CHAPTER I.

ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL.

s. 467. The word _syntax_ is derived from the Greek _syn_ (_with_ or _together_), and _taxis_ (_arrangement_). It relates to the arrangement, or putting together of words. Two or more words must be used before there can be any application of studied syntax.

Much that is considered by the generality of grammarians as syntax, can either be omitted altogether, or else be better studied under another name.

s. 468. To reduce a sentence to its elements, and to show that these elements are, 1, the subject, 2, the predicate, 3, the copula; to distinguish between simple terms and complex terms,--this is the department of logic.

To show the difference in force of expression, between such a sentence as _great is Diana of the Ephesians_, and _Diana of the Ephesians is great_, wherein the natural order of the subject and predicate is reversed, is a point of rhetoric.

_I am moving._--To state that such a combination as _I am moving_ is grammatical, is undoubtedly a point of syntax. Nevertheless it is a point better explained in a separate treatise, than in a work upon any particular language. The expression proves its correctness by the simple fact of its universal intelligibility.

_I speaks._--To state that such a combination as _I speaks_, {393} admitting that _I_ is exclusively the pronoun in the first person, and that _speaks_ is exclusively the verb in the third, is undoubtedly a point of syntax. Nevertheless, it is a point which is better explained in a separate treatise, than in a work upon any particular language. An expression so ungrammatical, involves a contradiction in terms, which unassisted common sense can deal with. This position will again be reverted to.

_There is to me a father._--Here we have a circumlocution equivalent to _I have a father_. In the English language the circumlocution is unnatural. In the Latin it is common. To determine this, is a matter of idiom rather than of syntax.

_I am speaking, I was reading._--There was a stage in the Gothic languages when these forms were either inadmissible, or rare. Instead thereof, we had the present tense, _I speak_, and the past, _I spoke_. The same is the case with the classical languages in the classical stage. To determine the difference in idea between these pairs of forms is a matter of metaphysics. To determine at what period each idea came to have a separate mode of expression is a matter of the _history_ of language. For example, _vas l['a]isands_ appears in Ulphilas (Matt. vii. 29). There, it appears as a rare form, and as a literal translation of the Greek [Greek: en didaskon] (_was teaching_). The Greek form itself was, however, an unclassical expression for [Greek: edidaske]. In Anglo-Saxon this mode of speaking became common, and in English it is commoner still.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 5. This is a point of idiom involved with one of history.

_Swear by your sword--swear on your sword._--Which of these two expressions is right? This depends on what the speaker means. If he mean _make your oath in the full remembrance of the trust you put in your sword, and with the imprecation, therein implied, that it shall fail you, or turn against you if you speak falsely_, the former expression is the right one. But, if he mean swear _with your hand upon your sword_, it is the latter which expresses his meaning. To take a different view of this question, and to write as a rule that {394} _verbs of swearing are followed by the preposition on_ (or _by_) is to mistake the province of the grammar. Grammar tells no one what he should wish to say. It only tells him how what he wishes to say should be said.

Much of the criticism on the use of _will_ and _shall_ is faulty in this respect. _Will_ expresses one idea of futurity, _shall_ another. The syntax of the two words is very nearly that of any other two. That one of the words is oftenest used with a first person, and the other with a second, is a fact, as will be seen hereafter, connected with the nature of _things_, not of words.

s. 469. The following question now occurs. If the history of forms of speech be one thing, and the history of idioms another; if this question be a part of logic, and that question a part of rhetoric; and if such truly grammatical facts as government and concord are, as matters of common sense, to be left uninvestigated and unexplained, what remains as syntax? This is answered by the following distinction. There are two sorts of syntax; theoretical and practical, scientific and historical, pure and mixed. Of these, the first consists in the analysis and proof of those rules which common practice applies without investigation, and common sense appreciates, in a rough and gross manner, from an appreciation of the results. This is the syntax of government and concord, or of those points which find no place in the present work, for the following reason--_they are either too easy or too hard for it_. If explained scientifically they are matters of close and minute reasoning; if exhibited empirically they are mere rules for the memory. Besides this they are universal facts of languages in general, and not the particular facts of any one language. Like other universal facts they are capable of being expressed symbolically. That the verb (A) agrees with its pronoun (B) is an immutable fact: or, changing the mode of expression, we may say that language can only fulfil its great primary object of intelligibility when A = B. And so on throughout. A formal syntax thus exhibited, and even devised _[`a] priori_, is a philological possibility. And it is also the measure of philological anomalies. {395}

s. 470. _Pure syntax._--So much for one sort of syntax; _viz._, that portion of grammar which bears the same relation to the practice of language, that the investigation of the syllogism bears to the practice of reasoning. The positions concerning it are by no means invalidated by such phrases as _I speaks_ (for _I speak_), &c. In cases like these there is no contradiction; since the peculiarity of the expression consists not in joining two incompatible persons, but in mistaking a third person for a first--_and as far as the speaker is concerned, actually making it so_. I must here anticipate some objections that may be raised to these views, by stating that I am perfectly aware that they lead to a conclusion which to most readers must appear startling and to some monstrous, _viz._, to the conclusion that _there is no such thing as bad grammar at all_; _that everything is what the speaker chooses to make it_; _that a speaker may choose to make any expression whatever, provided it answer the purpose of language, and be intelligible_; _that, in short, whatever is is right_. Notwithstanding this view of the consequence I still am satisfied with the truth of the premises. I may also add that the terms _pure_ and _mixed_, themselves suggestive of much thought on the subject which they express, are not mine but Professor Sylvester's.

s. 471. _Mixed syntax._--That, notwithstanding the previous limitations, there is still a considerable amount of syntax in the English, as in all other languages, may be seen from the sequel. If I undertook to indicate the essentials of mixed syntax, I should say that they consisted in the explanation of combinations _apparently_ ungrammatical; in other words, that they ascertained the results of those causes which disturb the regularity of the pure syntax; that they measured the extent of the deviation; and that they referred it to some principle of the human mind--so accounting for it.

_I am going._--Pure syntax explains this.

_I have gone._--Pure syntax will not explain this. Nevertheless, the expression is good English. The power, however, of both _have_ and _gone_ is different from the usual power of those words. This difference mixed syntax explains. {396}

s. 472. Mixed syntax requires two sorts of knowledge--metaphysical, and historical.

1. To account for such a fact in language as the expression _the man as rides to market_, instead of the usual expression _the man who rides to market_, is a question of what is commonly called metaphysics. The idea of comparison is the idea common to the words _as_ and _who_.

2. To account for such a fact in language as the expression _I have ridden a horse_ is a question of history. We must know that when there was a sign of an accusative case in English the word _horse_ had that sign; in other words that the expression was, originally, _I have a horse as a ridden thing_. These two views illustrate each other.

s. 473. In the English, as in all other languages, it is convenient to notice certain so-called figures of speech. They always furnish convenient modes of expression, and sometimes, as in the case of the one immediately about to be noticed, _account_ for facts.

s. 474. _Personification._--The ideas of apposition and collectiveness account for the apparent violations of the concord of number. The idea of personification applies to the concord of gender. A masculine or feminine gender, characteristic of persons, may be substituted for the neuter gender, characteristic of things. In this case the term is said to be personified.

_The cities who aspired to liberty._--A personification of the idea expressed by _cities_ is here necessary to justify the expression.

_It_, the sign of the neuter gender, as applied to a male or female _child_, is the reverse of the process.

s. 475. _Ellipsis_ (from the Greek _elleipein_=_to fall short_), or a _falling short_, occurs in sentences like _I sent to the bookseller's_. Here the word _shop_ or _house_ is understood. Expressions like _to go on all fours_, and _to eat of the fruit of the tree_, are reducible to ellipses.

s. 476. _Pleonasm_ (from the Greek _pleonazein_=_to be in excess_) occurs in sentences like _the king, he reigns_. Here the word _he_ is superabundant. In many _pleonastic_ {397} expressions we may suppose an interruption of the sentence, and afterwards an abrupt renewal of it; as _the king_--_he reigns_.

The fact of the word _he_ neither qualifying nor explaining the word _king_, distinguishes pleonasm from apposition.

Pleonasm, as far as the view above is applicable, is reduced to what is, apparently, its opposite, _viz._, ellipsis.

_My banks, they are furnished_,--_the most straitest sect_,--these are pleonastic expressions. In _the king, he reigns_, the word _king_ is in the same predicament as in _the king, God bless him_.

The double negative, allowed in Greek and Anglo-Saxon, but not admissible in English, is pleonastic.

The verb _do_, in _I do speak_, is _not_ pleonastic. In respect to the sense it adds intensity. In respect to the construction it is not in apposition, but in the same predicament with verbs like _must_ and _should_, as in _I must go_, &c.; _i. e._ it is a verb followed by an infinitive. This we know from its power in those languages where the infinitive has a characteristic sign; as, in German,

Die Augen _thaten_ ihm winken.--GOETHE.

Besides this, _make_ is similarly used in Old English.--_But men make draw the branch thereof, and beren him to be graffed at Babyloyne._--Sir J. Mandeville.

s. 477. _The figure zeugma._--_They wear a garment like that of the Scythians, but a language peculiar to themselves._--The verb, naturally applying to _garment_ only, is here used to govern _language_. This is called in Greek, _zeugma_ (junction).

s. 478. _My paternal home was made desolate, and he himself was sacrificed._--The sense of this is plain; _he_ means _my father_. Yet no such substantive as _father_ has gone before. It is supplied, however, from the word _paternal_. The sense indicated by _paternal_ gives us a subject to which _he_ can refer. In other words, the word _he_ is understood, according to what is indicated, rather than according to what is expressed. This figure in Greek is called _pros to semainomenon_ (_according to the thing indicated_). {398}

s. 479. _Apposition._--_Caesar, the Roman emperor, invades Britain._--Here the words _Roman emperor_ explain, or define, the word _Caesar_; and the sentence, filled up, might stand, _Caesar, that is, the Roman emperor_, &c. Again, the words _Roman emperor_ might be wholly ejected; or, if not ejected, they might be thrown into a parenthesis. The practical bearing of this fact is exhibited by changing the form of the sentence, and inserting the conjunction _and_. In this case, instead of one person, two are spoken of, and the verb _invades_ must be changed from the singular to the plural.

Now the words _Roman emperor_ are said to be in apposition to _Caesar_. They constitute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original one. They are, as it were, _laid alongside_ (_appositi_) _of_ the word _Caesar_. Cases of doubtful number, wherein two substantives precede a verb, and wherein it is uncertain whether the verb should be singular or plural, are decided by determining whether the substantives be in apposition or the contrary. No matter how many nouns there may be, as long as it can be shown that they are in apposition, the verb is in the singular number.

s. 480. _Collectiveness as opposed to plurality._--In sentences like _the meeting_ was _large_, _the multitude_ pursue _pleasure_, _meeting_, and _multitude_ are each collective nouns; that is, although they present the idea of a single object, that object consists of a plurality of individuals. Hence, _pursue_ is put in the plural number. To say, however, _the meeting were large_ would sound improper. The number of the verb that shall accompany a collective noun depends upon whether the idea of the multiplicity of individuals, or that of the unity of the aggregate, shall predominate.

_Sand and salt and a mass of iron is easier to bear than a man without understanding._--Let _sand and salt and a mass of iron_ be dealt with as a series of things the aggregate of which forms a mixture, and the expression is allowable.

_The king and the lords and commons_ forms _an excellent frame of government_.--Here the expression is doubtful. Substitute _with_ for the first _and_, and there is no doubt as to the propriety of the singular form _is_. {399}

s. 481. _The reduction of complex forms to simple ones._--Take, for instance, the current illustration, viz., _the-king-of-Saxony's army_.--Here the assertion is, not that the army belongs to _Saxony_, but that it belongs to the _king of Saxony_; which words must, for the sake of taking a true view of the construction, be dealt with as a single word in the possessive case. Here two cases are dealt with as one; and a complex term is treated as a single word.

The same reasoning applies to phrases like _the two king Williams_. If we say _the two kings William_, we must account for the phrase by apposition.

s. 482. _True notion of the part of speech in use._--In _he is gone_, the word _gone_ must be considered as equivalent to _absent_; that is, as an adjective. Otherwise the expression is as incorrect as the expression _she is eloped_. Strong participles are adjectival oftener than weak ones; their form being common to many adjectives.

_True notion of the original form._--In the phrase _I must speak_, the word _speak_ is an infinitive. In the phrase _I am forced to speak_, the word _speak_ is (in the present English) an infinitive also. In one case, however, it is preceded by _to_; whilst in the other, the particle _to_ is absent. The reason for this lies in the original difference of form. _Speak_ - _to_=the Anglo-Saxon _spr['e]can_, a simple infinitive; _to speak_, or _speak + to_=the Anglo-Saxon _to spr['e]canne_, an infinitive in the dative case.

s. 483. _Convertibility._--In the English language, the greater part of the words may, as far as their form is concerned, be one part of speech as well as another. Thus the combinations _s-a-n-th_, or _f-r-e-n-k_, if they existed at all, might exist as either nouns or verbs, as either substantives or adjectives, as conjunctions, adverbs, or prepositions. This is not the case in the Greek language. There, if a word be a substantive, it will probably end in _-s_, if an infinitive verb, in _-ein_, &c. The bearings of this difference between languages like the English and languages like the Greek will soon appear.

At present, it is sufficient to say that a word, {400} originally one part of speech (_e.g._ a noun), may become another (_e.g._ a verb). This may be called the convertibility of words.

There is an etymological convertibility, and a syntactic convertibility; and although, in some cases, the line of demarcation is not easily drawn between them, the distinction is intelligible and convenient.

s. 484. _Etymological convertibility._--The words _then_ and _than_, now adverbs or conjunctions, were once cases: in other words, they have been converted from one part of speech to another. Or, they may even be said to be cases, at the present moment; although only in an historical point of view. For the practice of language, they are not only adverbs or conjunctions, but they are adverbs or conjunctions exclusively.

s. 485. _Syntactic convertibility._--The combination _to err_, is at this moment an infinitive verb. Nevertheless it can be used as the equivalent to the substantive _error_.

_To err is human_=_error is human_. Now this is an instance of syntactic conversion. Of the two meanings, there is no doubt as to which is the primary one; which primary meaning is part and parcel of the language at this moment.

The infinitive, when used as a substantive, can be used in a singular form only.

_To err_=_error_; but we have no such form as _to errs_=_errors_. Nor is it wanted. The infinitive, in a substantival sense, always conveys a general statement, so that even when singular, it has a plural power; just as _man is mortal_=_men are mortal_.

s. 486. _The adjective used as a substantive._--Of these, we have examples in expressions like the _blacks of Africa_--_the bitters and sweets of life_--_all fours were put to the ground_. These are true instances of conversion, and are proved to be so by the fact of their taking a plural form.

_Let the blind lead the blind_ is not an instance of conversion. The word _blind_ in both instances remains an adjective, and is shown to remain so by its being uninflected.

s. 487. _Uninflected parts of speech, used as substantive._--When King Richard III. says, _none of your ifs_, he uses the word _if_ as a substantive=_expressions of doubt_. {401}

So in the expression _one long now_, the word _now_=_present time_.

s. 488. The convertibility of words in English is very great; and it is so because the structure of the language favours it. As few words have any peculiar signs expressive of their being particular parts of speech, interchange is easy, and conversion follows the logical association of ideas unimpeded.

_The convertibility of words is in the inverse ratio to the amount of their inflection._

* * * * *

{402}