feminine: as, “Ask _him_ that fleeth, and _her_ that escapeth, and say, What is done?”–_Jer._, xlviii, 19.
“O happy _peasant!_ Oh unhappy _bard!_ _His_ the mere tinsel, _hers_ the rich reward.”–_Cowper_.
OBS. 11.–For feminine nouns formed by inflection, the regular termination is _ess_; but the manner in which this ending is applied to the original or masculine noun, is not uniform:–
1. In some instances the syllable _ess_ is simply added: as, _accuser, accuseress; advocate, advocatess; archer, archeress; author, authoress; avenger, avengeress; barber, barberess; baron, baroness; canon, canoness; cit, cittess;[161] coheir, coheiress; count, countess; deacon, deaconess; demon, demoness; diviner, divineress; doctor, doctoress; giant, giantess; god, goddess; guardian, guardianess; Hebrew, Hebrewess; heir, heiress; herd, herdess; hermit, hermitess; host, hostess; Jesuit, Jesuitess; Jew, Jewess; mayor, mayoress; Moabite, Moabitess; monarch, monarchess; pape, papess_; or, _pope, popess; patron, patroness; peer, peeress; poet, poetess; priest, priestess; prior, prioress; prophet, prophetess; regent, regentess; saint, saintess; shepherd, shepherdess; soldier, soldieress; tailor, tailoress; viscount, viscountess; warrior, warrioress_.
2. In other instances, the termination is changed, and there is no increase of syllables: as, _abbot, abbess; actor, actress; adulator, adulatress; adulterer, adulteress; adventurer, adventuress; advoutrer, advoutress; ambassador, ambassadress; anchorite, anchoress_; or, _anachoret, anachoress; arbiter, arbitress; auditor, auditress; benefactor, benefactress; caterer, cateress; chanter, chantress; cloisterer, cloisteress; commander, commandress; conductor, conductress; creator, creatress; demander, demandress; detractor, detractress; eagle, eagless; editor, editress; elector, electress; emperor, emperess_, or _empress; emulator, emulatress; enchanter, enchantress; exactor, exactress; fautor, fautress; fornicator, fornicatress; fosterer, fosteress_, or _fostress; founder, foundress; governor, governess; huckster, huckstress_; or, _hucksterer, hucksteress; idolater, idolatress; inhabiter, inhabitress; instructor, instructress; inventor, inventress; launderer, launderess_, or _laundress; minister, ministress; monitor, monitress; murderer, murderess; negro, negress; offender, offendress; ogre, ogress; porter, portress; progenitor, progenitress; protector, protectress; proprietor, proprietress; pythonist, pythoness; seamster, seamstress; solicitor, solicitress; songster, songstress; sorcerer, sorceress; suitor, suitress; tiger, tigress; traitor, traitress; victor, victress; votary, votaress_.
3. In a few instances the feminine is formed as in Latin, by changing _or_ to _rix_; but some of these have also the regular form, which ought to be preferred: as, _adjutor, adjutrix; administrator, administratrix; arbitrator, arbitratrix; coadjutor, coadjutrix; competitor, competitress_, or _competitrix; creditor, creditrix; director, directress_, or _directrix; executor, executress_, or _executrix; inheritor, inheritress_, or _inheritrix; mediator, mediatress_, or _mediatrix; orator, oratress_, or _oratrix; rector, rectress_, or _rectrix; spectator, spectatress_, or _spectatrix; testator, testatrix; tutor, tutoress_, or _tutress_, or _tutrix; deserter, desertress_, or _desertrice_, or _desertrix_.
4. The following are irregular words, in which the distinction of sex is chiefly made by the termination: _amoroso, amorosa: archduke, archduchess; chamberlain, chambermaid; duke, duchess; gaffer, gammer; goodman, goody; hero, heroine; landgrave, landgravine; margrave, margravine; marquis, marchioness; palsgrave, palsgravine; sakeret, sakerhawk; sewer, sewster; sultan, sultana; tzar, tzarina; tyrant, tyranness; widower, widow_.
OBS. 12.–The proper names of persons almost always designate their sex; for it has been found convenient to make the names of women different from those of men. We have also some appellatives which correspond to each other, distinguishing the sexes by their distinct application to each: as, _bachelor, maid; beau, belle; boy, girl; bridegroom, bride; brother, sister; buck, doe; boar, sow; bull, cow; cock, hen; colt, filly; dog, bitch; drake, duck; earl, countess; father, mother; friar, nun; gander, goose; grandsire, grandam; hart, roe; horse, mare; husband, wife; king, queen; lad, lass; lord, lady; male, female; man, woman; master, mistress_; Mister, Missis; (Mr., Mrs.;) _milter, spawner; monk, nun; nephew, niece; papa, mamma; rake, jilt; ram, ewe; ruff, reeve; sire, dam; sir, madam; sloven, slut; son, daughter; stag, hind; steer, heifer; swain, nymph; uncle, aunt; wizard, witch; youth, damsel; young man, maiden_.
OBS. 13.–The people of a particular country are commonly distinguished by some name derived from that of their country; as, _Americans, Africans, Egyptians, Russians, Turks_. Such words are sometimes called _gentile names_. There are also adjectives, of the same origin, if not the same form, which correspond with them. “Gentile names are for the most part considered as masculine, and the feminine is denoted by the gentile adjective and the noun _woman_: as, a _Spaniard_, a _Spanish woman_; a _Pole_, or _Polander_, a _Polish woman_. But, in a few instances, we always use a compound of the adjective with _man_ or _woman_: as, an _Englishman_, an _Englishwoman_; a _Welshman_, a _Welshwoman_; an _Irishman_, an _Irishwoman_; a _Frenchman_, a _Frenchwoman_; a _Dutchman_, a _Dutchwoman_: and in these cases the adjective is employed as the collective noun; as, _the Dutch, the French_, &c. A _Scotchman_, and a _Scot_, are both in use; but the latter is not common in prose writers: though some employ it, and these generally adopt the plural, _Scots_, with the definite article, as the collective term.”–_Churchill’s New Gram._, p. 70.
OBS. 14.–The names of things without life, used literally, are always of the neuter gender: as, “When Cleopatra fled, Antony pursued her in a five-oared galley; and, coming along side of her _ship_, entered _it_ without being seen by her.”–_Goldsmith’s Rome_, p. 160. “The _sun_, high as _it_ is, has _its_ business assigned; and so have the stars.”–_Collier’s Antoninus_, p. 138. But inanimate objects are often represented figuratively as having sex. Things remarkable for power, greatness, or sublimity, are spoken of as masculine; as, the _sun, time, death, sleep, fear, anger, winter, war_. Things beautiful, amiable, or prolific, are spoken of as feminine; as, a _ship_, the _moon_, the _earth, nature, fortune, knowledge, hope, spring, peace_. Figurative gender is indicated only by the personal pronouns of the singular number: as, “When we say of the _sun, He_ is setting; or of a _ship, She_ sails well.”–_L. Murray_. For these two objects, the _sun_ and a _ship_, this phraseology is so common, that the literal construction quoted above is rarely met with.
OBS. 15.–When any inanimate object or abstract quality is distinctly personified, and presented to the imagination in the character of a living and intelligent being, there is necessarily a change of the gender of the word; for, whenever personality is thus ascribed to what is literally neuter, there must be an assumption of one or the other sex: as, “_The Genius of Liberty_ is awakened, and springs up; _she_ sheds her divine light and creative powers upon the two hemispheres. A great _nation_, astonished at seeing _herself_ free, stretches _her_ arms from one extremity of the earth to the other, and embraces the first nation that became so.”–_Abbe Fauchet_. But there is an inferior kind of personification, or of what is called such, in which, so far as appears, the gender remains neuter: as, “The following is an instance of personification and apostrophe united: ‘O _thou sword_ of the Lord! how long will it be ere _thou_ be quiet? put _thyself_ up into _thy_ scabbard, rest, and be still! How can _it_ be quiet, seeing the Lord hath given _it_ a charge against Askelon, and against the sea-shore? there hath he appointed _it_.'”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 348. See _Jer._, xlvii, 6.
OBS. 16.–If what is called personification, does not always imply a change of gender and an ascription of sex, neither does a mere ascription of sex to what is literally of no sex, necessarily imply a personification; for there may be sex without personality, as we see in brute animals. Hence the gender of a brute animal personified in a fable, may be taken literally as before; and the gender which is figuratively ascribed to the _sun_, the _moon_, or a _ship_, is merely metaphorical. In the following sentence, _nature_ is animated and made feminine by a metaphor, while a lifeless object bearing the name of _Venus_, is spoken of as neuter: “Like that conceit of old, which declared that the _Venus of Gnidos_ was not the work of Praxiteles, since _nature herself_ had concreted the boundary surface of _its_ beauty.”–_Rush, on the Voice_, p. xxv.
OBS. 17.–“In personifications regard must be had to propriety in determining the gender. Of most of the passions and moral qualities of man the ancients formed deities, as they did of various other things: and, when these are personified, they are usually made male or female, according as they were gods or goddesses in the pagan mythology. The same rule applies in other cases: and thus the planet Jupiter will be masculine; Venus, feminine: the ocean, _Oce=anus_, masculine: rivers, months, and winds, the same: the names of places, countries, and islands, feminine.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 71.
OBS. 18.–These suggestions are worthy of consideration, but, for the gender which ought to be adopted in personifications, there seems to be no absolute general rule, or none which English writers have observed with much uniformity. It is well, however, to consider what is most common in each particular case, and abide by it. In the following examples, the sex ascribed is not that under which these several objects are commonly figured; for which reason, the sentences are perhaps erroneous:–
“_Knowledge_ is proud that _he_ has learn’d so much; _Wisdom_ is humble that _he_ knows no more.”–_Cowper_.
“But hoary _Winter_, unadorned and bare, Dwells in the dire retreat, and freezes there; There _she_ assembles all her blackest storms, And the rude hail in rattling tempests forms.”–_Addison_.
“_Her_ pow’r extends o’er all things that have breath, A cruel tyrant, and _her_ name is _Death_.”–_Sheffield_.
CASES.
Cases, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish the relations of nouns or pronouns to other words.
There are three cases; the _nominative_, the _possessive_, and the _objective_.
The _nominative case_ is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb: as, The _boy_ runs; _I_ run.
The subject of a finite verb is that which answers to _who_ or _what_ before it; as, “The boy runs.”–_Who_ runs? “The _boy_.” Boy is therefore here in the _nominative_ case.
The _possessive case_ is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the relation of property: as, The _boy’s_ hat; _my_ hat.
The possessive case of nouns is formed, in the singular number, by adding to the nominative _s preceded by an apostrophe_; and, in the plural, when the nominative ends in _s_, by adding _an apostrophe only_: as, singular, _boy’s_; plural, _boys’_;–sounded alike, but written differently.
The _objective case_ is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition: as, I know the _boy_, having seen _him_ at _school_; and he knows _me_.
The object of a verb, participle, or preposition, is that which answers to _whom_ or _what_ after it; as, “I know the boy.”–I know _whom_? “The boy.” _Boy_ is therefore here in the _objective_ case.
The nominative and the objective of nouns, are always alike in form, being distinguishable from each other only by their place in a sentence, or by their simple dependence according to the sense.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–The cases, in grammar, are founded on the different relations under which things are represented in discourse; and from which the words acquire correspondent relations; or connexions and dependences according to the sense. In Latin, there are six cases; and in Greek, five. Consequently, the nouns and pronouns of those languages, and also their adjectives and participles, (which last are still farther inflected by the three genders,) are varied by many different terminations unknown to our tongue. In English, those modifications or relations which we call cases, belong only to nouns and pronouns; nor are there ever more than three. Pronouns are not necessarily like their antecedents in case.
OBS. 2.–Because the infinitive mood, a phrase, or a sentence, may in some instances be made the subject of a verb, so as to stand in that relation in which the nominative case is most commonly found; very many of our grammarians have deliberately represented all terms used in this manner, as being “_in the nominative case_:” as if, to sustain any one of the relations which are usually distinguished by a particular case, must necessarily constitute that modification itself. Many also will have participles, infinitives, phrases, and sentences, to be occasionally “_in the objective case_:” whereas it must be plain to every reader, that they are, all of them, _indeclinable_ terms; and that, if used in any relation common to nouns or pronouns, they assume that office, as participles, as infinitives, as phrases, or as sentences, and not as _cases_. They no more take the nature of cases, than they become nouns or pronouns. Yet Nixon, by assuming that _of_, with the word governed by it, constitutes a _possessive case_, contrives to give to participles, and even to the infinitive mood, _all three of the cases_. Of the infinitive, he says, “An examination of the first and second methods of parsing this mood, must naturally lead to the inference that _it is a substantive_; and that, if it has the nominative case, it must also have the possessive and objective cases of a substantive. The fourth method proves its [capacity of] being in the possessive case: thus, ‘A desire _to learn_;’ that is, ‘_of learning_.’ When it follows a participle, or a verb, as by the fifth or [the] seventh method, it is in the objective case. Method sixth is analogous to the Case Absolute of a substantive.”–_Nixon’s Parser_, p. 83. If the infinitive mood is really a _declinable substantive_, none of our grammarians have placed it in the right chapter; except that bold contemner of all grammatical and literary authority, Oliver B. Peirce. When will the cause of learning cease to have assailants and underminers among those who profess to serve it? Thus every new grammatist, has some grand absurdity or other, peculiar to himself; and what can be more gross, than to talk of English infinitives and participles as being in the _possessive case_?
OBS. 3.–It was long a subject of dispute among the grammarians, what number of cases an English noun should be supposed to have. Some, taking the Latin language for their model, and turning certain phrases into cases to fill up the deficits, were for having _six_ in each number; namely, the nominative, the genitive, the dative, the accusative, the vocative, and the ablative. Others, contending that a case in grammar could be nothing else than a terminational inflection, and observing that English nouns have but one case that differs from the nominative in form, denied that there were more than two, the nominative and the possessive. This was certainly an important question, touching a fundamental principle of our grammar; and any erroneous opinion concerning it, might well go far to condemn the book that avouched it. Every intelligent teacher must see this. For what sense could be made of parsing, without supposing an objective case to nouns? or what propriety could there be in making the words, _of_, and _to_, and _from_, govern or compose three different cases? Again, with what truth can it be said, that nouns have _no cases_ in English? or what reason can be assigned for making more than three?
OBS. 4.–Public opinion is now clear in the decision, that it is _expedient_ to assign to English nouns three cases, and no more; and, in a matter of this kind, what is expedient for the purpose of instruction, is right. Yet, from the works of our grammarians, may be quoted every conceivable notion, right or wrong, upon this point. Cardell, with Tooke and Gilchrist on his side, contends that English nouns have _no cases_. Brightland averred that they have neither cases nor genders.[162] Buchanan, and the author of the old British Grammar, assigned to them _one_ case only, the possessive, or genitive. Dr. Adam also says, “In English, nouns have _only one case_, namely, the genitive, or possessive case.”–_Latin and Eng. Gram._, p. 7. W. B. Fowle has two cases, but rejects the word _case_: “We use the simple term _agent_ for a _noun that acts_, and _object_ for the object of an action.”–_Fowle’s True Eng. Gram._, Part II, p. 68. Spencer too discards the word _case_, preferring “_form_,” that he may merge in one the nominative and the objective, giving to nouns _two_ cases, but neither of these. “Nouns have _two Forms_, called the _Simple_ and [the] _Possessive_.”–_Spencer’s E. Gram._, p. 30. Webber’s Grammar, published at Cambridge in 1832, recognizes but _two_ cases of nouns, declaring the objective to be “altogether superfluous.”–P. 22. “Our substantives have no more cases than two.”–_Jamieson’s Rhet._, p. 14. “A Substantive doth not properly admit of more than two cases: the Nominative, and the Genitive.”–_Ellen Devis’s Gram._, p. 19. Dr. Webster, in his Philosophical Grammar, of 1807, and in his Improved Grammar, of 1831, teaches the same doctrine, but less positively. This assumption has also had the support of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, Ash, Bicknell, Fisher, Dalton, and our celebrated Lindley Murray.[163] In Child’s or Latham’s English Grammar, 1852, it is said, “The cases in the present English are three:–1. Nominative; 2. Objective; 3. Possessive.” But this seems to be meant of pronouns only; for the next section affirms, “The _substantives_ in English _have only two_ out of the three cases.”–See pp. 79 and 80. Reckless of the current usage of grammarians, and even of self-consistency, both author and reviser will have no objective case of nouns, because this is like the nominative; yet, finding an objective set after “the adjective _like_,” they will recognize it as “_a dative_ still existing in English!”–See p. 156. Thus do they forsake their own enumeration of cases, as they had before, in all their declensions, forsaken the new order in which they had at first so carefully set them!
OBS. 5.–For the _true_ doctrine of _three_ cases, we have the authority of Murray, in his later editions; of Webster, in his “Plain and Comp. Grammar, grounded on _True Principles_,” 1790; also in his “Rudiments of English Grammar,” 1811; together with the united authority of Adams, Ainsworth, Alden, Alger, Bacon, Barnard, Bingham, Burr, Bullions, Butler, Churchill, Chandler, Cobbett, Cobbin, Comly, Cooper, Crombie, Davenport, Davis, Fisk, A. Flint, Frost, Guy, Hart, Hiley, Hull, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Kirkham, Lennie, Mack, M’Culloch, Maunder, Merchant, Nixon, Nutting, John Peirce, Perley, Picket, Russell, Smart, R. C. Smith, Rev. T. Smith, Wilcox, and I know not how many others.
OBS. 6.–Dearborn, in 1795, recognized _four_ cases: “the nominative, the possessive, the objective, and the absolute.”–_Columbian Gram._, pp. 16 and 20. Charles Bucke, in his work misnamed “A Classical Grammar of the English Language,” published in London in 1829, asserts, that, “Substantives in English do not vary their terminations;” yet he gives them _four_ cases; “the nominative, the genitive, the accusative, and the vocative.” So did Allen, in a grammar much more classical, dated, London, 1813. Hazen, in 1842, adopted “four cases; namely, the nominative, the possessive, the objective, and the independent.”–_Hazen’s Practical Gram._, p. 35. Mulligan, since, has chosen these four: “Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative.”–_Structure of E. Lang._, p. 185. And yet his case after _to_ or _for_ is _not_ “_dative_,” but “_accusative!_”– _Ib._, p. 239. So too, Goodenow, of Maine, makes the cases four: “the _subjective_,[164] the _possessive_, the _objective_, and the _absolute_.”–_Text-Book_, p. 31. Goldsbury, of Cambridge, has also four: “the Nominative, the Possessive, the Objective, and the Vocative.”–_Com. S. Gram._, p. 13. Three other recent grammarians,–Wells, of Andover,– Weld, of Portland,–and Clark, of Bloomfield, N. Y.,–also adopt “_four_ cases;–the _nominative_, the _possessive_, the _objective_, and the _independent_.”–_Wells’s Gram._, p. 57; _Weld’s_, 60; _Clark’s_, 49. The first of these gentlemen argues, that, “Since a noun or pronoun, used _independently_, cannot at the same time be employed as ‘the subject of a verb,’ there is a manifest impropriety in regarding it as a _nominative_.” It might as well be urged, that a nominative after a verb, or in apposition with an other, is, for this reason, not a _nominative_. He also cites this argument: “‘Is there not as much difference between the _nominative_ and [the] _independent_ case, as there is between the _nominative_ and [the] _objective?_ If so, why class them together as _one_ case?’–_S. R. Hall_.”–_Wells’s School Gram._, p. 51. To this I answer, No. “The nominative is that case which _primely denotes the name_ of any person or thing;” (_Burn’s Gram._, p. 36;) and _this only_ it is, that can be absolute, or independent, in English. This scheme of four cases is, in fact, a grave innovation. As authority for it, Wells cites Felton; and bids his readers, “See also Kennion, Parkhurst, Fowle, Flint, Goodenow, Buck, Hazen, Goldsbury, Chapin, S. Alexander, and P. Smith.”–Page 57. But is the fourth case of these authors _the same_ as his? Is it a case which “has usually the nominative form,” but admits occasionally of “_me_” and “_him_,” and embraces objective nouns of “_time, measure, distance, direction_, or _place_?” No. Certainly one half of them, and probably more, give little or no countenance to _such_ an independent case as he has adopted. Parkhurst admitted but three cases; though he thought _two others_ “might be an improvement.” What Fowle has said in support of Wells’s four cases, I have sought with diligence, and not found. Felton’s “independent case” is only what he absurdly calls, “_The noun or pronoun addressed_.”– Page 91. Bucke and Goldsbury acknowledge “_the nominative case absolute_;” and none of the twelve, so far as I know, admit any objective word, or what others call objective, to be independent or absolute, except perhaps Goldsbury.
OBS. 7.–S. R. Hall, formerly principal of the Seminary for Teachers at Andover, (but no great grammarian,) in 1832, published a manual, called “The Grammatical Assistant;” in which he says, “There are _at least five cases_, belonging to English nouns, differing as much from _each_ other, as the cases of Latin and Greek nouns. They may be called Nominative, Possessive, Objective, Independent and Absolute.”–P. 7. O. B. Peirce will have both nouns and pronouns to be used in _five cases_, which he thus enumerates: “Four simple cases; the Subjective, Possessive, Objective, and the Independent; and the Twofold case.”–_Gram._, p. 42. But, on page 56th, he speaks of a “twofold _subjective_ case,” “the twofold _objective_ case,” and shows how the _possessive_ may be twofold also; so that, without taking any of the Latin cases, or even all of Hall’s, he really recognizes as many as seven, if not eight. Among the English grammars which assume all the _six cases_ of the Latin Language, are Burn’s, Coar’s, Dilworth’s, Mackintosh’s, Mennye’s, Wm. Ward’s, and the “Comprehensive Grammar,” a respectable little book, published by Dobson of Philadelphia, in 1789, but written by somebody in England.
OBS. 8.–Of the English grammars which can properly be said to be _now in use_, a very great majority agree in ascribing to nouns three cases, and three only. This, I am persuaded, is the best number, and susceptible of the best defence, whether we appeal to authority, or to other argument. The disputes of grammarians make no small part of the _history of grammar_; and in submitting to be guided by their decisions, it is proper for us to consider what _degree of certainty_ there is in the rule, and what difference or concurrence there is among them: for, the teaching of any other than the best opinions, is not the teaching of science, come from what quarter it may. On the question respecting the objective case of nouns, Murray and Webster _changed sides with each other_; and that, long after they first appeared as grammarians. Nor was this the only, or the most important instance, in which the different editions of the works of these two gentlemen, present them in opposition, both to themselves and to each other. “What cases are there in English? The _nominative_, which usually stands before a verb; as, the _boy_ writes: The _possessive_, which takes an _s_ with a _comma_, and denotes property; as, _John’s_ hat: The _objective_, which follows a verb or preposition; as, he honors _virtue_, or it is an honor to _him_.”–_Webster’s Plain and Comp. Gram., Sixth Edition_, 1800, p. 9. “But for convenience, the two positions of nouns, one _before_, the other _after_ the verb, are called _cases_. There are then three cases, the _nominative, possessive_, and _objective_.”–_Webster’s Rudiments of Gram._, 1811, p. 12. “In English therefore names have two cases only, the _nominative_ or simple name, and the _possessive_.”– _Webster’s Philosoph. Gram._, 1807, p. 32: also his _Improved Gram._, 1831, p. 24.
OBS. 9.–Murray altered his opinion after the tenth or eleventh edition of his duodecimo Grammar. His instructions stand thus: “In English, substantives have but two cases, the nominative, and [the] possessive or genitive.”–_Murray’s Gram. 12mo, Second Edition_, 1796, p. 35. “For the assertion, that there are in English but two cases of nouns, and three of pronouns, we have the authority of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, &c. _names which are sufficient_ to decide this point.”–_Ib._, p. 36. “In English, substantives have three cases, the nominative, the possessive, and the objective.”–_Murray’s Gram., 12mo, Twenty-third Edition_, 1816, p. 44. “The author of this work _long doubted_ the propriety of assigning to English substantives an _objective case_: but a renewed critical examination of the subject; an examination to which he was prompted by the extensive and increasing demand for the grammar, has produced in his mind _a full persuasion_, that the nouns of our language are entitled to this comprehensive objective case.”–_Ib._, p. 46. If there is any credit in changing one’s opinions, it is, doubtless, in changing them for the better; but, of all authors, a grammarian has the most need critically to examine his subject before he goes to the printer. “This case was adopted in the _twelfth edition_ of the Grammar.”–_Murray’s Exercises_, 12mo, N. Y., 1818, p. viii.
OBS. 10.–The _possessive case_ has occasioned no less dispute than the objective. On this vexed article of our grammar, custom has now become much more uniform than it was a century ago; and public opinion may be said to have settled most of the questions which have been agitated about it. Some individuals, however, are still dissatisfied. In the first place, against those who have thought otherwise, it is determined, by infinite odds of authority, that there _is such a case_, both of nouns and of pronouns. Many a common reader will wonder, who can have been ignorant enough to deny it. “The learned and sagacious Wallis, to whom every English grammarian owes a tribute of reverence, calls this modification of the noun an _adjective possessive_; I think, with no more propriety than he might have applied the same to the Latin genitive.”–_Dr. Johnson’s Gram._, p. 5. Brightland also, who gave to _adjectives_ the name of _qualities_, included all possessives among them, calling them “_Possessive Qualities_, or _Qualities of Possession_.”–_Brightland’s Gram._, p. 90.
OBS. 11.–This exploded error, William S. Cardell, a few years ago, republished as a novelty; for which, among other pretended improvements of a like sort, he received the ephemeral praise of some of our modern literati. William B. Fowle also teaches the same thing. See his _Common School Gram._, Part II, p. 104. In Felch’s Grammar, too, published in Boston in 1837, an attempt is made, to revive this old doctrine; but the author takes no notice of any of the above-named authorities, being probably ignorant of them all. His _reasoning_ upon the point, does not appear to me to be worthy of a detailed answer.[165] That the possessive case of nouns is not an adjective, is demonstrable; because it may have adjectives of various kinds, relating to it: as, “_This old man’s_ daughter.”–_Shak._ It may also govern an other possessive; as, “_Peter’s wife’s_ mother.”–_Bible_. Here the former possessive is governed by the latter; but, if both were adjectives, they would both relate to the noun _mother_, and so produce a confusion of ideas. Again, nouns of the possessive case have a distinction of number, which adjectives have not. In gender also, there lies a difference. Adjectives, whenever they are varied by gender or number, _agree with their nouns_ in these respects. Not so with possessives; as, “In the _Jews’_ religion.”–_Gal._, i. 13. “The _children’s_ bread.”–_Mark_, vii, 27. “Some _men’s_ sins.”–_1 Tim._, v, 24. “Other _men’s_ sins.”–_Ib._, ver. 22.
OBS. 12.–Secondly, general custom has clearly determined that the possessive case of _nouns_ is always to be written _with an apostrophe_: except in those few instances in which it is not governed singly by the noun following, but so connected with an other that both are governed jointly; as, “_Cato the Censor’s_ doctrine,”–“_Sir Walter Scott’s_ Works,”–“_Beaumont_ and _Fletcher’s Plays._” This custom of using the apostrophe, however, has been opposed by many. Brightland, and Buchanan, and the author of the British Grammar, and some late writers in the Philological Museum, are among those who have successively taught, that the possessive case should be formed _like the nominative plural_, by adding _s_ when the pronunciation admits the sound, and _es_ when the word acquires an additional syllable. Some of these approve of the apostrophe, and others do not. Thus Brightland gives some examples, which are contrary to his rule, adopting that strange custom of putting the _s_ in Roman, and the name in Italic; “as, King _Charles_’s _Court_, and St. _James_’s _Park._”–_Gram. of the English Tongue_, p. 91.
OBS. 13.–“The genitive case, in my opinion,” says Dr. Ash, “might be much more properly formed by adding _s_, or when the pronunciation requires it, _es_, without an Apostrophe: as, _men, mens; Ox, Oxes; Horse, Horses; Ass, Asses._”–_Ash’s Gram._, p. 23. “To write _Ox’s, Ass’s, Fox’s_, and at the same time pronounce it _Oxes, Asses, Foxes_, is such a departure from the original formation, at least in writing, and such an inconsistent use of the Apostrophe, as cannot be equalled perhaps in any other language.”–_Ib._ Lowth, too, gives some countenance to this objection: “It [i.e., _’God’s grace’_] was formerly written _’Godis grace;’_ we now always shorten it with an apostrophe; often _very improperly_, when we are obliged to pronounce it fully; as, _’Thomas’s_ book,’ that is, ‘_Thomasis_ book,’ not ‘_Thomas his_ book,’ as it is commonly supposed.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 17. Whatever weight there may be in this argument, the objection has been overruled by general custom. The convenience of distinguishing, even to the eye alone, the numbers and cases of the noun, is found too great to be relinquished. If the declension of English nouns is ever to be amended, it cannot be done in this way. It is understood by every reader, that the _apostrophic s_ adds a syllable to the noun, whenever it will not unite with the sound in which the nominative ends; as, _torch’s_, pronounced _torchiz_.
“Yet time ennobles or degrades each line; It brightened _Craggs’s_, and may darken thine.”–_Pope._
OBS. 14.–The English possessive case unquestionably originated in that form of the Saxon genitive which terminates in _es_, examples of which may be found in almost any specimen of the Saxon tongue: as, “On _Herodes_ dagum,”–“In _Herod’s_ days;”–“Of _Aarones_ dohtrum,”–“Of _Aaron’s_ daughters.”–_Luke_, i, 5. This ending was sometimes the same as that of the plural; and both were changed to _is_ or _ys_, before they became what we now find them. This termination added a syllable to the word; and Lowth suggests, in the quotation above, that the apostrophe was introduced to shorten it. But some contend, that the use of this mark originated in a mistake. It appears from the testimony of Brightland, Johnson, Lowth, Priestley, and others, who have noticed the error in order to correct it, that an opinion was long entertained, that the termination _’s_ was a contraction of the word _his_. It is certain that Addison thought so; for he expressly says it, in the 135th number of the Spectator. Accordingly he wrote, in lieu of the regular possessive, “My paper is _Ulysses his_ bow.”–_Guardian_, No. 98. “Of _Socrates his_ rules of prayer.”–_Spect._, No. 207. So Lowth quotes Pope: “By _young Telemachus his_ blooming years.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 17.[166] There is also one late author who says, “The _’s_ is a contraction of _his_, and was formerly written in full; as, William Russell _his_ book.”–_Goodenow’s Gram._, p. 32. This is undoubtedly bad English; and always was so, however common may have been the erroneous notion which gave rise to it. But the apostrophe, whatever may have been its origin, is now the acknowledged distinctive mark of the possessive case of English nouns. The application of the _’s_, frequently to feminines, and sometimes to plurals, is proof positive that it is _not a contraction_ of the pronoun _his_; as,
“Now Jove suspends his golden scales in air, Weighs the _men’s_ wits against the _Lady’s_ hair.” –_Pope_, R. of L., C. v, l. 72.
OBS. 15.–Many of the old grammarians, and Guy, Pinneo, and Spencer, among the moderns, represent the regular formation of the possessive case as being the same in both numbers, supposing generally in the plural an abbreviation of the word by the omission of the second or syllabic _s_. That is, they suppose that such terms as _eagles’ wings, angels’ visits_, were written for _eagles’s wings, angels’s visits_, &c. This odd view of the matter accounts well enough for the fashion of such plurals as _men’s, women’s, children’s_, and makes them regular. But I find no evidence at all of the fact on which these authors presume; nor do I believe that the regular possessive plural was ever, in general, a syllable longer than the nominative. If it ever had been so, it would still be easy to prove the point, by citations from ancient books. The general principle then is, that _the apostrophe forms the possessive case, with an s in the singular, and without it in the plural_; but there are some exceptions to this rule, on either hand; and these must be duly noticed.
OBS. 16.–The chief exceptions, or irregularities, in the formation of the possessive _singular_, are, I think, to be accounted mere poetic licenses; and seldom, if ever, to be allowed in prose. Churchill, (closely copying Lowth,) speaks of them thus: “In poetry the _s_ is frequently omitted after proper names ending in _s_ or _x_ as, ‘The wrath of _Peleus’_ son.’ _Pope._ This is scarcely allowable in prose, though instances of it occur: as, ‘_Moses’_ minister.’ _Josh._, i, 1. _’Phinehas’_ wife.’ _1 Sam._, iv, 19. ‘Festus came into _Felix’_ room.’ _Acts_, xxiv, 27. It was done in prose evidently to avoid the recurrence of a sibilant sound at the end of two following syllables; but this may as readily be obviated by using the preposition _of_, which is now commonly substituted for the possessive case in most instances.”–_Churchill’s New Gram._, p. 215. In Scott’s Bible, Philadelphia, 1814, the texts here quoted are all of them corrected, thus: “_Moses’s_ minister,”–“_Phinehas’s_ wife,”–“_Felix’s_ room.” But the phrase, “for _conscience_ sake,” (_Rom._, xiii, 5,) is there given without the apostrophe. Alger prints it, “for _conscience’_ sake,” which is better; and though not regular, it is a common form for this particular expression. Our common Bibles have this text: “And the weaned child shall put his hand on the _cockatrice’_ den.”–_Isaiah_, xi, 8. Alger, seeing this to be wrong, wrote it, “on the _cockatrice-den_.”–_Pronouncing Bible._ Dr. Scott, in his Reference Bible, makes this possessive regular, “on the _cockatrice’s_ den.” This is right. The Vulgate has it, “_in caverna reguli_;” which, however, is not classic Latin. After _z_ also, the poets sometimes drop the _s_: as,
“Sad was the hour, and luckless was the day, When first from _Shiraz’_ walls I bent my way.”–_Collins._
OBS. 17.–A recent critic, who, I think, has not yet learned to speak or write the possessive case of _his own name_ properly, assumes that the foregoing occasional or poetical forms are the only true ones for the possessive singular of such words. He says, “When the name _does end_ with the sound of _s_ or _z_, (no matter what letter represents the sound,) the possessive form _is made_ by annexing only an apostrophe.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 44. Agreeably to this rule, he letters his work, “_Peirce’ Grammar_,” and condemns, as bad English, the following examples and all others like them: “James _Otis’s_ letters, General _Gates’s_ command, General _Knox’s_ appointment, Gov. _Meigs’s_ promptness, Mr. _Williams’s_ oration, The _witness’s_ deposition.”–_Ib._, p. 60. It is obvious that this gentleman’s doctrine and criticism are as contrary to the common practice of all good authors, as they are to the common grammars, which he ridicules. Surely, such expressions as, “_Harris’s_ Hermes, _Philips’s_ Poems, _Prince’s_ Bay, _Prince’s_ Island, _Fox’s_ Journal, King _James’s_ edict, a _justice’s_ warrant, _Sphinx’s_ riddle, the _lynx’s_ beam, the _lass’s_ beauty,” have authority enough to refute the cavil of this writer; who, being himself wrong, falsely charges the older grammarians, that,” their theories vary from the principles of the language correctly spoken or written.”–_Ib._, p. 60. A much more judicious author treats this point of grammar as follows: “When the possessive noun is singular, and terminates with an _s_, another _s_ is requisite after it, and the apostrophe must be placed between the two; as, ‘_Dickens’s_ works,’–‘_Harris’s_ wit.'”–_Day’s Punctuation, Third London Edition_, p. 136. The following example, too, is right: “I would not yield to be your _house’s_ guest.”–_Shakespeare_.
OBS. 18.–All _plural_ nouns that differ from the singular without ending in _s_, form the possessive case in the same manner as the singular: as, _man’s, men’s; woman’s, women’s j child’s, children’s; brother’s, brothers’ or brethren’s; ox’s, oxen’s; goose, geese’s_. In two or three words which are otherwise alike in both numbers, the apostrophe ought to follow the _s_ in the plural, to distinguish it from the singular: as, the _sheep’s_ fleece, the _sheeps’_ fleeces; a _neat’s_ tongue, _neats’_ tongues; a _deer’s_ horns, a load of _deers’_ horns.
OBS. 19.–Dr. Ash says, “Nouns of the plural number that end in _s_, will not very properly admit of the genitive case.”–_Ash’s Gram._, p. 54. And Dr. Priestley appears to have been of the same opinion. See his _Gram._, p. 69. Lowth too avers, that the sign of the possessive case is “never added to the plural number ending in _s_.”–_Gram._, p. 18. Perhaps he thought the plural sign must involve an other _s_, like the singular. This however is not true, neither is Dr. Ash’s assertion true; for the New Testament speaks as properly of “the _soldiers’_ counsel,” as of the “_centurion’s_ servant;” of “the scribes that were of the _Pharisees’_ part,” as of “_Paul’s sister’s_ son.” It would appear, however, that the possessive plural is less frequently used than the possessive singular; its place being much oftener supplied by the preposition _of_ and the objective. We cannot say that either of them is absolutely necessary to the language; but they are both worthy to be commended, as furnishing an agreeable variety of expression.
“Then shall _man’s_ pride and dulness comprehend His _actions’, passions’, being’s_ use and end.”–_Pope_.
OBS. 20.–The apostrophe was introduced into the possessive case, at least for the singular number, in some part of the seventeenth century. Its adoption for the plural, appears to have been later: it is not much used in books a hundred years old. In Buchanan’s “Regular English Syntax,” which was written, I know not exactly when, but near the middle of the eighteenth century, I find the following paragraph: “We have certainly a Genitive Plural, though there has been no Mark to distinguish it. The Warriors Arms, i. e. the Arms of the Warriors, is as much a Genitive Plural, as the Warrior’s Arms, for the Arms of the Warrior is a Genitive Singular. To distinguish this Genitive Plural, especially to Foreigners, we might use the Apostrophe reversed, thus, the Warrior`s Arms, the Stone`s End, for the End of the Stones, the Grocer`s, Taylor`s, Haberdasher`s, &c. Company; for the Company of Grocers, Taylors, &c. The Surgeon`s Hall, for the Hall of the Surgeons; the Rider`s Names, for the Names of the Riders; and so of all Plural Possessives.”–See _Buchan. Synt._, p. 111. Our present form of the possessive plural, being unknown to this grammarian, must have had a later origin; nor can it have been, as some imagine it was, an abbreviation of a longer and more ancient form.
OBS. 21.–The apostrophic _s_ has often been added to nouns _improperly_; the words formed by it not being intended for the possessive singular, but for the nominative or objective plural. Thus we find such authors as Addison and Swift, writing _Jacobus’s_ and _genius’s_, for _Jacobuses_ and _geniuses_; _idea’s, toga’s_, and _tunica’s_, for _ideas, togas_, and _tunicas_; _enamorato’s_ and _virtuoso’s_, for _enamoratoes_ and _virtuosoes_. Errors of this kind, should be carefully avoided.
OBS. 22.–The apostrophe and _s_ are sometimes added to mere characters, to denote plurality, and not the possessive case; as, two _a_’s, three _b_’s, four 9’s. These we cannot avoid, except by using the _names_ of the things: as, two _Aes_, three _Bees_, four _Nines_. “Laced down the sides with little _c_’s.”–_Steele_. “Whenever two _gg_’s come together, they are both hard.”–_Buchanan_. The names of _c_ and _g_, plural, are _Cees_ and _Gees_. Did these authors _know_ the words, or did they not? To have learned the _names_ of the letters, will be found on many occasions a great convenience, especially to critics. For example: “The pronunciation of these two consecutive _s’s_ is hard.”–_Webber’s Gram._, p. 21. Better: “_Esses_.” “_S_ and _x_, however, are exceptions. They are pluralyzed by adding _es_ preceded by a hyphen [-], as the _s-es_; the _x-es_.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 40. Better, use the _names, Ess_ and _Ex_, and pluralize thus: “the _Esses_; the _Exes_.”
“Make Q’s of answers, to waylay
What th’ other party’s like to say.” –_Hudibras_, P. III, C. ii, l. 951.
Here the cipher is to be read _Kues_, but it has not the meaning of this name merely. It is put either for the plural of _Q._, a _Question_, like D. D.’s, (read _Dee-Dees_,) for _Doctors of Divinity_; or else, more erroneously, for _cues_, the plural of _cue_, a turn which the next speaker catches.
OBS. 23.–In the following example, the apostrophe and _s_ are used to give the sound of a _verb’s_ termination, to words which the writer supposed were not properly verbs: “When a man in a soliloquy reasons with himself, and _pro’s_ and _con’s_, and weighs all his designs.”–_Congreve_. But here, “_proes_ and _cons_,” would have been more accurate. “We put the ordered number of _m’s_ into our composing-stick.”–_Printer’s Gram._ Here “_Ems_” would have done as well. “All measures for _folio’s_ and _quarto’s_, should be made to _m’s_ of the English body; all measures for _octavo’s_, to Pica _m’s_.”–_Ibid._ Here regularity requires, “_folios, quartoes, octavoes_,” and “_pica Ems_.” The verb _is_, when contracted, sometimes gives to its nominative the same form as that of the possessive case, it not being always spaced off for distinction, as it may be; as,
“A _wit’s_ a feather, and a chief a rod; An honest _man’s_ the noblest work of God.” –_Pope, on Man_, Ep. iv, l. 247.
OBS. 24.–As the _objective case of nouns_ is to be distinguished from the nominative, only by the sense, relation, and position, of words in a sentence, the learner must acquire a habit of attending to these several things. Nor ought it to be a hardship to any reader to understand that which he thinks worth reading. It is seldom possible to mistake one of these cases for the other, without a total misconception of the author’s meaning. The nominative denotes the agent, actor, or doer; the person or thing that is made the subject of an affirmation, negation, question, or supposition: its place, except in a question, is commonly _before_ the verb. The objective, when governed by a verb or a participle, denotes the person on whom, or the thing on which, the action falls and terminates: it is commonly placed _after_ the verb, participle, or preposition, which governs it. Nouns, then, by changing places, may change cases: as, “_Jonathan_ loved _David_;” “_David_ loved _Jonathan_.” Yet the case depends not entirely upon position; for any order in which the words cannot be misunderstood, is allowable: as, “Such tricks hath strong imagination.”–_Shak._ Here the cases are known, because the meaning is plainly this: “Strong imagination hath such tricks.” “To him give all the prophets witness.”–_Acts_, x, 43. This is intelligible enough, and more forcible than the same meaning expressed thus: “All the prophets give witness to him.” The _order_ of the words never can affect the explanation to be given of them in parsing, unless it change the sense, and form them into a different sentence.
THE DECLENSION OF NOUNS.
The declension of a noun is a regular arrangement of its numbers and cases. Thus:–
EXAMPLE I.–FRIEND.
Sing. Nom. friend, Plur. Nom. friends, Poss. friend’s, Poss. friends’,
Obj. friend; Obj. friends.
EXAMPLE II.–MAN.
Sing. Nom. man, Plur. Nom. men, Poss. man’s, Poss. men’s,
Obj. man; Obj. men.
EXAMPLE III.–FOX.
Sing. Nom. fox, Plur. Nom. foxes, Poss. fox’s, Poss. foxes’,
Obj. fox; Obj. foxes.
EXAMPLE IV.–FLY.
Sing. Nom. fly, Plur. Nom. flies, Poss. fly’s, Poss. flies’,
Obj. fly; Obj. flies.
EXAMPLES FOR PARSING.
PRAXIS III.–ETYMOLOGICAL.
_In the Third Praxis, it is required of the pupil–to distinguish and define the different parts of speech, and the classes and modifications of the ARTICLES and NOUNS.
The definitions to be given in the Third Praxis, are two for an article, six for a noun, and one for an adjective, a pronoun, a verb, a participle, an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition, or an interjection. Thus_:–
EXAMPLE PARSED.
“The writings of Hannah More appear to me more praiseworthy than Scott’s.”
_The_ is the definite article. 1. An article is the word _the, an_, or _a_, which we put before nouns to limit their signification. 2. The definite article is _the_, which denotes some particular thing or things.
_Writings_ is a common noun, of the third person, plural number, neuter gender, and nominative case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The plural number is that which denotes more than one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.
_Of_ is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.
_Hannah More_ is a proper noun, of the third person, singular number, feminine gender, and objective case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A proper noun is the name of some particular individual, or people, or group. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The feminine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the female kind. 6. The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.
_Appear_ is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_.
_To_ is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.
_Me_ is a pronoun. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun.
_More_ is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place, degree, or manner.
_Praiseworthy_ is an adjective. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality.
_Than_ is a conjunction. 1. A conjunction is a word used to connect words or sentences in construction, and to show the dependence of the terms so connected.
_Scott’s_ is a proper noun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and possessive case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A proper noun is the name of some particular individual, or people, or group. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The possessive case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the relation of property.
LESSON I.–PARSING.
“The virtue of Alexander appears to me less vigorous than that of Socrates. Socrates in Alexander’s place I can readily conceive: Alexander in that of Socrates I cannot. Alexander will tell you, he can subdue the world: it was a greater work in Socrates to fulfill the duties of life. Worth consists most, not in great, but in good actions.”–_Kames’s Art of Thinking_, p. 70.
“No one should ever rise to speak in public, without forming to himself a just and strict idea of what suits his own age and character; what suits the subject, the hearers, the place, the occasion.”–_Blair’s Rhetoric_, p. 260.
“In the short space of little more than a century, the Greeks became such statesmen, warriors, orators, historians, physicians, poets, critics, painters, sculptors, architects, and, last of all, philosophers, that one can hardly help considering that golden period, as a providential event in honour of human nature, to show to what perfection the species might ascend.”–_Harris’s Hermes_, p. 417.
“Is genius yours? Be yours a glorious end, Be your king’s, country’s, truth’s, religion’s friend.”–_Young_.
LESSON II.–PARSING.
“He that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also, he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.”–_1 Cor._, vii, 22.
“What will remain to the Alexanders, and the Caesars, and the Jenghizes, and the Louises, and the Charleses, and the Napoleons, with whose ‘glories’ the idle voice of fame is filled?”–_J. Dymond_. “Good sense, clear ideas, perspicuity of language, and proper arrangement of words and thoughts, will always command attention.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 174.
“A mother’s tenderness and a father’s care are nature’s gifts for man’s advantage.–Wisdom’s precepts form the good man’s interest and happiness.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 194.
“A dancing-school among the Tuscaroras, is not a greater absurdity than a masquerade in America. A theatre, under the best regulations, is not essential to our happiness. It may afford entertainment to individuals; but it is at the expense of private taste and public morals.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 86.
“Where dancing sunbeams on the waters played, And verdant alders form’d a quivering shade.”–_Pope_.
LESSON III.–PARSING.
“I have ever thought that advice to the young, unaccompanied by the routine of honest employments, is like an attempt to make a shrub grow in a certain direction, by blowing it with a bellows.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 247.
“The Arabic characters for the writing of numbers, were introduced into Europe by Pope Sylvester II, in the eleventh century.”–_Constable’s Miscellany_.
“Emotions raised by inanimate objects, trees, rivers, buildings, pictures, arrive at perfection almost instantaneously; and they have a long endurance, a second view producing nearly the same pleasure with the first.”–_Kames’s Elements_, i, 108.
“There is great variety in the same plant, by the different appearances of its stem, branches, leaves, blossoms, fruit, size, and colour; and yet, when we trace that variety through different plants, especially of the same kind, there is discovered a surprising uniformity.”–_Ib._, i, 273.
“Attitude, action, air, pause, start, sigh, groan, He borrow’d, and made use of as his own.”–_Churchill_.
“I dread thee, fate, relentless and severe, With all a poet’s, husband’s, father’s fear!”–_Burns_.
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.
ERRORS OF NOUNS.
LESSON I.–NUMBERS.
“All the ablest of the Jewish Rabbis acknowledge it.”–_Wilson’s Heb. Gram._, p. 7.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the word _Rabbi_ is here made plural by the addition of _s_ only. But, according to Observation 12th on the Numbers, nouns in _i_ ought rather to form the plural in _ies_. The capital _R_, too, is not necessary. Therefore, _Rabbis_ should be _rabbies_, with _ies_ and a small _r_.]
“Who has thoroughly imbibed the system of one or other of our Christian rabbis.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 378. “The seeming singularitys of reason soon wear off.”–_Collier’s Antoninus_, p. 47. “The chiefs and arikis or priests have the power of declaring a place or object taboo.”–_Balbi’s Geog._, p. 460. “Among the various tribes of this family, are the Pottawatomies, the Sacs and Foxes, or Saukis and Ottogamis.”–_Ib._, p. 178. “The Shawnees, Kickapoos, Menomonies, Miamis and Delawares, are of the same region.”–_Ib._, p. 178. “The Mohegans and Abenaquis belonged also to this family.”–_Ib._, p. 178. “One tribe of this family, the Winnebagos, formerly resided near lake Michigan.”–_Ib._, p. 179. “The other tribes are the Ioways, the Otoes, the Missouris, the Quapaws.”–_Ib._, p. 179. “The great Mexican family comprises the Aztecs, Toltecs, and Tarascos.”–_Ib._, p. 179. “The Mulattoes are born of negro and white parents; the Zambos, of Indians and negroes.”–_Ib._, p. 165. “To have a place among the Alexanders, the Caesars, the Lewis’, or the Charles’, the scourges and butchers of their fellow-creatures.”–_Burgh’s Dignity_, i, 132. “Which was the notion of the Platonic Philosophers and Jewish rabbii.”–_Ib._, p. 248. “That they should relate to the whole body of virtuosos.”–_Gobbett’s E. Gram._, 212. “What thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.”–_Luke_, vi, 32. “There are five ranks of nobility; dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, and barons.”–_Balbi’s Geog._, p. 228. “Acts, which were so well known to the two Charles’s.”–_Payne’s Geog._, ii, 511. “Court Martials are held in all parts, for the trial of the blacks.”–_Observer_, No. 458. “It becomes a common noun, and may have a plural number; as, the two _Davids_; the two _Scipios_, the two _Pompies_.”–_Staniford’s Gram._, p. 8. “The food of the rattlesnake is birds, squirrels, hare, rats, and reptiles.”–_Balbi’s Geog._, p. 177. “And let fowl multiply in the earth.”–_Genesis_, i, 22. “Then we reached the hill-side where eight buffalo were grazing.”–_Martineau’s Amer._, i, 202. “_Corset, n._ a pair of bodice for a woman.”–_Worcester’s Dict._, 12mo. “As the _be’s_; the _ce’s_, the _doubleyu’s_.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 40. “Simplicity is the means between ostentation and rusticity.”–_Pope’s Pref. to Homer_. “You have disguised yourselves like tipstaves.”–_Gil Blas_, i, 111. “But who, that hath 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’s Rhet._, p. 439.
“Sometimes, in mutual sly disguise, Let Aye’s seem No’s, and No’s seem Aye’s.”–_Gay_, p. 431.
LESSON II.–CASES.
“For whose name sake, I have been made willing.”–_Wm. Penn_.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the noun _name_, which is here meant for the possessive case singular, has not the true form of that case. But, according to a principle on page 258th, “The possessive case of nouns is formed, in the singular number, by adding to the nominative _s preceded by an apostrophe_; and, in the plural, when the nominative ends in _s_, by adding _an apostrophe only_.” Therefore, name should be _name’s_; thus, “For whose _name’s_ sake, I have been made willing.”]
“Be governed by your conscience, and never ask anybodies leave to be honest.”–_Collier’s Antoninus_, p. 105. “To overlook nobodies merit or misbehaviour.”–_Ib._, p. 9. “And Hector at last fights his way to the stern of Ajax’ ship.”–_Coleridge’s Introd._, p. 91. “Nothing is lazier, than to keep ones eye upon words without heeding their meaning.”– _Philological Museum_, i, 645. “Sir William Joneses division of the day.”–_Ib., Contents_. “I need only refer here to Vosses excellent account of it.”–_Ib._, i, 465. “The beginning of Stesichoruses palinode has been preserved.”–_Ib._, i, 442. “Though we have Tibulluses elegies, there is not a word in them about Glycera.”–_Ib._, p. 446. “That Horace was at Thaliarchuses country-house.”–_Ib._, i, 451. “That Sisyphuses foot-tub should have been still in existence.”–_Ib._, i, 468. “How every thing went on in Horace’s closet, and in Mecenases antechamber.”–_Ib._, i, 458. “Who, for elegant brevities sake, put a participle for a verb.”–_Walker’s Particles_, p. 42. “The countries liberty being oppressed, we have no more to hope.”–_Ib._, p. 73. “A brief but true account of this peoples’ principles.”–_Barclay’s Pref._ “As, the Churche’s Peace, or the Peace of the Church; Virgil’s Eneid, or the Eneid of Virgil”–_British Gram._, p. 93. “As, Virgil’s AEneid, for the AEneid of Virgil; the Church’es Peace, for the Peace of the Church.”–_Buchanan’s Syntax_, p. 18. “Which, with Hubner’s Compend, and Wells’ Geographia Classica, will be sufficient.”– _Burgh’s Dignity_, i, 155. “Witness Homer’s speaking horses, scolding goddesses, and Jupiter enchanted with Venus’ girdle.”–_Ib._, i, 184. “Dr. Watts’ Logic may with success be read and commented on to them.”–_Ib._, p. 156. “Potter’s Greek, and Kennet’s Roman Antiquities, Strauchius’ and Helvicus’ Chronology.”–_Ib._, p. 161. “_Sing_. Alice’ friends, Felix’ property; _Plur._ The Alices’ friends, The Felixes’ property.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 46. “Such as Bacchus’es company,”–“at Bacchus’es festivals.”–_Ainsworth’s Dict., w. Thyrsus._ “Burn’s inimitable _Tam o’Shanter_ turns entirely upon such a circumstance.”–_Scott’s Lay, Notes_, p. 201. “Nominative, Men. Genitive, Mens. Objective, Men.”–_Cutler’s Gram._, p. 20. “Mens Happiness or Misery is most part of their own making.”–_Locke, on Education_, p. 1. “That your Sons Cloths be never made strait, especially about the Breast.”–_Ib._, p. 15. “Childrens Minds are narrow and weak.”–_Ib._, p. 297. “I would not have little Children much tormented about Punctilio’s, or Niceties of Breeding.”–_Ib._, p. 90. “To fill his Head with suitable Idea’s.”–_Ib._, p. 113. “The Burgusdiscius’s and the Scheiblers did not swarm in those Days, as they do now.”–_Ib._, p. 163. “To see the various ways of dressing–a calve’s head!”–_Shenstone_, Brit. Poets, Vol. vii, p. 143.
“He puts it on, and for decorum sake Can wear it e’en as gracefully as she.”–_Cowper’s Task_.
LESSON III.–MIXED.
“Simon the witch was of this religion too.”–_Bunyan’s P. P._, p. 123.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the feminine name _witch_ is here applied to a man. But, according to the doctrine of genders, on page 254th, “Names of males are masculine; names of females, feminine;” &c. Therefore, _witch_ should be _wizard_; thus, “Simon the _wizard_,” &c.]
“Mammodis, n. Coarse, plain India muslins.”–_Webster’s Dict._ “Go on from single persons to families, that of the Pompeyes for instance.”–_Collier’s Antoninus_, p. 142. “By which the ancients were not able to account for phaenomenas.”–_Bailey’s Ovid_, p. vi. “After this I married a wife who had lived at Crete, but a Jew by birth.”–_Josephus’s Life_, p. 194. “The very heathen are inexcusable for not worshipping him.”–_Student’s Manual_, p. 328. “Such poems as Camoen’s Lusiad, Voltaire’s Henriade, &c.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 422. “My learned correspondent writes a word in defence of large scarves.”–SPECT.: in _Joh. Dict._ “The forerunners of an apoplexy are dulness, vertigos, tremblings.”–ARBUTHNOT: _ib._ “_Vertigo_ changes the _o_ into _~in=es_, making the plural _vertig~in=es_.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 59. “_Noctambulo_ changes the _o_ into _=on=es_, making the plural _noctambul=on=es_.”–_Ib._, p. 59. “What shall we say of noctambulos?”–ARBUTHNOT: _in Joh. Dict._ “In the curious fretwork of rocks and grottos.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 220. “_Wharf_ makes the plural _wharves_.”–_Smith’s Gram._, p. 45; _Merchant’s_, 29; _Picket’s_, 21; _Frost’s_, 8. “A few cent’s worth of maccaroni supplies all their wants.”–_Balbi’s Geog._, p. 275. “C sounds hard, like _k_, at the end of a word or syllables.”–_Blair’s Gram._, p. 4. “By which the virtuosi try The magnitude of every lie.”–_Hudibras_. “Quartos, octavos, shape the lessening pyre.”–_Pope’s Dunciad_, B. i, l. 162. “Perching within square royal rooves.”–SIDNEY: _in Joh. Dict._ “Similies should, even in poetry, be used with moderation.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 166. “Similies should never be taken from low or mean objects.”–_Ib._, p. 167. “It were certainly better to say, ‘The house of lords,’ than ‘the Lord’s house.'”–_Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, p. 177. “Read your answers. Unit figure? ‘Five.’ Ten’s? ‘Six.’ Hundreds? ‘Seven.'”–_Abbott’s Teacher_, p. 79. “Alexander conquered Darius’ army.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 58. “Three days time was requisite, to prepare matters.”–_Brown’s Estimate_, ii, 156. “So we say that Ciceros stile and Sallusts, were not one, nor Cesars and Livies, nor Homers and Hesiodus, nor Herodotus and Theucidides, nor Euripides and Aristophanes, nor Erasmus and Budeus stiles.”–_Puttenham’s Arte of English Poesie_, iii, 5. “_Lex_ (i.e. _legs_) is no other than our ancestors past participle _laeg, laid down_.”–_Tooke’s Diversions_, ii, 7. “Achaia’s sons at Ilium slain for the Atridae’ sake.”–_Cowper’s Iliad_. “The corpse[167] of half her senate manure the fields of Thessaly.”–_Addison’s Cato_.
“Poisoning, without regard of fame or fear: And spotted corpse are frequent on the bier.”–_Dryden_.
CHAPTER IV.–ADJECTIVES.
An Adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality: as, A _wise_ man; a _new_ book. You _two_ are _diligent_.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–Adjectives have been otherwise called attributes, attributives, qualities, adnouns; but none of these names is any better than the common one. Some writers have classed adjectives with verbs; because, with a neuter verb for the copula, they often form logical predicates: as, “Vices _are contagious_.” The Latin grammarians usually class them with nouns; consequently their nouns are divided into nouns substantive and nouns adjective. With us, substantives are nouns; and adjectives form a part of speech by themselves. This is generally acknowledged to be a much better distribution. Adjectives cannot with propriety be called _nouns_, in any language; because they are not _the names_ of the qualities which they signify. They must be _added_ to nouns or pronouns in order to make sense. But if, in a just distribution of words, the term “_adjective nouns_” is needless and improper, the term “_adjective pronouns_” is, certainly, not less so: most of the words which Murray and others call by this name, are not pronouns, but adjectives.
OBS. 2.–The noun, or substantive, is a _name_, which makes sense of itself. The adjective is an adjunct to the noun or pronoun. It is a word added to denote quality, situation, quantity, number, form, tendency, or whatever else may characterize and distinguish the thing or things spoken of. Adjectives, therefore, are distinguished _from_ nouns by their _relation to_ them; a relation corresponding to that which qualities bear to things: so that no part of speech is more easily discriminated than the adjective. Again: English adjectives, as such, are all indeclinable. When, therefore, any words usually belonging to this class, are found to take either the plural or the possessive form, like substantive nouns, they are to be parsed as nouns. To abbreviate expression, we not unfrequently, in this manner, convert adjectives into nouns. Thus, in grammar, we often speak of _nominatives, possessives_, or _objectives_, meaning nouns or pronouns of the nominative, the possessive, or the objective case; of _positives, comparatives_, or _superlatives_, meaning adjectives of the positive, the comparative, or the superlative degree; of _infinitives, subjunctives_, or _imperatives_, meaning verbs of the infinitive, the subjunctive, or the imperative mood; and of _singulars, plurals_, and many other such things, in the same way. So a man’s _superiors_ or _inferiors_ are persons superior or inferior to himself. His _betters_ are persons better than he. _Others_ are any persons or things distinguished from some that are named or referred to; as, “If you want enemies, excel _others_; if you want friends, let _others_ excel you.”–_Lacon_. All adjectives thus taken substantively, become _nouns_, and ought to be parsed as such, unless this word _others_ is to be made an exception, and called a “_pronoun_.”
“Th’ event is fear’d; should we again provoke Our _stronger_, some worse way his wrath may find.” –_Milton, P. L._, B. ii, l. 82.
OBS. 3.–Murray says, “Perhaps the words _former_ and _latter_ may be properly ranked amongst the demonstrative pronouns, _especially in many of their applications_. The following sentence may serve as an example: ‘It was happy for the state, that Fabius continued in the command with Minutius: the _former’s_ phlegm was a check upon the _latter’s_ vivacity.'”–_Gram._, 8vo, p. 57. This I take to be bad English. _Former_ and _latter_ ought to be adjectives only; except when _former_ means _maker_. And, if not so, it is too easy a way of multiplying pronouns, to manufacture two out of one single anonymous sentence. If it were said, “The deliberation of _the former_ was a seasonable chock upon the fiery temper of _the latter_” the words _former_ and _latter_ would seem to me not to be pronouns, but adjectives, each relating to the noun _commander_ understood after it.
OBS. 4.–The sense and relation of words in sentences, as well as their particular form and meaning, must be considered in parsing, before the learner can say, with certainty, to what class they belong. Other parts of speech, and especially nouns and participles, by a change in their construction, may become adjectives. Thus, to denote the material of which a thing is formed, we very commonly make the name of the substantive an adjective to that of the thing: as, A _gold chain_, a _silver spoon_, a _glass pitcher_, a _tin basin_, an _oak plank_, a _basswood slab_, a _whalebone rod_. This construction is in general correct, whenever the former word may be predicated of the latter; as, “The chain is gold.”–“The spoon is silver.” But we do not write _gold beater_ for _goldbeater_, or _silver smith_ for _silversmith_; because the beater is not gold, nor is the smith silver. This principle, however, is not universally observed; for we write _snowball, whitewash_, and many similar compounds, though the ball is snow and the wash is white; and _linseed oil_, or _Newark cider_, may be a good phrase, though the former word cannot well be predicated of the latter. So in the following examples: “Let these _conversation_ tones be the foundation of public pronunciation.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 334. “A _muslin_ flounce, made very full, would give a very agreeable _flirtation_ air.”–POPE: _Priestley’s Gram._, p. 79.
“Come, calm Content, serene and sweet, O gently guide my _pilgrim_ feet
To find thy _hermit_ cell.”–_Barbauld_.
OBS. 5.–Murray says, “Various nouns placed before other nouns assume the nature of adjectives: as, sea fish, wine vessel, corn field, meadow ground, &c.”–_Octavo Gram._, p. 48. This is, certainly, very lame instruction. If there is not palpable error in all his examples, the propriety of them all is at least questionable; and, to adopt and follow out their principle, would be, to tear apart some thousands of our most familiar compounds. “_Meadow ground_” may perhaps be a correct phrase, since the ground is meadow; it seems therefore preferable to the compound word meadow-ground. What he meant by “_wine vessel_” is doubtful: that is, whether a ship or a cask, a flagon or a decanter. If we turn to our dictionaries, Webster has _sea-fish_ and _wine-cask_ with a hyphen, and _cornfield_ without; while Johnson and others have _corn-field_ with a hyphen, and _seafish_ without. According to the rules for the figure of words, we ought to write them _seafish, winecask, cornfield_. What then becomes of the thousands of “adjectives” embraced in the “&c.” quoted above?
OBS. 6.–The pronouns _he_ and _she_, when placed before or prefixed to nouns merely to denote their gender, appear to be used adjectively; as, “The male or _he_ animals offered in sacrifice.”–_Wood’s Dict., w. Males_. “The most usual term is _he_ or _she, male_ or _female_, employed as an adjective: as, a _he bear_, a _she bear_; a _male elephant_, a _female elephant_.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 69. Most writers, however, think proper to insert a hyphen in the terms here referred to: as, _he-bear, she-bear_, the plurals of which are _he-bears_ and _she-bears_. And, judging by the foregoing rule of predication, we must assume that this practice only is right. In the first example, the word _he_ is useless; for the term “_male animals_” is sufficiently clear without it. It has been shown in the third chapter, that _he_ and _she_ are sometimes used as nouns; and that, as such, they may take the regular declension of nouns, making the plurals _hes_ and _shes_. But whenever these words are used adjectively to denote gender, whether we choose to insert the hyphen or not, they are, without question, indeclinable, like other adjectives. In the following example, Sanborn will have _he_ to be a noun in the _objective_ case; but I consider it rather, to be an adjective, signifying _masculine_:
“(_Philosophy_, I say, and call _it He_; For, whatsoe’er the painter’s fancy be, It a male-virtue seems to me.”)–_Cowley_, Brit. Poets, Vol. ii, p. 54.
OBS. 7.–Though verbs give rise to many adjectives, they seldom, if ever, become such by a mere change of construction. It is mostly by assuming an additional termination, that any verb is formed into an adjective: as in _teachable, moveable, oppressive, diffusive, prohibitory_. There are, however, about forty words ending in _ate_, which, without difference of form, are either verbs or adjectives; as, _aggregate, animate, appropriate, articulate, aspirate, associate, complicate, confederate, consummate, deliberate, desolate, effeminate, elate, incarnate, intimate, legitimate, moderate, ordinate, precipitate, prostrate, regenerate, reprobate, separate, sophisticate, subordinate_. This class of adjectives seems to be lessening. The participials in _ed_, are superseding some of them, at least in popular practice: as, _contaminated_, for _contaminate_, defiled; _reiterated_, for _reiterate_, repeated; _situated_, for _situate_, placed; _attenuated_, for _attenuate_, made thin or slender. _Devote, exhaust_, and some other verbal forms, are occasionally used by the poets, in lieu of the participial forms, _devoted, exhausted_, &c.
OBS. 8.–Participles, which have naturally much resemblance to this part of speech, often drop their distinctive character, and become adjectives. This is usually the case whenever they stand immediately _before_ the nouns to which they relate; as, A _pleasing_ countenance, a _piercing_ eye, an _accomplished_ scholar, an _exalted_ station. Many participial adjectives are derivatives formed from participles by the negative prefix _un_, which reverses the meaning of the primitive word; as, _undisturbed, undivided, unenlightened_. Most words of this kind differ of course from participles, because there are no such verbs as _to undisturb, to undivide_, &c. Yet they may be called participial adjectives, because they have the termination, and embrace the form, of participles. Nor should any participial adjective be needlessly varied from the true orthography of the participle: a distinction is, however, observed by some writers, between _past_ and _passed, staid_ and _stayed_; and some old words, as _drunken, stricken, shotten, rotten_, now obsolete as participles, are still retained as adjectives. This sort of words will be further noticed in the chapter on participles.
OBS. 9.–Adverbs are generally distinguished from adjectives, by the form, as well as by the construction, of the words. Yet, in instances not a few, the same word is capable of being used both adjectively and adverbially. In these cases, the scholar must determine the part of speech, by the construction alone; remembering that adjectives belong to nouns or pronouns only; and adverbs, to verbs, participles, adjectives, or other adverbs, only. The following examples from Scripture, will partially illustrate this point, which will be noticed again under the head of syntax: “Is your father well?”–_Gen._, xliii, 27. “Thou hast well said.”–_John_, iv, 17. “He separateth very friends.”–_Prov._, xvii, 9. “Esaias is _very_ bold.”–_Rom._, x, 20. “For a pretence, ye make _long_ prayer.”–_Matt._, xxiii, 14. “They that tarry _long_ at the wine.”–_Prov._, xxiii, 30. “It had not _much_ earth.”–_Mark_, iv, 5. “For she loved _much_.”–_Luke_, vii, 47.
OBS. 10.–Prepositions, in regard to their _construction_, differ from adjectives, almost exactly as active-transitive participles differ syntactically from adjectives: that is, in stead of being mere adjuncts to the words which follow them, they govern those words, and refer back to some other term; which, in the usual order of speech, stands before them. Thus, if I say, “A spreading oak,” _spreading_ is an adjective relating to oak; if, “A boy spreading hay,” _spreading_ is a participle, governing _hay_, and relating to _boy_, because the boy is the agent of the action. So, when Dr. Webster says, “The _off_ horse in a team,” _off_ is an adjective, relating to the noun _horse_; but, in the phrase, “A man _off_ his guard,” _off_ is a preposition, showing the relation between _man_ and _guard_, and governing the latter. The following are other examples: “From the _above_ speculations.”–_Harris’s Hermes_, p. 194. “An _after_ period of life.”–MARSHALL: _in Web. Dict._ “With some other of the _after_ Judaical rites.”–_Right of Tythes_, p. 86. “Whom this _beneath_ world doth embrace and hug.”–_Shak._ “Especially is _over_ exertion made.”–_Journal of Lit. Conv._, p. 119. “To both the _under_ worlds.”–_Hudibras_. “Please to pay to A. B. the amount of the _within_ bill.” Whether properly used or not, the words _above, after, beneath, over, under, and within_, are here unquestionably made _adjectives_; yet every scholar knows, that they are generally prepositions, though sometimes adverbs.
CLASSES.
Adjectives may be divided into six classes; namely, _common, proper, numeral, pronominal, participial_, and _compound_.
I. A _common adjective_ is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation; as, _Good, bad, peaceful, warlike–eastern, western, outer, inner_.
II. A _proper adjective_ is an adjective formed from a proper name; as, _American, English, Platonic, Genoese_.
III. A _numeral adjective_ is an adjective that expresses a definite number; as, _One, two, three, four, five, six_, &c.
IV. A _pronominal adjective_ is a definitive word which may either accompany its noun, or represent it understood; as, “_All_ join to guard what _each_ desires to gain.”–_Pope_. That is, “_All men_ join to guard what _each man_ desires to gain.”
V. A _participial adjective_ is one that has the form of a participle, but differs from it by rejecting the idea of time; as, “An _amusing_ story,”–“A _lying_ divination.”
VI. A _compound adjective_ is one that consists of two or more words joined together, either by the hyphen or solidly: as, _Nut-brown, laughter-loving, four-footed; threefold, lordlike, lovesick_.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–This distribution of the adjectives is no less easy to be applied, than necessary to a proper explanation in parsing. How many adjectives there are in the language, it is difficult to say; none of our dictionaries profess to exhibit all that are embraced in some of the foregoing classes. Of the Common Adjectives, there are probably not fewer than six thousand, exclusive of the common nouns which we refer to this class when they are used adjectively. Walker’s Rhyming Dictionary contains five thousand or more, the greater part of which may be readily distinguished by their peculiar endings. Of those which end in _ous_, as _generous_, there are about 850. Of those in _y_ or _ly_, as _shaggy, homely_, there are about 550. Of those in _ive_, as _deceptive_, there are about 400. Of those in _al_, as _autumnal_, there are about 550. Of those in _ical_, as _mechanical_, there are about 350. Of those in _able_, as _valuable_, there are about 600. Of those in _ible_, as _credible_, there are about 200. Of those in _ent_, as _different_, there are about 300. Of those in _ant_, as _abundant_, there are about 170. Of those in _less_, as _ceaseless_, there are about 220. Of those in _ful_, as _useful_, there are about 130. Of those in _ory_, as _explanatory_, there are about 200. Of those in _ish_, as _childish_, there are about 100. Of those in _ine_, as _masculine_, there are about 70. Of those in _en_, as _wooden_, there are about 50. Of those in _some_, as _quarrelsome_, there are about 30. These sixteen numbers added together, make 4770.
OBS. 2.–The Proper Adjectives are, in many instances, capable of being converted into declinable nouns: as, _European, a European, the Europeans; Greek, a Greek, the Greeks; Asiatic, an Asiatic, the Asiatics_. But with the words _English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish_, and in general all such as would acquire an additional syllable in their declension, the case is otherwise. The gentile noun has frequently fewer syllables than the adjective, but seldom more, unless derived from some different root. Examples: _Arabic, an Arab, the Arabs; Gallic, a Gaul, the Gauls; Danish, a Dane, the Danes; Moorish, a Moor, the Moors; Polish, a Pole_, or _Polander, the Poles; Swedish, a Swede, the Swedes; Turkish, a Turk, the Turks_. When we say, _the English, the French, the Dutch, the Scotch, the Welsh, the Irish_,–meaning, _the English people, the French people_, &c., many grammarians conceive that _English, French_, &c., are _indeclinable nouns_. But in my opinion, it is better to reckon them _adjectives_, relating to the noun _men_ or _people_ understood. For if these words are nouns, so are a thousand others, after which there is the same ellipsis; as when we say, _the good, the great, the wise, the learned_.[168] The principle would involve the inconvenience of multiplying our nouns of the singular form and a plural meaning, indefinitely. If they are nouns, they are, in this sense, plural only; and, in an other, they are singular only. For we can no more say, _an English, an Irish_, or _a French_, for _an Englishman, an Irishman_, or _a Frenchman_; than we can say, _an old, a selfish_, or _a rich_, for _an old man, a selfish man_, or _a rich man_. Yet, in distinguishing the _languages_, we call them _English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish_; using the words, certainly, in no plural sense; and preferring always the line of adjectives, where the gentile noun is different: as, _Arabic_, and not _Arab_; _Danish_, and not _Dane_; _Swedish_, and not _Swede_. In this sense, as well as in the former, Webster, Chalmers, and other modern lexicographers, call the words _nouns_; and the reader will perceive, that the objections offered before do not apply here. But Johnson, in his two quarto volumes, gives only two words of this sort, _English_ and _Latin_; and both of these he calls _adjectives_: “ENGLISH, _adj._ Belonging to England; hence English[169] is the language of England.” The word _Latin_, however, he makes a noun, when it means a schoolboy’s exercise; for which usage he quotes, the following inaccurate example from Ascham: “He shall not use the common order in schools for making of _Latins_.”
OBS. 3.–Dr. Webster gives us explanations like these: “CHINESE, _n. sing._ and _plu._ A native of China; also the language of China.”–“JAPANESE, _n._ A native of Japan; or the language of the inhabitants.”–“GENOESE, _n. pl._ the people of Genoa in Italy. _Addison_.”–“DANISH, _n._ The language of the Danes.”–“IRISH, _n._ 1. A native of Ireland. 2. The language of the Irish; the Hiberno-Celtic.” According to him, then, it is proper to say, _a Chinese, a Japanese_, or _an Irish_; but not, _a Genoese_, because he will have this word to be plural only! Again, if with him we call a native of Ireland _an Irish_, will not more than one be _Irishes?_[170] If a native of Japan be _a Japanese_, will not more than one be _Japaneses?_ In short, is it not plain, that the words, _Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Maltese, Genoese, Milanese_, and all others of like formation, should follow one and the same rule? And if so, what is that rule? Is it not this;–that, like _English, French_, &c., they are always _adjectives_; except, perhaps, when they denote _languages_? There may possibly be some real authority from usage, for calling a native of China _a Chinese_,–of Japan _a Japanese_,–&c.; as there is also for the regular plurals, _Chineses, Japaneses_, &c.; but is it, in either case, good and sufficient authority? The like forms, it is acknowledged, are, on some occasions, mere adjectives; and, in modern usage, we do not find these words inflected, as they were formerly. Examples: “The _Chinese_ are by no means a cleanly people, either in person or dress.”–_Balbi’s Geog._, p. 415. “The _Japanese_ excel in working in copper, iron, and steel.”–_Ib._, p. 419. “The _Portuguese_ are of the same origin with the Spaniards.”–_Ib._, p. 272. “By whom the undaunted _Tyrolese_ are led.”–_Wordsworth’s Poems_, p. 122. Again: “Amongst the _Portugueses_, ’tis so much a Fashion, and Emulation, amongst their Children, to _learn_ to _Read_, and Write, that they cannot hinder them from it.”–_Locke, on Education_, p. 271. “The _Malteses_ do so, who harden the Bodies of their Children, and reconcile them to the Heat, by making them go stark Naked.”–_Idem, Edition of_ 1669, p. 5. “CHINESE, _n. s_. Used elliptically for the language and people of China: plural, _Chineses. Sir T. Herbert_.”–_Abridgement of Todd’s Johnson_. This is certainly absurd. For if _Chinese_ is used _elliptically_ for the people of China, it is an _adjective_, and does not form the plural, _Chineses_: which is precisely what I urge concerning the whole class. These plural forms ought not to be imitated. Horne Tooke quotes some friend of his, as saying, “No, I will never descend with him beneath even _a Japanese_: and I remember what Voltaire remarks of _that country_.”–_Diversions of Purley_, i, 187. In this case, he ought, unquestionably, to have said–“beneath even _a native of Japan_;” because, whether _Japanese_ be a noun or not, it is absurd to call _a Japanese_, “_that country_.” Butler, in his Hudibras, somewhere uses the word _Chineses_; and it was, perhaps, in his day, common; but still, I say, it is contrary to analogy, and therefore wrong. Milton, too, has it:
“But in his way lights on the barren plains Of Sericana, where Chineses[171] drive With sails and wind their cany _waggons_ light.” –_Paradise Lost_, B. iii, l. 437.
OBS. 4.–The Numeral Adjectives are of three kinds, namely, _cardinal, ordinal_, and _multiplicative_: each kind running on in a series indefinitely. Thus:–
1. _Cardinal_; One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, &c.
2. _Ordinal_; First, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, &c.
3. _Multiplicative_; Single or alone, double or twofold, triple or threefold, quadruple or fourfold, quintuple or fivefold, sextuple or sixfold, septuple or sevenfold, octuple or eightfold, &c. But high terms of this series are seldom used. All that occur above decuple or tenfold, are written with a hyphen, and are usually of round numbers only; as, thirty-fold, sixty-fold, hundred-fold.
OBS. 5.–A cardinal numeral denotes the whole number, but the corresponding ordinal denotes only the last one of that number, or, at the beginning of a series, the first of several or many. Thus: “_One_ denotes simply the number _one_, without any regard to more; but _first_ has respect to more, and so denotes only the first one of a greater number; and _two_ means the number _two_ completely; but _second_, the last one of _two_: and so of all the rest.”–_Burn’s Gram._, p. 54. A cardinal number answers to the question, “_How many_?” An ordinal number answers to the question, “_Which one_?” or, “_What one_?” All the ordinal numbers, except _first, second, third_, and the compounds of these, as _twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third_, are formed directly from the cardinal numbers by means of the termination _th_. And as the primitives, in this case, are many of them either compound words, or phrases consisting of several words, it is to be observed, that the addition is made to the last term only. That is, of every compound ordinal number, the last term only is ordinal in form. Thus we say, _forty-ninth_, and not _fortieth-ninth_; nor could the meaning of the phrase, _four hundred and fiftieth_, be expressed by saying, _fourth hundredth and fiftieth_; for this, if it means any thing, speaks of three different numbers.
OBS. 6.–Some of the numerals are often used as _nouns_; and, as such, are regularly declined: as, _Ones, twoes, threes, fours, fives_, &c. So, _Fifths, sixths, sevenths, eighths, ninths, tenths_, &c. “The _seventy’s_ translation.”–_Wilson’s Hebrew Gram._, p. 32. “I will not do it for _forty’s_ sake.”–_Gen._, xviii, 29. “I will not destroy it for _twenty’s_ sake.”–_Ib._, ver. 31. “For _ten’s_ sake.”–_Ib._, ver. 32. “They sat down in ranks, by _hundreds_, and by _fifties_.”–_Mark_, vi, 40. “There are _millions_ of truths that a man is not concerned to know.”–_Locke_. With the compound numerals, such a construction is less common; yet the denominator of a fraction may be a number of this sort: as, seven _twenty-fifths_. And here it may be observed, that, in stead of the ancient phraseology, as in 1 Chron., xxiv, 17th, “The _one and twentieth_ to Jachin, the _two and twentieth_ to Gamul, the _three and twentieth_ to Delaiah, the _four and twentieth_ to Maaziah,” we now generally say, _the twenty-first, the twenty-second_, &c.; using the hyphen in all compounds till we arrive at _one hundred_, or _one hundredth_, and then first introducing the word _and_; as, _one hundred and one_, or _one hundred and first_, &c.
OBS. 7.–The Pronominal Adjectives are comparatively very few; but frequency of use gives them great importance in grammar. The following words are perhaps all that properly belong to this class, and several of these are much oftener something else: _All, any, both, certain, divers, each, either, else, enough, every, few, fewer, fewest, former, first, latter, last, little, less, least, many, more, most, much, neither, no_ or _none, one, other, own, only, same, several, some, such, sundry, that, this, these, those, what, whatever, whatsoever, which, whichever, whichsoever_.[172] Of these forty-six words, seven are always singular, if the word _one_ is not an exception; namely, _each, either, every, neither, one, that, this_: and nine or ten others are always plural, if the word _many_ is not an exception; namely, _both, divers, few, fewer, fewest, many, several, sundry, these, those_. All the rest, like our common adjectives, are applicable to nouns of either number. _Else, every, only, no_, and _none_, are definitive words, which I have thought proper to call pronominal adjectives, though only the last can now with propriety be made to represent its noun understood. “Nor has Vossius, or _any else_ that I know of, observed it.”–_Johnson’s Gram. Com._, p. 279. Say, “or any _one_ else.” Dr. Webster explains this word _else_ thus: “ELSE, _a._ or _pron._ [Sax. _elles_] Other; one or something _beside_; as, Who _else_ is coming?”–_Octavo Dict._ “Each and _every_ of them,” is an old phrase in which _every_ is used pronominally, or with ellipsis of the word to which it refers; but, in common discourse, we now say, _every one, every man_, &c., never using the word _every_ alone to suggest its noun. _Only_ is perhaps most commonly an adverb; but it is still in frequent use as an adjective; and in old books we sometimes find an ellipsis of the noun to which it belongs; as, “Neither are they the _only_ [verbs] in which it is read.”–_Johnson’s Grammatical Commentaries_, p. 373. “But I think he is the _only_ [one] of these Authors.”–_Ib._, p. 193. _No_ and _none_ seem to be only different forms of the same adjective; the former being used before a noun expressed, and the latter when the noun is understood, or not placed after the adjective; as, “For _none_ of us liveth to himself, and _no_ man dieth to himself.”–_Romans_, xiv, 7. _None_ was anciently used for _no_ before all words beginning with a vowel sound; as, “They are sottish children; and they have _none_ understanding.”–_Jeremiah_, iv, 22. This practice is now obsolete. _None_ is still used, when its noun precedes it; as,
“Fools! who from hence into the notion fall, That _vice_ or _virtue_ there is _none_ at all.”–_Pope_.
OBS. 8.–Of the words given in the foregoing list as pronominal adjectives, about one third are sometimes used _adverbially_. They are the following: _All_, when it means _totally; any_, for _in any degree; else_, meaning _otherwise; enough_, signifying _sufficiently; first_, for _in the first place; last_, for _in the last place; little_, for _in a small degree; less_, for _in a smaller degree; least_, for _in the smallest degree; much_, for _in a great degree; more_, for _in a greater degree; most_, for _in the greatest degree; no_, or _none_, for _in no degree; only_, for _singly, merely, barely; what_, for _in what degree_, or _in how great a degree_.[173] To these may perhaps be added the word _other_, when used as an alternative to _somehow_; as, “_Somehow_ or _other_ he will be favoured.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 89. Here _other_ seems to be put for _otherwise_; and yet the latter word would not be agreeable in such a sentence. “_Somewhere or other_,” is a kindred phrase equally common, and equally good; or, rather, equally irregular and puzzling. Would it not be better, always to avoid both, by saying, in their stead, “_In some way or other_,”–“_In someplace or other?_” In the following examples, however, _other_ seems to be used for _otherwise_, without such a connection: “How is THAT used, _other_ than as a Conjunction?”–_Ainsworth’s Gram._, p. 88.
“Will it not be receiv’d that they have done ‘t? –Who dares receive it _other?_”–SHAK.: _Joh. Dict., w. Other_.
OBS. 9.–_All_ and _enough, little_ and _much, more_ and _less_, sometimes suggest the idea of quantity so abstractly, that we can hardly consider them as adjuncts to any other words; for which reason, they are, in this absolute sense, put down in our dictionaries as _nouns_. If nouns, however, they are never inflected by cases or numbers; nor do they in general admit the usual adjuncts or definitives of nouns.[174] Thus, we can neither say, _the all_, for _the whole_, nor _an enough_, for _a sufficiency_. And though _a little, the more_, and _the less_, are common phrases, the article does not here prove the following word to be a noun; because the expression may either be elliptical, or have the construction of an adverb: as, “Though _the more_ abundantly I love you, _the less_ I be loved.”–_2 Cor._, xii, 15. Dr. Johnson seems to suppose that the partitive use of these words makes them nouns; as, “They have _much of the poetry_ of Mecaenas, but _little of his liberality_.”–DRYDEN: _in Joh. Dict._ Upon this principle, however, adjectives innumerable would be made nouns; for we can just as well say, “_Some of the poetry_,”–“_Any of the poetry_,”–“_The best of Poetry_,” &c. In all such expressions, the name of the thing divided, is understood in the partitive word; for a part of any thing must needs be of the same species as the whole. Nor was this great grammarian sufficiently attentive to adjuncts, in determining the parts of speech. _Nearly all, quite enough, so little, too much, vastly more, rather less_, and an abundance of similar phrases, are familiar to every body; in none of which, can any of these words of quantity, however abstract, be very properly reckoned nouns; because the preceding word is an adverb, and adverbs do not relate to any words that are literally nouns. All these may also be used partitively; as, “_Nearly all of us_.”
OBS. 10.–The following are some of Dr. Johnson’s “_nouns_;” which, in connexion with the foregoing remarks, I would submit to the judgement of the reader: “‘Then shall we be news-crammed.’–‘_All_ the better; we shall be the more remarkable.'”–SHAK.: _in Joh. Dict._ “_All_ the fitter, Lentulus; our coming is not for salutation; we have business.”–BEN JONSON: _ib._ “‘Tis _enough_ for me to have endeavoured the union of my country.”–TEMPLE: _ib._ “Ye take too _much_ upon you.”–NUMBERS: _ib._ “The fate of love is such, that still it sees too _little_ or too _much_.”–DRYDEN: _ib._ “He thought not _much_ to clothe his enemies.”–MILTON: _ib._ “There remained not so _much_ as one of them.”–_Ib., Exod._, xiv, 28. “We will cut wood out of Lebanon, as _much_ as thou shalt need.”–_Ib._, _2 Chronicles_. “The matter of the universe was created before the flood; if any _more_ was created, then there must be as _much_ annihilated to make room for it.”–BURNET: _ib._ “The Lord do so, and much _more_, to Jonathan.”–1 SAMUEL: _ib._ “They that would have _more_ and _more_, can never have _enough_; no, not if a miracle should interpose to gratify their avarice.”–L’ESTRANGE: _ib._ “They gathered some _more_, some _less_.”–EXODUS: _ib._ “Thy servant knew nothing of this, _less_ or _more_.”–1 SAMUEL: _ib._ The first two examples above, Johnson explains thus: “That is, ‘_Every thing is the better_.’–_Every thing is the fitter_.”–_Quarto Dict._ The propriety of this solution may well be doubted; because the similar phrases, “_So much_ the better,”–“_None_ the fitter,” would certainly be perverted, if resolved in the same way: _much_ and _none_ are here, very clearly, adverbs.
OBS. 11.–Whatever disposition may be made of the terms cited above, there are instances in which some of the same words can hardly be any thing else than nouns. Thus _all_, when it signifies _the whole_, or _every thing_, may be reckoned a noun; as, “Our _all_ is at stake, and irretrievably lost, if we fail of success.”–_Addison_. “A torch, snuff and _all_, goes out in a moment, when dipped in the vapour.”–_Id._ “The first blast of wind laid it flat on the ground; nest, eagles, and _all_.”–_L’Estrange_.
“Finding, the wretched _all_ they here can have, But present food, and but a future grave.”–_Prior_.
“And will she yet debase her eyes on me; On me, whose _all_ not equals Edward’s moiety?”–_Shak_.
“Thou shalt be _all_ in _all_, and I in thee, Forever; and in me all whom thou lov’st.”–_Milton_.
OBS. 12.–There are yet some other words, which, by their construction alone, are to be distinguished from the pronominal adjectives. _Both_, when it stands as a correspondent to _and_, is reckoned a conjunction; as, “For _both_ he that sanctifieth, _and_ they who are sanctified, are all of one.”–_Heb._, ii, 11. But, in sentences like the following, it seems to be an adjective, referring to the nouns which precede: “Language and manners are _both_ established by the usage of people of fashion.”–_Amer. Chesterfield_, p. 83. So _either_, corresponding to _or_, and _neither_, referring to _nor_, are conjunctions, and not adjectives. _Which_ and _what_, with their compounds, _whichever_ or _whichsoever, whatever_ or _whatsoever_, though sometimes put before nouns as adjectives, are, for the most part, relative or interrogative pronouns. When the noun is used after them, they are adjectives; when it is omitted, they are pronouns: as, “There is a witness of God, _which witness_ gives true judgement.”–_I. Penington_. Here the word _witness_ might be omitted, and _which_ would become a relative pronoun. Dr. Lowth says, “_Thy, my, her, our, your, their_, are pronominal adjectives.”–_Gram._, p. 23. This I deny; and the reader may see my reasons, in the observations upon the declension of pronouns.
OBS. 13.–The words _one_ and _other_, besides their primitive uses as adjectives, in which they still remain without inflection, are frequently employed as nouns, or as substitutes for nouns; and, in this substantive or pronominal character, they commonly have the regular declension of nouns, and are reckoned such by some grammarians; though others call them indefinite pronouns, and some, (among whom are Lowth and Comly,) leave them with the pronominal adjectives, even when they are declined in both numbers. Each of them may be preceded by either of the articles; and so general is the signification of the former, that almost any adjective may likewise come before it: as, _Any one, some one, such a one, many a one, a new one, an old one, an other one, the same one, the young ones, the little ones, the mighty ones, the wicked one, the Holy One, the Everlasting One_. So, like the French _on_, or _l’on_, the word _one_, without any adjective, is now very frequently used as a general or indefinite term for any man, or any person. In this sense, it is sometimes, unquestionably, to be preferred to a personal pronoun applied indefinitely: as, “Pure religion, and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep _himself_ [better, _one’s self_] unspotted from the world.”–_James_, i, 27. But, as its generality of meaning seems to afford a sort of covering for egotism, some writers are tempted to make too frequent a use of it. Churchill ridicules this practice, by framing, or anonymously citing, the following sentence: “If _one_ did but dare to abide by _one’s_ own judgement, _one’s_ language would be much more refined; but _one_ fancies _one’s_ self obliged to follow, whereever the many choose to lead _one_.”–See _Churchill’s Gram._, p. 229. Here every scholar will concur with the critic in thinking, it would be better to say: “If _we_ did but dare to abide by _our_ own judgement, _our_ language would be much more refined; but _we_ fancy _ourselves_ obliged to follow wherever the many choose to lead _us_.”–See _ib._
OBS. 14.–Of the pronominal adjectives the following distribution has been made: “_Each, every_, and _either_, are called _distributives_; because, though they imply all the persons or things that make up a number, they consider them, not as one whole, but as taken separately. _This, that, former, latter, both, neither_, are termed _demonstratives_; because they point out precisely the subjects to which they relate. _This_ has _these_ for its plural; _that_ has _those_. _This_ and _that_ are frequently put in opposition to each other; _this_, to express what is nearer in place or time; _that_, what is more remote. _All, any, one, other, some, such_, are termed _indefinite_. _Another_ is merely _other_ in the singular, with the indefinite article not kept separate from it.[175] _Other_, when not joined with a noun, is occasionally used both in the possessive case, and in the plural number: as,
‘Teach me to feel _an other’s_ wo, to hide the fault I see; That mercy I to _others_ show, that mercy show to me.’–_Pope_.
_Each other_ and _one another_, when used in conjunction, may be termed _reciprocals_; as they are employed to express a reciprocal action; the former, between two persons or things; the latter, _between_[176] more than two. The possessive cases of the personal pronouns have been also ranked under the head of pronominal adjectives, and styled possessives; but for this I see no good reason.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 76.
OBS. 15.–The reciprocal terms _each other_ and _one an other_ divide, according to some mutual act or interchangeable relation, the persons or things spoken of, and are commonly of the singular number only. _Each other_, if rightly used, supposes two, and only two, to be acting and acted upon reciprocally; _one an other_, if not misapplied, supposes more than two, under like circumstances, and has an indefinite reference to all taken distributively: as, “Brutus and Aruns killed _each other_.” That is, _Each combatant_ killed _the other_. “The disciples were commanded to love _one an other_, and to be willing to wash _one an other’s_ feet.” That is, _All_ the disciples were commanded to love _mutually_; for both terms, _one_ and _other_, or _one disciple_ and _an other disciple_, must be here understood as taken indefinitely. The reader will observe, that the two terms thus brought together, if taken substantively or pronominally in parsing, must be represented as being of _different cases_; or, if we take them adjectively the noun, which is twice to be supplied, will necessarily be so.
OBS. 16.–Misapplications of the foregoing reciprocal terms are very frequent in books, though it is strange that phrases so very common should not be rightly understood. Dr. Webster, among his explanations of the word _other_, has the following: “Correlative to _each_, and applicable to _any number_ of individuals.”–_Octavo Dict._ “_Other_ is used as a substitute for a noun, and in this use has the plural number and the sign of the possessive case.”–_Ib._ Now it is plain, that the word _other_, as a “correlative to _each_,” may be so far “a substitute for a noun” as to take the form of the possessive case singular, and perhaps also the plural; as, “Lock’d in _each other’s_ arms they lay.” But, that the objective _other_, in any such relation, can convey a plural idea, or be so loosely applicable–“to _any number_ of individuals,” I must here deny. If it were so, there would be occasion, by the foregoing rule, to make it plural in form; as, “The ambitious strive to excel _each others_.” But this is not English. Nor can it be correct to say of more than two, “They all strive to excel _each other_.” Because the explanation must be, “_Each_ strives to excel _other_;” and such a construction of the word _other_ is not agreeable to modern usage. _Each other_ is therefore not equivalent to _one an other_, but nearer perhaps to _the one the other_: as, “The two generals are independent _the one of the other_.”–_Voltaire’s Charles XII_, p. 67. “And these are contrary _the one to the other_.”–_Gal._, v, 17. “The necessary connexion _of the one with the other_.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 304. The latter phraseology, being definite and formal, is now seldom used, except the terms be separated by a verb or a preposition. It is a literal version of the French _l’un l’autre_, and in some instances to be preferred to _each other_; as,
“So fellest foes, whose plots have broke their sleep, To take _the one the other_, by some chance.”–_Shak_.
OBS. 17.–The Greek term for the reciprocals _each other_ and _one an other_, is a certain plural derivative from [Greek: allos], _other_; and is used in three cases, the genitive, [Greek: allaelon], the dative, [Greek: allaelois], the accusative, [Greek: allaelous]: these being all the cases which the nature of the expression admits; and for all these we commonly use the _objective_;–that is, we put _each_ or _one_ before the objective _other_. Now these English terms, taken in a reciprocal sense, seldom, if ever, have any plural form; because the article in _one an other_ admits of none; and _each other_, when applied to two persons or things, (as it almost always is,) does not require any. I have indeed seen, in some narrative, such an example as this: “The two men were ready to cut _each others’ throats_.” But the meaning could not be, that each was ready to cut “_others’ throats_;” and since, between the two, there was but one throat for _each_ to cut, it would doubtless be more correct to say, “_each other’s throat_.” So Burns, in touching a gentler passion, has an inaccurate elliptical expression:
“‘Tis when a youthful, loving, modest pair, In _others’_ arms, breathe out the tender tale.” –_Cotter’s Sat. Night_.
He meant, “In _each other’s_ arms;” the apostrophe being misplaced, and the metre improperly allowed to exclude a word which the sense requires. Now, as to the plural of _each other_, although we do not use the objective, and say of many, “They love _each others_,” there appear to be some instances in which the possessive plural, _each others’_, would not be improper; as, “Sixteen ministers, who meet weekly at _each other’s_ houses.”–_Johnson’s Life of Swift_. Here the singular is wrong, because the governing noun implies a plurality of owners. “The citizens of different states should know _each others characters_.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 35. This also is wrong, because no possessive sign is used. Either write, “_each others’ characters_,” or say, “_one an other’s character_.”
OBS. 18.–_One_ and _other_ are, in many instances, terms relative and partitive, rather than reciprocal; and, in this use, there seems to be an occasional demand for the plural form. In French, two parties are contrasted by _les uns–les autres_; a mode of expression seldom, if ever imitated in English. Thus: “Il les separera _les uns_ d’avec _les autres_.” That is, “He shall separate them _some_ from _others_;”–or, literally, “_the ones_ from _the others_.” Our version is: “He shall separate them _one from an other_.”–_Matt._, xxv, 32. Beza has it: “Separabit eos _alteros ab alteris_.” The Vulgate: “Separabit eos _ab invicem_.” The Greek: “[Greek: Aphoriei autous ap allaelon].” To separate many “_one from an other_,” seems, literally, to leave none of them together; and this is not, “as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.” To express such an idea with perfect propriety, in our language, therefore, we must resort to some other phraseology. In Campbell’s version, we read: “And _out of them_ he will separate _the good from the bad_, as a shepherd separateth _the_ sheep from the goats.” Better, perhaps, thus: “And he shall separate them, _the righteous from the wicked_, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.”
OBS. 19.–Dr. Bullions says, “_One_ and _other_ refer to _the singular only_.”–_Eng. Gram._, p. 98. Of _ones_ and _others_ he takes no notice; nor is he sufficiently attentive to usage in respect to the roots. If there is any absurdity in giving a _plural_ meaning to the singulars _one_ and _other_, the following sentences need amendment: “_The one_ preach Christ of contention; but _the other_, of love.”–_Philippians_, i, 16. Here “_the one_” is put for “the one _class_,” and “_the other_” for “the other _class_;” the ellipsis in the first instance not being a very proper one. “The confusion arises, when _the one_ will put _their_ sickle into _the other’s_ harvest.”–LESLEY: _in Joh. Dict._ This may be corrected by saying, “_the one party_,” or, “_the one nation_,” in stead of “_the one_.” “It is clear from Scripture, that Antichrist shall be permitted to work false miracles, and that they shall so counterfeit the true, that it will be hard to discern _the one_ from _the other_.”–_Barclay’s Works_, iii, 93. If in any ease we may adopt the French construction above, “_the ones_ from the _others_,” it will be proper here. Again: “I have seen _children_ at a table, who, whatever was there, never asked for any thing, but contentedly took what was given them: and, at an other place, I have seen _others_ cry for every thing they saw; they must be served out of every dish, and that first too. What made this vast difference, but this: That _one was_ accustomed to have what _they_ called or cried for; _the other_ to go without it?”–_Locke, on Education_, p. 55. Here, (with _were_ for _was_,) the terms of contrast ought rather to have been, _the ones–the others_; _the latter–the former_; or, _the importunate–the modest_. “Those nice shades, by which _virtues and vices_ approach _each one another_.”–_Murray’s Gram._, i, p. 350. This expression should be any thing, rather than what it is. Say, “By which _virtue_ and _vice_ approach _each other_.” Or: “By which certain virtues and vices _approximate– blend–become difficult of distinction_.”
OBS. 20.–“Most authors have given the name of _pronoun adjectives_, [‘pronouns adjective,’ or ‘pronominal adjectives,’] to _my, mine; our, ours; thy, thine; your, yours; his, her, hers; their, theirs_: perhaps because they are followed by, or refer to, some substantive [expressed or understood after them]. But, were they adjectives, they must either express the quality of their substantive, or limit its extent: adjectives properly so called, do the first; definitive pronouns do the last. All adjectives [that are either singular or plural,] agree with their substantives in _number_; but I can say, ‘They are _my books_:’ _my_ is singular, and _books_ plural; therefore _my_ is not an adjective. Besides, _my_ does not express the _quality_ of the books, but only ascertains the possessor, the same as the genitive or substantive does, to which it is similar. Examples: ‘They are _my_ books;’–‘They are _John’s_ books;’ &c.”–_Alex. Murray’s Gram._, p. 108.
OBS. 21.–To the class of Participial Adjectives, should be referred all such words as the following: (1.) The simple participles made adjectives by position; as. “A _roaring_ lion,”–“A _raging_ bear,”–“A _brawling_ woman,”–“A _flattering_ mouth,”–“An _understanding_ heart,”–“_Burning_ coals,”–“The _hearing_ ear, and the _seeing_ eye.”–_Bible_. “A _troubled_ fountain,”–“A _wounded_ spirit,”–“An _appointed_ time.”–_Ib._ (2.) Words of a participial appearance, formed from nouns by adding _ed_; as, “The eve thy _sainted_ mother died.”–_W. Scott_. “What you write of me, would make me more _conceited_, than what I scribble myself.”–_Pope_. (3.) Participles, or participial adjectives, reversed in sense by the prefix _un_; as, _unaspiring, unavailing, unbelieving, unbattered, uninjured, unbefriended_. (4.) Words of a participial form construed elliptically, as if they were nouns; as, “Among the _dying_ and the dead.”–“The _called_ of Jesus Christ.”–_Rom._, i, 6. “Dearly _beloved_, I beseech you.”–_1 Pet._, ii, 11. “The _redeemed_ of the Lord shall return.”–_Isaiah_, li, 11. “They talk, to the grief of thy _wounded_.”–_Psalms_, lxix, 26: _Margin_.
OBS. 22.–In the text, Prov., vii, 26, “She hath cast down many wounded,” _wounded_ is a participle; because the meaning is, “_many men wounded_,” and not, “_many wounded men_.” Our Participial Adjectives are exceedingly numerous. It is not easy to ascertain how many there are of them; because almost any simple participle may be set before a noun, and thus become an adjective: as,
“Where _smiling_ spring its earliest visit paid, And _parting_ summer’s _ling’ring_ blooms delay’d.”–_Goldsmith_.
OBS. 23.–Compound Adjectives, being formed at pleasure, are both numerous and various. In their formation, however, certain analogies may be traced: (1.) Many of them are formed by joining an adjective to its noun, and giving to the latter the participial termination _ed_; as, _able-bodied, sharp-sighted, left-handed, full-faced, flat-nosed, thick-lipped, cloven-footed, high-heeled_. (2.) In some, two nouns are joined, the latter assuming _ed_, as above; as, _bell-shaped, hawk-nosed, eagle-sighted, lion-hearted, web-footed_. (3.) In some, the object of an active participle is placed before it; as, _money-getting, time-serving, self-consuming, cloud-compelling, fortune-hunting, sleep-disturbing_. (4.) Some, embracing numerals, form a series, though it is seldom carried far; as, _one-legged, two-legged, three-legged, four-legged_. So, _one-leaved, two-leaved, three-leaved, four-leaved_: or, perhaps better as Webster will have them, _one-leafed, two-leafed, &c_. But, upon the same principle, _short-lived_, should be _short-lifed_, and _long-lived, long-lifed_. (5.) In some, there is a combination of an adjective and a participle; as, _noble-looking, high-sounding, slow-moving, thorough-going, hard-finished, free-born, heavy-laden, only-begotten_. (6.) In some, we find an adverb and a participle united; as, _ever-living, ill-judging, well-pleasing, far-shooting, forth-issuing, back-sliding, ill-trained, down-trodden, above-mentioned_. (7.) Some consist of a noun and a participle which might be reversed with a preposition between them; as, _church-going, care-crazed, travel-soiled, blood-bespotted, dew-sprinkled_. (8.) A few, and those inelegant, terminate with a preposition; as, _unlooked-for, long-looked-for, unthought-of, unheard-of_. (9.) Some are phrases of many words, converted into one part of speech by the hyphen; as, “Where is the _ever-to-be-honoured_ Chaucer?”–_Wordsworth_.
“And, with _God-only-knows-how-gotten_ light, Informs the nation what is wrong or right.” –_Snelling’s Gift for Scribblers_, p. 49.
OBS. 24.–Nouns derived from compound adjectives, are generally disapproved by good writers; yet we sometimes meet with them: as, _hard-heartedness_, for hardness of heart, or cruelty; _quick-sightedness_, for quickness of sight, or perspicacity; _worldly-mindedness_, for devotion to the world, or love of gain; _heavenly-mindedness_, for the love of God, or true piety. In speaking of ancestors or descendants, we take the noun, _father, mother, son, daughter_, or _child_; prefix the adjective _grand_; for the second generation; _great_, for the, third; and then, sometimes, repeat the same, for degrees more remote: as, _father, grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather_. “What would my _great-grandmother_ say, thought I, could she know that thou art to be chopped up for fuel to warm the frigid fingers of her _great-great-great-granddaughters_!”–_T. H. Bayley_.
MODIFICATIONS.
Adjectives have, commonly, no modifications but the forms of _comparison_. Comparison is a variation of the adjective, to express quality in different degrees: as, _hard, harder, hardest; soft, softer, softest._
There are three degrees of comparison; the _positive_, the _comparative_, and the _superlative_.
The _positive degree_ is that which is expressed by the adjective in its simple form: as, “An elephant is _large_; a mouse, _small_; a lion, _fierce, active, bold_, and _strong_.”
The _comparative degree_ is that which is _more_ or _less_ than something contrasted with it: as, “A whale is _larger_ than an elephant; a mouse is a much _smaller_ animal than a rat.”
The _superlative degree_ is that which is _most_ or _least_ of all included with it: as, “The whale is the _largest_ of the animals that inhabit this globe; the mouse is the _smallest_ of all beasts.”–_Dr. Johnson._
Those adjectives whose signification does not admit of different degrees, cannot be compared; as, _two, second, all, every, immortal, infinite._
Those adjectives which may be varied in sense, but not in form, are compared by means of adverbs; as, fruitful, _more_ fruitful, _most_ fruitful–fruitful, _less_ fruitful, _least_ fruitful.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–“Some scruple to call the positive a degree of comparison; on the ground, that it does not imply either comparison, or degree. But no quality can exist, without existing in some degree: and, though the positive is very frequently used without reference to any other degree; as it is _the standard_, with which other degrees of the quality are compared, it is certainly an essential object of the comparison. While these critics allow only two degrees, we might in fact with more propriety say, that there are five: 1, the quality in its standard state, or positive degree; as _wise_: 2, in a higher state, or the comparative ascending; _more wise_: 3, in a lower, or the comparative descending; _less wise_: 4, in the highest state, or superlative ascending; _most wise_: 5, in the lowest state, or superlative descending; _least wise._ All grammarians, however, agree about the things themselves, and the forms used to express them; though they differ about the names, by which these forms should be called: and as those names are practically best, which tend least to perplex the learner, I see no good reason here for deviating from what has been established by long custom.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 231.
OBS. 2.–Churchill here writes plausibly enough, but it will be seen, both from his explanation, and from the foregoing definitions of the degrees of comparison, that there are but three. The comparative and the superlative may each be distinguishable into the ascending and the descending, as often as we prefer the adverbial form to the regular variation of the adjective itself; but this imposes no necessity of classing and defining them otherwise than simply as the comparative and the superlative. The assumption of two comparatives and two superlatives, is not only contrary to the universal practice of the teachers of grammar; but there is this conclusive argument against it–that the regular method of comparison has no degrees of diminution, and the form which has such degrees, is _no inflection_ of the adjective. If there is any exception, it is in the words, _small, smaller, smallest_, and _little, less, least_. But of the smallness or littleness, considered abstractly, these, like all others, are degrees of increase, and not of diminution. _Smaller_ is as completely opposite to _less small_, as _wiser_ is to _less wise_. _Less_ itself is a comparative descending, only when it diminishes some _other_ quality: _less little_, if the phrase were proper, must needs be nearly equivalent to _greater_ or _more_. Churchill, however, may be quite right in the following remark: “The comparative ascending of an adjective, and the comparative descending of an adjective expressing the opposite quality, are often considered synonymous, by those who do not discriminate nicely between ideas. But _less imprudent_ does not imply precisely the same thing as _more prudent_; or _more brave_, the same as _less cowardly_.”–_New Gram._, p. 231.
OBS. 3.–The definitions which I have given of the three degrees of comparison, are new. In short, I know not whether any other grammarian has ever given what may justly be called a _definition_, of any one of them. Here, as in most other parts of grammar, loose _remarks_, ill-written and untrue assertions, have sufficed. The explanations found in many English