Part 9

The ablest minds have never been able to explain the foundation of a "neuter verb," or to find a single word, with a solitary exception, which does not, in certain conditions, express a positive action, and terminate on a definite object; and that exception we shall see refers to a verb which expresses the highest degree of conceivable action. Still they have insisted on _three_ and some on _four_ kinds of verbs, one expressing action, another passion or suffering, and the third neutrality. We propose to offer a brief review of these distinctions, which have so long perplexed, not only learners, but teachers themselves, and been the fruitful source of much dissention among grammarians.

It is to be hoped you will come up to this work with as great candor as you have heretofore manifested, and as fully resolved to take nothing for granted, because it has been said by good or great men, and to reject nothing because it appears new or singular. Let truth be our object and reason our guide to direct us to it. We can not fail of arriving at safe and correct conclusions.

Mr. Murray tells us that "verbs are of three kinds, _active_, _passive_, and _neuter_. In a note he admits of "active _transitive_ and intransitive verbs," as a subdivision of his first kind. Most of his "improvers" have adopted this distinction, and regard it as of essential importance.

We shall contend, as before expressed, that _all_ verbs are of _one kind_, that they _express action_, for the simple yet sublime reason, that every thing acts, at all times, and under every possible condition; according to the true definition of _action_ as understood and employed by all writers on grammar, and natural and moral science. Here we are at issue. Both, contending for principles so opposite, can not be correct. One or the other, however pure the motives, must be attached to a system wrong in theory, and of course pernicious in practice. You are to be the umpires in the case, and, if you are faithful to your trust, you will not be bribed or influenced in the least by the opinions of others. If divested of all former attachments, if free from all prejudice, there can be no doubt of the safety and correctness of your conclusions. But I am apprehensive I expect too much, if I place the _new_ system of grammar on a footing equally favorable in your minds with those you have been taught to respect, as the only true expositions of language, from your childhood up, and which are recommended to you on the authority of the learned and good of many generations. I have to combat early prejudices, and systems long considered as almost sacred. But I have in my favor the common sense of the world, and a feeling of opposition to existing systems, which has been produced, not so much by a detection of their errors, as by a lack of capacity, as the learner verily thought, to understand their profound mysteries. I am, therefore, willing to risk the final decision with you, if _you_ will decide. But I am not willing to have you made the tools of the opposite party, determined, whether convinced or not, to hold to your old _neuter_ verb systems, right or wrong, merely because others are doing so. All I ask is _your_ adoption of what is proved to be undeniably true, and rejection of whatever is found to be false.

Here is where the matter must rest, for it will not be pretended that it is better to teach falsehood because it is ancient and popular, than truth because it is novel. Teachers, in this respect, stand in a most responsible relation to their pupils. They should always insist with an unyielding pertinacity, on the importance of truth, and the evils of error. Every trifling incident, in the course of education, which will serve to show the contrast, should be particularly observed. If an error can be detected in their books, they should be so taught as to be able to correct it; and they should be so inclined as to be willing to do it. They should not be skeptics, however, but close observers, original thinkers, and correct reasoners. It is degrading to the true dignity and independence of man, to submit blindly to any proposition. Freedom of thought is the province of all. Children should be made to breathe the free air of honest inquiry, and to inhale the sweet spirit of truth and charity. They should not study their books as the end of learning, but as a means of knowing. Books should be regarded as lamps, which are set by the way side, not as the objects to be looked at, but the aids by which we may find the object of our search. Knowledge and usefulness constitute the leading motives in all study, and no occasion should be lost, no means neglected, which will lead the young mind to their possession.

Your attention is now invited to some critical remarks on the distinctions usually observed in the use of verbs. Let us carefully examine the meaning of these _three kinds_ and see if there is any occasion for such a division; if they have any foundation in truth, or application in the correct use of language. We will follow the arrangements adopted by the most popular grammars.

"A _verb active_ expresses an action, and necessarily implies an agent, and an object acted upon; as, to love, I love Penelope." A very excellent definition, indeed! Had grammarians stopped here, their works would have been understood, and proved of some service in the study of language. But when they diverge from this bright spot in the consideration of verbs--this oasis in the midst of a desert--they soon become lost in the surrounding darkness of conjecture, and follow each their own dim light, to hit on a random track, which to follow in the pursuit of their object.

We give our most hearty assent to the above definition of a verb. It expresses action, which necessarily implies an _actor_, and an _object_ influenced by the action. In our estimation it matters not whether the object on which the action terminates is expressed or _understood_. If I _love_, I must love some object; either my neighbor, my enemy, my family, _myself_, or something else. In either case the _action_ is the same, tho the objects may be different; and it is regarded, on all hands, as an active verb. Hence when the object on which the action terminates is not expressed, it is necessarily understood. All language is, in this respect, more or less eliptical, which adds much to its richness and brevity.

Active verbs, we are told, are divided into _transitive_ and _intransitive_. Mr. Murray does not exactly approve of this distinction, but prefers to class the intransitive and neuter together. Others, aware of the fallacy of attempting to make children conceive any thing like neutrality in the verbs, _run_, _fly_, _walk_, _live_, &c., have preferred to mark the distinction and call them _in_transitive; because, say they, they do not terminate on any object expressed.

A _transitive verb_ "expresses an action which passes from the agent to the object; as, Cæsar conquered Pompey." To this definition we can not consent. It attempts a distinction where there is none. It is not true in principle, and can not be adopted in practice.

"Cæsar conquered Pompey." Did the act of conquering pass _transitively_ over from _Cæsar_ to Pompey? They might not have seen each other during the whole battle, nor been within many miles of each other. They, each of them, stood at the head of their armies, and alike gave orders to their subordinate officers, and they again to their inferiors, and so down, each man contending valiantly for _victory_, till, at last, the fate of the day sealed the downfall of Pompey, and placed the crown of triumph on the head of Cæsar. The expression is a correct one, but the action expressed by the verb "conquered," is not transitive, as that term is understood. A whole train of causes was put in operation which finally terminated in the defeat of one, and the conquest of the other.

"Bonaparte _lost_ the battle of Waterloo." What did _he_ do to _lose_ the battle? He exerted his utmost skill to _gain_ the battle and escape defeat. He did not do a single act, he entertained not a single thought, which lead to such a result; but strove against it with all his power. If the fault was _his_, it was because he failed to act, and not because he labored to _lose_ the battle. He had too much at stake to adopt such a course, and no man but a teacher of grammar, would ever accuse him of _acting_ to _lose_ the battle.

"A man was sick; he desired to recover (his health). He took, for medicine, opium by mistake, and _lost_ his life by it." Was he guilty of suicide? Certainly, if our grammars are true. But he _lost_ his life in trying to get well.

"A man in America _possesses_ property in Europe, and his children _inherit_ it after his death." What do the children do to _inherit_ this property, of which they know nothing?

"The geese, by their gabbling, _saved_ Rome from destruction." How did the geese save the city? They made a noise, which waked the sentinels, who roused the soldiers to arms; they fought, slew many Gauls, and delivered the city.

"A man in New-York _transacts_ business in Canton." How does he do it? He has an agent there to whom he sends his orders, and he transacts the business. But how does he get his letters? The clerk writes them, the postman carries them on board the ship, the captain commands the sailors, who work the ropes which unfurl the sails, the wind blows, the vessel is managed by the pilot, and after a weary voyage of several months, the letters are delivered to the agent, who does the business that is required of him.

The miser _denies_ himself every comfort, and spends his whole life in hoarding up riches; and yet he dies and _leaves_ his gold to be the possession of others.

Christians _suffer_ insults almost every day from the Turks.

Windows _admit_ light and _exclude_ cold.

Who can discover any thing like _transitive_ action--a passing from the agent to the object--in these cases? What transitive action do the windows perform to _admit the light_; or the christians, to _suffer insults_; or the miser, to _leave his money_? If there is neutrality any where, we would look for it here. The fact is, these words express _relative_ action, as we shall explain when we come to the examination of the true character of the verb.

_Neutrality_ signifies (transitive verb!) no action, and _neuter_ verbs _express a state of being_! A class of words which can not act, which apply to things in a quiescent state, _perform_ the transitive action of "_expressing_ a state of being!"

Who does not perceive the inconsistency and folly of such distinctions? And who has not found himself perplexed, if not completely bewildered in the dark and intricate labyrinths into which he has been led by the false grammar books! Every attempt he has made to extricate himself, by the dim light of the "simplifiers," has only tended to bewilder him still more, till he is utterly confounded, or else abandons the study altogether.

* * * * *

An _intransitive_ verb "denotes action which is confined to the actor, and does not pass over to another object; as, I sit, he lives, they sleep."

"A verb _neuter_ expresses neither action nor passion, but being, or a state of being; as, I am, I sleep, I sit."

These verbs are nearly allied in character; but we will examine them separately and fairly. The examples are the same, with exception of the verb _to be_, which we will notice by itself, and somewhat at large, in another place.

Our first object will be to ascertain the _meaning_ and use of the words which have been given as samples of neutrality. It is unfortunate for the neuter systems that they can not define a "neuter verb" without making it express an action which terminates on some object.

* * *

"The man _sits_ in his chair."

_Sits_, we are told, is a neuter verb. What does it mean? The man _places_ himself in a sitting posture in his _seat_. He _keeps_ himself in his chair by muscular energy, assisted by gravitation. The chair _upholds_ him in that condition. Bring a small child and _sit_ it (active verb,) in a chair beside him. Can it _sit_? No; it falls upon the floor and is injured. Why did it fall? It was not able to _keep_ itself from falling. The lady fainted and _fell_ from her _seat_. If there is no action in sitting, why did she not remain as she was? A company of ladies and gentlemen from the boarding school and college, entered the parlor of a teacher of neuter verbs; and he asked them to _sit_ down, or be _seated_. They were neutral. He called them impolite. But they replied, that _sit_ "expresses neither action nor passion," and hence he could not expect them to occupy his seats.

"_Sit_ or _set_ it away; _sit_ near me; _sit_ farther along; _sit_ still;" are expressions used by every teacher in addressing his scholars. On the system we are examining, what would they understand by such inactive expressions? Would he not correct them for disobeying his orders? But what did he order them to do? Nothing at all, if _sit_ denotes no action.

"I _sat_ me down and wept."

"He _sat him_ down by a pillar's base, And drew his hand athwart his face." _Byron._

"Then, having shown his wounds, he'd _sit him_ down, And, all the live long day, discourse of war." _Tragedy of Douglass._

"But wherefore _sits he_ there? Death on my state! _This act_ convinces me That this retiredness of the duke and her, Is plain contempt." _King Lear._

"_Sitting_, the _act of resting_ on a seat. _Session_, the _act of sitting_." _Johnson's Dictionary._

* * *

"_I sleep._"

Is sleep a neuter verb? So we are gravely told by our authors. Can grammarians follow their own rules? If so, they may spend the "live long night" and "its waking hours," without resorting to "tired nature's sweet restorer, balmy sleep;" for there is no process under heaven whereby they can procure sleep, unless they _sleep_ it. For one, I can never _sleep_ without sleeping _sleep_--sometimes only a short _nap_. It matters not whether the object is expressed or not. The action remains the same. The true object is necessarily understood, and it would be superfluous to name it. Cases, however, often occur where, both in speaking and writing, it becomes indispensable to mention the object. "The stout hearted have _slept_ their sleep." "They shall _sleep_ the _sleep_ of death." "They shall _sleep_ the perpetual _sleep_, and shall not awake." "_Sleep_ on now and _take_ your rest." The child was troublesome and the mother sung it to sleep, and it _slept itself_ quiet. A lady took opium and _slept herself_ to death. "Many persons sleep themselves into a kind of unnatural stupidity." Rip Van Winkle, according to the legend, _slept_ away a large portion of a common life.

"Sleep, sleep to-day, tormenting cares."

"And _sleep_ dull _cares_ away."

Was your sleep refreshing last night? How did you procure it? Let a person who still adheres to his _neuter_ verbs, that sleep expresses no action, and has no object on which it terminates, put his theory in practice; he may as well sleep with his eyes open, sitting up, as to _lie himself_ upon his bed.

A man lodged in an open chamber, and while he was _sleeping_ (doing nothing) he _caught_ a severe _cold_ (active transitive verb) and had a long _run_ of the fever. Who does not see, not only the bad, but also the false philosophy of such attempted distinctions? How can you make a child discover any difference in the _act of sleeping_, whether there is an object after it, or not? Is it not the same? And is not the object necessarily implied, whether expressed or not? Can a person _sleep_, without procuring _sleep_?

* * *

"_I stand._"

The man _stands_ firm in his integrity. Another stands in a very precarious condition, and being unable to retain his hold, _falls_ down the precipice and is killed. Who is killed? The man, surely. Why did he fall? Because he could not _stand_. But there is no _action_ in _standing_, say the books.

"_Stand_ by thyself, come not near me?" "_Stand_ fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and _be_ not again entangled in the yoke of bondage." "Let him that thinketh he _standeth_, take heed lest he _fall_." If it requires no act to _stand_, there can be no danger of falling.

"Two pillars stood together; the rest had fallen to the ground. The one on the right was quite perfect in all its parts. The other _resembled it_ very much, except it had _lost_ its capital, and _suffered_ some other injuries." How could the latter column, while performing no action in _standing_, act _transitively_, according to our grammars, and do something to _resemble_ the other? or, what did it do to _lose_ its capital, and _suffer_ other injury?

* * *

"To _lie_, or _lay_."

It has been admitted that the verbs before considered are often used as active verbs, and that there is, in truth, action expressed by them. But when the man has fallen from his seat and _lies_ upon the floor, it is contended that he no longer acts, and that _lie_ expresses no action. He has ceased from physical, muscular action regulated by his will, and is now subject to the common laws which govern matter.

Let us take a strong example. The book _lies_ or _lays_ on the desk. Now you ask, does that book perform any action in laying on the desk? I answer, yes; and I will prove it on the principles of the soundest philosophy, to the satisfaction of every one present. Nor will I deviate from existing grammars to do it, so far as real action is concerned.

The book _lies_ on the desk. The desk _supports_ the book. Will you parse _supports_? It is, according to every system, an active transitive verb. It has an objective case after it on which the action terminates. But what does the desk do to _support_ the book? It barely resists the action which the book _performs_ in lying on it. The action of the desk and book is reciprocal. But if the book does not act, neither can the desk act, for that only repels the force of the book in pressing upon it in its tendency towards the earth, in obedience to the law of gravitation. And yet our authors have told us that the desk is _active_ in resisting no action of the book! No wonder people are unable to understand grammar. It violates the first principles of natural science, and frames to itself a code of laws, unequal, false, and exceptionable, which bear no affinity to the rest of the world, and will not apply in the expression of ideas.

I was once lecturing on this subject in one of the cities of New-York. Mrs. W., the distinguished teacher of one of the most popular Female Seminaries in our country, attended. At the close of one lecture she remarked that the greatest fault she had discovered in the new system, was the want of a class of words to express neutrality. Children, she said, conceived ideas of things in a quiescent state, and words should be taught them by which to communicate such ideas. I asked her for an example. She gave the rock in the side of the mountain. It had never moved. It could never act. There it had been from the foundation of the earth, and there it would remain unaltered and unchanged till time should be no longer. I remarked, that I would take another small stone and _lay_ it on the great one which could never act, and now we say the great rock _upholds_, _sustains_ or _supports_ the small one--all active transitive verbs with an object expressed.

She replied, she would give it up, for it had satisfied her of a new principle which must be observed in the exposition of all language, which accords with _facts as developed in physical and mental science_.

I continued, not only does that rock act in resisting the force of the small one which lays upon it, but, by the attraction of gravitation it is able to _maintain_ its _position_ in the side of the mountain; by cohesion it _retains_ its distinct identity and solidity, and repels all foreign bodies. It is also subject to the laws which govern the earth in its diurnal and annual revolutions, and moves in common with other matter at the astonishing rate of a thousand miles in an hour! Who shall teach children, in these days of light and improvement, the grovelling doctrine of neutrality, this relic of the peripatetic philosophy? Will parents send their children to school to learn falsehood? And can teachers be satisfied to remain in ignorance, following with blind reverence the books they have studied, and refuse to examine new principles, fearing they shall be compelled to acknowledge former errors and study new principles? They should remember it is wiser and more honorable to confess a fault and correct it, than it is to remain permanent in error.

Let us take another example of the verb "_to lie_." A country pedagogue who has followed his authorities most devotedly, and taught his pupils that _lie_ is a "_neuter verb_, expressing neither action nor passion, but simply being, or a state of being," goes out, during the intermission, into a grove near by, to _exercise himself_. In attempting to roll a log up the hill, he _makes_ a mis-step, and _falls_ (intransitive verb, _nothing_ falls!) to the ground, and the log _rolls_ (_nothing_) on to him, and _lies_ across his legs. In this condition he is observed by his scholars to whom he cries (nothing) for help. "Do (nothing) come (intransitive) and help me." They obey him and remain _neuter_, or at least act _intransitively_, and produce no effects. He cries again for help and his _cries_ are regarded. They _present_ themselves before him. "Do roll this log off; it will break my legs." "Oh no, master; how can that be? The log _lies_ on you, does it not?" "Yes, and it will _press me_ to death." "No, no; that can never be. The log can not act. =Lies= is a _neuter_ verb, signifying neither _action_ nor passion, but simply being or a state of being. You have a _state_ of being, and the log has a state of being. It can not harm you. You must have forgotten the practical application of the truths you have been teaching us." It would be difficult to explain neuter verbs in such a predicament.

"Now I _lay_ me down _to sleep_."

"She died and they _laid her_ beside her lover under the spreading branches of the willow."

"They _laid it_ away so secure that they could never find it."

They _laid_ down to _rest themselves_ after the fatigue of a whole day's journey.

We have now considered the model verbs of the neuter kind, with the exception of the verb =to be=, which is left for a distinct consideration, being the most active of all verbs. It is unnecessary to spend much time on this point. The errors I have examined have all been discovered by teachers of language, long ago, but few have ventured to correct them. An alleviation of the difficulty has been sought in the adoption of the intransitive verb, which "expresses an action that is confined to the actor or agent."

The remarks which have been given in the present lecture will serve as a hint to the course we shall adopt in treating of them, but the more particular examination of their character and uses, together with some general observation on the agents and objects of verbs, will be deferred to our next lecture.

LECTURE IX.

ON VERBS.

Neuter and intransitive.--Agents.--Objects.--No actions as such can be known distinct from the agent.--Imaginary actions.--Actions known by their effects.--Examples.--Signs should guide to things signified.--Principles of action.--=Power=.--Animals.--Vegetables. --Minerals.--All things act.--Magnetic needle.--=Cause=.--Explained. --First Cause.--=Means=.--Illustrated.--Sir I. Newton's example.-- These principles must be known.--=Relative= action.--Anecdote of Gallileo.