Chapter 7

In this manner, we might explain a long list of words, called adverbs, conjunctions, and prepositions. But I forbear, for the present, the further consideration of this subject, and leave it for another lecture.

LECTURE VII.

ON ADJECTIVES.

Adjectives.--How formed.--The syllable _ly_.--Formed from proper nouns.--The apostrophe and letter _s_.--Derived from pronouns.-- Articles.--_A_ comes from _an_.--_In_definite.--_The_.--Meaning of _a_ and _the_.--Murray's example.--That.--What.--"Pronoun adjectives."--_Mon_, _ma_.--Degrees of comparison.--Secondary adjectives.--Prepositions admit of comparison.

We resume the consideration of Adjectives. The importance of this class of words in the expression of our thoughts, is my excuse for bestowing upon it so much labor. Had words always been used according to their primitive meaning, there would be little danger of being misunderstood. But the fact long known, "_Verba mutanter_"--words change--has been the prolific source of much of the diversity of opinion, asperity of feeling, and apparent misconstruction of other's sentiments, which has disturbed society, and disgraced mankind. I have, in a former lecture, alluded to this point, and call it up in this place to prepare your minds to understand what is to be said on the secondary use of words in the character of adjectives.

I have already spoken of adjectives in general, as derived from nouns and verbs, and was somewhat particular upon the class sometimes called _prepositions_, which describe one thing by its relation to another, produced by some action which has placed them in such relation. We will now pass to examine a little more minutely into the character and use of certain adjectives, and the manner of their derivation.

We commence with those derived from nouns, both common and proper, which are somewhat peculiar in their character. I wish you distinctly to bear in mind the use of adjectives. They are words _added to nouns to define or describe them_.

Many words which name things, are used as adjectives, with out change; as, _ox_ beef, _beef_ cattle, _paper_ books, _straw_ hats, _bonnet_ paper. Others admit of change, or addition; as, nation_al_ character, a merci_ful_ (mercy-_ful_) man, a gloom_y_ prospect, a fam_ous_ horse, a gold_en_ ball. The syllables which are added, are parts of words, which are at first compounded with them, till, by frequency of use, they are incorporated into the same word. "A merci_ful_ man" is one who is full of mercy. A gold_en_ ball is one made of gold. This word is sometimes used without change; as, a _gold_ ring.

A numerous portion of these words take the syllable _ly_, contracted from _like_, which is still retained in many words; as, Judas-_like_, lady-_like_, gentleman-_like_. These two last words, are of late, occasionally used as other words, lady_ly_, gentleman_ly_; but the last more frequently than the former. She behaved very ladi_ly_, or lady_like_; and his appearance was quite gentleman_ly_. But to say ladi_ly_ appearance, does not yet sound quite soft enough; but it is incorrect only because it is uncommon. God_ly_ and god_like_ are both in use, and equally correct, with a nice shade of difference in meaning.

All grammarians have found a difficulty in the word _like_, which they were unable to unravel. They could never account for its use in expressing a relation between two objectives. They forgot that to be like, one thing must be _likened_ to another, and that it was the very meaning of this word to express such like_ness_. John looks _like_ his brother. The looks, the countenance, or appearance of John, are _likened_ to his brother's looks or appearance. "This machine is more like the pattern than any I have seen." Here the adjective _like_ takes the comparative degree, as it is called, to show a nearer resemblance than has been before observed between the things compared. "He has a statesman-_like_ appearance." I _like_ this apple, because it agrees with my taste; it has qualities _like_ my notion of what is palateable." In every situation the word is used to express likeness between two things. It describes one thing by its likeness to another.

Many adjectives are formed from proper nouns by adding an apostrophe and the letter _s_, except when the word ends in _s_, in which case the final _s_ is usually omitted for the sake of euphony. This, however, was not generally adopted by old writers. It is not observed in the earliest translations of the Bible into the english language. It is now in common practice. Thus, Montgomery's monument in front of St. Paul's church; Washington's funeral; Shay's rebelion; England's bitterest foes; Hamlet's father's ghost; Peter's wife's mother; Todd's, Walker's, Johnson's dictionary; Winchell's Watts' hymns; Pond's Murray's grammar. No body would suppose that the "relation of property or possession" was expressed in these cases, as our grammar books tell us, but that the terms employed are used to _define_ certain objects, about which we are speaking. They possess the true character and use of adjectives, and as such let them be regarded. It must be as false as frivolous to say that Montgomery, who nobly fell at the siege of Quebec, _owns_ the monument erected over his remains, which were conveyed to New-York many years after his death; or that St. Paul _owns_ or _possesses_ the church beneath which they were deposited; that Hamlet owned his father, and his father his ghost; that Todd owns Walker, and Walker owns Johnson, and Johnson his dictionary which may have had a hundred owners, and never been the property of its author, but printed fifty years after his death. These words, I repeat, are merely _definitive_ terms, and like others serve to point out or specify particular objects which may thus be better known.

Words, however, in common use form adjectives the same as other words; as, Russia iron, China ships, India silks, Vermont cheese, Orange county butter, New-York flour, Carolina potatoes. Morocco leather was first manufactured in a city of Africa called by that name, but it is now made in almost every town in our country. The same may be said of Leghorn hats, Russia binding, French shoes, and China ware. Although made in our own country we still retain the words, morocco, leghorn, russia, french, and china, to define the fashion, kind, or quality of articles to which we allude. Much china ware is made in Liverpool, which, to distinguish it from the real, is called liverpool china. Many french shoes are made in Lynn, and many Roxbury russets, Newton pippins, and Rhode-Island greenings, grow in Vermont.

It may not be improper here to notice the adjectives derived from pronouns, which retain so much of their character as relates to the persons who employ them. These are _my_, _thy_, _his_, _her_, _its_, _our_, _your_, _their_, _whose_. This is _my_ book, that is _your_ pen, this is _his_ knife, and that is _her_ letter. Some of these, like other words, vary their ending when standing alone; as, two apples are your_s_, three her_s_, six their_s_, five our_s_, and the rest mine. _His_ does not alter in popular use. Hence the reason why you hear it so often, in common conversation, when standing without the noun expressed, pronounced as if written _hisen_. The word _other_, and some others, come under the same remark. When the nouns specified are expressed, they take the regular termination; as, give me these Baldwin apples, and a few others--a few other apples.

* * * * *

There is a class of small words which from the frequency of their use have, like pronouns, lost their primitive character, and are now preserved only as adjectives. Let us examine a few of them by endeavoring to ferret out their true meaning and application in the expression of ideas. We will begin with the old articles, _a_, _an_, and _the_, by testing the truth and propriety of the duty commonly assigned to them in our grammars.

The standard grammar asserts that "an article is a word prefixed to substantives, to point them out, and to show how far their signification extends; as, "a garden, an eagle, the woman." Skepticism in grammar is no crime, so we will not hesitate to call in question the correctness of this "best of all grammars beyond all comparison." Let us consider the very examples given. They were doubtless the best that could be found. Does _a_ "point out" the garden, or "show how far its signification extends?" It does neither of these things. It may name "_any_" garden, and it certainly does not define whether it is a _great_ or a _small_ one. It simply determines that _one_ garden is the subject of remark. All else is to be determined by the word _garden_.

We are told there are two articles, the one _in_definite, the other definite--_a_ is the former, and _the_ the latter. I shall leave it with you to reconcile the apparent contradiction of an _indefinite_ article which "is used in a _vague sense, to point out the signification_ of another word." But I challenge teachers to make their pupils comprehend such a jargon, if they can do it themselves. But it is as good sense as we find in many of the popular grammars of the day.

Again, Murray says "_a_ becomes _an_ before a vowel or silent _h_;" and so say all his _simplifying_ satellites after him. Is such the fact? Is he right? He is, I most unqualifiedly admit, with this little correction, the addition of a single word--he is right _wrong_! Instead of _a_ becoming _an_, the reverse is the fact. The word is derived directly from the same word which still stands as our first numeral. It was a short time since written _ane_, as any one may see by consulting all old books. By and by it dropped the _e_, and afterwards, for the sake of euphony, in certain cases, the _n_, so that now it stands a single letter. You all have lived long enough to have noticed the changes in the word. Formerly we said _an_ union, _an_ holiday, _an_ universalist, _an_ unitarian, &c., expressions which are now rarely heard. We now say _a_ union, &c. This single instance proves that arbitrary rules of grammar have little to do in the regulation of language. Its barriers are of sand, soon removed. It will not be said that this is an unimportant mistake, for, if an error, it is pernicious, and if a grammarian knows enough to say that _a_ becomes _an_, he ought to know that he tells a falsehood, and that _an_ becomes _a_ under certain circumstances. Mr. Murray gives the following example to illustrate the use of _a_. "Give me _a_ book; that is, _any_ book." How can the learner understand such a rule? How will it apply? Let us try it. "A man has _a_ wife;" that is, _any_ man has _any_ wife. I have a hat; that is, _any_ hat. A farmer has a farm--_any_ farmer has _any_ farm. A merchant in Boston has a beautiful piece of broadcloth--_any_ merchant in Boston has any beautiful piece of broadcloth. A certain king of Europe decreed a protestant to be burned--_any_ king of Europe decreed _any_ protestant to be burned. How ridiculous are the rules we have learned and taught to others, to enable them to "speak and write with propriety." No wonder we never understood grammar, if so at variance with truth and every day's experience. The rules of grammar as usually taught can never be observed in practice. Hence it is called a _dry study_. In every thing else we learn something that we can understand, which will answer some good purpose in the affairs of life. But this branch of science is among the things which have been tediously learned to no purpose. No good account can be given of its advantages.

_The_, we are told, "is called the definite article, because it ascertains what _particular_ thing or things are meant." A most unfortunate definition, and quite as erroneous as the former. Let us try it. _The_ stars shine, _the_ lion roars, _the_ camel is a beast of burden, _the_ deer is good for food, _the_ wind blows, _the_ clouds appear, _the_ Indians are abused. What is there in these examples, which "ascertain what _particular_ thing or things are meant?" They are expressions as _in_definite as we can imagine.

On the other hand, should I say _a_ star shines, _a_ lion roars, _an_ Indian is abused, _a_ wind blows, _a_ cloud appears, you would understand me to allude very _definitely_ to _one_ "particular" object, as separate and distinguished from others of its kind.

But what is the wonderful peculiarity in the meaning and use of these two little words that makes them so unlike every thing else, as to demand a separate "part of speech?" You may be surprised when I tell you that there are other words in our language derived from the same source and possessed of the same meaning; but such is the fact, as will soon appear. Let us ask for the etymology of these important words. _A_ signifies _one_, never more, never less. In this respect it is always _definite_. It is sometimes applied to a single thing, sometimes to a whole class of things, to a [one] man, or to a [one] hundred men. It may be traced thro other languages, ancient and modern, with little modification in spelling; Greek _eis_, ein; Latin _unus_; Armoric _unan_; Spanish and Italian _uno_; Portuguese _hum_; French _un_; German _ein_; Danish _een_, _en_; Dutch _een_; Swedish _en_; Saxon, _an_, _aen_, _one_--from which ours is directly derived--old English _ane_; and more modernly _one_, _an_, _a_. In all languages it defines a thing to be _one_, a united or congregated whole, and the word _one_ may always be substituted without affecting the sense. From it is derived our word _once_, which signifies _oned_, _united_, _joined_, as we shall see when we come to speak of "contractions." In some languages _a_ is styled an article, in others it is not. The Latin, for instance, has no article, and the Greek has no _indefinite_. But all languages have words which are like ours, pure adjectives, employed to specify certain things. The argument drawn from the fact that some other languages have _articles_, and therefore ours should, is fallacious. The Latin, which was surpassed for beauty of style or power in deliverance by few, if any others, never suffered from the lack of articles. Nor is there any reason why we should honor two small adjectives with that high rank to the exclusion of others quite as worthy.

_The_ is always used as a definitive word, tho it is the least definite of the defining adjectives. In fact when we desire to "_ascertain particularly_ what thing is meant," we select some more definite word. "Give me _the_ books." Which? "Those with red covers, that in calf, and this in Russia binding." _The_ nations are at peace. What nations? _Those_ which were at war. You perceive how we employ words which are more definite, that is, better understood, to "_point out_" the object of conversation, especially when there is any doubt in the case. What occasion, then, is there to give these [the?] words a separate "part of speech," since in character they do not differ from others in the language?

We will notice another frivolous distinction made by Mr. Murray, merely to show how learned men may be mistaken, and the folly of trusting to special rules in the general application of words. He says, "Thou art _a_ man," is a very general and _harmless_ expression; but, thou art _the_ man, (as Nathan said to David,) is an assertion capable of striking terror and remorse into the heart." The distinction in meaning here, on which he insists, attaches to the articles _a_ and _the_. It is a sufficient refutation of this definition to make a counter statement. Suppose we say, "Murray is _the_ best grammarian in the world; or, he is _a_ fool, _a_ knave, and _a_ liar." Which, think you, would be considered the most _harmless_ expression? Suppose it had been said to Aaron Burr, thou art _a_ traitor, or to General William Hull, thou art _a_ coward, would they regard the phrase as "_harmless!_" On the other hand, suppose a beautiful, accomplished, and talented young lady, should observe to one of her suitors, "I have received offers of marriage from several gentlemen besides yourself, but thou art =the= man of my choice;" would it, think you, _strike_ terror and remorse into his heart? I should pity the young student of Murray whose feelings had become so stoical from the false teaching of his author as to be filled with "terror and remorse" under such favorable circumstances, while fair prospects of future happiness were thus rapidly brightening before him. I speak as to the wise, judge ye what I say.

The adjective _that_ has obtained a very extensive application in language. However, it may seem to vary in its different positions, it still retains its primitive meaning. It is comprised of _the_ and _it_, thait, theat, thaet (Saxon,) thata (Gothic,) dat (Dutch.) It is the most decided definitive in our language. It is by use applied to things in the singular, or to a multitude of things regarded as a whole. By use, it applies to a collection of ideas expressed in a sentence; as, it was resolved, _that_. What? Then follows _that fact_ which was resolved. "Provided _that_, in case he does" so and so. "It was agreed _that_," _that fact_ was agreed to which is about to be made known. I wish you to understand, all thro these lectures, _that_ I shall honestly endeavor to expose error and establish truth. Wish you to understand _what_? _that fact_, afterwards stated, "I shall endeavor," &c. You can not mistake my meaning: _that_ would be impossible. What would be impossible? Why, to mistake my meaning.

You can not fail to observe the true character of this word called by our grammarians "adjective pronoun," "relative pronoun," and "conjunction." They did not think to look for its meaning. Had that (duty) been done, it would have stood forth in its true character, an important defining word.

The only difficulty in the explanation of this word, originates in the fact, that it was formerly applied to the plural as well as singular number. It is now applied to the singular only when referring directly to an object; as, _that man_. And it never should be used otherwise. But we often see phrases like this; "These are the men _that_ rebeled." It should be, "these are the men _who_ rebeled." This difficulty can not be overcome in existing grammars on any other ground. In modern writings, such instances are rare. _This_ and _that_ are applied to the singular; _these_ and _those_ to the plural.

* * * * *

=What= is a compound of two original words, and often retains the meaning of both, when employed as a compound relative, "having in itself both the antecedent and the relative," as our authors tell us. But when it is dissected, it will readily enough be understood to be an adjective, defining things under particular relations.

But I shall weary your patience, I fear, if I stay longer in this place to examine the etymology of small words. I intended to have shown the meaning and use of many words included in the list of conjunctions, which are truly adjectives, such as _both_, _as_, _so_, _neither_, _and_, etc.; but I let them pass for the present, to be resumed under the head of contractions.

From the view we have given of this class of words, we are saved the tediousness of studying the grammatical distinctions made in the books, where no real distinctions exist. In character these words are like adjectives; their meaning, like the meaning of all other words, is peculiar to themselves. Let that be known, and there will be little difficulty in classing them. We need not confuse the learner with "adjective pronouns, possessive adjective pronouns, distributive adjective pronouns, demonstrative adjective pronouns, _indefinite_ adjective pronouns," nor any other adjective pronouns, which can never be understood nor explained. Children will be slow to apprehend the propriety of a union of _adjectives_ and _pronouns_, when told that the former is always used _with_ a noun, and never _for_ one; and the latter always _for_ a noun, but never _with_ one; and yet, that there is such a strange combination as a "_distributive or indefinite adjective pronoun_,"--"confusion worse confounded."

In the french language, the gender of adjectives is varied so as to agree with the nouns to which they belong. "Possessive pronouns," as they are called, come under the same rule, which proves them to be in character, and formation, adjectives; else the person using them must change gender. The father says, _ma_ (feminine) _fille_, my daughter; and the mother, _mon_ (masculine) _fils_, my son; the same as they would say, _bon pere_, good father; _bonne mere_, good mother; or, in Latin, _bonus pater_, or _bona mater_; or, in Spanish, _bueno padre_, _buena madre_. In the two last languages, as well as all others, where the adjectives vary the termination so as to agree with the noun, the same fact may be observed in reference to their "pronouns." If it is a fact that these words are _pronouns_, that is, stand for other _nouns_, then the father is _feminine_, and the mother is _masculine_; and whoever uses them in reference to the opposite sex must change gender to do so.

* * * * *

Describing adjectives admit of variation to express different degrees of comparison. The regular degrees have been reckoned three; positive, comparative, and superlative. These are usually marked by changing the termination. The _positive_ is determined by a comparison with other things; as, a great house, a small book, compared with others of their kind. This is truly a comparative degree. The _comparative_ adds _er_; as, a great_er_ house, a small_er_ book. The _superlative_, _est_; as, the great_est_ house, the small_est_ book.

Several adjectives express a comparison less than the positive, others increase or diminish the regular degrees; as, whit_ish_ white, _very_ white, _pure_ white; whit_er_, _considerable_ whiter, _much_ whiter; whit_est_, the _very_ whitest, _much_ the whitest _beyond all comparison_, so that there can be none _whiter_, nor _so white_.

We make an aukward use of the words _great_ and _good_, in the comparison of things; as, a _good deal_, or _great deal_ whiter; a _good_ many men, or a _great_ many men. As we never hear of a _small_ deal, or a _bad_ deal whiter, nor of a _bad many_, nor _little many_, it would be well to avoid such phrases.

The words which are added to other adjectives, to increase or diminish the comparison, or assist in their definition, may properly be called _secondary adjectives_, for such is their character. They do not refer to the thing to be _defined_ or _described_, but to the adjective which is affected, in some way, by them. They are easily distinguished from the rest by noticing this fact. Take for example: "A _very dark red_ raw silk lady's dress handkerchief." The resolution of this sentence would stand thus:

_A_ ( ) handkerchief. A ( ) _red_ ( ) handkerchief. A ( ) _dark_ red ( ) handkerchief. A _very_ dark red ( ) handkerchief. A very dark red ( ) _silk_ ( ) handkerchief. A very dark red _raw_ silk ( ) handkerchief. A very dark red raw silk ( ) _dress_ handkerchief. A very dark red raw silk _lady's_ dress handkerchief.

We might also observe that _hand_ is an adjective, compounded by use with _kerchief_. It is derived from the french word _couvrir_, to cover, and _chef_, the head. It means a head dress, a cloth to cover, a neck cloth, a napkin. By habit we apply it to a single article, and speak of _neck_ handkerchief.