OBS. 6.–The _truth_ of any doctrine in science, can be nothing else than its conformity to facts, or to the nature of things; and chiefly by what he knows of the things themselves, must any one judge of what others say concerning them. Erroneous or inadequate views, confused or inconsistent statements, are the peculiar property of those who advance them; they have, in reality, no relationship to science itself, because they originate in ignorance; but all science is knowledge–it is knowledge methodized. What general rules are requisite for the syntactical parsing of the several parts of speech in English, may be seen at once by any one who will consider for a moment the usual construction of each. The correction of false syntax, in its various forms, will require more–yes, five times as many; but such of these as answer only the latter purpose, are, I think, better reserved for notes under the principal rules. The doctrines which I conceive most worthy to form the leading canons of our syntax, are those which are expressed in the twenty-four rules above. If other authors prefer more, or fewer, or different principles for their chief rules, I must suppose, it is because they have studied the subject less. Biased, as we may be, both by our knowledge and by our ignorance, it is easy for men to differ respecting matters of _expediency_; but that clearness, order, and consistency, are both _expedient_, and _requisite_, in didactic compositions, is what none can doubt.
OBS. 7.–Those English grammarians who tell us, as above, that syntax is divided into _parts_, or included under a certain number of _heads_, have almost universally contradicted themselves by treating the subject without any regard to such a division; and, at the same time, not a few have somehow been led into the gross error of supposing broad principles of concord or government where no such things exist. For example, they have invented general RULES like these: “The adjective _agrees_ with its noun in number, case, and gender.”–_Bingham’s English Gram._, p. 40. “Interjections _govern_ the nominative case, and sometimes the objective: as, ‘_O thou! alas me!_'”–_Ib._, p. 43. “Adjectives _agree_ with their nouns in number.”–_Wilbur and Livingston’s Gram._, p. 22. “Participles _agree_ with their nouns in number.”–_Ib._, p. 23. “Every adjective _agrees in number_ with some substantive expressed or understood.”– _Hiley’s Gram._, Rule 8th, p. 77. “The article THE _agrees_ with nouns in either number: as, _The wood, the woods_.”–_Bucke’s Classical Grammar of the English Language_, p. 84. “O! oh! ah! _require_ the accusative case of a pronoun in the first person after them: as ‘_Ah me!_’ But when the second person is used, _it requires_ a nominative case: as, ‘_O thou!_'”–_Ib._, p. 87. “Two or more Nominatives in the singular number, connected by the Conjunction _or, nor_, EITHER, NEITHER, _govern_ a singular Verb. But Pronouns singular, of different persons, joined by _or_, EITHER, _nor_, NEITHER, _govern_ a plural Verb.”–_Ib._, p. 94. “One Nominative frequently _governs_ many Verbs.”–_Ib._, p. 95. “Participles are sometimes _governed_ by the article.”–_Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, p. 192. “An adverb, an adjective, or a participle, may involve in itself the force of _a preposition, and govern_ the objective case.”–_Nutting’s Gram._, p. 99. “The nominative case _governs_ the verb.” [326]–_Greenleaf’s Gram._, p. 32; _Kirkham’s_, 176; and others. “The nominative case _comes before_ the verb.”–_Bingham’s Gram._, p. 38; _Wilbur and Livingston’s_, 23. “The Verb TO BE, _always governs_ a Nominative, _unless it be_ of the Infinitive Mood.”–_Buchanan’s Syntax_, p. 94. “A verb in the infinitive mood _may be governed_ by a verb, noun, adjective, participle, or pronoun.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 187. Or, (as a substitute for the foregoing rule,) say, according to this author: “A verb in the infinitive mood, _refers_ to some noun or pronoun, as its subject or actor.”–_Ib._, p. 188. Now what does he know of English grammar, who supposes any of these rules to be worthy of the place which they hold, or have held, in the halls of instruction?
OBS. 8.–It is a very common fault with the compilers of English grammars, to join together in the same rule the syntax of different parts of speech, uniting laws that must ever be applied separately in parsing. For example: “RULE XI. Articles and adjectives _relate to nouns_ expressed or understood; and the adjectives _this, that, one, two_, must agree in number with the nouns to which they relate.”–_Comly’s Gram._, p. 87. Now, in parsing an _article_, why should the learner have to tell all this story about _adjectives_? Such a mode of expressing the rule, is certainly in bad taste; and, after all, the syntax of adjectives is not here comprised, for they often relate to pronouns. “RULE III. Every adjective and participle _belongs_ to some noun or pronoun expressed or understood.”–_Frost’s El. of Gram._, p. 44. Here a compiler who in his etymology supposes participles to be _verbs_, allows them no other construction than that of _adjectives_. His rule implicitly denies that they can either be parts of their verbs in the formation of _tenses_, or be governed by prepositions in the character of _gerunds_. To suppose that a _noun_ may govern the objective case, is both absurd in itself, and contrary to all authority; yet, among his forty-nine rules, this author has the following: “RULE XXV. A participial _noun_ is sometimes governed by a preposition, and _may govern an objective case_; as, ‘George is too fond of _wasting time_ in trifles.'”–_Frost’s El. of Gram._, p. 47. Here again is the fault of which I am speaking, two rules in one; and this fault is combined with an other still worse. _Wasting_ is a participle, governed by _of_; and _time_ is a _noun_, governed by _wasting_. The latter is a declinable word, and found in the objective case; the former is indeclinable, and found in no case. It is an error to suppose that cases are the only things which are susceptible of being governed; nor is the brief rule, “Prepositions govern the objective case,” so very clear a maxim as never to be misapprehended. If the learner infer from it, that _all_ prepositions must necessarily govern the objective case, or that the objective case _is always_ governed by a preposition, he will be led into a great mistake.
OBS. 9.–This error of crowding things together, is still more conspicuous in the following examples: “RULE IV. Every article, adjective, and participle, _must qualify_ some noun, or pronoun, either expressed or understood.”–_Nutting’s Gram._, p. 94. “RULE IX. The objective case is governed by a transitive verb or a preposition, usually coming before it.”–_Ib._, p. 98. Here an author who separates participles from verbs, has attempted first to compress the entire syntax of three different parts of speech into one short rule; and, secondly, to embrace all the forms of dependence, incident to objective nouns and pronouns, in an other as short. This brevity is a poor exchange for the order and distribution which it prevents–especially as none of its objects are here reached. Articles do not relate to pronouns, unless the obsolete phrase _the which_ is to be revived;[327] participles have other constructions than those which adjectives admit; there are exceptions to the rules which tie articles to nouns, and adjectives to nouns or pronouns; and the objective case may not only be governed by a participle, but may be put in apposition with an other objective. The objective case in English usually stands for the Latin genitive, dative, accusative, and ablative; hence any rule that shall embrace the whole construction of this one case, will be the sole counterpart to four fifths of all the rules in any code of Latin syntax. For I imagine the construction of these four oblique cases, will be found to occupy at least that proportion of the syntactical rules and notes in any Latin grammar that can be found. Such rules, however, are often placed under false or equivocal titles;[328] as if they contained the construction of the _governing_ words, rather than that of the _governed_. And this latter error, again, has been transferred to most of our English grammars, to the exclusion of any rule for the proper construction of participles, of adverbs, of conjunctions, of prepositions, or of interjections. See the syntax of Murray and his copyists, whose treatment of these parts of speech is noticed in the fifth observation above.
OBS. 10.–It is doubtless most convenient, that, in all rules for the construction of _cases_, nouns and pronouns be taken together; because the very same doctrines apply equally well to both, and a case is as distinct a thing in the mind, as a part of speech. This method, therefore, I have myself pursued; and it has indeed the authority of all grammarians–not excepting those who violate its principles by adopting two special rules for the relative pronoun, which are not needed. These special rules, which I shall notice again hereafter, may be seen in Murray’s Rule 6th, which is double, and contains them both. The most complex rule that I have admitted, is that which embraces the government of objectives by verbs and participles. The regimen by verbs, and the regimen by participles, may not improperly be reckoned distinct principles; but the near alliance of participles to their verbs, seems to be a sufficient reason for preferring one rule to two, in this instance.
OBS. 11.–An other common fault in the treatment of this part of grammar, is the practice of making many of the rules _double_, or even _triple_, in their form. Of L. Murray’s twenty-two rules, for instance, there are six which severally consist of two distinct paragraphs; and one is composed of three such parts, with examples under each. Five others, though simple in their form, are complex in their doctrine, and liable to the objections which have been urged above against this characteristic. These twelve, therefore, I either reject entirely from my catalogue, or divide and simplify to fit them for their purpose. In short, by comparing the twenty-two rules which were adopted by this popular grammarian, with the twenty-four which are given in this work, the reader may see, that twelve of the former have pleased me too little to have any place at all among the latter, and that none of the remaining ten have been thought worthy to be copied without considerable alteration. Nor are the rules which I adopt, more nearly coincident with those of any other writer. I do not proffer to the schools the second-hand instructions of a mere compiler. In his twenty-two rules, independently of their examples, Hurray has used six hundred and seventeen words, thus giving an average of twenty-eight to each rule; whereas in the twenty-four rules which are presented above, the words are but four hundred and thirty-six, making the average less than nineteen. And yet I have not only divided some of his propositions and extended others, but, by rejecting what was useless or erroneous, and filling up the deficiencies which mark his code, I have delivered twice the amount of doctrine in two thirds of the space, and furnished eleven important rules which are not contained in his grammar. Thus much, in this place, to those who so frequently ask, “Wherein does your book differ from Murray’s?”
OBS. 12.–Of all the systems of syntax, or of grammar, which it has been my fortune to examine, a book which was first published by Robinson and Franklin of New York in 1839, a fair-looking duodecimo volume of 384 pages, under the brief but rather ostentatious title, “THE GRAMMAR _of the English Language_” is, I think, the most faulty,–the most remarkable for the magnitude, multitude, and variety, of its strange errors, inconsistencies, and defects. This singular performance is the work of _Oliver B. Peirce_, an itinerant lecturer on grammar, who dates his preface at “Rome, N. Y., December 29th, 1838.” Its leading characteristic is boastful innovation; it being fall of acknowledged “contempt for the works of other writers.”–P. 379. It lays “claim to _singularity_” as a merit, and boasts of a new thing under the sun–“in a theory RADICALLY NEW, a Grammar of the English Language; something which I believe,” says the author, “has NEVER BEFORE BEEN FOUND.”–P. 9. The old scholastic notion, that because Custom is the arbitress of speech, novelty is excluded from grammar, this hopeful reformer thoroughly condemns; “repudiating this sentiment to the full extent of it,” (_ib._) and “writing his theory as though he had never seen a book, entitled an English Grammar.”–_Ib._ And, for all the ends of good learning, it would have been as well or better, if he never had. His passion for novelty has led him not only to abandon or misapply, in an unprecedented degree, the usual terms of the art, but to disregard in many instances its most unquestionable principles, universal as well as particular. His parts of speech are the following ten: “Names, Substitutes, _Asserters_, Adnames, Modifiers, Relatives, Connectives, Interrogatives, Repliers, and Exclamations.”–_The Gram._, p. 20. His _names_ are nouns; his _substitutes_ are pronouns, and any adjectives whose nouns are not expressed; his _asserters_ are verbs and participles, though the latter assert nothing; his _adnames_ are articles, adjectives whose nouns or pronouns are expressed, and adverbs that relate to adjectives; his _modifiers_ are such adverbs as “modify the sense or sound of a whole sentence;” his _relatives_ are prepositions, some of which _govern no object_; his _connectives_ are conjunctions, with certain adverbs and phrases; his _interrogatives_ and _repliers_ are new parts of speech, very lamely explained; his _exclamations_ are interjections, and “_phrases used independently_; as, O hapless choice!”–_The Gram._, p. 22. In parsing, he finds a world of “_accommodatives_;” as, “John is _more than five years_ older than William.”–_Ib._ p. 202. Here he calls the whole phrase “_more than five years_” “a secondary _adname_” i. e., _adjective_. But, in the phrase, “_more than five years_ afterwards,” he would call the same words “a secondary _modifier_;” i. e., _adverb_.–_Ib._, p. 203. And, in the phrase, “_more than five years_ before the war,” he would call them “a secondary _relative_;” i. e., _preposition_.–_Ib._, p. 204. And so of other phrases innumerable. His cases are five, two of which are new, “the _Independent_” and “the _Twofold_ case.” His “_independent_ case” is sometimes the nominative in form, as “_thou_” and “_she_;” (p. 62;) sometimes the objective, as, “_me_” and “_him_;” (p. 62 and p. 199;) sometimes erroneously supposed to be the subject of a finite verb; while _his nominative_ is sometimes as erroneously said to have _no_ verb. His code of syntax has two sorts of rules, Analytical and Synthetical. The former are professedly seventeen in number; but, many of them consisting of two, three, or four distinct parts, their real number is more properly thirty-four. The latter are reckoned forty-five; but if we count their separate parts, they are fifty-six: and these with the others make _ninety_. I shall not particularize their faults. All of them are whimsically conceived and badly written. In short, had the author artfully designed to turn English grammar into a subject of contempt and ridicule, by as ugly a caricature of it as he could possibly invent, he could never have hit the mark more exactly than he has done in this “_new theory_”–this rash production, on which he so sincerely prides himself. Alone as he is, in well-nigh all his opinions, behold how prettily he talks of “COMMON SENSE, the only sure foundation of any theory!” and says, “On this imperishable foundation–this rock of eternal endurance–I rear my superstructure, _the edifice of scientific truth_, the temple of Grammatical consistency!”–_Peirce’s Preface_, p. 7.
OBS. 13.–For the teaching of different languages, it has been thought very desirable to have “a Series of grammars, Greek, Latin, English, &c., all, so far as general principles are concerned, upon the same plan, and as nearly in the same words as the genius of the languages would permit.”–See _Bullions’s Principles of E. Gram._, 2d Ed., pp. iv and vi. This scheme necessarily demands a minute comparison not only of the several languages themselves, but also of the various grammars in which their principles, whether general or particular, are developed. For by no other means can it be ascertained to what extent uniformity of this kind will be either profitable to the learner, or consistent with truth. Some books have been published, which, it is pretended, are thus accommodated to one an other, and to the languages of which they treat. But, in view of the fact, that the Latin or the Greek grammars now extant, (to say nothing of the French, Spanish, and others,) are almost as various and as faulty as the English, I am apprehensive that this is a desideratum not soon to be realized,–a design more plausible in the prospectus, than feasible in the attempt. At any rate, the grammars of different languages must needs differ as much as do the languages themselves, otherwise some of their principles will of course be false; and we have already seen that the nonobservance of this has been a fruitful source of error in respect to English syntax. The achievement, however, is not altogether impossible, if a man of competent learning will devote to it a sufficient degree of labour. But the mere revising or altering of some one grammar in each language, can scarcely amount to any thing more than a pretence of improvement. Waiving the pettiness of compiling upon the basis of an other man’s compilation, the foundation of a good grammar for any language, must be both deeper and broader than all the works which Professor Bullions has selected to build upon: for the Greek, than Dr. Moor’s “_Elementa Linguae, Graecae_;” for the Latin, than Dr. Adam’s “_Rudiments of Latin and English Grammar_;” for the English, than Murray’s “_English Grammar_,” or Lennie’s “_Principles of English Grammar_;” which last work, in fact, the learned gentleman preferred, though he pretends to have mended the code of Murray. But, certainly, Lennie never supposed himself a copyist of Murray; nor was he to much extent an imitator of him, either in method or in style.
OBS. 14.–We have, then, in this new American form of “_The Principles of English Grammar_,” Lennie’s very compact little book, altered, enlarged, and bearing on its title-page (which is otherwise in the very words of Lennie) an other author’s name, and, in its early editions, the false and self-accusing inscription, “(ON THE PLAN OF MURRAY’S GRAMMAR.)” And this work, claiming to have been approved “by the most competent judges,” now challenges the praise not only of being “better adapted to the use of academies and schools _than any yet published_” but of so presenting “_the rules and principles of general grammar_, as that they may apply to, and be in perfect harmony with, _the grammars of the dead languages_”– _Recommendations_, p. iv. These are admirable professions for a critical author to publish; especially, as every rule or principle of General Grammar, condemning as it must whoever violates it, cannot but “be in _perfect harmony_ with” every thing that is true. In this model for all grammars, Latin, Greek, &c., the doctrines of punctuation, of abbreviations, and of capital letters, and also sections on the rhetorical divisions of a discourse, the different kinds of composition, the different kinds of prose composition, and the different kinds of poetry, are made _parts of the Syntax_; while his hints for correct and elegant writing, and his section on the composition of letters and themes, which other writers suppose to belong rather to syntax, are here subjoined as _parts of Prosody_. In the exercises for parsing appended to his _Etymology_, the Doctor furnishes _twenty-five Rules of Syntax_, which, he says, “are not intended to be committed to memory, but to be used as directions to the beginner in parsing the exercises under them.”–_E. Gram._, p. 75. Then, for his syntax proper, he copies from Lennie, with some alterations, _thirty-four other rules_, nine of which are double, and all are jumbled together by both authors, without any regard to the distinction of concord and government, so common in the grammars of the dead languages, and even, so far as I can discover, without any principle of arrangement whatever. They profess indeed to have placed those rules first, which are eaisest [sic–KTH] to learn, and oftenest to be applied; but the syntax of _articles_, which even on this principle should have formed the first of the series, is placed by Lennie as the thirty-fourth rule, and by his amender as the thirty-second. To all this complexity the latter adds _twenty-two Special Rules_, with an abundance of “_Notes_” “_Observations_” and “_Remarks_” distinguished by these titles, on some principle which no one but the author can understand. Lastly, his _method of syntactical parsing_ is not only mixed up with etymological questions and answers, but his _directions_ for it, with their _exemplification_, are perplexingly at variance with his own _specimen_ of the performance. See his book, pages 131 and 133. So much for this grand scheme.
OBS. 15.–Strictures like the foregoing, did they not involve the defence of grammar itself, so as to bear upon interests more important than the success or failure of an elementary book, might well be withheld through motives of charity, economy, and peace. There is many a grammar now extant, concerning which a truly critical reader may know more at first sight, than ever did he that made it. What such a reader will be inclined to rate beneath criticism, an other perhaps will confidently pronounce above it. If my remarks are just, let the one approve them for the other’s sake. For what becomes of the teaching of grammar, when that which is received as the most excellent method, must be exempted from censure by reason of its utter worthlessness? And what becomes of Universal Syntax, when the imperfect systems of the Latin and Greek grammars, in stead of being amended, are modelled to the grossest faults of what is worthless in our own?[329]
OBS. 16.–What arrangement of Latin or Greek syntax may be best in itself, I am not now concerned to show. Lily did not divide his, as others have divided the subject since; but first stated briefly his _three concords_, and then proceeded to what he called _the construction_ of the several parts of speech, taking them in their order. The three concords of Lily are the following: (1.) Of the _Nominative and Verb_; to which the accusative before an infinitive, and the collective noun with a plural verb, are reckoned exceptions; while the agreement of a verb or pronoun with two or more nouns, is referred to the figure _syllepsis_. (2.) Of the _Substantive and Adjective_; under which the agreement of participles, and of some pronouns, is placed in the form of a note. (3.) Of the _Relative and Antecedent_; after which the two special rules for the _cases_ of relatives are given as underparts. Dr. Adam divided his syntax into two parts; of Simple Sentences, and of Compound Sentences. His three concords are the following: (1.) Of one _Substantive with an Other_; which construction is placed by Lily and many others among the figures of syntax, and is called _apposition_. (2.) Of an _Adjective with a Substantive_; under which principle, we are told to take adjective pronouns and participles. (3.) Of a _Verb with a Nominative_; under which, the collective noun with a verb of either number, is noticed in an observation. The construction of relatives, of conjunctions, of comparatives, and of words put absolute, this author reserves for the second part of his syntax; and the agreement of plural verbs or pronouns with joint nominatives or antecedents, which Ruddiman places in an observation on his _four concords_, is here absurdly reckoned a part of the construction of conjunctions. Various divisions and subdivisions of the Latin syntax, with special dispositions of some particular principles of it, may be seen in the elaborate grammars of Despauter, Prat, Ruddiman, Grant, and other writers. And here it may be proper to observe, that, the mixing of syntax with etymology, after the manner of Ingersoll, Kirkham, R. W. Green, R. C. Smith, Sanborn, Felton, Hazen, Parkhurst, Parker and Fox, Weld, and others, is a modern innovation, pernicious to both; either topic being sufficiently comprehensive, and sufficiently difficult, when they are treated separately; and each having, in some instances, employed the pens of able writers almost to the exclusion of the other.
OBS. 17.–The syntax of any language must needs conform to the peculiarities of its etymology, and also be consistent with itself; for all will expect better things of a scholar, than to lay down positions in one part of his grammar, that are irreconcilable with what he has stated in an other. The English language, having few inflections, has also few concords or agreements, and still fewer governments. Articles, adjectives, and participles, which in many other languages agree with their nouns in gender, number, and case, have usually, in English, no modifications in which they _can agree_ with their nouns. Yet _Lowth_ says, “The adjective in English, having no variation of gender and number, _cannot but agree_ with the substantive in these respects.”–_Short Introd. to Gram._, p. 86. What then is the _agreement_ of words? Can it be anything else than their _similarity_ in some common property or modification? And is it not obvious, that no two things in nature can at all _agree_, or _be alike_, except in some quality or accident which belongs to each of them? Yet how often have _Murray_ and others, as well as _Lowth_, forgotten this! To give one instance out of many: “_Gender_ has respect only to the third person singular of the pronouns, _he, she, it_.”–_Murray, J. Peirce, Flint, Lyon, Bacon, Russell, Fisk, Maltby, Alger, Miller, Merchant, Kirkham_, and other careless copyists. Yet, according to these same gentlemen, “Gender is _the distinction of nouns_, with regard to sex;” and, “Pronouns _must always agree_ with their antecedents, _and the nouns_ for which they stand, in gender.” Now, not one of these three careless assertions can possibly be reconciled with either of the others!
OBS. 18.–_Government_ has respect only to nouns, pronouns, verbs, participles, and prepositions; the other five parts of speech neither govern nor are governed. The _governing_ words may be either nouns, or verbs, or participles, or prepositions; the words _governed_ are either nouns, or pronouns, or verbs, or participles. In parsing, the learner must remember that the rules of government are not to be applied to the _governing_ words, but to those which _are governed_; and which, for the sake of brevity, are often technically named after the particular form or modification assumed; as, _possessives, objectives, infinitives, gerundives_. These are the only things in English, that can properly be said to be subject to government; and these are always so, in their own names; unless we except such infinitives as stand in the place of nominatives. _Gerundives_ are participles governed by prepositions; but, there being little or no occasion to distinguish these from other participles, we seldom use this name. The Latin _Gerund_ differs from a participle, and the English _Gerundive_ differs from a participial noun. The participial noun may be the subject or the object of a verb, or may govern the possessive case before it, like any other noun; but the true English gerundive, being essentially a participle, and governing an object after it, like any other participle, is itself governed only by a preposition. At least, this is its usual and allowed construction, and no other is acknowledged to be indisputably right.
OBS. 19.–The simple _Relations_ of words in English, (or those several _uses_ of the parts of speech which we may refer to this head,) are the following nine: (1.) Of Articles to nouns, by Rule 1st; (2.) Of Nominatives to verbs, by Rule 2d; (3.) Of Nominatives absolute or independent, by Rule 8th; (4.) Of Adjectives to nouns or pronouns, by Rule 9th; (5.) Of Participles to nouns or pronouns, by Rule 20th; (6.) Of Adverbs to verbs, participles, &c., by Rule 21st; (7.) Of Conjunctions as connecting words, phrases, or sentences, by Rule 22nd; (8.) Of Prepositions as showing the relations of things, by Rule 23d; (9.) Of Interjections as being used independently, by Rule 24th.
OBS. 20.–The syntactical _Agreements_ in English, though actually much fewer than those which occur in Latin, Greek, or French, may easily be so reckoned as to amount to double, or even triple, the number usually spoken of by the old grammarians. The twenty-four rules above, embrace the following ten heads, which may not improperly be taken for so many distinct concords: (1.) Of a Noun or Pronoun in direct apposition with another, by Rule 3d; (2.) Of a Noun or Pronoun after a verb or participle not transitive, by Rule 6th; (3.) Of a Pronoun with its antecedent, by Rule 10th; (4.) Of a Pronoun with a collective noun, by Rule 11th; (5.) Of a Pronoun with joint antecedents, by Rule 12th; (6.) Of a Pronoun with disjunct antecedents, by Rule 13th; (7.) Of a Verb with its nominative, by Rule 14th; (8.) Of a Verb with a collective noun, by Rule 15th; (9.) Of a Verb with joint nominatives, by Rule 16th; (10.) Of a Verb with disjunct nominatives, by Rule 17th. To these may be added two other _special_ concords, less common and less important, which will be explained in _notes_ under the rules: (11.) Of one Verb with an other, in mood, tense, and form, when two are connected so as to agree with the same nominative; (12.) Of Adjectives that imply unity or plurality, with their nouns, in number.
OBS. 21.–Again, by a different mode of reckoning them, the concords or the _general principles_ of agreement, in our language, may be made to be only three or four; and some of these much _less general_, than they are in other languages: (1.) _Words in apposition agree in case_, according to Rule 3d; of which principle, Rule 6th may be considered a modification. (2.) _Pronouns agree, with their nouns, in person, number, and gender_, according to Rule 10th; of which principle, Rules 11th, 12th, and 13th, may be reckoned modifications. (3.) _Verbs agree with their nominatives, in person and number_, according to Rule 14th; of which principle Rules 15th, 16th, and 17th, and the occasional agreement of one verb with an other, may be esteemed mere modifications. (4.) _Some adjectives agree with their nouns in number_. These make up the twelve concords above enumerated.
OBS. 22.–The rules of _Government_ in the best Latin grammars are about sixty; and these are usually distributed (though not very properly) under three heads; “1. Of Nouns. 2. Of Verbs. 3. Of Words indeclinable.”– _Grant’s Lat. Gram._, p. 170. “Regimen est triplex: 1. Nominum. 2. Verborum. 3. Vocum indeclinabilium.”–_Ruddiman’s Gram._, p. 138. This division of the subject brings all the _titles_ of the rules wrong. For example, if the rule be, “Active verbs govern the accusative case,” this is not properly “the government of _verbs_” but rather the government _of the accusative_ by verbs. At least, such titles are _equivocal_, and likely to mislead the learner. The governments in English are only seven, and these are expressed, perhaps with sufficient distinctness, in six of the foregoing rules: (1.) Of Possessives by nouns, in Rule 4th; (2.) Of Objectives by verbs, in Rule 5th; (3.) Of Objectives by participles, in Rule 5th; (4.) Of Objectives by prepositions, in Rule 7th; (5.) Of Infinitives by the preposition _to_, in Rule 18th; (6.) Of Infinitives by the verbs _bid, dare_, &c., in Rule 19th; (7.) Of Participles by prepositions, in Rule 20th.
OBS. 23.–The _Arrangement_ of words, (which will be sufficiently treated of in the observations hereafter to be made on the several rules of construction,) is an important part of syntax, in which not only the beauty but the propriety of language is intimately concerned, and to which particular attention should therefore be paid in composition. But it is to be remembered, that the mere collocation of words in a sentence never affects the method of parsing them: on the contrary, the same words, however placed, are always to be parsed in precisely the same way, so long as they express precisely the same meaning. In order to show that we have parsed any part of an inverted or difficult sentence rightly, we are at liberty to declare the meaning by any arrangement which will make the construction more obvious, provided we retain both the sense and all the words unaltered; but to drop or alter any word, is to pervert the text under pretence of resolving it, and to make a mockery of parsing. Grammar rightly learned, enables one to understand both the sense and the construction of whatsoever is rightly written; and he who reads what he does not understand, reads to little purpose. With great indignity to the muses, several pretenders to grammar have foolishly taught, that, “In parsing poetry, in order to _come at the meaning_ of the author, the learner will find it necessary to transpose his language.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 166. See also the books of _Merchant, Wilcox, O. B. Peirce, Hull, Smith, Felton_, and others, to the same effect. To what purpose can he _transpose_ the words of a sentence, who does not first see what they mean, and how to explain or parse them as they stand?
OBS. 24.–Errors innumerable have been introduced into the common modes of parsing, through a false notion of what constitutes a _simple sentence_. Lowth, Adam, Murray, Gould, Smith, Ingersoll, Comly, Lennie, Hiley, Bullions, Wells, and many others, say, “A simple sentence has in it _but one subject_, and _one finite verb_: as, ‘Life is short.'”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, p. 141. In accordance with this assertion, some assume, that, “Every nominative _has its own verb_ expressed or understood;” and that, “Every verb (except in the infinitive mood and participle) _has its own nominative_ expressed or understood.”–_Bullions’s E. Gram._, p. 87. The adopters of these dogmas, of course think it right to _supply_ a nominative whenever they do not find a separate one expressed for every finite verb, and a verb whenever they do not find a separate one expressed for every nominative. This mode of interpretation not only precludes the agreement of a verb with two or more nominatives, so as to render nugatory two of the most important rules of these very gentlemen’s syntax; but, what is worse, it perverts many a plain, simple, and perfect sentence, to a form which its author did not choose, and a meaning which he never intended. Suppose, for example, the text to be, “A good constitution and good laws make good subjects.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 152. Does not the verb _make_ agree with _constitution_ and _laws_, taken conjointly? and is it not a _perversion_ of the sentence to interpret it otherwise? Away then with all this _needless subaudition!_ But while we thus deny that there can be a true ellipsis of what is not necessary to the construction, it is not to be denied that there _are_ true ellipses, and in some men’s style very many. The assumption of O. B. Peirce, that no correct sentence is elliptical, and his impracticable project of a grammar founded on this principle, are among the grossest of possible absurdities.
OBS. 25.–Dr. Wilson says, “There may be several subjects to the same verb, several verbs to the same subject, or several objects to the same verb, and the sentence be simple. But when the sentence remains simple, the same verb must be differently affected by its several adjuncts, or the sense liable to be altered by a separation. If the verb or the subject _be_ affected in the same manner, or the sentence _is_ resolvable into more, it is compounded. Thus, ‘Violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red, mixed in due proportion, produce white,’ is a simple sentence, for the subject is indivisible. But, ‘Violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red, are refrangible rays of light,’ is a compound sentence, and may be separated into seven.”–_Essay on Gram._, p. 186. The propriety of the distinction here made, is at least questionable; and I incline to consider the second example a simple sentence, as well as the first; because what the writer calls a separation into seven, involves a change of _are_ to _is_, and of _rays_ to _ray_, as well as a sevenfold repetition of this altered predicate, “_is a refrangible ray of light_.” But the parser, in interpreting the words of others, and expounding the construction of what is written, has no right to alter anything in this manner. Nor do I admit that he has a right to insert or repeat anything _needlessly_; for the nature of a sentence, or the syntax of some of its words, may often be altered without change of the sense, or of any word for an other: as, “‘A wall seven feet high;’ that is, ‘A wall _which is_ seven feet high.'”–_Hiley’s Gram._, p. 109. “‘He spoke and acted prudently;’ that is, ‘He spoke _prudently_, and _he_ acted prudently.'”–_Ibid._ ‘”He spoke and acted wisely;’ that is, ‘He spoke _wisely_, and _he_ acted wisely.'”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 219; _Alger’s_, 70: _R. C. Smith’s_, 183; _Weld’s_, 192; and others. By this notion of ellipsis, the connexion or joint relation of words is destroyed.
OBS. 26.–Dr. Adam, who thought the division of sentences into simple and compound, of sufficient importance to be made the basis of a general division of syntax into two parts, has defined a simple sentence to be, “that which has but one nominative, and one finite verb;” and a compound sentence, “that which has more than one nominative, or one finite verb.” And of the latter he gives the following erroneous and self-contradictory account: “A compound sentence is made up of two or more simple sentences or _phrases_, and is commonly called a _Period_. The parts of which a compound sentence consists, are called _Members_ or _Clauses_. In every compound sentence there are either several subjects and one attribute, or several attributes and one subject, or both several subjects and several attributes; that is, there are either several nominatives applied to the same verb, or several verbs applied to the same nominative, or both. Every verb marks a judgment or attribute, and every attribute must have a subject. There must, therefore, be in every sentence or period, as many propositions as there are verbs of a finite mode. Sentences are compounded by means of relatives and conjunctions; as, Happy is the man _who_ loveth religion, and practiseth virtue.”–_Adam’s Gram._, p. 202; _Gould’s_, 199; and others.
OBS. 27.–Now if every compound sentence consists of such parts, members, or clauses, as are in themselves sentences, either simple or compound, either elliptical or complete; it is plain, in the first place, that the term “phrases” is misapplied above, because a phrase is properly only a part of some simple sentence. And if “a simple sentence is that which has but one nominative and one finite verb,” and “a compound sentence is made up of two or more simple sentences,” it follows, since “all sentences are either simple or compound,” that, _in no sentence, can there be_ “either several nominatives applied to the same verb, or several verbs applied to the same nominative.” What, therefore, this author regarded as _the characteristic_ of all compound sentences, is, according to his own previous positions, utterly impossible to any sentence. Nor is it less repugnant to his subsequent doctrine, that, “Sentences are compounded by means of _relatives_ and _conjunctions_;” for, according to his notion, “A conjunction is an indeclinable word, which serves to join _sentences_ together.”–_Adam’s Gram._, p. 149. It is assumed, that, “In every _sentence_ there must be a verb and a nominative expressed or understood.”–_Ib._, p. 151. Now if there happen to be two nominatives to one verb, as when it was said, “Even the _winds_ and the _sea_ obey him;” this cannot be anything more than a simple sentence; because one single verb is a thing indivisible, and how can we suppose it to form the most essential part of two different sentences at once?
OBS. 28.–The distinction, or real difference, between those simple sentences in which two or more nominatives or verbs are taken conjointly, and those compound sentences in which there is an ellipsis of some of the nominatives or verbs, is not always easy to be known or fixed; because in many instances, a supposed _ellipsis_, without at all affecting the sense, may obviously change the construction, and consequently the nature of the sentence. For example: “And they all forsook him, and [they all] fled.”–_Mark_, xiv, 50. Some will say, that the words in brackets are here _understood_. I may deny it, because they are needless; and nothing needless can form a true ellipsis. To the supplying of useless words, if we admit the principle, there may be no end; and the notion that conjunctions join sentences only, opens a wide door for it. For example: “And that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.”–_Job_, i, 1. No additional words will make this clause any plainer, and none are really necessary to the construction; yet some grammarians will parse it with the following impletions, or more: “And that man was _a_ perfect _man_, and _he was an_ upright _man_, and _he was_ one _man_ that feared God, and _that_ eschewed evil _things_.” It is easy to see how this liberty of interpretation, or of interpolation, will change simple sentences to compound sentences, as well as alter the nature and relation of many particular words; and at the same time, it takes away totally those peculiarities of construction by which Dr. Adam and others would recognize a sentence as being compound. What then? are there not two kinds of sentences? Yes, truly; but these authors are wrong in their notions and definitions of both. Joint nominatives or joint verbs may occur in either; but they belong primarily to some simple sentences, and only for that reason are found in any that are compound. A sentence, too, may possibly be made compound, when a simple one would express the whole meaning as well or better; as, “And [David] smote the Philistines from Geba _until thou come_ to Gazer.”–_2 Sam._, v, 25. Here, if we omit the words in Italics, the sentence will become simple, not elliptical.
THE ANALYZING OF SENTENCES.
To analyze a sentence, is, to resolve it into some species of constituent parts, but most properly into words, its first significant elements, and to point out their several relations and powers in the given connexion.
The component parts of a sentence are _members, clauses, phrases_, or _words_. Some sentences, which are short and simple, can only be divided into their words; others, which are long and complex, may be resolved into parts again and again divisible.
Of analysis applicable to sentences, there are several different methods; and, so far as their difference may compatibly aid the application of different principles of the science of grammar, there may be an advantage in the occasional use of each.
FIRST METHOD OF ANALYSIS.
_Sentences not simple may be reduced to their constituent members, clauses, or simple sentences; and the means by which these are united, may be shown. Thus_:–
EXAMPLE ANALYZED.
“Even the Atheist, who tells us that the universe is self-existent and indestructible–even he, who, instead of seeing the traces of a manifold wisdom in its manifold varieties, sees nothing in them all but the exquisite structures and the lofty dimensions of materialism–even he, who would despoil creation of its God, cannot look upon its golden suns, and their accompanying systems, without the solemn impression of a magnificence that fixes and overpowers him.”–DR. CHALMERS, _Discourses on Revelation and Astronomy_, p. 231.
ANALYSIS.–This is a compound sentence, consisting of three complex members, which are separated by the two dashes. The three members are united in one sentence, by a suspension of the sense at each dash, and by two virtual repetitions of the subject, “_Atheist_” through the pronoun “_he_,” put in the same case, and representing this noun. The sense mainly intended is not brought out till the period ends. Each of the three members is complex, because each has not only a relative clause, commencing with “_who_,” but also an antecedent word which makes sense with “_cannot look_,” &c. The first of these relative clauses involves also a subordinate, supplementary clause,–“_the universe is self-existent and indestructible_”–introduced after the verb “_tells_” by the conjunction “_that_.” The last phrase, “_without the solemn impression_,” &c., which is subjoined by “_without_” to “_cannot look_,” embraces likewise a subordinate, relative clause,–“_that fixes and overpowers him_,”–which has two verbs; the whole, antecedent and all, being but an adjunct of an adjunct, yet an essential element of the sentence.
SECOND METHOD OF ANALYSIS.
_Simple sentences, or the simple members of compound sentences, may be resolved into their PRINCIPAL and their SUBORDINATE PARTS; the subject, the verb, and the case put after or governed by the verb, being first pointed out as THE PRINCIPAL PARTS; and the other words being then detailed as ADJUNCTS to these, according to THE SENSE, or as adjuncts to adjuncts. Thus_:–
EXAMPLE ANALYZED.
“Fear naturally quickens the flight of guilt. Rasselas could not catch the fugitive, with his utmost efforts; but, resolving to weary, by perseverance, him whom he could not surpass in speed, he pressed on till the foot of the mountain stopped his course.”–DR. JOHNSON, _Rasselas_, p. 23.
ANALYSIS.–The first period here is a simple sentence. Its principal parts are–_Fear, quickens, flight_; _Fear_ being the subject, _quickens_ the verb, and _flight_ the object. _Fear_ has no adjunct; _naturally_ is an adjunct of _quickens_; _the_ and _of guilt_ are adjuncts of _flight_. The second period is composed of several clauses, or simple members, united. The first of these is also a simple sentence, having, three principal parts–_Rasselas, could catch_, and _fugitive_; the subject, the verb, and its object, in their order. _Not_ is added to _could catch_, reversing the meaning; _the_ is an adjunct to _fugitive_; _with_ joins its phrase to _could not catch_; but _his_ and _utmost_ are adjuncts of _efforts_. The word _but_ connects the two chief members as parts of one sentence. “_Resolving to weary_” is an adjunct to the pronoun _he_, which stands before _pressed_. “_By perseverance_,” is an adjunct to _weary_. _Him_ is governed by _weary_, and is the antecedent to _whom_. “_Whom he could not surpass in speed_,” is a relative clause, or subordinate simple member, having three principal parts–_he, could surpass_, and _whom. Not_ and _in speed_ are adjuncts to the verb _could surpass_. “_He pressed on_” is an other simple member, or sentence, and the chief clause here used, the others being subjoined to this. Its principal parts are two, _he_ and _pressed_; the latter taking the particle _on_ as an adjunct, and being intransitive. The words dependent on the nominative _he_, (to wit, _resolving_, &c.,) have already been mentioned. _Till_ is a conjunctive adverb of time, connecting the concluding clause to _pressed on_. “_The foot of the mountain stopped his course_,” is a subordinate clause and simple member, whose principal parts are–the subject _foot_, the verb _stopped_, and the object _course_. The adjuncts of _foot_ are _the_ and _of the mountain_; the verb in this sentence has no adjunct but _course_, which is better reckoned a principal word; lastly, _his_ is an adjunct to _course_, and governed by it.
THIRD METHOD OF ANALYSIS.
_Sentences may be partially analyzed by a resolution into their SUBJECTS and their PREDICATES, a method which some late grammarians have borrowed from the logicians; the grammatical subject with its adjuncts, being taken for the logical subject; and the finite verb, which some call the grammatical predicate[330] being, with its subsequent case and the adjuncts of both, denominated the predicate, or the logical predicate. Thus_:–
EXAMPLE ANALYZED.
“Such is the emptiness of human enjoyment, that we are always impatient of the present. Attainment is followed by neglect, and possession, by disgust. Few moments are more pleasing than those in which the mind is concerting measures for a new undertaking. From the first hint that wakens the fancy, to the hour of actual execution, all is improvement and progress, triumph and felicity.”–DR. JOHNSON, _Rambler_.
ANALYSIS.–Here the first period is a compound sentence, containing two clauses,–which are connected by _that_. In the first clause, _emptiness_ is the grammatical subject, and “_the emptiness of human enjoyment_” is the logical. _Is_ some would call the grammatical predicate, and “Such is,” or _is such_, the logical; but the latter consists, as the majority teach, of “the copula” _is_, and “the attribute,” or “predicate,” _such_. In the second clause, (which explains the import of “_Such_,”) the subject is _we_; which is unmodified, and in which therefore the logical form and the grammatical coincide and are the same. _Are_ may here be called the grammatical predicate; and “_are always impatient of the present_,” the logical. The second period, too, is a compound sentence, having two clauses, which are connected by _and_. _Attainment_ is the subject of the former; and, “_is followed by neglect_” is the predicate. In the latter, _possession_ alone is the subject; and, “[_is followed_] _by disgust_,” is the predicate; the verb _is followed_ being understood at the comma. The third period, likewise, is a compound, having three parts, with the two connectives _than_ and _which_. Here we have _moments_ for the first grammatical subject, and _Few moments_ for the logical; then, _are_ for the grammatical predicate, and _are more pleasing_ for the logical: or, if we choose to say so, for “the copula and the attribute.” “_Than those_,” is an elliptical member, meaning, “than _are_ those _moments_,” or, “than those _moments are pleasing_;” both subject and predicate are wholly suppressed, except that _those_ is reckoned a part of the logical subject. _In which_ is an adjunct of _is concerting_, and serves well to connect the members, because _which_ represents _those_, i.e. _those moments._ _Mind_, or _the mind_, is the next subject of affirmation; and _is concerting_, or, “_is concerting measures for a new undertaking_,” is the predicate or matter affirmed. Lastly, the fourth period, like the rest, is compound. The phrases commencing with _From_ and _to_, describe a period of time, and are adjuncts of the verb _is._ The former contains a subordinate relative clause, of which _that_ (representing _hint_) is the subject, and _wakens_, or _wakens the fancy_, the predicate. Of the principal clause, the word _all_, taken as a noun, is the subject, whether grammatical or logical; and “the copula,” or “grammatical predicate,” _is_, becomes, with its adjuncts and the nominatives following, the logical predicate.
FOURTH METHOD OF ANALYSIS.
_All syntax is founded on the_ RELATION _of words one to an other, and the_ CONNEXION _of clauses and phrases, according to_ THE SENSE. _Hence sentences may be, in some sort, analyzed, and perhaps profitably, by the tracing of such relation or connexion, from link to link, through a series of words, beginning and ending with such as are somewhat remote from each other, yet within the period. Thus_:–
EXAMPLES ANALYZED.
1. “Swift would say, ‘The thing has not life enough in it to keep it sweet;’ Johnson, ‘The creature possesses not vitality sufficient to preserve it from putrefaction.'”–MATT. HARRISON, _on the English Language_, p. 102. ANALYSIS.–What is the general sense of this passage? and what, the chain of connexion between the words _Swift_ and _putrefaction_? The period is designed to show, that Swift preferred words of Saxon origin; and Johnson, of Latin. It has in contrast two cooerdinate members, tacitly connected: the verb _would say_ being understood after _Johnson_, and perhaps also the particle _but_, after the semicolon. _Swift_ is the subject of _would say_; and _would say_ introduces the clause after it, as what would be said. _The_ relates to _thing_; _thing_ is the subject of _has_; _has_, which is qualified by _not_, governs _life_; _life_ is qualified by the adjective _enough_, and by the phrase, _in it_; _enough_ is the prior term of _to_; _to_ governs _keep_; _keep_ governs _it_, which stands for _the thing_; and _it_, in lieu of _the thing_, is qualified by _sweet_. The chief members are connected either by standing in contrast as members, or by _but_, understood before _Johnson._ _Johnson_ is the subject of _would say_, understood: and this _would say_, again introduces a clause, as what would be said. _The_ relates to _creature_; _creature_ is the subject of _possesses_; _possesses_, which is qualified by _not_, governs _vitality_; _vitality_ is qualified by _sufficient_; _sufficient_ is the prior term of _to_; _to_ governs _preserve_; _preserve_ governs _it_, and is the prior term of _from_; and _from_ governs _putrefaction._
2. “There is one Being to whom we can look with a perfect conviction of finding that security, which nothing about us can give, and which nothing about us can take away.”–GREENWOOD; _Wells’s School Gram._, p. 192.[331]
ANALYSIS.–What is the general structure of this passage? and what, the chain of connexion “between the words _away_ and _is?”_ The period is a complex sentence, having four clauses, all connected together by relatives; the second, by _whom_, to the first and chief clause, _”There is one Being;”_ the third and the fourth, to the second, by _which_ and _which_; but the last two, having the same antecedent, _security_, and being cooerdinate, are also connected one to the other by _and._ As to “the chain of connexion,” _Away_ relates to _can take_; _can take_ agrees with its nominative _nothing_, and governs _which_; _which_ represents _security_; _security_ is governed by _finding_; _finding_ is governed by _of_; _of_ refers back to _conviction_; _conviction_ is governed by _with_; _with_ refers back to _can look_; _can look_ agrees with _we_, and is, in sense, the antecedent of _to_; _to_ governs _whom_; _whom_ represents _Being_; and _Being_ is the subject of _is._
FIFTH METHOD OF ANALYSIS.
_The best and most thorough method of analysis is that of_ COMPLETE SYNTACTICAL PARSING; _a method which, for the sake of order and brevity, should ever be kept free from all mixture of etymological definitions or reasons, but which may be preceded or followed by any of the foregoing schemes of resolution, if the teacher choose to require any such preliminary or subsidiary exposition. This method is fully illustrated in the Twelfth Praxis below._
OBSERVATIONS ON METHODS OF ANALYSIS.
OBS. 1.–The almost infinite variety in the forms of sentences, will sometimes throw difficulty in the way of the analyzer, be his scheme or his skill what it may. The last four or five observations of the preceding series have shown, that the distinction of sentences as _simple_ or _compound_, which constitutes the chief point of the First Method of Analysis above, is not always plain, even to the learned. The definitions and examples which I have given, will make it _generally_ so; and, where it is otherwise, the question or puzzle, it is presumed, cannot often be of much practical importance. If the difference be not obvious, it can hardly be a momentous error, to mistake a phrase for an elliptical clause, or to call such a clause a phrase.
OBS. 2.–The Second Method above is, I think, easier of application than any of the rest; and, if other analysis than the regular method of parsing seem desirable, this will probably be found as useful as any. There is, in many of our popular grammars, some recognition of the principles of this analysis–some mention of “the _principal parts_ of a sentence,” in accordance with what are so called above,–and also, in a few, some succinct account of the parts called “_adjuncts_;” but there seems to have been no prevalent practice of applying these principles, in any stated or well-digested manner. Lowth, Murray, Alger, W. Allen, Hart, Hiley, Ingersoll, Wells, and others, tell of these “PRINCIPAL PARTS;”–Lowth calling them, “the _agent_, the _attribute_, and the _object_;” (_Gram._, p. 72;)–Murray, and his copyists, Alger, Ingersoll, and others, calling them, “the _subject_, the _attribute_, and the _object_;”–Hiley and Hart calling them, “the _subject_ or _nominative_, the _attribute_ or _verb_, and the _object_;”–Allen calling them, “the _nominative_, the _verb_, and (if the verb is active,) the _accusative_ governed by the verb;” and also saying, “The nominative is sometimes called the _subject_; the verb, the _attribute_; and the accusative, the _object_;”–Wells calling them, “the _subject_ or _nominative_, the _verb_, and the _object_;” and also recognizing the “_adjuncts_,” as a species which “embraces all the words of a simple sentence [,] except the _principal parts_;”–yet not more than two of them all appearing to have taken any thought, and they but little, about the formal _application_ of their common doctrine. In Allen’s English Grammar, which is one of the best, and likewise in Wells’s, which is equally prized, this reduction of all connected words, or parts of speech, into “the principal parts” and “the adjuncts,” is fully recognized; the adjuncts, too, are discriminated by Allen, as “either primary or secondary,” nor are their more particular species or relations overlooked; but I find no method prescribed for the analysis intended, except what Wells adopted in his early editions but has since changed to an other or abandoned, and no other allusion to it by, Allen, than this Note, which, with some appearance of intrusion, is appended to his “Method of Parsing the Infinitive Mood:”–“The pupil _may now begin_ to analyse [_analyze_] the sentences, by distinguishing the principal words and their adjuncts.”–_W. Allen’s E. Gram._, p. 258.
OBS. 3.–These authors in general, and many more, tell us, with some variation of words, that the agent, subject, or nominative, is that of which something is said, affirmed, or denied; that the attribute, verb, or predicate, is that which is said, affirmed, or denied, of the subject; and that the object, accusative, or case sequent, is that which is introduced by the finite verb, or affected by the action affirmed. Lowth says, “In English the nominative case, denoting the agent, usually goes before the verb, or attribution; and the objective case, denoting the object, follows the verb active.”–_Short Introd._, p. 72. Murray copies, but not literally, thus: “The nominative denotes the subject, and usually goes before the verb [,] or attribute; and the word _or phrase_, denoting the object, follows the verb: as, ‘A wise man governs his passions.’ Here, a _wise man_ is the subject; _governs_, the attribute, or thing affirmed; and _his passions_, the object.”–_Murray’s Octavo_, p. 142; _Duodecimo_, 116. To include thus the adjuncts with their principals, as the logicians do, is _here_ manifestly improper; because it unites what the grammatical analyzer is chiefly concerned to separate, and tends to defeat the main purpose for which “THE PRINCIPAL PARTS” are so named and distinguished.
OBS. 4.–The Third Method of Analysis, described above, is an attempt very briefly to epitomize the chief elements of a great scheme,–to give, in a nutshell, the substance of what our grammarians have borrowed from the logicians, then mixed with something of their own, next amplified with small details, and, in some instances, branched out and extended to enormous bulk and length. Of course, they have not failed to set forth the comparative merits of this scheme in a sufficiently favourable light. The two ingenious gentlemen who seem to have been chiefly instrumental in making it popular, say in their preface, “The rules of syntax contained in this work result directly from the analysis of propositions, and of compound sentences; and for this reason the student should make himself perfectly familiar with the sections relating to _subject_ and _predicate_, and should be able readily to analyze sentences, whether simple or compound, and to explain their structure and connection. * * * This exercise _should always precede_ the more minute and subsidiary labor of parsing. If the latter be conducted, as it often is, independently of previous analysis, the _principal advantage_ to be derived from the study of language, as an intellectual exercise, will inevitably be lost.”–_Latin Grammar of Andrews and Stoddard_, p. vi. N. Butler, who bestows upon this subject about a dozen duodecimo pages, says in his preface, “The rules for the analysis of sentences, which is a _very useful and interesting_ exercise, have been taken from Andrews’ and Stoddard’s Latin Grammar, some changes and additions being made.”–_Butler’s Practical Gram._, p. iv.[332]
OBS. 5.–Wells, in the early copies of his School Grammar, as has been hinted, adopted a method of analysis similar to the _Second_ one prescribed above; yet referred, even from the first, to “Andrews and Stoddard’s Latin Grammar,” and to “De Sacy’s General Grammar,” as if these were authorities for what he then inculcated. Subsequently, _he changed his scheme_, from that of _Parts Principal_ and _Adjuncts_, to one of _Subjects_ and _Predicates_, “either grammatical or logical,” also “either simple or compound;”–to one resembling Andrews and Stoddard’s, yet differing from it, often, as to what constitutes a “grammatical predicate;”–to one resenbling [sic–KTH] the _Third Method_ above, yet differing from it, (as does Andrews and Stoddard’s,) in taking the logical subject and predicate before the grammatical. “The chapter on Analysis,” said he then, “has been Revised and enlarged with great care, and will be found to embody all the most important principles on this subject [.] _which_ are contained in the works of De Sacy, Andrews and Stoddard, Kuehner, Crosby, and Crane. It is gratifying to observe that the attention of teachers is now so generally directed _to this important mode_ of investigating the structure of our language, _in connection with_ the ordinary exercises of _etymological_ and syntactical parsing.”–_Wells’s School Gram._, New Ed., 1850, p. iv.
OBS. 6.–In view of the fact, that Wells’s chief mode of sentential analysis had just undergone an almost total metamorphosis, a change plausible perhaps, but of doubtful utility,–that, up to the date of the words just cited, and afterwards, so far and so long as any copies of his early “Thousands” remain in use, the author himself has earnestly directed attention to a method which he now means henceforth to abandon,–in this view, the praise and gratulation expressed above seem singular. If it has been found practicable, to slide “the attention of teachers,” and their approbation too, adroitly over from one “important mode of investigating the structure of our language,” to an other;–if “it is gratifying to observe,” that the direction thus given to public opinion sustains itself so well, and “is so generally” acquiesced in;–if it is proved, that the stereotyped praise of one system of analysis may, without alteration, be so transferred to an other, as to answer the double purpose of commending and superseding;–it is not improbable that the author’s next new plates will bear the stamp of yet _other_ “most important principles” of analysis. This process is here recommended to be used “_in connection with_ the ordinary exercises of _etymological_ and syntactical parsing,”–exercises, which, in Wells’s Grammar, are generally, and very improperly, commingled; and if, to these, may be profitably conjoined either his present or his former scheme of analysis, it were well, had he somewhere put them together and shown how.
OBS. 7.–But there are other passages of the School Grammar, so little suited to this notion of “_connection_” that one can hardly believe the word ought to be taken in what seems its only sense. “Advanced classes should attend less to the common _Order of Parsing_, and more to the _Analysis_ of language.”–_Wells’s Grammar_, “3d Thousand,” p. 125; “113th Thousand,” p. 132. This implies, what is probably true of the etymological exercise, that parsing is more rudimental than the other forms of analysis. It also intimates, what is not so clear, that pupils rightly instructed must advance from the former to the latter, as to something more worthy of their intellectual powers. The passage is used with reference to either form of analysis adopted by the author. So the following comparison, in which Parsing is plainly disparaged, stands permanently at the head of “the chapter on Analysis,” to commend first one mode, and then an other: “It is particularly desirable that pupils _should pass as early as practicable from the formalities_ of common PARSING, to the _more important_ exercise of ANALYZING critically the structure of language. The mechanical routine of technical parsing is peculiarly liable to become monotonous and dull, while the _practice of explaining the various relations and offices of words in a sentence_, is adapted to call the mind of the learner into constant and vigorous action, and can hardly fail of exciting the deepest interest,”–_Wells’s Gram._, 3d Th., p. 181; 113th Th., p. 184.
OBS. 8.–An ill scheme of _parsing_, or an ill use of a good one, is almost as unlucky in grammar, as an ill method of _ciphering_, or an ill use of a good one, would be in arithmetic. From the strong contrast cited above, one might suspect that, in selecting, devising, or using, a technical process for the exercising of learners in the principles of etymology and syntax, this author had been less fortunate than the generality of his fellows. Not only is it implied, that parsing is no critical analysis, but even what is set _in opposition_ to the “mechanical routine,” may very well serve for _a definition_ of Syntactical Parsing–“_the practice of explaining the various relations and offices of words in a sentence_!” If this “practice,” well ordered, can be at once interesting and profitable to the learner, so may parsing. Nor, after all, is even this author’s mode of parsing, defective though it is in several respects, less “important” to the users of his book, or less valued by teachers, than the analysis which he sets above it.
OBS. 9.–S. S. Greene, a public teacher in Boston, who, in answer to a supposed “demand for a _more philosophical plan_ of teaching the English language,” has entered in earnest upon the “Analysis of Sentences,” having devoted to one method of it more than the space of two hundred duodecimo pages, speaks of analysis and of parsing, thus: “The resolving of a sentence into its elements, or of any complex element into the parts which compose it, is called _analysis_.”–_Greene’s Analysis_, p. 14. “Parsing consists in naming a part of speech, giving its modifications, relation, agreement or dependence, and the rule for its construction. _Analysis_ consists in pointing out the words or groups of words which constitute the elements of a sentence. Analysis _should precede_ parsing.”–_Ib._, p. 26. “A large proportion of the elements of sentences are not single words, but combinations or groups of words. These groups perform the office of the _substantive_, the _adjective_, or the _adverb_, and, in some one of these relations, enter in as the component parts of a sentence. The pupil who learns to determine the elements of a sentence, _must, therefore, learn the force of these combinations before_ he separates them into the single words which compose them. _This advantage_ is wholly lost in the ordinary methods of parsing.”–_Ib._, p. 3.
OBS. 10.–On these passages, it may be remarked in the first place, that the distinction attempted between analysis and parsing is by no means clear, or well drawn. Nor indeed could it be; because parsing is a species of analysis. The first assertion would be just as true as it is now, were the former word substituted for the latter: thus, “The resolving of a sentence into its elements, or of any complex element into the _parts_ which compose it, is called _parsing_.” Next, the “_Parsing_” spoken of in the second sentence, is _Syntactical_ Parsing only; and, without a limitation of the species, neither this assertion nor the one concerning precedence is sufficiently true. Again, the suggestion, that, “_Analysis_ consists in _pointing out_ the words or groups of words which _constitute the elements_ of a sentence,” has nothing distinctive in it; and, without some idea of the author’s peculiar system of “elements,” previously impressed upon the mind, is scarcely, if at all, intelligible. Lastly, that a pupil must _understand_ a sentence,–or, what is the same thing, “_learn the force of the words combined_,”–before he can be sure of parsing each word rightly, is a very plain and certain truth; but what “advantage” over parsing this truth gives to the lesser analysis, which deals with “groups,” it is not easy to discover. If the author had any clear idea of “_this advantage_,” he has conveyed no such conception to his readers.
OBS. 11.–Greene’s Analysis is the most expanded form of the Third Method above.[333] Its nucleus, or germinating kernel, was the old partition of _subject_ and _predicate_, derived from the art of logic. Its chief principles may be briefly stated thus: Sentences, which are simple, or complex, or compound, are made up of _words, phrases_, and _clauses_–three grand classes of elements, called the _first_, the _second_, and the _third_ class. From these, each sentence must have two elements; the _Subject_, or Substantive element, and the _Predicate_, or Predicative element, which are principal; and a sentence _may_ have five, the subordinates being the Adjective element, the Objective element, and the Adverbial element. The five elements have sundry modifications and subdivisions. Each of the five may, like a sentence, be simple, or complex, or compound; and each may be of any of the three grand classes. The development of this scheme forms a volume, not small. The system is plausible, ingenious, methodical, mostly true, and somewhat elaborate; but it is neither very useful nor very accurate. It seems too much like a great tree, beautiful, symmetrical, and full of leaves, but raised or desired only for fruit, yet bearing little, and some of that little not of good quality, but knurly or bitter. The chief end of a grammar, designed for our tongue, is, to show what is, and what is not, good English. To this end, the system in question does not appear to be well adapted.
OBS. 12.–Dr. Bullions, the projector of the “Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek, all _on the same plan_,” inserted in his Latin Grammar, of 1841, a short sketch of the new analysis by “subjects and predicates,” “grammatical and logical,” the scheme used by Andrews and Stoddard; but his English Grammar, which appeared in 1834, was too early for this “new and improved method of investigating” language. In his later English Grammar, of 1849, however, paying little regard to _sameness of “plan_” or conformity of definitions, he carefully devoted to this matter the space of fifteen pages, placing the topic, not injudiciously, in the first part of his syntax, and referring to it thus in his Preface: “The subject of ANALYSIS, wholly omitted in the former work, is here introduced in its proper place; and to an extent in accordance with its importance.”– _Bullions, Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, p. 3.
OBS. 13.–In applying any of the different methods of analysis, as a school exercise, it will in general perhaps be best to use each _separately_; the teacher directing which one is to be applied, and to what examples. The selections prepared for the stated praxes of this work, will be found as suitable as any. Analysis of sentences is a central and essential matter in the teaching or the study of grammar; but the truest and the most important of the sentential analyses is _parsing_; which, because it is a method distinguished by a technical name of its own, is not commonly denominated analysis. The relation which other methods should bear to _parsing_, is, as we have seen, variously stated by different authors. _Etymological_ parsing and _Syntactical_ are, or ought to be, distinct exercises. The former, being the most simple, the most elementary, and also requisite to be used before the pupil is prepared for the latter, should, without doubt, take precedence of all the rest, and be made familiar in the first place. Those who say, “_Analysis should precede parsing_,” will scarcely find the application of other analysis practicable, till this is somewhat known. But _Syntactical Parsing_ being, when complete in form, the most thorough process of grammatical resolution, it seems proper to have introduced the other methods before it, as above. It can hardly be said that any of these are _necessary_ to this exercise, or to one an other; yet in a full course of grammatical instruction, each may at times be usefully employed.
OBS. 14.–Dr. Bullions suggests, that, “_Analysis_ should precede _Syntactical parsing_, because, till we know the parts and elements of a sentence, we can not understand their relations, nor intelligently combine them into one consistent whole.”–_Analytical and Pract. Gram._, p. 114. This reason is entirely fictitious and truthless; for the _words_ of a sentence are intuitively known to be its “parts and elements;” and, to “_understand_ their relations,” is as necessary to one form of analysis as to another; but, “intelligently to _combine_ them,” is no part of the parser’s duty: this belongs to the _writer_; and where he has not done it, he must be criticised and censured, as one that knows not well what he says. In W. Allen’s Grammar, as in Wells’s, Syntactical parsing and Etymological are not divided. Wells intersperses his “Exercises in Parsing,” at seven points of his Syntax, and places “the chapter on Analysis,” at the end of it. Allen treats first of the several parts of grammar, didactically; then presents a series of exercises adapted to the various heads of the whole. At the beginning of these, are fourteen “Methods of Parsing,” which show, successively, the properties and construction of his nine parts of speech; and, _at the ninth method_, which resolves _infinitives_, it is proposed that the pupil begin to apply a method of analysis similar to the Second one above.
EXAMPLES FOR PARSING. PRAXIS XII.–SYNTACTICAL.
_The grand clew to all syntactical parsing is THE SENSE; and as any composition is faulty which does not rightly deliver the authors meaning, so every solution of a word or sentence is necessarily erroneous, in which that meaning is not carefully noticed and literally preserved.
In all complete syntactical parsing, it is required of the pupil–to distinguish the different parts of speech and their classes; to mention their modifications in order; to point out their relation, agreement, or government; and to apply the Rules of Syntax. Thus_:–
EXAMPLE PARSED.
“A young man studious to know his duty, and honestly bent on doing it, will find himself led away from the sin or folly in which the multitude thoughtlessly indulge themselves; but, ah! poor fallen human nature! what conflicts are thy portion, when inclination and habit–a rebel and a traitor–exert their sway against our only saving principle!”–_G. Brown_.
_A_ is the indefinite article: and relates to _man_, or _young man_; according to Rule 1st, which says, “Articles relate to the nouns which they limit.” Because the meaning is–_a man–a young man_.
_Young_ is a common adjective, of the positive degree, compared regularly, _young, younger, youngest_: and relates to _man_; according to Rule 9th, which says, “Adjectives relate to nouns or pronouns.” Because the meaning is–_young man_.
_Man_ is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case: and is the subject of _will find_; according to Rule 2d, which says, “A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.” Because the meaning is–_man will find_.
_Studious_ is a common adjective, compared by means of the adverbs; _studious, more studious, most studious_; or, _studious, less studious, least studious_: and relates to _man_; according to Rule 9th, which says, “Adjectives relate to nouns or pronouns.” Because the meaning is–_man studious_.
_To_ is a preposition: and shows the relation between _studious_ and _know_; according to Rule 23d, which says, “Prepositions show the relations of words, and of the things or thoughts expressed by them.” Because the meaning is–_studious to know_.
_Know_ is an irregular active-transitive verb, from _know, knew, knowing, known_; found in the infinitive mood, present tense–no person, or number: and is governed by _to_; according to Rule 18th, which says, “The infinitive mood is governed in general by the preposition TO, which commonly connects it to a finite verb.” Because the meaning is–_to know_.
_His_ is a personal pronoun, representing _man_, in the third person, singular number, and masculine gender; according to Rule 10th, which says, “A pronoun must agree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun which it represents, in person, number, and gender:” and is in the possessive case, being governed by _duty_; according to Rule 4th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the name of the thing possessed.” Because the meaning is–_his duty_;–i. e., the young _man’s duty_.
_Duty_ is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case: and is governed by _know_; according to Rule 5th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun made the object of an active-transitive verb or participle, is governed by it in the objective case.” Because the meaning is–to _know_ his _duty_.
_And_ is a copulative conjunction: and connects the phrase which follows it, to that which precedes; according to Rule 22d, which says, “Conjunctions connect words, sentences, or parts of sentences.” Because the meaning is–studious to know his duty, _and_ honestly bent, &c.
_Honestly_ is an adverb of manner: and relates to _bent_; according to Rule 21st, which says, “Adverbs relate to verbs, participles, adjectives, or other adverbs.” Because the meaning is–_honestly bent_.
_Bent_ is a perfect participle, from the redundant active-transitive verb, _bend, bent_ or _bended, bending, bent_ or _bended_: and relates to _man_; according to Rule 20th, which says, “Participles relate to nouns or pronouns, or else are governed by prepositions.” Because the meaning is–_man bent_. _On_ is a preposition: and shows the relation between _bent_ and _doing_; according to Rule 23d, which says, “Prepositions show the relations of words, and of the things or thoughts expressed by them.” Because the meaning is–_bent on doing_.
_Doing_ is an imperfect participle, from the irregular active-transitive verb, _do, did, doing, done_: and is governed by on; according to Rule 20th, which says, “Participles relate to nouns or pronouns, or else are governed by prepositions.” Because the meaning is–_on doing_.
_It_ is a personal pronoun, representing _duty_, in the third person, singular number, and neuter gender; according to Rule 10th, which says, “A pronoun must agree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun which it represents, in person, number, and gender:” and is in the objective case, being governed by _doing_; according to Rule 5th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun made the object of an active-transitive verb or participle, is governed by it in the objective case.” Because the meaning is–_doing it_;–i. e., doing _his duty_.
_Will find_ is an irregular active-transitive verb, from _find, found, finding, found_; found in the indicative mood, first-future tense, third person, and singular number: and agrees with its nominative _man_; according to Rule 14th, which says, “Every finite verb must agree with its subject, or nominative, in person and number.” Because the meaning is–_man will find_.
_Himself_ is a compound personal pronoun, representing man, in the third person, singular number, and masculine gender; according to Rule 10th, which says, “A pronoun must agree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun which it represents, in person, number, and gender;” and is in the objective case, being governed by _will find_; according to Rule 5th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun made the object of an active-transitive verb or participle, is governed by it in the objective case.” Because the meaning is–_will find himself_;–i. e., his own mind or person.
_Led_ is a perfect participle, from the irregular active-transitive verb, _lead, led, leading, led_: and relates to _himself_; according to Rule 20th, which says, “Participles relate to nouns or pronouns, or else are governed by prepositions.” Because the meaning is–_himself led_.
_Away_ is an adverb of place: and relates to _led_; according to Rule 21st, which says, “Adverbs relate to verbs, participles, adjectives, or other adverbs.” Because the meaning is–_led away_.
_From_ is a preposition: and shows the relation between _led_ and _sin or folly_; according to Rule 23d, which says, “Prepositions show the relations of words, and of the things or thoughts expressed by them.” Because the meaning is–_led from sin or folly_.
_The_ is the definite article: and relates to _sin_ and _folly_; according to Rule 1st, which says, “Articles relate to the nouns which they limit.” Because the meaning is–_the sin or folly_.
_Sin_ is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case: and is governed by _from_; according to Rule 7th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun made the object of a preposition, is governed by it in the objective case.” Because the meaning is–_from sin_.
_Or_ is a disjunctive conjunction: and connects _sin_ and _folly_; according to Rule 22d, which says, “Conjunctions connect words, sentences, or parts of sentences.” Because the meaning is–_sin or folly_.
_Folly_ is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case; and is connected by _or_ to _sin_, and governed by the same preposition _from_; according to Rule 7th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun made the object of a preposition, is governed by it in the objective case.” Because the meaning is–_from sin or folly_.
_In_ is a preposition: and shows the relation between _indulge_ and _which_; according to Rule 23d, which says, “Prepositions show the relations of words, and of the things or thoughts expressed by them.” Because the meaning is–_indulge in which_–or, _which they indulge in_.
_Which_ is a relative pronoun, representing _sin or folly_, in the third person, singular number, and neuter gender; according to Rule 13th, which says, “When a pronoun has two or more antecedents connected by _or_ or _nor_, it must agree with them singly, and not as if taken together:” and is in the objective case, being governed by _in_; according to Rule 7th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun made the object of a preposition, is governed by it in the objective case.” Because the meaning is–_in which_;–i. e., _in which sin or folly_.
_The_ is the definite article: and relates to _multitude_; according to Rule 1st, which says, “Articles relate to the nouns which they limit.” Because the meaning is–_the multitude_.
_Multitude_ is a common noun, collective, of the third person, conveying the idea of plurality, masculine gender, and nominative case: and is the subject of _indulge_; according to Rule 2d, which says, “A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.” Because the meaning is–_multitude indulge_.
_Thoughtlessly_ is an adverb of manner: and relates to _indulge_; according to Rule 21st, which says, “Adverbs relate to verbs, participles, adjectives, or other adverbs.” Because the meaning is–_thoughtlessly indulge_.
_Indulge_ is a regular active-transitive verb, from _indulge, indulged, indulging, indulged_; found in the indicative mood, present tense, third person, and plural number: and agrees with its nominative multitude; according to Rule 15th, which says, “When the nominative is a collective noun conveying the idea of plurality, the verb must agree with it in the plural number.” Because the meaning is–_multitude indulge_.
_Themselves_ is a compound personal pronoun, representing _multitude_, in the third person, plural number, and masculine gender; according to Rule 11th, which says, “When the antecedent is a collective noun conveying the idea of plurality, the pronoun must agree with it in the plural number:” and is in the objective case, being governed by _indulge_; according to Rule 5th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun made the object of an active-transitive verb or participle, is governed by it in the objective case.” Because the meaning is–_indulge themselves_;–i. e., the individuals of the multitude indulge themselves.
_But_ is a disjunctive conjunction: and connects what precedes and what follows; according to Rule 22d, which says, “Conjunctions connect words, sentences, or parts of sentences.” Because the meaning is–A young man, &c., _but_, ah! &c.
_Ah_ is an interjection, indicating sorrow: and is used independently; according to Rule 24th, which says, “Interjections have no dependent construction; they are put absolute, either alone, or with other words.” Because the meaning is–_ah!_–unconnected with the rest of the sentence.
_Poor_ is a common adjective, of the positive degree, compared regularly, _poor, poorer, poorest_: and relates to _nature_; according to Rule 9th, which says, “Adjectives relate to nouns or pronouns.” Because the meaning is–_poor human nature_.
_Fallen_ is a participial adjective, compared (perhaps) by adverbs: and relates to _nature_; according to Rule 9th, which says, “Adjectives relate to nouns or pronouns.” Because the meaning is–_fallen nature_.
_Human_ is a common adjective, not compared: and relates to _nature_; according to Rule 9th, which says, “Adjectives relate to nouns or pronouns.” Because the meaning is–_human nature_.
_Nature_ is a common noun, of the second person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case: and is put absolute by direct address; according to Rule 8th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun is put absolute in the nominative, when its case depends on no other word.” Because the meaning is–_poor fallen human nature!_–the noun being unconnected with any verb.
_What_ is a pronominal adjective, not compared: and relates to _conflicts_; according to Rule 9th, which says, “Adjectives relate to nouns or pronouns.” Because the meaning is–_what conflicts_.
_Conflicts_ is a common noun, of the third person, plural number, neuter gender, and nominative case: and is the subject of _are_; according to Rule 2d, which says, “A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.” Because the meaning is–_conflicts are_.
_Are_ is an irregular neuter verb, from _be, was, being, been_; found in the indicative mood, present tense, third person, and plural number: and agrees with its nominative _conflicts_; according to Rule 14th, which says, “Every finite verb must agree with its subject, or nominative, in person and number.” Because the meaning is–_conflicts are_.
_Thy_ is a personal pronoun, representing _nature_, in the second person, singular number, and neuter gender; according to Rule 10th, which says, “A pronoun must agree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun which it represents, in person, number, and gender:” and is in the possessive case, being governed by _portion_; according to Rule 4th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the name of the thing possessed.” Because the meaning is–_thy portion_.
_Portion_ is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case: and is put after _are_, in agreement with _conflicts_; according to Rule 6th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun put after a verb or participle not transitive, agrees in case with a preceding noun or pronoun referring to the same thing.” Because the meaning is–_conflicts are thy portion_.
_When_ is a conjunctive adverb of time: and relates to the two verbs, _are_ and _exert_; according to Rule 21st, which says, “Adverbs relate to verbs, participles, adjectives, or other adverbs.” Because the meaning is–what conflicts _are_ thy portion, _when_ inclination and habit _exert_, &c.
_Inclination_ is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case: and is one of the subjects of _exert_; according to Rule 2d, which says, “A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.” Because the meaning is–_inclination and habit exert_.
_And_ is a copulative conjunction: and connects _inclination_ and _habit_; according to Rule 22d, which says, “Conjunctions connect words, sentences, or parts of sentences.” Because the meaning is–_inclination and habit_.
_Habit_ is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case: and is one of the subjects of _exert_; according to Rule 2d, which says, “A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.” Because the meaning is–_inclination and habit exert_.
_A_ is the indefinite article: and relates to _rebel_; according to Rule 1st, which says, “Articles relate to the nouns which they limit.” Because the meaning is–_a rebel_.
_Rebel_ is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case: and is put in apposition with _inclination_; according to Rule 3d, which says, “A noun or a personal pronoun used to explain a preceding noun or pronoun, is put, by apposition, in the same case.” Because the meaning is–_inclination, a rebel_.
_And_ is a copulative conjunction: and connects _rebel_ and _traitor_; according to Rule 22d, which says, “Conjunctions connect words, sentences, or parts of sentences.” Because the meaning is–_a rebel and a traitor_.
_A_ is the indefinite article: and relates to _traitor_; according to Rule 1st, which says, “Articles relate to the nouns which they limit.” Because the meaning is–_a traitor_.
_Traitor_ is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case: and is put in apposition with _habit_; according to Rule 3d, which says, “A noun or a personal pronoun used to explain a preceding noun or pronoun, is put, by apposition, in the same case.” Because the meaning is–_habit, a traitor_.
_Exert_ is a regular active-transitive verb, from _exert, exerted, exerting, exerted_; found in the indicative mood, present tense, third person, and plural number: and agrees with its two nominatives _inclination and habit_; according to Rule 16th, which says, “When a verb has two or more nominatives connected by _and_, it must agree with them jointly in the plural, because they are taken together.” Because the meaning is–_inclination and habit exert_.
_Their_ is a personal pronoun, representing _inclination and habit_, in the third person, plural number, and neuter gender; according to Rule 12th, which says, “When a pronoun has two or more antecedents connected by _and_, it must agree with them jointly in the plural, because they are taken together:” and is in the possessive case, being governed by _sway_; according to Rule 4th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the name of the thing possessed.” Because the meaning is–_their sway_;–i. e., the sway of inclination and habit.
_Sway_ is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case; and is governed by _exert_; according to Rule 5th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun made the object of an active-transitive verb or participle, is governed by it in the objective case.” Because the meaning is–_exert sway_.
_Against_ is a preposition: and shows the relation between _exert_ and _principle_; according to Rule 23d, which says, “Prepositions show the relations of words, and of the things or thoughts expressed by them.” Because the meaning is–_exert against principle_.
_Our_ is a personal pronoun, representing _the speakers_, in the first person, plural number, and masculine gender; according to Rule 10th, which says, “A pronoun must agree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun which it represents, in person, number, and gender:” and is in the possessive case, being governed by _principle_; according to Rule 4th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the name of the thing possessed.” Because the meaning is–_our principle_;–i. e., the _speakers_’ principle.
_Only_ is a pronominal adjective, not compared: and relates to _principle_; according to Rule 9th, which says, “Adjectives relate to nouns or pronouns.” Because the meaning is–_only principle_.
_Saving_ is a participial adjective, compared by adverbs when it means _frugal_, but not compared in the sense here intended: and relates to _principle_; according to Rule 9th, which says, “Adjectives relate to nouns or pronouns.” Because the meaning is–_saving principle_.
_Principle_ is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case: and is governed by _against_; according to Rule 7th, which says, “A noun or a pronoun made the object of a preposition, is governed by it in the objective case.” Because the meaning is–_against principle_.
LESSON I.–ARTICLES.
“In English heroic verse, the capital pause of every line, is determined by the sense to be after the fourth, the fifth, the sixth or the seventh syllable.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 105.
“When, in considering the structure of a tree or a plant, we observe how all the parts, the roots, the stem, the bark, and the leaves, are suited to the growth and nutriment of the whole; when we survey all the parts and members of a living animal; or when we examine any of the curious works of art–such as a clock, a ship, or any nice machine; the pleasure which we have in the survey, is wholly founded on this sense of beauty.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 49.
“It never can proceed from a good taste, to make a teaspoon resemble the leaf of a tree; for such a form is inconsistent with the destination of a teaspoon.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 351.
“In an epic poem, a history, an oration, or any work of genius, we always require a fitness, or an adjustment of means to the end which the author is supposed to have in view.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 50.
“Rhetoric, Logic, and Grammar, are three arts that should always walk hand in hand. The first is the art of speaking eloquently; the second, that of thinking well; and the third, that of speaking with propriety.”–_Formey’s Belles-Lettres_, p. 114.
“Spring hangs her infant blossoms on the trees, Rock’d in the cradle of the western breeze.”–_Cowper_.
LESSON II.–NOUNS.
“There goes a rumour that I am to be banished. And let the sentence come, if God so will. The other side of the sea is my Father’s ground, as well as this side.”–_Rutherford_.
“Gentlemen, there is something on earth greater than arbitrary or despotic power. The lightning has its power, and the whirlwind has its power, and the earthquake has its power. But there is something among men more capable of shaking despotic power than lightning, whirlwind, or earthquake; that is–the threatened indignation of the whole civilized world.”–_Daniel Webster_.
“And Isaac sent away Jacob; and he went to Padan Aram, unto Laban, son of Bethuel the Syrian, and brother of Rebecca, Jacob’s and Esau’s mother.”–See _Gen._, xxviii, 5.
“The purpose you undertake is dangerous.” “Why that is certain: it is dangerous to take a cold, to sleep, to drink; but I tell you, my Lord fool, out of this nettle danger, we pluck this flower safety.”–_Shakespeare_.
“And towards the Jews alone, one of the noblest charters of liberty on earth–_Magna Charta_, the Briton’s boast–legalized an act of injustice.”–_Keith’s Evidences_, p. 74.
“Were Demosthenes’s Philippics spoken in a British assembly, in a similar conjuncture of affairs, they would convince and persuade at this day. The rapid style, the vehement reasoning, the disdain, anger, boldness, freedom, which perpetually animate them, would render their success infallible over any modern assembly. I question whether the same can be said of Cicero’s orations; whose eloquence, however beautiful, and however well suited to the Roman taste, yet borders oftener on declamation, and is more remote from the manner in which we now expect to hear real business and causes of importance treated.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 248.
“In fact, every attempt to present on paper the splendid effects of impassioned eloquence, is like gathering up dewdrops, which appear jewels and pearls on the grass, but run to water in the hand; the essence and the elements remain, but the grace, the sparkle, and the form, are gone.”–_Montgomery’s Life of Spencer_.
“As in life true dignity must be founded on character, not on dress and appearance; so in language the dignity of composition must arise from sentiment and thought, not from ornament.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 144.
“And man, whose heaven-erected face the smiles of love adorn, Man’s inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn.” –_Burns_.
“Ah wretched man! unmindful of thy end! A moment’s glory! and what fates attend.” –_Pope, Iliad_, B. xvii, l. 231.
LESSON III.–ADJECTIVES.
“Embarrassed, obscure, and feeble sentences, are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure, and feeble thought.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 120.
“Upon this ground, we prefer a simple and natural, to an artificial and affected style; a regular and well-connected story, to loose and scattered narratives; a catastrophe which is tender and pathetic, to one which leaves us unmoved.”–_Ib._, p. 23.
“A thorough good taste may well be considered as a power compounded of natural sensibility to beauty, and of improved understanding.”–_Ib._, p. 18.
“Of all writings, ancient or modern, the sacred Scriptures afford us the highest instances of the sublime. The descriptions of the Deity, in them, are wonderfully noble; both from the grandeur of the object, and the manner of representing it.”–_Ib._, p. 36.
“It is not the authority of any one person, or of a few, be they ever so eminent, that can establish one form of speech in preference to another. Nothing but the general practice of good writers and good speakers can do it.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 107.
“What other means are there to attract love and esteem so effectual as a virtuous course of life? If a man be just and beneficent, if he be temperate, modest, and prudent, he will infallibly gain the esteem and love of all who know him.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 167.
“But there are likewise, it must be owned, people in the world, whom it is easy to make worse by rough usage, and not easy to make better by any other.”–_Abp. Seeker_.
“The great comprehensive truth written in letters of living light on every page of our history–the language addressed by every past age of New England to all future ages, is this: Human happiness has no perfect security but freedom;–freedom, none but virtue;–virtue, none but knowledge: and neither freedom, nor virtue, nor knowledge, has any vigour or immortal hope, except in the principles of the Christian faith, and in the sanctions of the Christian religion.”–_President Quincy_.
“For bliss, as thou hast part, to me is bliss; Tedious, unshared with thee, and odious soon.” –_P. Lost_, B. ix, l. 880.
LESSON IV.–PRONOUNS.
“There is but one governor whose sight we cannot escape, whose power we cannot resist: a sense of His presence and of duty to Him, will accomplish more than all the laws and penalties which can be devised without it.”–_Woodbridge, Lit. C._, p. 154.
“Every voluntary society must judge who shall be members of their body, and enjoy fellowship with them in their peculiar privileges.”–_Watts_.
“Poetry and impassioned eloquence are the only sources from which the living growth of a language springs; and even if in their vehemence they bring down some mountain rubbish along with them, this sinks to the bottom, and the pure stream flows along over it.”–_Philological Museum_, i, 645. “This use is bounded by the province, county, or district, which gives name to the dialect, and beyond which its peculiarities are sometimes unintelligible, and always ridiculous.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 163.
“Every thing that happens, is both a cause and an effect; being the effect of what goes before, and the cause of what follows.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 297.
“Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it.”–_Prov._, iii, 27.
“Yet there is no difficulty at all in ascertaining the idea. * * * By reflecting upon that which is myself now, and that which was myself twenty years ago, I discern they are not two, but one and the same self.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 271.
“If you will replace what has been long expunged from the language, and extirpate what is firmly rooted, undoubtedly you yourself become an innovator.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 167; _Murray’s Gram._, 364.
“To speak as others speak, is one of those tacit obligations, annexed to the condition of living in society, which we are bound in conscience to fulfill, though we have never ratified them by any express promise; because, if they were disregarded, society would be impossible, and human happiness at an end.”–See _Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, p. 139.
“In England _thou_ was in current use until, perhaps, near the commencement of the seventeenth century, though it was getting to be regarded as somewhat disrespectful. At Walter Raleigh’s trial, Coke, when argument and evidence failed him, insulted the defendant by applying to him the term _thou_. ‘All that Lord Cobham did,’ he cried, ‘was at _thy_ instigation, _thou_ viper! for I _thou_ thee, _thou_ traitor!'”–_Fowler’s E. Gram._, Sec.220.
“Th’ Egyptian crown I to your hands remit; And with it take his heart who offers it.”–_Shakspeare_.
LESSON V.–VERBS.
“Sensuality contaminates the body, depresses the understanding, deadens the moral feelings of the heart, and degrades man from his rank in the creation.”–_Murray’s Key_, ii, p. 231.
“When a writer reasons, we look only for perspicuity; when he describes, we expect embellishment; when he divides, or relates, we desire plainness and simplicity.”–_Blair’s_ _Rhet._, p. 144.
“Livy and Herodotus are diffuse; Thucydides and Sallust are succinct; yet all of them are agreeable.”–_Ib._, p. 178.
“Whenever petulant ignorance, pride, malice, malignity, or envy, interposes to cloud or sully his fame, I will take upon me to pronounce that the eclipse will not last long.”–_Dr. Delany_.
“She said she had nothing to say, for she was resigned, and I knew all she knew that concerned us in this world; but she desired to be alone, that in the presence of God only, she might without interruption do her last duty to me.”–_Spect._, No. 520.
“Wisdom and truth, the offspring of the sky, are immortal; while cunning and deception, the meteors of the earth, after glittering for a moment, must pass away.”–_Robert Hall_. “See, I have this day set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.”–_Jeremiah_, i, 10.
“God might command the stones to be made bread, or the clouds to rain it; but he chooses rather to leave mankind to till, to sow, to reap, to gather into barns, to grind, to knead, to bake, and then to eat.”–_London Quarterly Review_.
“Eloquence is no invention of the schools. Nature teaches every man to be eloquent, when he is much in earnest. Place him in some critical situation, let him have some great interest at stake, and you will see him lay hold of the most effectual means of persuasion.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 235.
“It is difficult to possess great fame and great ease at the same time. Fame, like fire, is with difficulty kindled, is easily increased, but dies away if not continually fed. To preserve fame alive, every enterprise ought to be a pledge of others, so as to keep mankind in constant expectation.”–_Art of Thinking_, p. 50. “Pope, finding little advantage from external help, resolved thenceforward to direct himself, and at twelve formed a plan of study which he completed with little other incitement than the desire of excellence.”–_Johnson’s Lives of Poets_, p. 498.
“Loose, then, from earth the grasp of fond desire, Weigh anchor, and some happier clime explore.”–_Young_.
LESSON VI.–PARTICIPLES.
“The child, affrighted with the view of his father’s helmet and crest, and clinging to the nurse; Hector, putting off his helmet, taking the child into his arms, and offering up a prayer for him; Andromache, receiving back the child with a smile of pleasure, and at the same instant bursting into tears; form the most natural and affecting picture that can possibly be imagined.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 435.
“The truth of being, and the truth of knowing are one; differing no more than the direct beam and the beam reflected.”–_Ld. Bacon_. “Verbs denote states of being, considered as beginning, continuing, ending, being renewed, destroyed, and again repeated, so as to suit any occasion.”–_William Ward’s Gram._, p. 41.
“We take it for granted, that we have a competent knowledge and skill, and that we are able to acquit ourselves properly, in our own native tongue; a faculty, solely acquired by use, conducted by habit, and tried by the ear, carries us on without reflection.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. vi.
“I mean the teacher himself; who, stunned with the hum, and suffocated with the closeness of his school-room, has spent the whole day in controlling petulance, exciting indifference to action, striving to enlighten stupidity, and labouring to soften obstinacy.”–_Sir W. Scott_.
“The inquisitive mind, beginning with criticism, the most agreeable of all amusements, and finding no obstruction in its progress, advances far into the sensitive part of our nature; and gains imperceptibly a thorough knowledge of the human heart, of its desires, and of every motive to action.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 42.
“They please, are pleased; they give to get esteem; Till, seeming blest, they grow to what they seem.”–_Goldsmith_.
LESSON VII.–ADVERBS.
“How cheerfully, how freely, how regularly, how constantly, how unweariedly, how powerfully, how extensively, he communicateth his convincing, his enlightening, his heart-penetrating, warming, and melting; his soul-quickening, healing, refreshing, directing, and fructifying influence!”–_Brown’s Metaphors_, p. 96.
“The passage, I grant, requires to be well and naturally read, in order to be promptly comprehended; but surely there are very few passages worth comprehending, either of verse or prose, that can be promptly understood, when they are read unnaturally and ill.”–_Thelwall’s Lect_. “They waste life in what are called good resolutions–partial efforts at reformation, feebly commenced, heartlessly conducted, and hopelessly concluded.”–_Maturin’s Sermons_, p. 262.
“A man may, in respect of grammatical purity, speak unexceptionably, and yet speak obscurely and ambiguously; and though we cannot say, that a man may speak properly, and at the same time speak unintelligibly, yet this last case falls more naturally to be considered as an offence against perspicuity, than as a violation of propriety.”–_Jamieson’s Rhet._, p. 104.
“Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblamably we behaved ourselves among you that believe.”–_1 Thes._, ii, 10.
“The question is not, whether they know what is said of Christ in the Scriptures; but whether they know it savingly, truly, livingly, powerfully.”–_Penington’s Works_, iii, 28.
“How gladly would the man recall to life The boy’s neglected sire! a mother too, That softer friend, perhaps more gladly still, Might he demand them at the gates of death!”–_Cowper_.
LESSON VIII.–CONJUNCTIONS.
“Every person’s safety requires that he should submit to be governed; for if one man may do harm without suffering punishment, every man has the same right, and no person can be safe.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 38.
“When it becomes a practice to collect debts by law, it is a proof of corruption and degeneracy among the people. Laws and courts are necessary, to settle controverted points between man and man; but a man should pay an acknowledged debt, not because there is a law to oblige him, but because it is just and honest, and because he has promised to pay it.”–_Ib._, p. 42.
“The liar, and only the liar, is invariably and universally despised, abandoned, and disowned. It is therefore natural to expect, that a crime thus generally detested, should be generally avoided.”–_Hawkesworth_.
“When a man swears to the truth of his tale, he tacitly acknowledges that his bare word does not deserve credit. A swearer will lie, and a liar is not to be believed even upon his oath; nor is he believed, when he happens to speak the truth.”–_Red Book_, p. 108.
“John Adams replied, ‘I know Great Britain has determined on her system, and that very determination determines me on mine. You know I have been constant and uniform in opposition to her measures. The die is now cast. I have passed the Rubicon. Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish with my country, is my unalterable determination.'”–SEWARD’S _Life of John Quincy Adams_, p. 26.
“I returned, and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all.”–_Ecclesiastes_, ix, 11.
“Little, alas! is all the good I can; A man oppress’d, dependent, yet a man.”–_Pope, Odys._, B. xiv, p. 70.
LESSON IX.–PREPOSITIONS.
“He who legislates only for a party, is engraving his name on the adamantine pillar of his country’s history, to be gazed on forever as an object of universal detestation.”–_Wayland’s Moral Science_, p. 401.
“The Greek language, in the hands of the orator, the poet, and the historian, must be allowed to bear away the palm from every other known in the world; but to that only, in my opinion, need our own yield the precedence.”–_Barrow’s Essays_, p. 91.
“For my part, I am convinced that the method of teaching which approaches most nearly to the method of investigation, is incomparably the best; since, not content with serving up a few barren and lifeless truths, it leads to the stock on which they grew.”–_Burke, on Taste_, p. 37. Better–“on which _truths grow_.”
“All that I have done in this difficult part of grammar, concerning the proper use of prepositions, has been to make a few general remarks upon the subject; and then to give a collection of instances, that have occurred to me, of the improper use of some of them.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 155.
“This is not an age of encouragement for works of elaborate research and real utility. The genius of the trade of literature is necessarily unfriendly to such productions.”–_Thelwall’s Lect._, p. 102.
“At length, at the end of a range of trees, I saw three figures seated on a bank of moss, with a silent brook creeping at their feet.”–_Steele_.
“Thou rather, with thy sharp and sulph’rous bolt, Splitst the unwedgeable and gnarled oak.”–_Shakspeare_.
LESSON X.–INTERJECTIONS.
“Hear the word of the Lord, O king of Judah, that sittest upon the throne of David; thou, and thy servants, and thy people, that enter in by these gates: thus saith the Lord, Execute ye judgement and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor.”–_Jeremiah_, xxii, 2, 3.
“Therefore, thus saith the Lord concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, They shall not lament for him, saying, Ah my brother! or, Ah sister! they shall not lament for him, saying, Ah lord! or, Ah his glory! He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem.”–_Jer._, xxii, 18, 19.
“O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires.”–_Isaiah_, liv, 11.
“O prince! O friend! lo! here thy Medon stands; Ah! stop the hero’s unresisted hands.” –_Pope, Odys._, B. xxii, l. 417.
“When, lo! descending to our hero’s aid, Jove’s daughter Pallas, war’s triumphant maid!” –_Ib._, B. xxii, l. 222.
“O friends! oh ever exercised in care! Hear Heaven’s commands, and reverence what ye hear!” –_Ib._, B. xii, l. 324.
“Too daring prince! ah, whither dost thou run? Ah, too forgetful of thy wife and you!” –_Pope’s Iliad_, B. vi, l. 510.
CHAPTER II.–ARTICLES.
In this chapter, and those which follow it, the Rules of Syntax are again exhibited, in the order of the parts of speech, with Examples, Exceptions, Observations, Notes, and False Syntax. The Notes are all of them, in form and character, subordinate rules of syntax, designed for the detection of errors. The correction of the False Syntax placed under the rules and notes, will form an _oral exercise_, similar to that of parsing, and perhaps more useful.[334]
RULE I.–ARTICLES.
Articles relate to the nouns which they limit:[335] as, “At _a_ little distance from _the_ ruins of _the_ abbey, stands _an_ aged elm.”
“See _the_ blind beggar dance, _the_ cripple sing, _The_ sot _a_ hero, lunatic _a_ king.”–_Pope’s Essay_, Ep. ii, l. 268.
EXCEPTION FIRST.
The definite article used _intensively_, may relate to an _adjective_ or _adverb_ of the comparative or the superlative degree; as, “A land which was _the mightiest_.”–_Byron_. “_The farther_ they proceeded, _the greater_ appeared their alacrity.”–_Dr. Johnson_. “He chooses it _the rather_”–_Cowper_. See Obs. 10th, below.
EXCEPTION SECOND.
The indefinite article is sometimes used to give a collective meaning to what seems a _plural adjective of number_; as, “Thou hast _a few_ names even in Sardis.”–_Rev._, iii, 4. “There are _a thousand_ things which crowd into my memory.”–_Spectator_, No. 468. “The centurion commanded _a hundred_ men.”–_Webster_. See Etymology, Articles, Obs. 26.
OBSERVATIONS ON RULE I.
OBS. 1.–The article is a kind of _index_, usually pointing to some noun; and it is a general, if not a universal, principle, that no one noun admits of more than one article. Hence, two or more articles in a sentence are signs of two or more nouns; and hence too, by a very convenient ellipsis, an article before an adjective is often made to relate to a noun understood; as, “_The_ grave [_people_] rebuke _the_ gay [_people_], and _the_ gay [_people_] mock _the_ grave” [_people_].–_Maturin’s Sermons_, p. 103. “_The_ wise [_persons_] shall inherit glory.”–_Prov._, iii, 35. “_The_ vile [_person_] will talk villainy.”–_Coleridge’s Lay Sermons_, p. 105: see _Isaiah_, xxxii, 6. “The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise _the_ simple” [_ones_].–_Psal._, xix, 7. “_The_ Old [_Testament_] and the New Testament are alike authentic.”–“_The_ animal [_world_] and the vegetable world are adapted to each other.”–“_An_ epic [_poem_] and a dramatic poem are the same in substance.”–_Ld. Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 274. “The neuter verb is conjugated like _the_ active” [_verb_].–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 99. “Each section is supposed to contain _a_ heavy [_portion_] and a light portion; _the_ heavy [_portion_] being the accented syllable, and _the_ light [_portion_] _the_ unaccented” [_syllable_].–_Rush, on the Voice_, p. 364.
OBS. 2.–Our language does not, like the French, _require a repetition_ of the article before every noun in a series; because the same article may serve to limit the signification of several nouns, provided they all stand in the same construction. Hence the following sentence is bad English: “The understanding and language have a strict connexion.”–_Murray’s Gram._, i, p. 356. The sense of the former noun only was meant to be limited. The expression therefore should have been, “_Language and the understanding_ have a strict connexion,” or, “The understanding _has_ a strict connexion _with language_.” In some instances, one article _seems_ to limit the sense of several nouns that are not all in the same construction, thus: “As it proves a greater or smaller obstruction to _the speaker’s_ or _writer’s aim_.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 200. That is–“to _the_ aim of _the_ speaker or _the_ writer.” It is, in fact, the possessive, that limits the other nouns; for, “_a man’s foes_” means, “_the_ foes of _a_ man;” and, “_man’s wisdom_,” means, “_the_ wisdom of man.” The governing noun cannot have an article immediately before it. Yet the omission of articles, when it occurs, is not properly _by ellipsis_, as some grammarians declare it to be; for there never can be a proper ellipsis of an article, when there is not also an ellipsis of its noun. Ellipsis supposes the omitted words to be necessary to the construction, when they are not so to the sense; and this, it would seem, cannot be the case with a mere article. If such a sign be in any wise necessary, it ought to be used; and if not needed in any respect, it cannot be said to be _understood_. The definite article being generally required before adjectives that are used by ellipsis as nouns, we in this case repeat it before every term in a series; as, “They are singled out from among their fellows, as _the_ kind, _the_ amiable, _the_ sweet-tempered, _the_ upright.”–_Dr. Chalmers_.
“_The_ great, _the_ gay, shall they partake The heav’n that thou alone canst make?”–_Cowper_.