective; and how can this case be known, except by the discovery of some "governing word," of which it is the object? We find, however, many such rules as the following: "Nouns of time, distance, and degree, are put in the objective case without a preposition."--Nutting's Gram., p. 100. "Nouns which denote time, quantity, measure, distance, value, or direction are often put in the objective case without a preposition."--Weld's Gram., p. 153; "Abridged Ed.," 118. "Numes signifying duration, extension, quantity, quality, and valuation, are in the objective case without a governing word."--Frazee's Gram., p. 154. Bullions, too, has a similar rule. To estimate these rules aright, one should observe how often the nouns in question are found with a governing word. Weld, of late, contradicts himself by admitting the ellipsis; and then, inconsistently with his admission, most absurdly denies the frequent use of the preposition with nouns of time, quantity, &c. "Before words of this description, the ellipsis of a preposition is obvious. But it is seldom proper to use the preposition before such words."--Weld's "Abridged Edition," p. 118.
 Professor Fowler absurdly says, "Nigh, near, next, like, when followed by the objective case, may be regarded either as Prepositions or as Adjectives, to being understood."--Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, §458, Note 7. Now, "to being understood," it is plain that no one of these words can be accounted a preposition, but by supposing the preposition to be complex, and to be partly suppressed. This can be nothing better than an idle whim; and, since the classification of words as parts of speech, is always positive and exclusive, to refer any particular word indecisively to "either" of two classes, is certainly no better teaching, than to say, "I do not know of which sort it is; call it what you please!" With decision prompt enough, but with too little regard to analogy or consistency, Latham and Child say, "The adjective like governs a case, and it is the only adjective that does so."--Elementary Gram., p. 155. In teaching thus, they seem to ignore these facts: that near, nigh, or opposite, might just as well be said to be an adjective governing a case; and that the use of to or unto after like has been common enough to prove the ellipsis. The Bible has many examples; as, "Who is like to thee in Israel?"--1 Samuel, xxvi, 15. "Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first."--Exodus, xxxiv, 1; and Deut., x, 1. But their great inconsistency here is, that they call the case after like "a dative"--a case unknown to their etymology! See Gram. of E. Gram., p. 259. In grammar, a solitary exception or instance can scarcely be a true one.
 The following examples may illustrate these points: "These verbs, and all others like to them, were like TIMAO."--Dr. Murray's Hist. of Europ. Lang., Vol. ii, p. 128. "The old German, and even the modern German, are much liker to the Visigothic than they are to the dialect of the Edda."--Ib., i, 330. "Proximus finem, nighest the end."--Ib., ii, 150. "Let us now come nearer to our own language."--Dr. Blair's Rhet., p. 85. "This looks very like a paradox."--BEATTIE: Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 113. "He was near [to] falling."--Ib., p. 116. Murray, who puts near into his list of prepositions, gives this example to show how "prepositions become adverbs!" "There was none ever before like unto it."--Stone, on Masonry, p. 5.
"And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice."--Beauties of Shakspeare, p. 45.
 Wright's notion of this construction is positively absurd and self-contradictory. In the sentence, "My cane is worth a shilling," he takes the word worth to be a noun "in apposition to the word shilling." And to prove it so, he puts the sentence successively into these four forms: "My cane is worth or value for a shilling;"--"The worth or value of my cane is a shilling;"--"My cane is a shilling's worth;"--"My cane is the worth of a shilling."--Philosophical Gram., p. 150. In all these transmutations, worth is unquestionably a noun; but, in none of them, is it in apposition with the word shilling; and he is quite mistaken in supposing that they "indispensably prove the word in question to be a noun." There are other authors, who, with equal confidence, and equal absurdity, call worth a verb. For example: "A noun, which signifies the price, is put in the objective case, without a preposition; as, 'my book is worth twenty shillings.' Is worth is a neuter verb, and answers to the latin [sic--KTH] verb valet."--Barrett's Gram., p. 138. I do not deny that the phrase "is worth" is a just version of the verb valet; but this equivalence in import, is no proof at all that worth is a verb. Prodest is a Latin verb, which signifies "is profitable to;" but who will thence infer, that profitable to is a verb?
 In J. R. Chandler's English Grammar, as published in 1821, the word worth appears in the list of prepositions: but the revised list, in his edition of 1847, does not contain it. In both books, however, it is expressly parsed as a preposition; and, in expounding the sentence, "The book is worth a dollar," the author makes this remark: "Worth has been called an adjective by some, and a noun by others: worth, however, in this sentence expresses a relation by value, and is so far a preposition; and no ellipsis, which may be formed, would change the nature of the word, without giving the sentence a different meaning."--Chandler's Gram., Old Ed., p. 155; New Ed., p. 181.
 Cowper here purposely makes Mrs. Gilpin use bad English; but this is no reason why a school-boy may not be taught to correct it. Dr. Priestley supposed that the word we, in the example, "To poor we, thine enmity," &c., was also used by Shakespeare, "in a droll humorous way."--Gram., p. 103. He surely did not know the connexion of the text. It is in "Volumnia's pathetic speech" to her victorious son. See Coriolanus, Act V, Sc. 3.
 Dr. Enfield misunderstood this passage; and, in copying it into his Speaker, (a very popular school-book,) he has perverted the text, by changing we to us: as if the meaning were, "Making us fools of nature." But it is plain, that all "fool's of nature!" must be fools of nature's own making, and not persons temporarily frighted out of their wits by a ghost; nor does the meaning of the last two lines comport with any objective construction of this pronoun. See Enfield's Speaker, p. 864.
 In Clark's Practical Grammar, of 1848, is found this NOTE: "The Noun should correspond in number with the Adjectives. EXAMPLES--A two feet ruler. A ten feet pole."--P. 165. These examples are wrong: the doctrine is misapplied in both. With this author, a, as well as two or ten, is an adjective of number; and, since these differ in number, what sort of concord or construction do the four words in each of these phrases make? When a numeral and a noun are united to form a compound adjective, we commonly, if not always, use the latter in its primitive or singular form: as, "A twopenny toy,"--"a twofold error,"--"three-coat plastering," say, "a twofoot rule,"--"a tenfoot pole;" which phrases are right; while Clark's are not only unusual, but unanalogical, ungrammatical.
 Certain adjectives that differ in number, are sometimes connected disjunctively by or or than, while the noun literally agrees with that which immediately precedes it, and with the other merely by implication or supplement, under the figure which is called zeugma: as, "Two or more nouns joined together by one or more copulative conjunctions."-- Lowth's Gram., p. 75; L. Murray's, 2d Ed., p. 106. "He speaks not to one or a few judges, but to a large assembly."--Blair's Rhet., p. 280. "More than one object at a time."--Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 301. See Obs. 10th on Rule 17th.
 Double comparatives and double superlatives, such as, "The more serener spirit,"--"The most straitest sect,"--are noticed by Latham and Child, in their syntax, as expressions which "we occasionally find, even in good writers," and are truly stated to be "pleonastic;" but, forbearing to censure them as errors, these critics seem rather to justify them as pleonasms allowable. Their indecisive remarks are at fault, not only because they are indecisive, but because they are both liable and likely to mislead the learner.--See their Elementary Grammar, p. 155.
 The learned William B. Fowle strangely imagines all pronouns to be adjectives, belonging to nouns expressed or understood after them; as, "We kings require them (subjects) to obey us (kings)."--The True English Gram., p. 21. "They grammarians, [i. e.] those grammarians. They is an other spelling of the, and of course means this, that, these, those, as the case may be."--Ibid. According to him, then, "them grammarians," for "those grammarians," is perfectly good English; and so is "they grammarians," though the vulgar do not take care to vary this adjective, "as the case may be." His notion of subjoining a noun to every pronoun, is a fit counterpart to that of some other grammarians, who imagine an ellipsis of a pronoun after almost every noun. Thus: "The personal Relatives, for the most part, are suppressed when the Noun is expressed: as, Man (he) is the Lord of this lower world. Woman (she) is the fairest Part of the Creation. The Palace (it) stands on a Hill. Men and Women (they) are rational Creatures."--British Gram., p. 234; Buchanan's, 131. It would have been worth a great deal to some men, to have known what an Ellipsis is; and the man who shall yet make such knowledge common, ought to be forever honoured in the schools.
 "An illegitimate and ungrammatical use of these words, either and neither, has lately been creeping into the language, in the application of these terms to a plurality of objects: as, 'Twenty ruffians broke into the house, but neither of them could be recognized.' 'Here are fifty pens, you will find that either of them will do.'"--MATT. HARRISON, on the English Language, p. 199. "Either and neither, applied to any number more than one of two objects, is a mere solecism, and one of late introduction."--Ib., p. 200. Say, "Either OR neither," &c.--G. B.
 Dr. Priestley censures this construction, on the ground, that the word whole is an "attribute of unity," and therefore improperly added to a plural noun. But, in fact, this adjective is not necessarily singular, nor is all necessarily plural. Yet there is a difference between the words: whole is equivalent to all only when the noun is singular; for then only do entireness and totality coincide. A man may say, "the whole thing," when he means, "all the thing;" but he must not call all things, whole things. In the following example, all is put for whole, and taken substantively; but the expression is a quaint one, because the article and preposition seem needless: "Which doth encompass and embrace the all of things."--The Dial, Vol. i, p. 59.
 This is not a mere repetition of the last example cited under Note 14th above; but it is Murray's interpretation of the text there quoted. Both forms are faulty, but not in the same way.--G. BROWN.
 Some authors erroneously say, "A personal pronoun does not always agree in person with its antecedent; as, 'John said, I will do it.'"--Goodenow's Gram. "When I say, 'Go, and say to those children, you must come in,' you perceive that the noun children is of the third person, but the pronoun you is of the second; yet you stands for children,"--Ingersoll's Gram., p. 54. Here are different speakers, with separate speeches; and these critics are manifestly deceived by the circumstance. It is not to be supposed, that the nouns represented by one speaker's pronouns, are to be found or sought in what an other speaker utters. The pronoun I does not here stand for the noun John which is of the third person; it is John's own word, representing himself as the speaker. The meaning is, "I myself, John, of the first person, will do it." Nor does you stand for children as spoken of by Ingersoll; but for children of the second person, uttered or implied in the address of his messenger: as, "Children, you must come in."
 The propriety of this construction is questionable. See Obs. 2d on Rule 14th.
 Among the authors who have committed this great fault, are, Alden, W. Allen, D. C. Allen, C. Adams, the author of the British Grammar, Buchanan, Cooper, Cutler, Davis, Dilworth, Felton, Fisher, Fowler, Frazee, Goldsbury, Hallock, Hull, M'Culloch, Morley, Pinneo, J. Putnam, Russell, Sanborn, R. C. Smith, Spencer, Weld, Wells, Webster, and White. "You is plural, whether it refer to only one individual, or to more."--Dr. Crombie, on Etym. and Synt., p. 240. "The word you, even when applied to one person, is plural, and should never he connected with a singular verb."--Alexander's Gram., p. 53; Emmons's, 26. "You is of the Plural Number, even though used as the Name of a single Person."--W. Ward's Gram., p. 88. "Altho' the Second Person Singular in both Times be marked with thou, to distinguish it from the Plural, yet we, out of Complaisance, though we speak but to one particular Person, use the Plural you, and never thou, but when we address ourselves to Almighty God, or when we speak in an emphatical Manner, or make a distinct and particular Application to a Person."--British Gram., p. 126; Buchanan's, 37. "But you, tho' applied to a single Person, requires a Plural Verb, the same as ye; as, you love, not you lovest or loves; you were, not you was or wast."--Buchanan's Gram., p. 37.
 "Mr. Murray's 6th Rule is unnecessary."--Lennie's English Gram., p. 81; Bullions's, p. 90. The two rules of which I speak, constitute Murray's Rule VI; Alger's and Bacon's Rule VI; Merchant's Rule IX; Ingersoll's Rule XII; Kirkham's Rules XV and XVI; Jaudon's XXI and XXII; Crombie's X and XI; Nixon's Obs. 86th and 87th: and are found in Lowth's Gram., p. 100; Churchill's, 136; Adam's, 203; W. Allen's, 156; Blair's, 75; and many other books.
 This rule, in all its parts, is to be applied chiefly, if not solely, to such relative clauses as are taken in the restrictive sense; for, in the resumptive sense of the relative, who or which may be more proper than that: as, "Abraham solemnly adjures his most faithful servant, whom he despatches to Charran on this matrimonial mission for his son, to discharge his mission with all fidelity."--Milman's Jews, i, 21. See Etymology, Chap. 5th, Obs. 23d, 24th, &c., on the Classes of Pronouns.
 Murray imagined this sentence to be bad English. He very strangely mistook the pronoun he for the object of the preposition with; and accordingly condemned the text, under the rule, "Prepositions govern the objective case." So of the following: "It is not I he is engaged with."--Murray's Exercises, R. 17. Better: "It is not I that he is engaged with." Here is no violation of the foregoing rule, or of any other; and both sentences, with even Murray's form of the latter, are quite as good as his proposed substitutes: "It was not with him, that they were so angry."--Murray's Key, p. 51. "It is not with me he is engaged."--Ib. In these fancied corrections, the phrases with him and with me have a very awkward and questionable position: it seems doubtful, whether they depend on was and is, or on angry and engaged.
 In their speculations on the personal pronouns, grammarians sometimes contrive, by a sort of abstraction, to reduce all the persons to the third; that is, the author or speaker puts I, not for himself in particular, but for any one who utters the word, and thou, not for his particular hearer or reader, but for any one who is addressed; and, conceiving of these as persons merely spoken of by himself, he puts the verb in the third person, and not in the first or second: as, "I is the speaker, thou [is] the hearer, and he, she, or it, is the person or thing spoken of. All denote qualities of existence, but such qualities as make different impressions on the mind. I is the being of consciousness, thou [is the being] of perception, and he of memory."--Booth's Introd., p. 44. This is such syntax as I should not choose to imitate; nor is it very proper to say, that the three persons in grammar "denote qualities of existence." But, supposing the phraseology to be correct, it is no real exception to the foregoing rule of concord; for I and thou are here made to be pronouns of the third person. So in the following example, which I take to be bad English: "I, or the person who speaks, is the first person; you, is the second; he, she, or it, is the third person singular."--Bartlett's Manual, Part ii, p. 70. Again, in the following; which is perhaps a little better: "The person I is spoken of as acted upon."--Bullions, Prin. of E. Gram., 2d Edition, p. 29. But there is a manifest absurdity in saying, with this learned "Professor of Languages," that the pronouns of the different persons are those persons: as, "I is the first person, and denotes the speaker. Thou is the second, and denotes the person spoken to."--Ib., p. 22.
 (1.) Concerning the verb need, Dr. Webster has the following note: "In the use of this verb there is another irregularity, which is peculiar, the verb being without a nominative, expressed or implied. 'Whereof here needs no account.'--Milt., P. L., 4. 235. There is no evidence of the fact, and there needs none. This is an established use of need."--Philos. Gram., p. 178; Improved Gram., 127; Greenleaf's Gram. Simp., p. 38; Fowler's E. Gram., p. 537. "Established use?" To be sure, it is "an established use;" but the learned Doctor's comment is a most unconscionable blunder,--a pedantic violation of a sure principle of Universal Grammar,--a perversion worthy only of the veriest ignoramus. Yet Greenleaf profitably publishes it, with other plagiarisms, for "Grammar Simplified!" Now the verb "needs," like the Latin eget, signifying is necessary, is here not active, but neuter; and has the nominative set after it, as any verb must, when the adverb there or here is before it. The verbs lack and want may have the same construction, and can have no other, when the word there, and not a nominative, precedes them; as, "Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous."--Gen., xviii, 28. There is therefore neither "irregularity," nor any thing "peculiar," in thus placing the verb and its nominative.
(2.) Yet have we other grammarians, who, with astonishing facility, have allowed themselves to be misled, and whose books are now misleading the schools, in regard to this very simple matter. Thus Wells: "The transitive verbs need and want, are sometimes employed in a general sense, without a nominative, expressed or implied. Examples:--'There needed a new dispensation.'--Caleb Cushing. 'There needs no better picture.'--Irving. 'There wanted not patrons to stand up.'--Sparks. 'Nor did there want Cornice, or frieze.'--Milton."--Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 141: 113th Ed., p. 154. In my edition of Milton, the text is, "Nor did they want Cornice or frieze."--P. L., B. i, l. 715, 716. This reading makes want a "transitive" verb, but the other makes it neuter, with the nominative following it. Again, thus Weld: "A verb in the imperative mode, and the transitive verbs need, want, and require, sometimes appear to be used indefinitely, without a nominative; as, let there be light; There required haste in the business; There needs no argument for proving, &c. There wanted not men who would, &c. The last expressions have an active form with a passive sense, and should perhaps rather be considered elliptical than wanting a nominative; as, haste is required, no argument is needed, &c."--Weld's English Grammar Illustrated, p. 143. Is there anywhere, in print, viler pedantry than this? The only elliptical example, "Let there be light,"--a kind of sentence from which the nominative is usually suppressed,--is here absurdly represented as being full, yet without a subject for its verb; while other examples, which are full, and in which the nominative must follow the verb, because the adverb "there" precedes, are first denied to have nominatives, and then most bunglingly tortured with false ellipses, to prove that they have them!
(3.) The idea of a command wherein no person or thing is commanded, seems to have originated with Webster, by whom it has been taught, since 1807, as follows: "In some cases, the imperative verb is used without a definite nominative."--Philos. Gram., p. 141; Imp. Gram., 86; Rudiments, 69. See the same words in Frazee's Gram., p. 133. Wells has something similar: "A verb in the imperative is sometimes used absolutely, having no direct reference to any particular subject expressed or implied; as, 'And God said, Let there be light.'"--School Gram., p. 141. But, when this command was uttered to the dark waves of primeval chaos, it must have meant, "Do ye let light be there." What else could it mean? There may frequently be difficulty in determining what or who is addressed by the imperative let, but there seems to be more in affirming that it has no subject. Nutting, puzzled with this word, makes the following dubious and unsatisfactory suggestion: "Perhaps it may be, in many cases, equivalent to may; or it may be termed itself an imperative mode impersonal; that is, containing a command or an entreaty addressed to no particular person."--Nutting's Practical Gram., p. 47.
(4.) These several errors, about the "Imperative used Absolutely," with "no subject addressed," as in "Let there be light," and the Indicative "verbs NEED and WANT, employed without a nominative, either expressed or implied," are again carefully reiterated by the learned Professor Fowler, in his great text-book of philology "in its Elements and Forms,"--called, rather extravagantly, an "English Grammar." See, in his edition of 1850, §597, Note 3 and Note 7; also §520, Note 2. Wells's authorities for "Imperatives Absolute," are, "Frazee, Allen and Cornwell, Nutting, Lynde, and Chapin;" and, with reference to "NEED and WANT," he says, "See Webster, Perley, and Ingersoll."--School Gram., 1850, §209.
(5.) But, in obvious absurdity most strangely overlooked by the writer, all these blunderers are outdone by a later one, who says: "Need and dare are sometimes used in a general sense without a nominative: as, 'There needed no prophet to tell us that;' 'There wanted no advocates to secure the voice of the people.' It is better, however, to supply it, as a nominative, than admit an anomala. Sometimes, when intransitive, they have the plural form with a singular noun: as, 'He need not fear;' 'He dare not hurt you.'"--Rev. H. W. Bailey's E. Gram., 1854, p. 128. The last example--"He dare"--is bad English: dare should be dares. "He need not fear," if admitted to be right, is of the potential mood; in which no verb is inflected in the third person. "He," too, is not a "noun;" nor can it ever rightly have a "plural" verb. "To supply it, as a nominative," where the verb is declared to be "without a nominative," and to make "wanted" an example of "dare" are blunders precisely worthy of an author who knows not how to spell anomaly!
 This interpretation, and others like it, are given not only by Murray, but by many other grammarians, one of whom at least was earlier than he. See Bicknell's Gram., Part i, p. 123; Ingersoll's, 153; Guy's, 91; Alger's, 73; Merchant's, 100; Picket's, 211; Fisk's, 146; D. Adams's, 81; R. C. Smith's, 182.
 The same may be said of Dr. Webster's "nominative sentences;" three fourths of which are nothing but phrases that include a nominative with which the following verb agrees. And who does not know, that to call the adjuncts of any thing "an essential part of it," is a flat absurdity? An adjunct is "something added to another, but not essentially a part of it."--Webster's Dict. But, says the Doctor, "Attributes and other words often make an essential part of the nominative; [as,] Our IDEAS of eternity CAN BE nothing but an infinite succession of moments of duration.'--LOCKE. 'A wise SON MAKETH a glad father; but a foolish SON IS the heaviness of his mother.' Abstract the name from its attribute, and the proposition cannot always be true. 'HE that gathereth in summer is a wise son.' Take away the description, 'that gathereth in summer,' and the affirmation ceases to be true, or becomes inapplicable. These sentences or clauses thus constituting the subject of an affirmation, may be termed nominative sentences."--Improved Gram., p. 95. This teaching reminds me of the Doctor's own exclamation: "What strange work has been made with Grammar!"--Ib., p. 94; Philos. Gram., 138. In Nesbit's English Parsing, a book designed mainly for "a Key to Murray's Exercises in Parsing," the following example is thus expounded: "The smooth stream, the serene atmosphere, [and] the mild zephyr, are the proper emblems of a gentle temper, and a peaceful life."--Murray's Exercises, p. 8. "The smooth stream, the serene atmosphere, the mild zephyr, is part of a sentence, which is the nominative case to the verb 'are.' Are is an irregular verb neuter, in the indicative mood, the present tense, the third person plural, and agrees with the aforementioned part of a sentence, as its nominative case."--Introduction to English Parsing, p. 137. On this principle of analysis, all the rules that speak of the nominatives or antecedents connected by conjunctions, may be dispensed with, as useless; and the doctrine, that a verb which has a phrase or sentence for its subject, must be singular, is palpably contradicted, and supposed erroneous!
 "No Relative can become a Nominative to a Verb."--Joseph W. Wright's Philosophical Grammar, p. 162. "A personal pronoun becomes a nominative, though a relative does not."--Ib., p. 152. This teacher is criticised by the other as follows: "Wright says that 'Personal pronouns may be in the nominative case,' and that 'relative pronouns can not be. Yet he declines his relatives thus: 'Nominative case, who; possessive, whose; objective, whom!"--Oliver B. Peirce's Grammar, p. 331. This latter author here sees the palpable inconsistency of the former, and accordingly treats who, which, what, whatever, &c., as relative pronouns of the nominative case--or, as he calls them, "connective substitutes in the subjective form;" but when what or whatever precedes its noun, or when as is preferred to who or which, he refers both verbs to the noun itself, and adopts the very principle by which Cobbet and Wright erroneously parse the verbs which belong to the relatives, who, which, and that: as, "Whatever man will adhere to strict principles of honesty, will find his reward in himself."--Peirce's Gram., p. 55. Here Peirce considers whatever to be a mere adjective, and man the subject of will adhere and will find. "Such persons as write grammar, should themselves be grammarians."--Ib., p. 330. Here he declares as to be no pronoun, but "a modifying connective," i.e., conjunction; and supposes persons to be the direct subject of write as well as of should be: as if a conjunction could connect a verb and its nominative!
 Dr. Latham, conceiving that, of words in apposition, the first must always be the leading one and control the verb, gives to his example an other form thus: "Your master, I, commands you (not command)."--Ib. But this I take to be bad English. It is the opinion of many grammarians, perhaps of most, that nouns, which are ordinarily of the third person, may be changed in person, by being set in apposition with a pronoun of the first or second. But even if terms so used do not assimilate in person, the first cannot be subjected to the third, as above. It must have the preference, and ought to have the first place. The following study-bred example of the Doctor's, is also awkward and ungrammatical: "I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am in a hurry."--Hand-Book, p. 334.
 Professor Fowler says, "One when contrasted with other, sometimes represents plural nouns; as, 'The reason why the one are ordinarily taken for real qualities, and the other for bare powers, seems to be.'--LOCKE.", Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, p. 242. This doctrine is, I think, erroneous; and the example, too, is defective. For, if one may be plural, we have no distinctive definition or notion of either number. "One" and "other" are not here to be regarded as the leading words in their clauses; they are mere adjectives, each referring to the collective noun class or species, understood, which should have been expressed after the former. See Etym., Obs. 19, p. 276.
 Dr. Priestley says, "It is a rule, I believe, in all grammars, that when a verb comes between two nouns, either of which may be understood as the subject of the affirmation, that it may agree with either of them; but some regard must be had to that which is more naturally the subject of it, as also to that which stands next to the verb; for if no regard be paid to these circumstances, the construction will be harsh: [as,] Minced pies was regarded as a profane and superstitious viand by the sectaries. Hume's Hist. A great cause of the low state of industry were the restraints put upon it. Ib. By this term was understood, such persons as invented, or drew up rules for themselves and the world."--English Gram. with Notes, p. 189. The Doctor evidently supposed all these examples to be bad English, or at least harsh in their construction. And the first two unquestionably are so; while the last, whether right or wrong, has nothing at all to do with his rule: it has but one nominative, and that appears to be part of a definition, and not the true subject of the verb. Nor, indeed, is the first any more relevant; because Hume's "viand" cannot possibly be taken "as the subject of the affirmation." Lindley Murray, who literally copies Priestley's note, (all but the first line and the last,) rejects these two examples, substituting for the former, "His meat was locusts and wild honey," and for the latter, "The wages of sin is death." He very evidently supposes all three of his examples to be good English. In this, according to Churchill, he is at fault in two instances out of the three; and still more so, in regard to the note, or rule, itself. In stead of being "a rule in all grammars," it is (so far as I know) found only in these authors, and such as have implicitly copied it from Murray. Among these last, are Alger, Ingersoll, R. C. Smith, Fisk, and Merchant. Churchill, who cites it only as Murray's, and yet expends two pages of criticism upon it, very justly says: "To make that the nominative case, [or subject of the affirmation,] which happens to stand nearest to the verb, appears to me to be on a par with the blunder pointed out in note 204th;" [that is, of making the verb agree with an objective case which happens to stand nearer to it, than its subject, or nominative.]-- Churchill's New Gram., p. 313.
 "If the excellence of Dryden's works was lessened by his indigence, their number was increased."--Dr. Johnson. This is an example of the proper and necessary use of the indicative mood after an if, the matter of the condition being regarded as a fact. But Dr. Webster, who prefers the indicative too often, has the following note upon it: "If Johnson had followed the common grammars, or even his own, which is prefixed to his Dictionary, he would have written were--'If the excellence of Dryden's works were lessened'--Fortunately this great man, led by usage rather than by books, wrote correct English, instead of grammar."-- Philosophical Gram., p. 238. Now this is as absurd, as it is characteristic of the grammar from which it is taken. Each form is right sometimes, and neither can be used for the other, without error.
 Taking this allegation in one sense, the reader may see that Kirkham was not altogether wrong here; and that, had he condemned the solecisms adopted by himself and others, about "unity of idea" and "plurality of idea," in stead of condemning the things intended to be spoken of, he might have made a discovery which would have set him wholly right. See a footnote on page 738, under the head of Absurdities.
 In his English Reader, (Part II, Chap. 5th, Sec. 7th,) Murray has this line in its proper form, as it here stands in the words of Thomson; but, in his Grammar, he corrupted it, first in his Exercises, and then still more in his Key. Among his examples of "False Syntax" it stands thus:
"What black despair, what horror, fills his mind!" --Exercises, Rule 2.
So the error is propagated in the name of Learning, and this verse goes from grammar to grammar, as one that must have a "plural" verb. See Ingersoll's Gram., p. 242; Smith's New Gram., p. 127; Fisk's Gram., p. 120; Weld's E. Gram., 2d Ed., p. 189; Imp. Ed., p. 196.
 S. W. Clark, by reckoning "as" a "preposition," perverts the construction of sentences like this, and inserts a wrong case after the conjunction. See Clark's Practical Grammar, pp. 92 and 178; also this Syntax, Obs. 6 and Obs. 18, on Conjunctions.
 Murray gives us the following text for false grammar, under the head of Strength: "And Elias with Moses appeared to them."--Exercises, 8vo, p. 135. This he corrects thus: "And there appeared to them Elias with Moses."--Key, 8vo, p. 266. He omits the comma after Elias, which some copies of the Bible contain, and others do not. Whether he supposed the verb appeared to be singular or plural, I cannot tell; and he did not extend his quotation to the pronoun they, which immediately follows, and in which alone the incongruity lies.
 This order of the persons, is not universally maintained in those languages. The words of Mary to her son, "Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing," seem very properly to give the precedence to her husband; and this is their arrangement in St. Luke's Greek, and in the Latin versions, as well as in others.
 The hackneyed example, "I and Cicero are well,"--"Ego et Cicero valemus"--which makes such a figure in the grammars, both Latin and English, and yet is ascribed to Cicero himself, deserves a word of explanation. Cicero the orator, having with him his young son Marcus Cicero at Athens, while his beloved daughter Tullia was with her mother in Italy, thus wrote to his wife, Terentia: "Si tu, et Tullia, lux nostra, valetix; ego, et suavissimus Cicero, valemus."--EPIST. AD FAM. Lib. xiv, Ep. v. That is, "If thou, and Tullia, our joy, are well; I, and the sweet lad Cicero, are likewise well." This literal translation is good English, and not to be amended by inversion; for a father is not expected to give precedence to his child. But, when I was a boy, the text and version of Dr. Adam puzzled me not a little; because I could not conceive how Cicero could ever have said, "I and Cicero are well." The garbled citation is now much oftener read than the original. See it in Crombie's Treatise, p. 243; McCulloch's Gram., p. 158; and others.
 Two singulars connected by and, when they form a part of such a disjunction, are still equivalent to a plural; and are to be treated as such, in the syntax of the verb. Hence the following construction appears to be inaccurate: "A single consonant or a mute and a liquid before an accented vowel, is joined to that vowel"--Dr. Bullions, Lat. Gram. p. xi.
 Murray the schoolmaster has it, "used to govern."--English Gram., p. 64. He puts the verb in a wrong tense. Dr. Bullions has it, "usually governs."--Lat. Gram., p. 202. This is right.--G. B.
 The two verbs to sit and to set are in general quite different in their meaning; but the passive verb to be set sometimes comes pretty near to the sense of the former, which is for the most part neuter. Hence, we not only find the Latin word sedeo, to sit, used in the sense of being set, as, "Ingens coena sedet," "A huge supper is set," Juv., 2, 119; but, in the seven texts above, our translators have used is set, was set, &c., with reference to the personal posture of sitting. This, in the opinion of Dr. Lowth and some others, is erroneous. "Set," says the Doctor, "can be no part of the verb to sit. If it belong to the verb to set, the translation in these passages is wrong. For to set, signifies to place, but without any designation of the posture of the person placed; which is a circumstance of importance, expressed by the original."--Lowth's Gram., p. 53; Churchill's, 265. These gentlemen cite three of these seven examples, and refer to the other four; but they do not tell us how they would amend any of them--except that they prefer sitten to sat, vainly endeavouring to restore an old participle which is certainly obsolete. If any critic dislike my version of the last two texts, because I use the present tense for what in the Greek is the first aorist; let him notice that this has been done in both by our translators, and in one by those of the Vulgate. In the preceding example, too, the same aorist is rendered, "am set," and by Beza, "sedeo;" though Montanus and the Vulgate render it literally by "sedi," as I do by sat. See Key to False Syntax, Rule XVII, Note xii.
 Nutting, I suppose, did not imagine the Greek article, [Greek: to], the, and the English or Saxon verb do, to be equivalent or kindred words. But there is no knowing what terms conjectural etymology may not contrive to identify, or at least to approximate and ally. The ingenious David Booth, if he does not actually identify do, with [Greek: to], the, has discovered synonymes [sic--KTH] and cognates that are altogether as unapparent to common observers: as, "It and the," says he, "when Gender is not attended to, are synonymous. Each is expressive of Being in general, and when used Verbally, signifies to bring forth, or to add to what we already see. The, it, and, add, at, to, and do, are kindred words. They mark that an addition is made to some collected mass of existence. To, which literally signifies add, (like at and the Latin ad,) is merely a different pronunciation of do. It expresses the junction of an other thing, or circumstance, as appears more evidently from its varied orthography of too."--Introd. to Analyt. Dict., p. 45. Horne Tooke, it seems, could not persuade this author into his notion of the derivation and meaning of the, it, to, or do. But Lindley Murray, and his followers, have been more tractable. They were ready to be led without looking. "To," say they, "comes from Saxon and Gothic words, which signify action, effect, termination, to act, &c."--Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 183; Fisk's, 92. What an admirable explanation is this! and how prettily the great Compiler says on the next leaf: "Etymology, when it is guided by judgment, and [when] proper limits are set to it, certainly merits great attention!"--Ib., p. 135. According to his own express rules for interpreting "a substantive without any article to limit it" and the "relative pronoun with a comma before it," he must have meant, that "to comes from Saxon and Gothic words" of every sort, and that the words of these two languages "signify action, effect, termination, to act, &c." The latter assertion is true enough: but, concerning the former, a man of sense may demur. Nor do I see how it is possible not to despise such etymology, be the interpretation of the words what it may. For, if to means action or to act, then our little infinitive phrase, to be, must mean, action be, or to act be; and what is this, but nonsense?
 So, from the following language of three modern authors, one cannot but infer, that they would parse the verb as governed by the preposition; but I do not perceive that they anywhere expressly say so:
(1.) "The Infinitive is the form of the supplemental verb that always has, or admits, the preposition TO before it; as, to move. Its general character is to represent the action in prospect, or to do; or in retrospect, as to have done. As a verb, it signifies to do the action; and as object of the preposition TO, it stands in the place of a noun for the doing of it. The infinitive verb and its prefix to are used much like a preposition and its noun object."--Felch's Comprehensive Gram., p. 62.
(2.) "The action or other signification of a verb may be expressed in its widest and most general sense, without any limitation by a person or agent, but merely as the end or purpose of some other action, state of being, quality, or thing; it is, from this want of limitation, said to be in the Infinitive mode; and is expressed by the verb with the preposition TO before it, to denote this relation of end or purpose; as, 'He came to see me;' 'The man is not fit die;' 'It was not right for him to do thus.'"--Dr. S. Webber's English Gram., p. 35.
(3.) "RULE 3. A verb in the Infinitive Mode, is the object of the preposition TO, expressed or understood."--S. W. Clark's Practical Gram., p. 127.
 Rufus Nutting, A. M., a grammarian of some skill, supposes that in all such sentences there was "anciently" an ellipsis, not of the phrase "in order to," but of the preposition for. He says, "Considering this mode as merely a verbal noun, it might be observed, that the infinitive, when it expresses the object, is governed by a transitive verb; and, when it expresses the final cause, is governed by an intransitive verb, OR ANCIENTLY, BY A PREPOSITION UNDERSTOOD. Of the former kind--'he learns to read.' Of the latter--'he reads to learn,' i. e. 'for to learn.'"--Practical Gram., p. 101. If for was anciently understood in examples of this sort, it is understood now, and to a still greater extent; because we do not now insert the word for, as our ancestors sometimes did; and an ellipsis can no otherwise grow obsolete, than by a continual use of what was once occasionally omitted.
 (1.) "La préposition, est un mot indéclinable, placé devant les noms, les pronoms, et les verbes, qu'elle régit."--"The preposition is an indeclinable word placed before the nouns, pronouns, and verbs which it governs."--Perrin's Grammar, p. 152.
(2.) "Every verb placed immediately after an other verb, or after a preposition, ought to be put in the infinitive; because it is then the regimen of the verb or preposition which precedes."--See La Grammaire des Grammaires, par Girault Du Vivier, p. 774.
(3.) The American translator of the Elements of General Grammar, by the Baron De Sacy, is naturally led, in giving a version of his author's method of analysis, to parse the English infinitive mood essentially as I do; calling the word to a preposition, and the exponent, or sign, of a relation between the verb which follows it, and some other word which is antecedent to it. Thus, in the phrase, "commanding them to use his power," he says, that "to [is the] Exponent of a relation whose Antecedent is 'commanding,' and [whose] Consequent [is] 'use.'"--Fosdick's De Sacy, p. 131. In short, he expounds the word to in this relation, just as he does when it stands before the objective case. For example, in the phrase, "belonging to him alone: 'to,' Exponent of a relation of which the Antecedent is 'belonging,' and the Consequent, 'him alone.'"--Ib., p. 126. My solution, in either case, differs from this in scarcely any thing else than the choice of words to express it.
(4.) It appears that, in sundry dialects of the north of Europe, the preposition at has been preferred for the governing of the infinitive: "The use of at for to, as the sign of the infinitive mode, is Norse, not Saxon. It is the regular prefix in Icelandic, Danish, Swedish, and Feroic. It is also found in the northern dialects of the Old English, and in the particular dialect of Westmoreland at the present day."--Fowler, on the English Language, 8vo, 1850, p. 46.
 Here is a literal version, in which two infinitives are governed by the preposition between; and though such a construction is uncommon, I know not why it should be thought less accurate in the one language than in the other. In some exceptive phrases, also, it seems not improper to put the infinitive after some other preposition than to; as, "What can she do besides sing?"--"What has she done, except rock herself?" But such expressions, if allowable, are too unfrequent to be noticed in any general Rule of syntax. In the following example, the word of pretty evidently governs the infinitive: "Intemperance characterizes our discussions, that is calculated to embitter in stead of conciliate."--CINCINNATI HERALD: Liberator, No. 986.
 This doctrine has been lately revived in English by William B. Fowle, who quotes Dr. Rees, Beauzée, Harris, Tracy, and Crombie, as his authorities for it. He is right in supposing the English infinitive to be generally governed by the preposition to, but wrong in calling it a noun, or "the name of the verb," except this phrase be used in the sense in which every verb may be the name of itself. It is an error too, to suppose with Beauzée, "that the infinitive never in any language refers to a subject or nominative;" or, as Harris has it, that infinitives "have no reference at all to persons or substances." See Fowle's True English Gram., Part ii, pp. 74 and 75. For though the infinitive verb never agrees with a subject or nominative, like a finite verb, it most commonly has a very obvious reference to something which is the subject of the being, action, or passion, which it expresses; and this reference is one of the chief points of difference between the infinitive and a noun. S. S. Greene, in a recent grammar, absurdly parses infinitives "as nouns," and by the common rules for nouns, though he begins with calling them verbs. Thus: "Our honor is to be maintained. To be maintained, is a regular passive VERB, infinitive mode, present tense, and is used as a NOUN in the relation of predicate; according to Rule II. A noun or pronoun used with the copula to form the predicate, must be in the nominative case."--Greene's Gram., 1848. p. 93. (See the Rule, ib. p. 29.) This author admits, "The to seems, like the preposition, to perform the office of a connective:" but then he ingeniously imagines, "The infinitive differs from the preposition and its object, in that the to is the only preposition used with the verb." And so he concludes, "The two [or more] parts of the infinitive are taken together, and, thus combined, may become a NOUN in any relation."--Ib., 1st Edition, p. 87. S. S. Greene will also have the infinitive to make the verb before it transitive; for he says, "The only form [of phrase] used as the direct object of a transitive verb is the infinitive; as, 'We intend (What?) to leave [town] to-day:' 'They tried (What?) to conceal their fears.'"--Ib., p. 99. One might as well find transitive verbs in these equivalents: "It is our purpose to leave town to-day."--"They endeavoured to conceal their fears." Or in this:--"They blustered to conceal their fears."
 It is remarkable that the ingenious J. E. Worcester could discern nothing of the import of this particle before a verb. He expounds it, with very little consistency, thus: "Tò, or To, ad. A particle employed as the usual sign or prefix of the infinitive mood of the verb; and it might, in such use, be deemed a syllable of the verb. It is used merely as a sign of the infinitive, without having any distinct or separate meaning: as, 'He loves to read.'"--Univ. and Crit. Dict. Now is it not plain, that the action expressed by "read" is "that towards which" the affection signified by "loves" is directed? It is only because we can use no other word in lieu of this to, that its meaning is not readily seen. For calling it "a syllable of the verb," there is, I think, no reason or analogy whatever. There is absurdity in calling it even "a part of the verb."
 As there is no point of grammar on which our philologists are more at variance, so there seems to be none on which they are more at fault, than in their treatment of the infinitive mood, with its usual sign, or governing particle, to. For the information of the reader, I would gladly cite every explanation not consonant with my own, and show wherein it is objectionable; but so numerous are the forms of error under this head, that such as cannot be classed together, or are not likely to be repeated, must in general be left to run their course, exempt from any criticism of mine. Of these various forms of error, however, I may here add an example or two.
(1.) "What is the meaning of the word to? Ans. To means act. NOTE.--As our verbs and nouns are spelled in the same manner, it was formerly thought best to prefix the word TO, to words when used as verbs. For there is no difference between the NOUN, love; and the VERB, to love; but what is shown by the prefix TO, which signifies act; i. e. to act love."--R. W. Greene's Inductive Exercises in English Grammar, N. Y., 1829, p. 52. Now all this, positive as the words are, is not only fanciful, but false, utterly false. To no more "means act," than from "means act." And if it did, it could not be a sign of the infinitive, or of a verb at all; for, "act love," is imperative, and makes the word "love" a noun; and so, "to act love," (where "love" is also a noun,) must mean "act act love," which is tautological nonsense. Our nouns and verbs are not, in general, spelled alike; nor are the latter, in general, preceded by to; nor could a particle which may govern either, have been specifically intended, at first, to mark their difference. By some, as we have seen, it is argued from the very sign, that the infinitive is always essentially a noun.
(2.) "The infinitive mode is the root or simple form of the verb, used to express an action or state indefinitely; as, to hear, to speak. It is generally distinguished by the sign to. When the particle to is employed in forming the infinitive, it is to be regarded as a part of the verb. In every other case it is a preposition."--Wells's School Grammar, 1st Ed., p. 80. "A Preposition is a word which is used to express the relation of a noun or pronoun depending upon it, to some other word in the sentence."--Ib., pp. 46 and 108. "The passive form of a verb is sometimes used in connection with a preposition, forming a compound passive verb. Examples:--'He was listened to without a murmur.'--A. H. EVERETT. 'Nor is this enterprise to be scoffed at.'--CHANNING."--Ib., p. 146. "A verb in the infinitive usually relates to some noun or pronoun. Thus, in the sentence, 'He desires to improve,' the verb to improve relates to the pronoun he while it is governed by desires."--Ib., p. 150. "'The agent to a verb in the infinitive mode must be in the objective case.'--NUTTING."--Ib., p. 148. These citations from Wells, the last of which he quotes approvingly, by way of authority, are in many respects self-contradictory, and in nearly all respects untrue. How can the infinitive be only "the root or simple form of the verb," and yet consist "generally" of two distinct words, and often of three, four, or five; as, "to hear,"--"to have heard,"--"to be listened to,"--"to have been listened to?" How can to be a "preposition" in the phrase, "He was listened to," and not so at all in "to be listened to?" How does the infinitive "express an action or state indefinitely," if it "usually relates to some noun or pronoun?" Why must its agent "be in the objective case," if "to improve relates to the pronoun he?" Is to "in every other case a preposition," and not such before a verb or a participle? Must every preposition govern some "noun or pronoun?" And yet are there some prepositions which govern nothing, precede nothing? "The door banged to behind him."--BLACKWELL: Prose Edda, §2. What is to here?
(3.) "The preposition TO before a verb is the sign of the Infinitive."--Weld's E. Gram., 2d Ed., p. 74. "The preposition is a part of speech used to connect words, and show their relation."--Ib., p. 42. "The perfect infinitive is formed of the perfect participle and the auxiliary HAVE preceded by the preposition TO."--Ib., p. 96. "The infinitive mode follows a verb, noun, or adjective."--Ib., pp. 75 and 166. "A verb in the Infinitive may follow: 1. Verbs or participles; 2. Nouns or pronouns; 3. Adjectives; 4. As or than; 5. Adverbs; 6. Prepositions; 7. The Infinitive is often used independently; 8. The Infinitive mode is often used in the office of a verbal noun, as the nominative case to the verb, and as the objective case after verbs and prepositions."--Ib., p. 167. These last two counts are absurdly included among what "the Infinitive may follow;" and is it not rather queer, that this mood should be found to "follow" every thing else, and not "the preposition TO," which comes "before" it, and by which it is "preceded?" This author adopts also the following absurd and needless rule: "The Infinitive mode has an objective case before it when [the word] THAT is omitted: as, I believe the sun to be the centre of the solar system; I know him to be a man of veracity."--Ib., p. 167; Abridged Ed., 124. (See Obs. 10th on Rule 2d, above.) "Sun" is here governed by "believe;" and "him," by "know;" and "be," in both instances, by "the preposition TO:" for this particle is not only "the sign of the Infinitive," but its governing word, answering well to the definition of a preposition above cited from Weld.
 "The infinitive is sometimes governed by a preposition; as, 'The shipmen were about to flee.'"--Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 149; 3d Ed., p. 158. Wells has altered this, and for "preposition" put "adverb."--Ed. of 1850, p. 163.
 Some grammatists, being predetermined that no preposition shall control the infinitive, avoid the conclusion by absurdly calling FOR, a conjunction; ABOUT, an adverb; and TO--no matter what--but generally, nothing. Thus: "The conjunction FOR, is inelegantly used before verbs in the infinitive mood; as, 'He came for to study Latin.'"--Greenleaf's Gram., p. 38. "The infinitive mood is sometimes governed by conjunctions or adverbs; as, 'An object so high as to be invisible;' 'The army is about to march.'"--Kirkham's Gram., p. 188. This is a note to that extra rule which Kirkham proposes for our use, "if we reject the idea of government, as applied to the verb in this mood!"--Ib.
 After the word "fare," Murray put a semicolon, which shows that he misunderstood the mood of the verb "hear." It is not always necessary to repeat the particle to, when two or more infinitives are connected; and this fact is an other good argument against calling the preposition to "a part of the verb." But in this example, and some others here exhibited, the repetition is requisite.--G. B.
 "The Infinitive Mood is not confined to a trunk or nominative, and is always preceded by to, expressed or implied."--S. Barrett's Gram., 1854, p. 43.
 Lindley Murray, and several of his pretended improvers, say, "The infinitive sometimes follows the word AS: thus, 'An object so high as to be invisible.' The infinitive occasionally follows THAN after a comparison; as, 'He desired nothing more than to know his own imperfections.'"--Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 184; Fisk's, 125; Alger's, 63; Merchant's, 92. See this second example in Weld's Gram., p. 167; Abridg., 124. Merchant, not relishing the latter example, changes it thus: "I wish nothing more, than to know his fate." He puts a comma after more, and probably means, "I wish nothing else than to know his fate." So does Fisk, in the other version: and probably means, "He desired nothing else than to know his own imperfections." But Murray, Alger, and Weld, accord in punctuation, and their meaning seems rather to be, "He desired nothing more heartily than [he desired] to know his own imperfections." And so is this or a similar text interpreted by both Ingersoll and Weld, who suppose this infinitive to be "governed by another verb, understood: as, 'He desired nothing more than to see his friends;' that is, 'than he desired to see,' &c."--Ingersoll's Gram., p. 244; Weld's Abridged, 124. But obvious as is the ambiguity of this fictitious example, in all its forms, not one of these five critics perceived the fault at all. Again, in their remark above cited, Ingersoll, Fisk, and Merchant, put a comma before the preposition "after," and thus make the phrase, "after a comparison," describe the place of the infinitive. But Murray and Alger probably meant that this phrase should denote the place of the conjunction "than." The great "Compiler" seems to me to have misused the phrase "a comparison," for, "an adjective or adverb of the comparative degree;" and the rest, I suppose, have blindly copied him, without thinking or knowing what he ought to have said, or meant to say. Either this, or a worse error, is here apparent. Five learned grammarians severally represent either "than" or "the infinitive," as being AFTER "a comparison;" of which one is the copula, and the other but the beginning of the latter term! Palpable as is the absurdity, no one of the five perceives it! And, besides, no one of them says any thing about the government of this infinitive, except Ingersoll, and he supplies a verb. "Than and as," says Greenleaf, "sometimes appear to govern the infinitive mood; as, 'Nothing makes a man suspect much more, than to know little;' 'An object so high as to be invisible."--Gram. Simp., p. 38. Here is an other fictitious and ambiguous example, in which the phrase, "to know little," is the subject of makes understood. Nixon supposes the infinitive phrase after as to be always the subject of a finite verb understood after it; as, "An object so high as to be invisible is or, implies." See English Parser, p. 100.
 Dr. Crombie, after copying the substance of Campbell's second Canon, that, "In doubtful cases analogy should be regarded," remarks: "For the same reason, it needs' and he dares,' are better than he need and he dare."--On Etym. and Synt., p. 326. Dr. Campbell's language is somewhat stronger: "In the verbs to dare and to need, many say, in the third person present singular, dare and need, as 'he need not go: he dare not do it.' Others say, dares and needs. As the first usage is exceedingly irregular, hardly any thing less than uniform practice could authorize it."--Philosophy of Rhet., p. 175. Dare for dares I suppose to be wrong; but if need is an auxiliary of the potential mood, to use it without inflection, is neither "irregular," nor at all inconsistent with the foregoing canon. But the former critic notices these verbs a second time, thus: "'He dare not,' 'he need not,' may be justly pronounced solecisms, for 'he dares,' 'he needs.'"--Crombie, on Etym. and Synt., p. 378. He also says, "The verbs bid, dare, need, make, see, hear, feel, let, are not followed by the sign of the infinitive."--Ib., p. 277. And yet he writes thus: "These are truths, of which, I am persuaded, the author, to whom I allude, needs not to be reminded."--Ib., p. 123. So Dr. Bullions declares against need in the singular, by putting down the following example as bad English: "He need not be in so much haste."--Bullions's E. Gram., p. 134. Yet he himself writes thus: "A name more appropriate than the term neuter, need not be desired."--Ib., p. 196. A school-boy may see the inconsistency of this.
 Some modern grammarians will have it, that a participle governed by a preposition is a "participial noun;" and yet, when they come to parse an adverb or an objective following, their "noun" becomes a "participle" again, and not a "noun." To allow words thus to dodge from one class to an other, is not only unphilosophical, but ridiculously absurd. Among those who thus treat this construction of the participle, the chief, I think, are Butler, Hurt, Weld, Wells, and S. S. Greene.
 Dr. Blair, to whom Murray ought to have acknowledged himself indebted for this sentence, introduced a noun, to which, in his work, this infinitive and these participles refer: thus, "It is disagreeable for the mind to be left pausing on a word which does not, by itself, produce any idea."--Blair's Rhetoric, p. 118. See Obs. 10th and 11th on Rule 14th.
 The perfect contrast between from and to, when the former governs the participle and the latter the infinitive, is an other proof that this to is the common preposition to. For example, "These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth."--Zech., vi, 5. Now if this were rendered "which go forth to stand," &c., it is plain that these prepositions would express quite opposite relations. Yet, probably from some obscurity in the original, the Greek version has been made to mean, "going forth to stand;" and the Latin, "which go forth, that they may stand;" while the French text conveys nearly the same sense as ours,--"which go forth from the place where they stood."
 Cannot, with a verb of avoiding, or with the negative but, is equivalent to must. Such examples may therefore be varied thus: "I cannot but mention:" i.e., "I must mention."--"I cannot help exhorting him to assume courage."--Knox. That is, "I cannot but exhort him."
 See the same thing in Kirkham's Gram. p. 189; in Ingersoll's, p. 200; in Smith's New Grammar, p. 162; and in other modifications and mutilations of Murray's work. Kirkham, in an other place, adopts the doctrine, that, "Participles frequently govern nouns and pronouns in the possessive case; as, 'In case of his majesty's dying without issue, &c.; Upon God's having ended all his works, &c.; I remember its being reckoned a great exploit; At my coming in he said, &c."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 181. None of these examples are written according to my notion of elegance, or of accuracy. Better: "In case his Majesty die without issue."--"God having ended all his works."--"I remember it was reckoned a great exploit."--"At my entrance, he said," &c.
 We have seen that Priestley's doctrine, as well as Lowth's, is, that when a participle is taken substantively, "it ought not to govern another word;" and, for the same reason, it ought not to have an adverb relating to it. But many of our modern grammarians disregard these principles, and do not restrict their "participial nouns" to the construction of nouns, in either of these respects. For example: Because one may say, "To read superficially, is useless," Barnard supposes it right to say, "Reading superficially is useless." "But the participle," says he, "will also take the adjective; as, Superficial reading is useless.'"--Analytic Gram., p. 212. In my opinion, this last construction ought to be preferred; and the second, which is both irregular and unnecessary, rejected. Again, this author says: "We have laid it down as a rule, that the possessive case belongs, like an adjective, to a noun. What shall be said of the following? 'Since the days of Samson, there has been no instance of a man's accomplishing a task so stupendous.' The entire clause following man's, is taken as a noun. 'Of a man's success in a task so stupendous.' would present no difficulty. A part of a sentence, or even a single participle, thus often stands for a noun. 'My going will depend on my father's giving his consent,' or 'on my father's consenting.' A participle thus used as a noun, may be called a PARTICIPIAL NOUN."--Ib., p. 131. I dislike this doctrine also. In the first example, man may well be made the leading word in sense; and, as such, it must be in the objective case; thus: "There has been no instance of a man accomplishing a task so stupendous." It is also proper to say. "My going will depend on my father's consenting," or, "on my father's consent." But an action possessed by the agent, ought not to be transitive. If, therefore, you make this the leading idea, insert of: thus, "There has been no instance of a man's accomplishing of a task so stupendous." "My going will depend on my father's giving of his consent."--"My brother's acquiring [of] the French language will be a useful preparation for his travels."--Barnard's Gram., p. 227. If participial nouns retain the power of participles, why is it wrong to say, "A superficial reading books is useless?" Again, Barnard approves of the question, "What do you think of my horse's running to-day?" and adds, "Between this form of expression and the following, 'What do you think of my horse running to-day?' it is sometimes said, that we should make a distinction; because the former implies that the horse had actually run, and the latter, that it is in contemplation to have him do so. The difference of meaning certainly exists; but it would seem more judicious to treat the latter as an improper mode of speaking. What can be more uncouth than to say, 'What do you think of me going to Niagara?' We should say my going, notwithstanding the ambiguity. We ought, therefore, to introduce something explanatory; as, 'What do you think of the propriety of my going to Niagara?"--Analytic Gram., p. 227. The propriety of a past action is as proper a subject of remark as that of a future one; the explanatory phrase here introduced has therefore nothing to do with Priestley's distinction, or with the alleged ambiguity. Nor does the uncouthness of an objective pronoun with the leading word in sense improperly taken as an adjunct, prove that a participle may properly take to itself a possessive adjunct, and still retain the active nature of a participle.
 The following is an example, but it is not very intelligible, nor would it be at all amended, if the pronoun were put in the possessive case: "I sympathize with my sable brethren, when I hear of them being spared even one lash of the cart-whip."--REV. DR. THOMPSON: Garrison, on Colonization, p. 80. And this is an other, in which the possessive pronoun would not be better: "But, if the slaves wish, to return to slavery, let them do so; not an abolitionist will turn out to stop them going back."--Antislavery Reporter, Vol. IV, p. 223. Yet it might be more accurate to say--"to stop them from going back." In the following example from the pen of Priestley, the objective is correctly used with as, where some would be apt to adopt the possessive: "It gives us an idea of him, as being the only person to whom it can be applied."--Priestley's Gram., p. 151. Is not this better English than to say, "of his being the only person?" The following is from the pen of a good scholar: "This made me remember the discourse we had together, at my house, about me drawing constitutions, not as proposals, but as if fixed to the hand."--WILLIAM PENN: Letter to Algernon Sidney, Oct. 13th, 1681. Here, if me is objectionable, my without of would be no less so. It might be better grammar to say, "about my drawing of constitutions."
 Sometimes the passive form is adopted, when there is no real need of it, and when perhaps the active would be better, because it is simpler; as, "Those portions of the grammar are worth the trouble of being committed to memory."--Dr. Barrow's Essays, p. 109. Better, perhaps:--"worth the trouble of committing to memory:" or,--"worth the trouble committing them to memory." Again: "What is worth being uttered at all, is worth being spoken in a proper manner."--Kirkham's Elocution, p. 68. Better, perhaps: "What is worth uttering at all, is worth uttering in a proper manner."--G. Brown.
 "RULE.--When the participle expresses something of which the noun following is the DOER, it should have the article and preposition; as, 'It was said in the hearing of the witness.' When it expresses something of which the noun following is not the doer, but the OBJECT, both should be omitted; as, 'The court spent some time in hearing the witness.'"--BULLIONS, Prin. of E. Gram., p. 108; Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 181.
 This doctrine is far from being true. See Obs. 12th, in this series, above.--G. B.
 "Dr. Webster considers the use of then and above as ADNOUNS, [i. e., adjectives,] to be 'well authorized and very convenient;' as, the then ministry; the above remarks."--Felch's Comp. Gram., p. 108. Dr. Webster's remark is in the following words: "Then and above are often used as ATTRIBUTES: [i. e., adjectives; as,] the then ministry; the above remarks; nor would I prescribe this use. It is well authorized and very convenient."--Philos. Gram., p. 245; Improved Gram., p. 176. Of this use of then, Dr. Crombie has expressed a very different opinion: "Here then," says he, "the adverb equivalent to at that time, is solecistically employed as an adjective, agreeing with ministry. This error seems to gain ground; it should therefore be vigilantly opposed, and carefully avoided."--On Etym. and Synt., p. 405.
 W. Allen supposes, "An adverb sometimes qualifies a whole sentence: as, Unfortunately for the lovers of antiquity, no remains of Grecian paintings have been preserved."--Elements of Eng. Gram., p. 173. But this example may be resolved thus: "It happens unfortunately for the lovers of antiquity, that no remains of Grecian paintings have been preserved."
 This assertion of Churchill's is very far from the truth. I am confident that the latter construction occurs, even among reputable authors, ten times as often as the former can be found in any English books.--G. BROWN.
 Should not the Doctor have said, "are there more," since "more than one" must needs be plural? See Obs. 10th on Rule 17th.
 This degree of truth is impossible, and therefore not justly supposable. We have also a late American grammarian who gives a similar interpretation: "'Though never so justly deserving of it.' Comber. Never is here an emphatic adverb; as if it were said, so justly as was never. Though well authorized, it is disapproved by most grammarians of the present day; and the word ever is used instead of never."--Felch's Comp. Gram., p. 107. The text here cited is not necessarily bad English as it stands; but, if the commenter has not mistaken its meaning, as well as its construction, it ought certainly to be, "Though everso justly deserving of it."--"So justly as was never," is a positive degree that is not imaginable; and what is this but an absurdity?
 Since this remark was written, I have read an other grammar, (that of the "Rev. Charles Adams,") in which the author sets down among "the more frequent improprieties committed, in conversation, Ary one for either, and nary one for neither."--Adams's System of Gram., p. 116. Eli Gilbert too betrays the same ignorance. Among his "Improper Pronunciations" he puts down "Nary" and "Ary" and for "Corrections" of them, gives "neither" and "either."--Gilbert's Catechetical Gram., p. 128. But these latter terms, either and neither, are applicable only to one of two things, and cannot be used where many are spoken of; as,
"Stealing her soul with many vows of faith, And ne'er a true one."--Shakspeare.
What sense would there be in expounding this to mean, "And neither a true one?" So some men both write and interpret their mother tongue erroneously through ignorance. But these authors condemn the errors which they here falsely suppose to be common. What is yet more strange, no less a critic than Prof. William C. Fowler, has lately exhibited, without disapprobation, one of these literary blunders, with sundry localisms, (often descending to slang,) which, he says, are mentioned by "Mr. Bartlett, in his valuable dictionary [Dictionary] of Americanisms." The brief example, which may doubtless be understood to speak for both phrases and both authors, is this: "ARY = either."--Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, N. Y., 1850, p. 92.
 The conjunction that, at the head of a sentence or clause, enables us to assume the whole preposition as one thing; as, "All arguments whatever are directed to prove one or other of these three things: that something is true; that it is morally right or fit; or that it is profitable and good."--Blair's Rhet., p. 318. Here each that may be parsed as connecting its own clause to the first clause in the sentence; or, to the word things with which the three clauses are in a sort of apposition. If we conceive it to have no such connecting power, we must make this too an exception.
 "Note. Then and than are distinct Particles, but use hath made the using of then for than after a Comparative Degree at least passable. See Butler's Eng. Gram. Index."--Walker's Eng. Particles, Tenth Ed., 1691, p. 333.
 "When the relative who follows the preposition than, it must be used as in the accusative case."--Bucke's Gram., p. 93. Dr. Priestley seems to have imagined the word than to be always a preposition; for he contends against the common doctrine and practice respecting the case after it: "It is, likewise, said, that the nominative case ought to follow the preposition than; because the verb to be is understood after it; As, You are taller than he, and not taller than him; because at full length, it would be, You are taller than he is; but since it is allowed, that the oblique case should follow prepositions; and since the comparative degree of an adjective, and the particle than have, certainly, between them, the force of a preposition, expressing the relation of one word to another, they ought to require the oblique case of the pronoun following."--Priestley's Gram., p. 105. If than were a preposition, this reasoning would certainly be right; but the Doctor begs the question, by assuming that it is a preposition. William Ward, an other noted grammarian of the same age, supposes that, "ME sapientior es, may be translated, Thou art wiser THAN ME." He also, in the same place, avers, that, "The best English Writers have considered than as a Sign of an oblique Case; as, 'She suffers more THAN ME.' Swift, i.e. more than I suffer.
'Thou art a Girl as much brighter THAN HER, As he was a Poet sublimer THAN ME.' Prior.
i.e. Thou art a Girl as much brighter than she was, as he was a Poet sublimer than I am."--Ward's Practical Gram., p. 112. These examples of the objective case after than, were justly regarded by Lowth as bad English. The construction, however, has a modern advocate in S. W. Clark, who will have the conjunctions as, but, save, saving, and than, as well as the adjectives like, unlike, near, next, nigh, and opposite, to be prepositions. "After a Comparative the Preposition than is commonly used. Example--Grammar is more interesting than all my other studies."--Clark's Practical Gram., p. 178. "As, like, than, &c., indicate a relation of comparison. Example 'Thou hast been wiser all the while than me.' Southey's Letters."--Ib., p. 96. Here correct usage undoubtedly requires I, and not me. Such at least is my opinion.
 In respect to the case, the phrase than who is similar to than he, than they, &c., as has been observed by many grammarians; but, since than is a conjunction, and who or whom is a relative, it is doubtful whether it can be strictly proper to set two such connectives together, be the case of the latter which it may. See Note 5th, in the present chapter, below.
 After else or other, the preposition besides is sometimes used; and, when it recalls an idea previously suggested, it appears to be as good as than, or better: as, "Other words, besides the preceding, may begin with capitals."--Murray's Gram., Vol. i. p. 285. Or perhaps this preposition may be proper, whenever else or other denotes what is additional to the object of contrast, and not exclusive of it; as, "When we speak of any other quantity besides bare numbers."--Tooke's Diversions, Vol. i, p. 215. "Because he had no other father besides God."--Milton, on Christianity, p. 109. Though we sometimes express an addition by more than, the following example appears to me to be bad English, and its interpretation still worse: "'The secret was communicated to more men than him.' That is, (when the ellipsis is duly supplied,) 'The secret was communicated to more persons than to him.'"--Murray's Key, 12mo, p. 61; his Octavo Gram., p. 215; Ingersoll's Gram., 252. Say rather,--"to other men besides him." Nor, again, does the following construction appear to be right: "Now shew me another Popish rhymester but he."--DENNIS: Notes to the Dunciad, B. ii, l. 268. Say rather, "Now show me an other popish rhymester besides him." Or thus: "Now show me any popish rhymester except him." This too is questionable: "Now pain must here be intended to signify something else besides warning."--Wayland's Moral Science, p. 121. If "warning" was here intended to be included with "something else," the expression is right; if not, besides should be than. Again: "There is seldom any other cardinal in Poland but him."--Life of Charles XII. Here "but him" should be either "besides him," or "than he;" for but never rightly governs the objective case, nor is it proper after other. "Many more examples, besides the foregoing, might have been adduced."--Nesbit's English Parsing, p. xv. Here, in fact, no comparison is expressed; and therefore it is questionable, whether the word "more" is allowably used. Like else and other, when construed with besides, it signifies additional; and, as this idea is implied in besides, any one of these adjectives going before is really pleonastic. In the sense above noticed, the word beside is sometimes written in stead of besides, though not very often; as, "There are other things which pass in the mind of man, beside ideas."--Sheridan's Elocution, p. 136.
 A few of the examples under this head might be corrected equally well by some preceding note of a more specific character; for a general note against the improper omission of prepositions, of course includes those principles of grammar by which any particular prepositions are to be inserted. So the examples of error which were given in the tenth chapter of Etymology, might nearly all of them have been placed under the first note in this tenth chapter of Syntax. But it was thought best to illustrate every part of this volume, by some examples of false grammar, out of the infinite number and variety with which our literature abounds.
 "The Rev. Joab Goldsmith Cooper, A. M.," was the author of two English grammars, as well as of what he called "A New and Improved Latin Grammar," with "An Edition of the Works of Virgil, &c.," all published in Philadelphia. His first grammar, dated 1828, is entitled, "An Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar, and Exercises." But it is no more an abridgement of Murray's work, than of mine; he having chosen to steal from the text of my Institutes, or supply matter of his own, about as often as to copy Murray. His second is the Latin Grammar. His third, which is entitled, "A Plain and Practical English Grammar," and dated 1831, is a book very different from the first, but equally inaccurate and worthless. In this book, the syntax of interjections stands thus: "RULE 21. The interjections O, oh and ah are followed by the objective case of a noun or pronoun, as: 'O me! ah me! oh me!' In the second person, they are a mark or sign of an address, made to a person or thing, as: O thou persecutor! Oh, ye hypocrites! O virtue, how amiable thou art!"--Page 157. The inaccuracy of all this can scarcely be exceeded.
 "Oh is used to express the emotion of pain, sorrow, or surprise. O is used to express wishing, exclamation, or a direct address to a person."--Lennie's Gram., 12th Ed., p. 110. Of this distinction our grammarians in general seem to have no conception; and, in fact, it is so often disregarded by other authors, that the propriety of it may be disputed. Since O and oh are pronounced alike, or very nearly so, if there is no difference in their application, they are only different modes of writing the same word, and one or the other of them is useless. If there is a real difference, as I suppose there is, it ought to be better observed; and O me! and oh ye! which I believe are found only in grammars, should be regarded as bad English. Both O and oh, as well as ah, were used in Latin by Terence, who was reckoned an elegant writer; and his manner of applying them favours this distinction: and so do our own dictionaries, though Johnson and Walker do not draw it clearly, for oh is as much an "exclamation" as O. In the works of Virgil, Ovid, and Horace, we find O or o used frequently, but nowhere oh. Yet this is no evidence of their sameness, or of the uselessness of the latter; but rather of their difference, and of the impropriety of confounding them. O, oh, ho, and ah, are French words as well as English. Boyer, in his Quarto Dictionary, confounds them all; translating "O!" only by "Oh!" "OH! ou HO!" by "Ho! Oh!" and "AH!" by "Oh! alas! well-a-day! ough! A! ah! hah! ho!" He would have done better to have made each one explain itself; and especially, not to have set down "ough!" and "A!" as English words which correspond to the French ah!
 This silence is sufficiently accounted for by Murray's; of whose work, most of the authors who have any such rule, are either piddling modifiers or servile copyists. And Murray's silence on these matters, is in part attributable to the fact, that when he wrote his remark, his system of grammar denied that nouns have any first person, or any objective case. Of course he supposed that all nouns that were uttered after interjections, whether they were of the second person or of the third, were in the nominative case; for he gave to nouns two cases only, the nominative and the possessive. And when he afterwards admitted the objective case of nouns, he did not alter his remark, but left all his pupils ignorant of the case of any noun that is used in exclamation or invocation. In his doctrine of two cases, he followed Dr. Ash: from whom also he copied the rule which I am criticising: "The Interjections, O, Oh, and Ah, require the accusative case of a pronoun in the first Person: as, O me, Oh me, Ah me: But the Nominative in the second: as, O thou, O ye."--Ash's Gram., p. 60. Or perhaps he had Bicknell's book, which was later: "The interjections O, oh, and ah, require the accusative case of a pronoun in the first person after them; as, O, me! Oh, me! Ah, me! But the nominative case in the second person; as, O, thou that rulest! O, ye rulers of this land!"--The Grammatical Wreath, Part I, p. 105.
 See 2 Sam., xix, 4; also xviii, 33. Peirce has many times misquoted this text, or some part of it; and, what is remarkable, he nowhere agrees either with himself or with the Bible! "O! Absalom! my son!"--Gram., p. 283. "O Absalom! my son, my son! would to God I had died for thee."--Ib., p. 304. Pinneo also misquotes and perverts a part of it, thus: "Oh, Absalom! my son"--Primary Gram., Revised Ed., p. 57.
 Of this example, Professor Bullions says, "This will be allowed to be a correct English sentence, complete in itself, and requiring nothing to be supplied. The phrase, 'being an expert dancer,' is the subject of the verb does entitle;' but the word dancer' in that phrase is neither the subject of any verb, nor is governed by any word in the sentence."--Eng. Gram., p. 52. It is because this word cannot have any regular construction after the participle when the possessive case precedes, that I deny his first proposition, and declare the sentence not "to be correct English." But the Professor at length reasons himself into the notion, that this indeterminate "predicate," as he erroneously calls it, "is properly in the objective case, and in parsing, may correctly be called the objective indefinite;" of which case, he says, "The following are also examples: 'He had the honour of being a director for life.' 'By being a diligent student, he soon acquired eminence in his profession.'"--Ib., p. 83. But "director" and "student" are here manifestly in the nominative case: each agreeing with the pronoun he, which denotes the same person. In the latter sentence, there is a very obvious transposition of the first five words.
 Faulty as this example is, Dr. Blair says of it: "Nothing can be more elegant, or more finely turned, than this sentence. It is neat, clear, and musical. We could hardly alter one word, or disarrange one member, without spoiling it. Few sentences are to be found, more finished, or more happy."--Lecture XX, p. 201. See the six corrections suggested in my Key, and judge whether or not they spoil the sentence.--G. B.
 This Note, as well as all the others, will by-and-by be amply illustrated by citations from authors of sufficient repute to give it some value as a grammatical principle: but one cannot hope such language as is, in reality, incorrigibly bad, will always appear so to the generality of readers. Tastes, habits, principles, judgements, differ; and, where confidence is gained, many utterances are well received, that are neither well considered nor well understood. When a professed critic utters what is incorrect beyond amendment, the fault is the more noteworthy, as his professions are louder, or his standing is more eminent. In a recent preface, deliberately composed for a very comprehensive work on "English Grammar," and designed to allure both young and old to "a thorough and extensive acquaintance with their mother tongue,"--in the studied preface of a learned writer, who has aimed "to furnish not only a text-book for the higher institutions, but also a reference-book for teachers, which may give breadth and exactness to their views,"--I find a paragraph of which the following is a part: "Unless men, at least occasionally, bestow their attention upon the science and the laws of the language, they are in some danger, amid the excitements of professional life, of losing the delicacy of their taste and giving sanction to vulgarisms, or to what is worse. On this point, listen to the recent declarations of two leading men in the Senate of the United States, both of whom understand the use of the English language in its power: 'In truth, I must say that, in my opinion, the vernacular tongue of the country has become greatly vitiated, depraved, and corrupted by the style of our Congressional debates.' And the other, in courteous response remarked, 'There is such a thing as an English and a parliamentary vocabulary, and I have never heard a worse, when circumstances called it out, on this side [of] Billingsgate!'"--Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo. 1850, Pref., p. iv.
Now of these "two leading men," the former was Daniel Webster, who, in a senatorial speech, in the spring of 1850, made such a remark concerning the style of oratory used in Congress. But who replied, or what idea the "courteous response," as here given, can be said to convey, I do not know. The language seems to me both unintelligible and solecistical; and, therefore, but a fair sample of the Incorrigible. Some intelligent persons, whom I have asked to interpret it, think, as Webster had accused our Congress of corrupting the English language, the respondent meant to accuse the British Parliament of doing the same thing in a greater degree,--of descending yet lower into the vileness of slang. But this is hardly a probable conjecture. Webster might be right in acknowledging a very depraving abuse of the tongue in the two Houses of Congress; but could it be "courteous," or proper, for the answerer to jump the Atlantic, and pounce upon the English Lords and Commons, as a set of worse corrupters?
The gentleman begins with saying, "There is such a thing"--as if he meant to describe some one thing; and proceeds with saying, "as an English and a parliamentary vocabulary," in which phrase, by repeating the article, he speaks of two "things"--two vocabularies; then goes on, "and I have never heard a worse!" A worse what? Does he mean "a worse vocabulary?" If so, what sense has "vocabulary?" And, again, "a worse" than what? Where and what is this "thing" which is so bad that the leading Senator has "never heard a worse?" Is it some "vocabulary" both "English and parliamentary?" If so, whose? If not, what else is it? Lest the wisdom of this oraculous "declaration" be lost to the public through the defects of its syntax,--and lest more than one rhetorical critic seem hereby "in some danger" of "giving sanction to" nonsense,--it may be well for Professor Fowler, in his next edition, to present some elucidation of this short but remarkable passage, which he values so highly!
An other example, in several respects still more remarkable,--a shorter one, into which an equally successful professor of grammar has condensed a much greater number and variety of faults,--is seen in the following citation: "The verb is so called, because it means word; and as there can be no sentence without it, it is called, emphatically, the word."--Pinneo's Analytical Gram., p. 14. This sentence, in which, perhaps, most readers will discover no error, has in fact faults of so many different kinds, that a critic must pause to determine under which of more than half a dozen different heads of false syntax it might most fitly be presented for correction or criticism. (1.) It might be set down under my Note 5th to Rule 10th; for, in one or two instances out of the three, if not in all, the pronoun "it" gives not the same idea as its antecedent. The faults coming under this head might be obviated by three changes, made thus: "The verb is so called, because verb means word; and, as there can be no sentence without a verb, this part of speech is called, emphatically, the word." Cobbett wisely says, "Never put an it upon paper without thinking well of what you are about."--E. Gram., ¶ 196. But (2.) the erroneous text, and this partial correction of it too, might be put under my Critical Note 5th, among Falsities; for, in either form, each member affirms what is manifestly untrue. The term "word" has many meanings; but no usage ever makes it, "emphatically" or otherwise, a name for one of the classes called "parts of speech;" nor is there nowadays any current usage in which "verb means word." (3.) This text might be put under Critical Note 6th, among Absurdities; for whoever will read it, as in fairness he should, taking the pronoun "it" in the exact sense of its antecedent "the verb," will see that the import of each part is absurd--the whole, a two-fold absurdity. (4.) It might be put under Critical Note 7th, among Self-Contradictions; for, to teach at once that "the verb is so called," and "is called, emphatically," otherwise,--namely, "the word,"--is, to contradict one's self. (5.) It might be set down under Critical Note 9th, among examples of Words Needless; for the author's question is, "Why is the verb so called?" and this may be much better answered in fewer words, thus: "THE VERB is so called, because in French it is called le verbe and in Latin, verbum, which means word." (6.) It might be put under Critical Note 10th, as an example of Improper Omissions; for it may be greatly bettered by the addition of some words, thus: "The verb is so called, because [in French] it [is called le verbe, and in Latin, verbum, which] means word: as there can be no sentence without a verb, this [most important part of speech] is called, emphatically, [the verb,--q.d.,] the word." (7.) It might be put under Critical Note 11th, among Literary Blunders; for there is at least one blunder in each of its members. (8.) It might be set down under Critical Note 13th, as an example of Awkwardness; for it is but clumsy work, to teach grammar after this sort. (9.) It might be given under Critical Note 16th, as a sample of the Incorrigible; for it is scarcely possible to eliminate all its defects and retain its essentials.
These instances may suffice to show, that even gross errors of grammar may lurk where they are least to be expected, in the didactic phraseology of professed masters of style or oratory, and may abound where common readers or the generality of hearers will discover nothing amiss.
 As a mere assertion, this example is here sufficiently corrected; but, as a definition, (for which the author probably intended it,) it is deficient; and consequently, in that sense, is still inaccurate. I would also observe that most of the subsequent examples under the present head, contain other errors than that for which they are here introduced; and, of some of them, the faults are, in my opinion, very many: for example, the several definitions of an adverb, cited below. Lindley Murray's definition of this part of speech is not inserted among these, because I had elsewhere criticised that. So too of his faulty definition of a conjunction. See the Introduction, Chap. X. paragraphs 26 and 28. See also Corrections in the Key, under Note 10th to Rule 1st.
 In his explanation of Ellipsis, Lindley Murray continually calls it "the ellipsis," and speaks of it as something that is "used,"--"made use of,"--"applied,"--"contained in" the examples; which expressions, referring, as they there do, to the mere absence of something, appear to me solecistical. The notion too, which this author and others have entertained of the figure itself, is in many respects erroneous; and nearly all their examples for its illustration are either questionable as to such an application, or obviously inappropriate. The absence of what is needless or unsuggested, is no ellipsis, though some grave men have not discerned this obvious fact. The nine solecisms here quoted concerning "the ellipsis," are all found in many other grammars. See Fisk's E. Gram., p. 144; Guy's, 91; Ingersoll's, 153; J. M. Putnam's, 137; R. C. Smith's, 180; Weld's, 190.
 Some of these examples do, in fact, contain more than two errors; for mistakes in punctuation, or in the use of capitals, are not here reckoned. This remark may also he applicable to some of the other lessons. The reader may likewise perceive, that where two, three, or more improprieties occur in one sentence, some one or more of them may happen to be such, as he can, if he choose, correct by some rule or note belonging to a previous chapter. Great labour has been bestowed on the selection and arrangement of these syntactical exercises; but to give to so great a variety of literary faults, a distribution perfectly distinct, and perfectly adapted to all the heads assumed in this digest, is a work not only of great labour, but of great difficulty. I have come as near to these two points of perfection in the arrangement, as I well could.--G. BROWN.
 In Murray's sixth chapter of Punctuation, from which this example, and eleven others that follow it, are taken, there is scarcely a single sentence that does not contain many errors; and yet the whole is literally copied in Ingersoll's Grammar, p. 293; in Fisk's, p. 159; in Abel Flint's, 116; and probably in some others. I have not always been careful to subjoin the great number of references which might be given for blunders selected from this hackneyed literature of the schools. For corrections, or improvements, see the Key.
 This example, or L. Murray's miserable modification of it, traced through the grammars of Alden, Alger, Bullions, Comly, Cooper, Flint, Hiley, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Merchant, Russell, Smith, and others, will be found to have a dozen different forms--all of them no less faulty than the original--all of them obscure, untrue, inconsistent, and almost incorrigible. It is plain, that "a comma," or one comma, cannot divide more than two "simple members;" and these, surely, cannot be connected by more than one relative, or by more than one "comparative;" if it be allowable to call than, as, or so, by this questionable name. Of the multitude of errors into which these pretended critics have so blindly fallen, I shall have space and time to point out only a very small part: this text, too justly, may be taken as a pretty fair sample of their scholarship!
 The "idea" which is here spoken of, Dr. Blair discovers in a passage of Addison's Spectator. It is, in fact, as here "brought out" by the critic, a bald and downright absurdity. Dr. Campbell has criticised, under the name of marvellous nonsense, a different display of the same "idea," cited from De Piles's Principles of Painting. The passage ends thus: "In this sense it may be asserted, that in Rubens' pieces, Art is above Nature, and Nature only a copy of that great master's works." Of this the critic says: "When the expression is stript of the absurd meaning, there remains nothing but balderdash."--Philosophy of Rhet., p, 278.
 All his rules for the comma, Fisk appears to have taken unjustly from Greenleaf. It is a double shame, for a grammarian to steal what is so badly written!--G. BROWN.
 Bad definitions may have other faults than to include or exclude what they should not, but this is their great and peculiar vice. For example: "Person is that property of nouns and pronouns which distinguishes the speaker, the person or thing addressed, and the person or thing spoken of."--Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 51; 113th Ed., p. 57. See nearly the same words, in Weld's English Gram., p. 67; and in his Abridgement, p. 49. The three persons of verbs are all improperly excluded from this definition; which absurdly takes "person" to be one property that has all the effect of all the persons; so that each person, in its turn, since each cannot have all this effect, is seen to be excluded also: that is, it is not such a property as is described! Again: "An intransitive verb is a verb which does not have a noun or pronoun for its object."--Wells, 1st Ed., p. 76. According to Dr. Johnson, "does not have," is not a scholarly phrase; but the adoption of a puerile expression is a trifling fault, compared with that of including here all passive verbs, and some transitives, which the author meant to exclude; to say nothing of the inconsistency of excluding here the two classes of verbs which he absurdly calls "intransitive," though he finds them "followed by objectives depending upon them!"--Id., p. 145. Weld imitates these errors too, on pp. 70 and 153.
 S. R. Hall thinks it necessary to recognize "four distinctions" of "the distinction occasioned by sex." In general, the other authors here quoted, suppose that we have only "three distinctions" of "the distinction of sex." And, as no philosopher has yet discovered more than two sexes, some have thence stoutly argued, that it is absurd to speak of more than two genders. Lily makes it out, that in Latin there are seven: yet, with no great consistency, he will have a gender to be a or the distinction of sex. "GENUS est sexus discretio. Et sunt genera numero septem."--Lilii Gram., p. 10. That is, "GENDER is the distinction of sex. And the genders are seven in number." Ruddiman says, "GENUS est, discrimen nominis secundum sexum, vel ejus in structurâ grammaticâ imitatio. Genera nominum sunt tria."--Ruddimanni Gram., p. 4. That is, "GENDER is the diversity of the noun according to sex, or [it is] the imitation of it in grammatical structure. The genders of nouns are three." These old definitions are no better than the newer ones cited above. All of them are miserable failures, full of faults and absurdities. Both the nature and the cause of their defects are in some degree explained near the close of the tenth chapter of my Introduction. Their most prominent errors are these: 1. They all assume, that gender, taken as one thing, is in fact two, three, or more, genders, 2. Nearly all of them seem to say or imply, that words differ from one an other in sex, like animals. 3. Many of them expressly confine gender, or the genders, to nouns only. 4. Many of them confessedly exclude the neuter gender, though their authors afterwards admit this gender. 5. That of Dr. Webster supposes, that words differing in gender never have the same "termination." The absurdity of this may be shown by a multitude of examples: as, man and woman, male and female, father and mother, brother and sister. This is better, but still not free from some other faults which I have mentioned. For the correction of all this great batch of errors, I shall simply substitute in the Key one short definition, which appears to me to be exempt from each of these inaccuracies.
 Walker states this differently, and even repeats his remark, thus: "But y preceded by a vowel is never changed: as coy, coyly, gay, gayly."--Walker's Rhyming Dict., p.x. "Y preceded by a vowel is never changed, as boy, boys, I cloy, he cloys, etc."--Ib., p viii. Walker's twelve "Orthographical Aphorisms," which Murray and others republish as their "Rules for Spelling," and which in stead of amending they merely corrupt, happened through some carelessness to contain two which should have been condensed into one. For "words ending with y preceded by a consonant," he has not only the absurd rule or assertion above recited, but an other which is better, with an exception or remark under each, respecting "y preceded by a vowel." The grammarians follow him in his errors, and add to their number: hence the repetition, or similarity, in the absurdities here quoted. By the term "verbal nouns," Walker meant nouns denoting agents, as carrier from carry; but Kirkham understood him to mean "participial nouns," as the carrying. Or rather, he so mistook "that able philologist" Murray; for he probably knew nothing of Walker in the matter; and accordingly changed the word "verbal" to "participial;" thus teaching, through all his hundred editions, except a few of the first, that participial nouns from verbs ending in y preceded by a consonant, are formed by merely "changing the y into i." But he seems to have known, that this is not the way to form the participle; though he did not know, that "coyless" is not a proper English word.
 The idea of plurality is not "plurality of idea," any more than the idea of wickedness, or the idea of absurdity, is absurdity or wickedness of idea; yet, behold, how our grammarians copy the blunder, which Lowth (perhaps) first fell into, of putting the one phrase for the other! Even Professor Fowler, (as well as Murray, Kirkham, and others,) talks of having regard "to unity or plurality of idea!"--Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo. 1850, §513,--G. BROWN.
 In the Doctor's "New Edition, Revised and Corrected," the text stands thus: "The Present participle of THE ACTIVE VOICE has an active signification; as, James is building the house. In many of these, however, it has," &c. Here the first sentence is but an idle truism; and the phrase, "In many of these," for lack of an antecedent to these, is utter nonsense. What is in "the active voice," ought of course to be active in "signification;" but, in this author's present scheme of the verb, we find "the active voice," in direct violation of his own definition of it, ascribed not only to verbs and participles either neuter or intransitive, but also, as it would seem by this passage, to "many" that are passive!--G. BROWN.
 One objection to these passage is, that they are examples of the very construction which they describe as a fault. The first and second sentences ought to have been separated only by a semicolon. This would have made them "members" of one and the same sentence. Can it be supported that one "thought" is sufficient for two periods, or for what one chooses to point as such, but not for two members of the same period?--G. BROWN.
Notes 459-515 moved to their proper pages.
 OBS.--Of this, and of every other example which requires no amendment, let the learner simply say, after reading the passage, "This sentence is correct as it stands."--G. BROWN.
 OBSERVATION.--In the Bible, the word LORD, whenever it stands for the Hebrew name JEHOVAH, not only commences with a full capital, but has small or half capitals for the other letters; and I have thought proper to print both words in that manner here. In correcting the last example, I follow Dr. Scott's Bible, except in the word "God," which he writes with a small g. Several other copies have "first" and "last" with small initials, which I think not so correct; and some distinguish the word "hosts" with a capital, which seems to be needless. The sentence here has eleven capitals: in the Latin Vulgate, it has but six, and one of them is for the last word, "Deus," God.--G. B.
 OBS.--This construction I dislike. Without hyphens, it is improper; and with them it is not to be commended. See Syntax, Obs 24th on Rule IV.--G. B.
 On the page here referred to, the author of the Gazetteer has written "Charles city," &c. Analogy requires that the words be compounded, because they constitute three names which are applied to counties, and not to cities.
 OBS.--The following words, as names of towns, come under Rule 6th, and are commonly found correctly compounded in the books of Scotch geography and statistics; "Strathaven, Stonehaven, Strathdon, Glenluce, Greenlaw, Coldstream, Lochwinnoch, Lochcarron, Loehmaber, Prestonpans, Prestonkirk, Peterhead, Queensferry, Newmills," and many more like them.
 Section OBS.--This name, in both the Vulgate and the Septuagint, is Pharao Nechao, with two capitals and no hyphen. Walker gives the two words separately in his Key, and spells the latter Necho, and not Nechoh. See the same orthography in Jer., xlvi, 2. In our common Bibles, many such names are needlessly, if not improperly, compounded; sometimes with one capital, and sometimes with two. The proper manner of writing Scripture names, is too little regarded even by good men and biblical critics.
 "[Marcus] Terentius Varro, vir Romanorum eruditissimus."--QUINTILIAN. Lib. x, Cap. 1, p. 577.
 NOTE.--By this amendment, we remove a multitude of errors, but the passage is still very faulty. What Murray here calls "phrases," are properly sentences; and, in his second clause, he deserts the terms of the first to bring in "my," "our," and also "&c.," which seem to be out of place there.--G. BROWN.
 An other is a phrase of two words, which ought to be written separately. The transferring of the n to the latter word, is a gross vulgarism. Separate the words, and it will be avoided.
 Mys-ter-y, according to Scott and Cobb; mys-te-ry, according to Walker and Worcester.
 Kirkham borrowed this doctrine of "Tonics, Subtonics, and Atonies," from Rush: and dressed it up in his own worse bombast. See Obs. 13 and 14, on the Powers of the Letters.--GB.
 There is, in most English dictionaries, a contracted form of this phrase, written prithee, or I prithee; but Dr. Johnson censures it as "a familiar corruption, which some writers have injudiciously used;" and, as the abbreviation amounted to nothing but the slurring of one vowel sound into an other, it has now, I think, very deservedly become obsolete.--G. BROWN.
 This is the doctrine of Murray, and his hundred copyists; but it is by no means generally true. It is true of adverbs, only when they are connected by conjunctions; and seldom applies to two words, unless the conjunction which may be said to connect them, be suppressed and understood.--G. BROWN.
 Example: "Imperfect articulation comes not so much from bad organs, as from the abuse of good ones."--Porter's Analysis. Here ones represents organs, and prevents unpleasant repetition.--G. BROWN.
 From the force of habit, or to prevent the possibility of a false pronunciation, these ocular contractions are still sometimes carefully made in printing poetry; but they are not very important, and some modern authors, or their printers, disregard them altogether. In correcting short poetical examples, I shall in general take no particular pains to distinguish them from prose. All needful contractions however will be preserved, and sometimes also a capital letter, to show where the author commenced a line.
 The word "imperfect" is not really necessary here; for the declaration is true of any phrase, as this name is commonly applied.--G. BROWN.
 A part of speech is a sort of words, and not one word only. We cannot say, that every pronoun, or every verb, is a part of speech, because the parts of speech are only ten. But every pronoun, verb, or other word, is a word; and, if we will refer to this genus, there is no difficulty in defining all the parts of speech in the singular, with an or a: as, "A pronoun is a word put for a noun." Murray and others say, "An Adverb is a part of speech," &c., "A Conjunction is a part of speech," &c., which is the same as to say, "One adverb is a sort of words," &c. This is a palpable absurdity.--G. BROWN.
 The propriety of this conjunction, "nor," is somewhat questionable: the reading in both the Vulgate and the Septuagint is--"they, and their wives, and their sons, and their daughters."
 All our lexicographers, and all accurate authors, spell this word with an o; but the gentleman who has furnished us with the last set of new terms for the science of grammar, writes it with an e, and applies it to the verb and the participle. With him, every verb or participle is an "asserter;" except when he forgets his creed, as he did in writing the preceding example about certain "verbs." As he changes the names of all the parts of speech, and denounces the entire technology of grammar, perhaps his innovation would have been sufficiently broad, had he for THE VERB, the most important class of all, adopted some name which he knew how to spell.--G. B.
 It would be better to omit the word "forth," or else to say--"whom I brought forth from the land of Egypt." The phrase, "forth out of," is neither a very common nor a very terse one.--G. BROWN.
 This doctrine, that participles divide and specify time, I have elsewhere shown to be erroneous.--G. BROWN.
 Perhaps it would be as well or better, in correcting these two examples, to say, "There are a generation." But the article a, as well as the literal form of the noun, is a sign of unity; and a complete uniformity of numbers is not here practicable.
 Though the pronoun thou is not much used in common discourse, it is as proper for the grammarian to consider and show, what form of the verb belongs to it when it is so used, as it is for him to determine what form is adapted to any other pronoun, when a difference of style affects the question.
 "Forgavest," as the reading is in our common Bible, appears to be wrong; because the relative that and its antecedent God are of the third person, and not of the second.
 All the corrections under this head are directly contrary to the teaching of William S. Cardell. Oliver B. Peirce, and perhaps some other such writers on grammar; and some of them are contrary also to Murray's late editions. But I am confident that these authors teach erroneously; that their use of indicative forms for mere suppositions that are contrary to the facts, is positively ungrammatical; and that the potential imperfect is less elegant, in such instances, than the simple subjunctive, which they reject or distort.
 This is what Smith must have meant by the inaccurate phrase, "those in the first." For his first example is, "He went to school;" which contains only the one pronoun "He."--See Smith's New Gram., p. 19.
 According to modern usage, has would here be better than is,--though is fallen is still allowable.--G. BROWN.
 From this opinion, I dissent. See Obs. 1st on the Degrees of Comparison, and Obs. 4th on Regular Comparison, in the Etymology of this work, at pp. 279 and 285.--G. BROWN.
 "The country looks beautiful;'" that is, appears beautiful--is beautiful. This is right, and therefore the use which Bucke makes of it, may be fairly reversed. But the example was ill chosen; and I incline to think, it may also be right to say, "The country looks beautifully;" for the quality expressed by beautiful, is nothing else than the manner in which the thing shows to the eye. See Obs. 11th on Rule 9th.--G. BROWN.
 Many examples and authorities may be cited in favour of these corrections; as, "He acted independently of foreign assistance."-- Murray's Key, Gram., Vol. ii, p. 222. "Independently of any necessary relation."--Murray's Gram., Vol. i. p. 275. "Independently of this peculiar mode of construction."--Blair's Rhet., p. 473. "Independent of the will of the people."--Webster's Essays, p. 13. "Independent one of an other."--Barclay's Works, i, 84. "The infinitive is often independent of the rest of the sentence."--Lennie's Gram., p. 85. "Some sentences are independent of each other."--Murray's Gram., i, 277. "As if it were independent of it"--Priestley's Gram., p. 186. "Independent of appearance and show."--Blair's Rhet., p. 13.
 The preposition of which Jefferson uses before about, appears to me to be useless. It does not govern the noun diameter, and is therefore no substitute for the in which I suppose to be wanting; and, as the preposition about seems to be sufficient between is and feet, I omit the of. So in other instances below.--G. BROWN.
 Murray, Jamieson, and others, have this definition with the article "a," and the comma, but without the hyphen: "APOSTROPHE is a turning off from the regular course," &c. See errors under Note 4th to Rule 20th.
 This sentence may be written correctly in a dozen different ways, with precisely the same meaning, and very nearly the same words. I have here made the noun gold the object of the verb took, which in the original appears to govern the noun treasure, or money, understood. The noun amount might as well be made its object, by a suppression of the preposition to. And again, for "pounds' weight," we may say, "pounds in weight." The words will also admit of many other positions.--G. BROWN.
 See a different reading of this example, cited as the first item of false syntax under Rule 16th above, and there corrected differently. The words "both of," which make the difference, were probably added by L. Murray in some of his revisals; and yet it does not appear that this popular critic ever got the sentence right.--G. BROWN.
 "If such maxims, and such practices prevail, what has become of national liberty?"--Hume's History. Vol. vi, p. 254; Priestley's Gram., p. 128.
 According to my notion, but is never a preposition; but there are some who think otherwise.--G. BROWN.
 "Cùm vestieris te coccino, cùm ornata fueris monili aureo, et pinxeris stibio oculos tuos, frustra componêris."--Vulgate. "[Greek: Eàn peribálæ[i] kókkinon, kaì kosm'æsæ[i] kósmw[i] chrys~w[i]¡ eàn egchrísæ[i] stíbi toùs ophthalmoús sou eìs mátaion wraïsmós sou.]"--Septuagint. "Quoique tu te revêtes de pourpre, que tu te pares d'ornemens d'or, et que tu te peignes les yeux avec du fard, tu t'embellis en vain."--French Bible.
 The word "any" is here omitted, not merely because it is unnecessary, but because "every any other piece,"--with which a score of our grammarians have pleased themselves,--is not good English. The impropriety might perhaps be avoided, though less elegantly, by repeating the preposition, and saying,--"or of any other piece of writing."--G. BROWN.
 This correction, as well as the others which relate to what Murray says of the several forms of ellipsis, doubtless conveys the sense which he intended to express; but, as an assertion, it is by no means true of all the examples which he subjoins, neither indeed are the rest. But that is a fault of his which I cannot correct.--G. BROWN.
 The article may be repeated in examples like these, without producing impropriety; but then it will alter the construction of the adjectives, and render the expression more formal and emphatic, by suggesting a repetition of the noun.--G. BROWN.
 "The whole number of verbs in the English language, regular and irregular, simple and compounded, taken together, is about 4300."--Lowth's Gram., p. 59; Murray's, 12mo, p. 98; 8vo, p. 109; et al.
 In Singer's Shakspeare, Vol. ii, p. 495, this sentence is expressed and pointed thus: "O, shame! where is thy blush?"--Hamlet, Act III, Sc. 4. This is as if the speaker meant, "O! it is a shame! where is thy blush?" Such is not the sense above; for there "Shame" is the person addressed.
 If, in each of these sentences, the colon were substituted for the latter semicolon, the curves might well be spared. Lowth has a similar passage, which (bating a needful variation of guillemets) he pointed thus: "as ----, as; expressing a comparison of equality; 'as white as snow:' as ----, so; expressing a comparison sometimes of equality; 'as the stars, so shall thy seed be;' that is, equal in number: but" &c.--Lowth's Gram., p. 109. Murray, who broke this passage into paragraphs, retained at first these semicolons, but afterwards changed them all to colons. Of later grammarians, some retain the former colon in each sentence; some, the latter; and some, neither. Hiley points thus: "As requires as, expressing equality; as, 'He is as good as she.'"--Hiley's E. Gram., p. 107.