Chapter 5

Some languages determine their genders by the form of the endings of their nouns, and what is thus made masculine in Rome, may be feminine in France. It is owing, no doubt, to this practice, in other nations, that we have attached the idea of gender to inanimate things; as, "the sun, _he_ shines majestically;" while of the moon, it is said, "_she_ sheds a milder radiance." But we can not coincide with the reason assigned by Mr. Murray, for this distinction. His notion is not valid. It does not correspond with facts. While in the south of Europe the sun is called masculine and the moon feminine, the northern nations invariably reverse the distinction, particularly the dialects of the Scandinavian. It was so in our own language in the time of Shakspeare. He calls the sun a "_fair wench_."

By figures of rhetoric, genders may be attached to inanimate matter. Where things are personified, we usually speak of them as masculine and feminine; but this practice depends on fancy, and not on any fixed rules. There is, in truth, but two genders, and those confined to animals. When we break these rules, and follow the undirected wanderings of fancy, we can form no rules to regulate our words. We may have as many fanciful ones as we please, but they will not apply in common practice. For example: poets and artists have usually attached female loveliness to angels, and placed them in the feminine gender. But they are invariably used in the masculine thro out the scriptures.

There is an apparent absurdity in saying of the ship General Williams, _she_ is beautiful; or, of the steamboat Benjamin Franklin, _she_ is out of date. It were far better to use no gender in such cases. But if people will continue the practice of making distinctions where there are none, they must do it from habit and whim, and not from any reason or propriety.

There are three ways in which we usually distinguish the forms of words in reference to gender. 1st. By words which are different; as boy, girl; uncle, aunt; father, mother. 2d. By a different termination of the same word; as instructor, instructress; lion, lioness; poet, poetess. _Ess_ is a contraction from the hebrew _essa_, a female. 3d. By prefixing another word; as, a male child, a female child; a man servant, a maid servant; a he-goat, a she-goat.

The last consideration that attaches to nouns, is the _position_ they occupy in written or spoken language, in relation to other words, as being _agents_, or _objects_ of action. This is termed _position_.

There are two positions in which nouns stand in reference to their meaning and use. First, as _agents_ of action, as _David_ killed Goliath. Second, as _objects_ on which action terminates; as, _Richard_ conquered _Henry_. These two distinctions should be observed in the use of all nouns. But the propriety of this division will be more evident when we come to treat of verbs, their agents and objects.

It will be perceived that we have abandoned the use of the "_possessive case_," a distinction which has been insisted on in our grammars; and also changed the names of the other two. As we would adopt nothing that is new without first being convinced that something is needed which the thing proposed will supply; so we would reject nothing that is old, till we have found it useless and cumbersome. It will be admitted on all hands that the fewer and simpler the rules of grammar, the more readily will they be understood, and the more correctly applied. We should guard, on the one hand, against having so many as to perplex, and on the other, retain enough to apply in the correct use of language. It is on this ground that we have proposed an improvement in the names and number of cases, or positions.

The word noun signifies name, and _nominative_ is the adjective derived from noun, and partakes of the same meaning. Hence the _nominative_ or _naming_ case may apply as correctly to the object as the agent. "_John_ strikes _Thomas_, and _Thomas_ strikes _John_." John and Thomas name the boys who strike, but in the first case John is the actor or agent and Thomas the object. In the latter it is changed. To use a _nominative name_ is a redundancy which should be avoided. You will understand my meaning and see the propriety of the change proposed, as the mind of the learner should not be burthened with needless or irrelevant phrases.

But our main objection lies against the "possessive case." We regard it as a false and unnecessary distinction. What is the possessive case? Murray defines it as "expressing the relation of property or possession; as, my father's house." His rule of syntax is, "one substantive governs another, signifying a different thing, in the possessive or genitive case; as, my father's house." I desire you to understand the definition and use as here given. Read it over again, and be careful that you know the meaning of _property_, _possession_, and _government_. Now let a scholar parse correctly the example given. "_Father's_" is a common noun, third person, singular number, masculine gender, and _governed_ by house:" Rule, "One noun _governs_ another," &c. Then my father does not govern his own house, but his house him! What must be the conduct and condition of the family, if they have usurped the government of their head? "John Jones, hatter, keeps constantly for sale all kinds of _boy's hats_. Parse boy's. It is a noun, possessive case, _governed_ by hats." What is the possessive case? It "signifies the _relation of property or possession_." Do the hats belong to the boys? Oh no. Are they the _property_ or in the _possession_ of the boys? Certainly not. Then what relation is there of property or possession? None at all. They belong to John Jones, were made by him, are his property, and by him are advertised for sale. He has used the word _boy's_ to distinguish their size, quality, and fitness for boy's use.

"The master's slave." Master's is in the possessive case, and _governed_ by slave! If grammars are true there can be no need of abolition societies, unless it is to look after the master and see that he is not abused. The rider's horse; the captain's ship; the general's army; the governor's cat; the king's subject. How false it would be to teach scholars the idea of _property_ and _government_ in such cases. The _teacher's scholars_ should never learn that by virtue of their grammars, or the _apostrophe_ and letter _s_, they have a right to _govern_ their teachers; nor the mother's son, to govern his mother. Our merchants would dislike exceedingly to have the _ladies_ understand them to signify by their advertisements that the "ladies' merino shawls, the ladies's bonnets and lace wrought veils, the ladies' gloves and elegant Thibet, silk and challa dresses, were the _property_ of the ladies; for in that case they might claim or _possess_ themselves of their _property_, and no longer trouble the merchant with the care of it.

"Peter's wife's mother lay sick of a fever." "_His_ physician said that _his_ disease would require _his_ utmost skill to defeat _its_ progress in _his_ limbs." Phrases like these are constantly occurring, which can not be explained intelligibly by the existing grammars. In fact, the words said to be nouns in the possessive case, have changed their character, by use, from nouns to adjectives, or definitive words, and should thus be classed. Russia iron, Holland gin, China ware, American people, the Washington tavern, Lafayette house, Astor house, Hudson river, (formerly Hudson's,) Baffin's bay, Van Dieman's land, John street, Harper's ferry, Hill's bridge, a paper book, a bound book, a red book, John's book--one which John is known to use, it may be a borrowed one, but generally known as some way connected with him,--Rev. Mr. Smith's church, St. John's church, Grace church, Murray's grammar; not the property nor in the possession of Lindley Murray, neither does it _govern him_; for he has gone to speak a purer language than he taught on earth. It is mine. I bought it, have possessed it these ten years; but, thank fortune, am little _governed_ by it. But more on this point when we come to the proper place. What I have said, will serve as a hint, which will enable you to see the impropriety of adopting the "possessive case."

It may be said that more cases are employed in other languages. That is a poor reason why we should break the barriers of natural language. Beside, I know not how we should decide by that rule, for none of them have a _case_ that will compare with the English possessive. The genitive of the French, Latin, or Greek, will apply in only a few respects. The former has _three_, the latter five, and the Latin six cases, neither of which correspond with the possessive, as explained by Murray and his satellites. We should be slow to adopt into our language an idiom which does not belong to it, and compel learners to make distinctions where none exist. It is an easy matter to tell children that the apostrophe and letter _s_ marks the possessive case; but when they ask the difference in the meaning between the use of the noun and those which all admit are adjectives, it will be no indifferent task to satisfy them. What is the difference in the construction of language or the sense conveyed, between Hudson'_s_ river, and _Hudson_ river? Davis's straits, or Bass straits? St. John's church, or Episcopal church? the sun's beams, or sun shine? In all cases these words are used to define the succeeding noun. They regard "property or possession," only when attending circumstances, altogether foreign from any quality in the form or meaning of the word itself, are so combined as to give it that import. And in such cases, we retain these words as adjectives, long after the property has passed from the hands of the persons who gave it a name. _Field's_ point, _Fuller's_ rocks, _Fisher's_ island, _Fulton's_ invention, will long be retained after those whose names were given to distinguish these things, have slept with their fathers and been forgotten. Blannerhassett's Island, long since ceased to be his property or tranquil possession, by confiscation; but it will retain its specific name, till the inundations of the Ohio's waters shall have washed it away and left not a wreck behind.

The distinctions I have made in the positions of nouns, will be clearly understood when we come to the verbs. A few remarks upon pronouns will close the present lecture.

PRONOUNS.

Pronouns are such as the word indicates. _Pro_ is the latin word _for_; pro-nomen, _for nouns_. They are words, originally nouns, used specifically _for_ other nouns, to avoid the too frequent repetition of the same words; as, Washington was the father of his country; _he_ was a valiant officer. _We_ ought to respect _him_. The word _we_, stands for the speaker and all present, and saves the trouble of naming them; _he_ and _him_, stand for Washington, to avoid the monotony which would be produced by a recurrence of his name.

Pronouns are all of one kind, and few in number. I will give you a list of them in their respective positions.

_Agents._ _Objects._ { 1st person, I, me, { 2d " thou, thee, _Singular_ { 3d " mas. { he, him, { " fem. { she, her, { it, it.

{ 1st person, we, us, _Plural_ { 2d " ye, or you, you, { 3d " they, them, who, whom.

The two last may be used in either person, number, or gender.

The frequent use of these words render them very important, in the elegant and rapid use of language. They are so short, and their sound so soft and easy, that the frequency of their recurrence does not mar the beauty of a sentence, but saves us from the redundancy of other words. They are substituted only when there is little danger of mistaking the nouns for which they stand. They are, however, sometimes used in a very broad sense; as, "_they say_ it is so;" meaning no particular persons, but the general sentiment. _It_ frequently takes the lead of a sentence, and the thing represented by it comes after; as, "It is currently reported, that things were thus and so." Here _it_ represents the single idea which is afterward stated at length. "_It_ is so." "_It_ may be that the nations will be destroyed by wars, earthquakes, and famines." But more of this when we come to speak of the composition of sentences.

The words now classed as pronouns were originally _names_ of things, but in this character they have long been obsolete. They are now used only in their secondary character as the representatives of other words. The word _he_, for instance, signified originally _to breathe_. It was applied to the living beings who inhaled air. It occurs with little change in the various languages of Europe, ancient and modern, till at length it is applied to the male agent which lives and acts. The word _her_ means _light_, but is specifically applied to females which are the objects of action.

Was it in accordance with the design of these lectures, it would give me pleasure to go into a minute examination of the origin, changes and meaning of these words till they came to be applied as specific words of exceeding limited character. Most of them might be traced thro all the languages of Europe; the Arabic, Persic, Arminian, Chaldean, Hebrew, and, for ought I know, all the languages of Asia. But as they are now admitted a peculiar position in the expression of thought from which they never vary; and as we are contending about philosophic principles rather than verbal criticisms, I shall forbear a further consideration of these words.

In the proper place I shall consider those words formerly called "Adjective Pronouns," "Pronoun Adjectives," or "Pronominal Adjectives," to suit the varying whims of those grammar makers, who desired to show off a speck of improvement in their "simplifying" works without ever having a new idea to express. It is a query in some minds whether the seventy-two "simplifiers" and "improvers" of Murray's grammar ever had any distinct notions in their heads which they did not obtain from the very man, who, it would seem by their conduct, was unable to explain his own meaning.

LECTURE VI.

ON ADJECTIVES.

Definition of adjectives.--General character.--Derivation.--How understood.--Defining and describing.--Meaning changes to suit the noun.--Too numerous.--Derived from nouns.--Nouns and verbs made from adjectives.--Foreign adjectives.--A general list.--Difficult to be understood.--An example.--Often superfluous.--Derived from verbs.--Participles.--Some prepositions.--Meaning unknown.--With.-- In.--Out.--Of.

The most important sub-division of words is the class called Adjectives, which we propose to notice this evening. _Adjective_ signifies _added_ or _joined to_. We employ the term in grammar to designate that class of words which are _added to nouns to define or describe them_. In doing this, we strictly adhere to the principles we have already advanced, and do not deviate from the laws of nature, as developed in the regulation of speech.

In speaking of things, we had occasion to observe that the mind not only conceived ideas of things, but of their properties; as, the hardness of flint; the heat of fire; and that we spoke of one thing in reference to another. We come now to consider this subject more at large.

In the use of language the mind first rests on the thing which is present before it, or the word which represents the idea of that thing. Next it observes the changes and attitudes of these things. Thirdly, it conceives ideas of their qualities and relations to other things. The first use of these words is to name things. This we call _nouns_. The second is to express their actions. This we call _verbs_. The last is to define or describe things. This we call _adjectives_. There is a great similarity between the words used to name things and to express their actions; as, builders build buildings; singers sing songs; writers write writings; painters paint paintings. In the popular use of language we vary these words to avoid the monotony and give pleasantness and variety. We say builders _erect_ houses, barns, and other buildings; singers perform pieces of music; musicians play tunes; the choir sing psalm tunes; artists paint pictures.

From these two classes a third is derived which partakes somewhat of the nature of both, and yet from its secondary use, it has obtained a distinctive character, and as such is allowed a separate position among the classes of words.

It might perhaps appear more in order to pass the consideration of adjectives till we have noticed the character and use of verbs, from which an important portion of them is derived. But as they are used in connexion with nouns, and as the character they borrow from the verb will be readily understood, I have preferred to retain the old arrangement, and consider them in this place.

_Adjectives are words added to nouns to define or describe them._ They are derived either, 1st, from nouns; as, _window_ glass, _glass_ window, a stone house, building stone, maple sugar, sugar cane; or, 2d, from verbs; as, a _written_ paper, a _printed_ book, a _painted_ house, a _writing_ desk. In the first case we employ one noun, or the name of one thing, to define another, thus giving it a secondary use. A _glass_ window is one made of glass, and not of any thing else. It is neither a _board_ window, nor a _paper_ window. _Maple_ sugar is not _cane_ sugar, nor _beet_ sugar, nor _molasses_ sugar; but it may be _brown_ sugar, if it has been browned, or _white_ if it has been whit_ed_ or whit_ened_. In this case, you at once perceive the correctness of our second proposition, in the derivation of adjectives from verbs, by which we describe a thing in reference to its condition, in some way affected by the operation of a prior action. A _printed_ book is one on which the action of printing has been performed. A _written_ book differs from the former, in as much as its appearance was produced by writing and not by printing.

In the definition or description of things, whatever is best understood is employed as a definitive or descriptive term, and is attached to the object to make known its properties and relations. Speaking of nations, if we desire to distinguish some from others, we choose the words supposed to be best known, and talk of European, African, American, or Indian nations; northern, southern, eastern, or western nations. These last words are used in reference to their relative position, and may be variously understood; for we speak of the northern, eastern, western, and southern nations of Europe, of Africa, and the world.

Again, we read of civiliz_ed_, half-civilized, and barbarous nations; learned, unlearned, ignorant, and enlightened; rich, powerful, enterprising, respected, ancient or modern, christian, mahomedan or pagan. In these, and a thousand similar cases, we decide the meaning, not alone from the word employed as an adjective, but from the subject of remark; for, were we to attach the same meaning to the same word, wherever used, we could not receive correct or definite impressions from the language of others--our inferences would be the most monstrous. A _great_ mountain and a _great_ pin, a _great_ continent and a _great_ farm, a _great_ ocean and a _great_ pond, a _great_ grammar and a _great_ scholar, refer to things of very different dimensions and character; or, as Mr. Murray would say, "_qualities_." A mountain is great by comparison with other mountains; and a pin, compared with other pins, may be very large--exceeding great--and yet fall very far short of the size of a very small mountain. A _small_ man may be a _great_ scholar, and a rich neighbor a poor friend. A sweet flower is often very bitter to the taste. A _good_ horse would make a _bad_ dinner, but _false_ grammar can never make _true_ philologists.

All words are to be understood according to their use. Their meaning can be determined in no other way. Many words change their forms to express their relations, but fewer in our language than in most others, ancient or modern. Other words remain the same, or nearly so, in every position; noun, adjective, or verb, agent or object, past or present. To determine whether a word is an adjective, first ascertain whether it names a thing, defines or describes it, or expresses its action, and you will never be at a loss to know to what class it belongs.

The business of adjectives is twofold, and they may be distinguished by the appellations of _defining_ or _describing_ adjectives. This distinction is in many cases unimportant; in others it is quite essential. The same word in one case may _define_, in others _describe_ the object, and occasionally do both, for we often specify things by their descriptions. The learner has only to ascertain the meaning and use of the adjective to decide whether it defines or describes the subject of remark. If it is employed to distinguish one thing from the general mass, or one class from other classes, it has the former character; but after such thing is pointed out, if it is used to give a description of its character or properties, its character is different, and should be so understood and explained.

_Defining adjectives_ are used to _point out_, specify or distinguish certain things from others of their kind, or one sort from other sorts, and answer to the questions _which_, _what_, _how many_, or _how much_.

_Describing adjectives_ express the character and qualities of things, and give a more full and distinct knowledge than was before possessed.

In a case before mentioned, we spoke of the "Indian nations." The word _Indian_ was chosen to specify or define what nations were alluded to. But all may not decide alike in this case. Some may think we meant the aborigines of America; others, that the southern nations of Asia were referred to. This difficulty originates in a misapprehension of the definitive word chosen. India was early known as the name of the south part of Asia, and the people there, were called Indians. When Columbus discovered the new world, supposing he had reached the country of India, which had long been sought by a voyage round the coast of Africa, he named it India, and the people Indians. But when the mistake was discovered, and the truth fully known, instead of effecting a change in the name already very generally understood, and in common use, another word was chosen to distinguish between countries so opposite and _West_ India became the word to distinguish the newly discovered islands; and as India was little better known in Europe at that time, instead of retaining their old name unaltered, another word was prefixed, and they called it _East_ India. When, therefore, we desire to be definite, we retain these words, and say, East Indians and West Indians. Without this distinction, we should understand the native people of our own country; but in Europe, Asia, and Africa, they would think we alluded to those in Asia. So with all other adjectives which are not understood. _Indian_, as an adjective, may also be employed to _describe_ the character and condition of the aborigines. We talk of an indian temper, indian looks, indian blankets, furs, &c.