CHAPTER II.

CRITICAL REMARKS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.

Having, in the preceding chapter, explained the nature of that usage which gives law to language; and having proposed a few rules for the student’s direction in cases where usage is divided, and also where her authority may be justly questioned and checked by criticism; I intend, in the following pages, to present the young reader with a copious exemplification of the three general species of error against grammatical purity, arranging the examples in the order of the parts of speech.

SECTION I.

THE NOUN.

BARBARISM.

“I rode in a one-horse chay.” It ought to be “a one-horse chaise.” There is no such word as _chay_.

“That this has been the true and proper acception of this word, I shall testify by one evidence.”--_Hammond._ _Acception_ is obsolete; it ought to be _acceptation_.

“Were the workmen to enter into a contrary combination of the same kind, not to accept of a certain wage.”--_Wealth of Nations._ _Wage_ is obsolete; the plural only is used.

“Their alliance was sealed by the nuptial of Henry, with the daughter of the Italian prince.”--_Gibbon._ _Nuptial_ has not, I believe, been used as a substantive since the days of Shakspeare, and may be deemed obsolete. The plural _nuptials_ is the proper word.

“He showed that he had a full comprehension of the whole of the plan, and of the judicious adaption of the parts to the whole.”--_Sheridan’s Life of Swift._ _Adaption_ is obsolescent, if not obsolete: _adaptation_ is the proper term. _Adaption_ is frequently employed by Swift, from whom Sheridan seems to have copied it.

... “Which even his brother modernists themselves, like ungrates, whisper so loud that it reaches up to the very garret I am now writing in.”--_Swift._ “Ungrate” is a barbarism. “Ingrate” is to be found in some of our English poets as an adjective, and synonymous with “ungrateful;” but “ungrate,” as a substantive, is truly barbarous. Almost equally objectionable is Steele’s use of _stupid_ as a substantive plural. “Thou art no longer to drudge in raising the mirth of stupids.”--_Spectator_, No. 468. And also of _ignorant_, “the ignorants of the lowest order.”--_Ibid._

Pope also says, in one of his letters, “We are curious impertinents in the case of futurity.” This employment of the adjective as a noun substantive, though never sanctioned by general use, is now properly avoided by our most reputable writers. It tends to confusion, where distinction is necessary.

“The Deity dwelleth between the cherubims.” The Hebrews form the plural of masculines by adding _im_; “cherubims,” therefore, is a double plural. “Seraphims,” for the same reason, is faulty. The singular of these words being “cherub” and “seraph,” the plural is either “cherubs” and “seraphs,” or “cherubim” and “seraphim.” Milton has uniformly avoided this mistake, which circumstance Addison, in his criticisms on that author, has overlooked; nay, he has, even with Milton’s correct usage before him, committed the error. “The zeal of the _seraphim_,” says he, “breaks forth in a becoming warmth of sentiments and expressions, as the character which is given of _him_,” &c. Here “seraphim,” a plural noun, is used as singular. It should be, “the zeal of the seraph.”

“Nothing can be more pleasant than to see virtuosoes about a cabinet of medals descanting upon the value, the rarity, and authenticalness of the several pieces.” _Authenticalness_, though used by Addison, is obsolescent, and may, perhaps, be deemed a barbarism. It may be properly dismissed, as a harsh and unnecessary term.

“He broke off with Lady Gifford, one of his oldest acquaintances in life.”--_Sheridan’s Life of Swift._ _Acquaintances_ is now deemed a Scotticism, being almost peculiar to the northern parts of the island. Johnson, however, did not disclaim it. “A young student from the inns of court, who has often attacked the curate of his father’s parish, with such arguments as his acquaintances could furnish.”--_Rambler._ We find it also in Steele; thus, “she pays everybody their own, and yet makes daily new acquaintances.”--_Tatler_, No. 109.

“I am sure that the farmeress at Bevis would feel emotions of vanity ... if she knew you gave her the character of a reasonable woman.”--_Lord Peterborough to Pope._ This, I believe, is the only passage in which _farmeress_ is to be found; but, though it may therefore be pronounced a barbarism, the author could not have expressed himself so clearly and so concisely, in any other way. We every now and then, as Johnson observes, feel the want of a feminine termination.

“The bellowses were broken.” The noun, as here inflected, is barbarous. “Bellows” is a plural word denoting a single instrument, though consisting of two parts. There is, therefore, no such word as “bellowses.”

SOLECISM[139].

“I have read Horace Art of Poetry.” This expression may be deemed solecistical, being a violation of that rule, by which one substantive governs another in the genitive. It should be, “Horace’s Art of Poetry.” “These are ladies ruffles,” “this is the kings picture,” are errors of the same kind, for “ladies’ ruffles,” “the king’s picture.”

“These three great genius’s flourished at the same time.” Here “genius’s,” the genitive singular, is improperly used for “geniuses,” the nominative plural.

“They have of late, ’tis true, reformed, in some measure, the gouty joints and darning work of _whereunto’s_, _whereby’s_, _thereof’s_, _therewith’s_, and the rest of this kind.”--_Shaftesbury._ Here also the genitive singular is improperly used for the objective case plural. It should be, _whereuntos_, _wherebys_, _thereofs_, _therewiths_.

“Both those people, acute and inquisitive to excess, corrupted the sciences.”--_Adams’s History of England._

“Two rival peoples, the Jews and the Samaritans, have preserved separate exemplars of it.”--_Geddes’ Preface to his Translation of the Bible._ The former of these passages involves a palpable error, the word “people,” here equivalent to _nation_, and in the singular number, being joined with _both_ or “the two,” a term of plurality. In the latter, this error is avoided, the noun being employed in the plural number. This usage, however, though sanctioned by the authority of our translators of the Bible in two passages, seems now to be obsolete. _States_, _tribes_, _nations_, appear to be preferable.

“I bought a scissars,” “I want a tongs,” “it is a tattered colours,” involve a palpable solecism, the term significant of unity being joined with a plural word. It should be “a pair of scissars,” “a pair of tongs,” “a pair of colours.”

“They tell us, that the fashion of jumbling fifty things together in a dish was at first introduced, in compliance to a depraved and debauched appetite.”--_Swift._

We say, “comply with;” therefore, by Rule xvii. “in compliance with” is the analogical form of expression, and has the sanction of classical usage.

“The fortitude of a man, who brings his will to the obedience of his reason.”--_Steele._ Analogy requires “obedience to.” We say, _obedient to command_: the person obeying is expressed in the genitive, or with the preposition _of_; and the person or thing obeyed with the preposition _to_, as, “a servant’s obedience,” or “the obedience of a servant to the orders of his master.”

“Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.”--_Bible._ “Attendance” and “attention” are verbal nouns, derived from “attend.” When the verb signifies “to regard,” or “to fix the mind upon,” it is followed by _to_, as, “he attends to his studies,” and the verbal noun is “attention,” construed, agreeably to Rule xvii. in the same manner as the verb. Thus, “he gives attention to his studies.” But when “to attend” signifies “to wait on,” or “be present at,” it is followed by _on_, _upon_, or _at_, and is sometimes used without the preposition.

Thus, “if any minister refused to admit a lecturer recommended to him, he was required to attend _upon_ the committee.”--_Clarendon._

“He attended _at_ the consecration with becoming gravity.”--_Hume._ In this sense the verbal noun is “attendance,” and construed like the verb, when it bears this signification. In the sentence, therefore, last quoted, syntax requires, either “attendance at” or “attention to.” The latter conveys the meaning of the original.

IMPROPRIETY.

“The observation of the Sabbath is a duty incumbent on every Christian.” It should be, “the observance.” Both substantives are derived from the verb “to observe.” When the verb means “to keep,” or “obey,” the verbal noun is “observance;” when “to remark,” or “to notice,” the noun is “observation.”

“They make such acquirements, as fit them for useful avocations.”--_Staunton’s Embassy to China._

The word _avocation_ is frequently, as in the example before us, confounded with _vocation_. By the latter is clearly signified “calling,” “trade,” “employment,” “business,” “occupation;” and by the former is meant whatever withdraws, distracts, or diverts us from that business. No two words can be more distinct; yet we often see them confounded.

“A supplication of twenty days was decreed to his honour.”--_Henry’s History of Britain._ The term _supplication_ is in our language confined to what Johnson calls “petitionary worship,” and always implies request, entreaty, or petition. The Latin term _supplicatio_ has a more extensive meaning, and likewise _supplicium_, each denoting not only _prayer_, strictly so called, but also _thanksgiving_. The latter of these should have been employed by the author.

“Our pleasures are purer, when consecrated by nations, and cherished by the greatest _genii_ among men.”--_Blackwell’s Mythology._ _Genii_ means spirits. (See p. 18.) It ought to be _geniuses_.

I have already remarked (see p. 31), that, when the primary idea implied in the masculine and feminine terms is the chief object of attention, and when the sex does not enter as a matter of consideration, the masculine term should be employed, even when the female is signified. Thus, the Monthly Reviewer, in giving a critique on the poems of Mrs. Grant, says, in allusion to that lady, “such is the poet’s request.” This is strictly proper. He considers her merely as a writer of poetry. But, were we to say, “as a poet she ought not to choose for her theme the story of Abelard,” we should be chargeable with error. For this would imply, that the story of Abelard is not a fit subject for a poem,--a sentiment manifestly false. There is no incongruity between the subject and poetry, but between the subject and female delicacy. We ought, therefore, to say, “as a poetess, she ought not to choose for her theme the story of Abelard.”

“It was impossible not to suspect the veracity of this story.” “Veracity” is applicable to persons only, and properly denotes that moral quality or property, which consists in speaking truth, being in its import nearly synonymous with the fashionable, but grossly perverted term, _honour_: it is, therefore, improperly applied to things. It should be “_the truth_ of this story.” The former denotes moral, and the latter physical truth. We therefore say “the truth” or “verity of the relation or thing told,” and “the veracity of the relater.”

Pope has entitled a small dissertation, prefixed to his translation of the Iliad, “A View of the Epic Poem,” misled, it is probable, by Bossu’s title of a similar work, “Traité du Poëme Epique.” _Poem_ denotes the work or thing composed; “the art of making,” which is here intended, is termed _poesy_.

An error similar to this occurs in the following passage: “I apprehend that all the _sophism_ which has been or can be employed, will not be sufficient to acquit this system at the tribunal of reason.”--_Bolingbroke._ “Sophism” is properly defined by Johnson, “a fallacious argument;” sophistry means “fallacious reasoning,” or “unsound argumentation.” The author should have said “all the sophistry,” or “all the sophisms.”

“The Greek is, doubtless, a language much superior in riches, harmony, and variety to the Latin.”--_Campbell’s Rhet._ As the properties or qualities of the languages are here particularly compared, I apprehend, that the abstract “richness” would be a more apposite term. “Riches” properly denotes “the things possessed,” or “what constitutes the opulence of the owner;” “richness” denotes the state, quality, or property of the individual, as possessed of these. The latter, therefore, appears to me the more appropriate term.

“He felt himself compelled to acknowledge the justice of my remark.” The _justness_ would, agreeably to Canon 1st, be the preferable word, the former term being confined to persons, and the latter to things.

“The negligence of this leaves us exposed to an uncommon levity in our usual conversation.”--_Spectator._ It ought to be “the neglect.” “Negligence” implies a habit; “neglect” expresses an act.

“For I am of opinion that it is better a language should not be wholly perfect, than it should be perpetually changing; and we must give over at one time, or at length infallibly change for the worse; as the Romans did when they began to quit their simplicity of style for affected refinements, such as we meet with in Tacitus, and other authors, which ended, by degrees, in many barbarities.” _Barbarity_, in this sense, is obsolescent. The univocal term, _barbarism_, is much preferable.

Gibbon, speaking of the priest, says, “to obtain the acceptation of this guide to salvation, you must faithfully pay him tythes.” _Acceptation_ in this sense is obsolete, or at least nearly out of use; it should be _favour_ or _acceptance_.

“She ought to lessen the extravagant power of the duke and duchess, by taking the disposition of employments into her own hands.”--_Swift._ _Disposal_, for reasons already assigned[140], is much better.

“The conscience of approving one’s self a benefactor to mankind, is the noblest recompense for being so.” “Conscience” is the faculty by which we judge our own conduct. It is here improperly used for “consciousness,” or the perception of what passes within ourselves.

“If reasons were as plenty as blackberries, I would give no man a reason on compulsion.”--_Shakspeare._ Here _plenty_, a substantive, is improperly used for _plentiful_.

“It had a prodigious _quantity_ of windows.”--_Spence’s Excursions._ It should be _number_. This error frequently occurs in common conversation. We hear of “a quantity of people,” of “a quantity of troops,” “a quantity of boys and girls,” just as if they were to be measured by the bushel, or weighed in the balance.--“To-morrow will suit me equally well.” If we enquire here for a nominative to the verb, we find none, _morrow_ being under the government of the preposition. This error is so common, that we fear its correction is hopeless. The translators of the Bible seem carefully to have avoided this inaccuracy:--“_To_-morrow (_i.e._ ‘on the morrow’) the Lord shall do this;” “And the Lord did that thing on _the_ morrow.” Analogy requires, that we should say, “_The_ morrow will suit me equally well.”

“I have the Dublin copy of Gibbon’s History.” This is a Scotticism for _Dublin edition_; and so palpable, that I should not have mentioned it, were it not found in authors of no contemptible merit. “I have no right to be forced,” said a citizen to a magistrate, “to serve as constable.” This perversion of the word _right_, originally, we believe, a cockneyism, is gradually gaining ground, and is found in compositions, into which nothing but extreme inattention can account for its introduction. A _right_ implies a just claim, or title to some privilege, freedom, property, or distinction, supposed by the claimant to be conducive to his benefit. We should smile, if we heard a foreigner, in vindication of his innocence, say, “I have no right to be imprisoned;” “I have no right to be hanged.” The perversion here is too palpable to escape our notice. But we hear a similar, though not so ridiculous, an abuse of the word, in common conversation without surprise. “I have no right,” says one, “to be taxed with this indiscretion;” “I have no right,” says another, “to be subjected to this penalty.” These phraseologies are absurd. They involve a contradiction; they presume a benefit, while they imply an injury. The correlative term on one side is _right_, and on the other _obligation_; a creditor has a right to a just debt, and the debtor is under an obligation to pay it. Instead of these indefensible phraseologies we should say, “I am not bound,” or “I am under no obligation to submit to this penalty;” “I ought not to be taxed with this indiscretion,” or “you have no right to subject me,” “you have no right to tax me.”

Robertson, when speaking of the Mexican form of government (Book viith), says, “But the description of their policy and laws is so inaccurate and contradictory, that it is difficult to delineate the form of their constitution with any precision.” I should here prefer the appropriate and univocal term _polity_, which denotes merely the form of government; _policy_ means rather wisdom or prudence, or the art of governing, which may exist where there is no settled _polity_.

“A letter relative to certain calumnies and misrepresentations which have appeared in the Edinburgh Review, with an exposition of the ignorance of the new critical junto.”--Here, agreeably to Canon I. (see p. 229), I should prefer _exposure_, as being a word strictly univocal. It would conduce to perspicuity were we to consider _exposition_ as the verbal noun of _expound_, and confine it entirely to _explanation_, and _exposure_ as the verbal noun of _expose_, signifying the act of setting out, or the state of being set out or exposed.

SECTION II.

THE ADJECTIVE.

BARBARISM.

“Instead of an able man, you desire to have him an insignificant wrangler, opiniatre in discourse, and priding himself on contradicting others.”--_Locke._ _Opiniatre_ is a barbarism; it should be _opinionative_.

“And studied lines, and fictious circles draw.”--_Prior._

The word _fictious_ is of Prior’s own coining; it is barbarous.

“The punishment that belongs to that great and criminous guilt is the forfeiture of his right and claim to all mercies.”--_Hammond._ _Criminous_ is a barbarism.

“Which, even in the most overly view, will appear incompatible with any sort of music.”--_Kames’s Elements._ _Overly_ is a Scotticism; in England it is now obsolete. The proper term is _cursory_ or _superficial_.

“Who should believe, that a man should be a doctor for the cure of bursten children?”--_Steele._ The participle _bursten_ is now obsolete.

“Callisthenes, the philosopher, that followed Alexander’s court, and hated the king, being asked, how one should become the _famousest_ man in the world, answered, By taking away him that is.”--_Bacon’s Apophth._ The superlative is a barbarism; it should be, “most famous.”

SOLECISM.

“I do not like these kind of men.” Here the plural word _these_ is joined to a noun singular; it should be, “this kind.” “Those sort,” “these kind of things,” are gross solecisms.

“Neither do I see it is any crime, farther than ill manners, to differ in opinion from the majority of either, or both houses; and that ill manners I have often been guilty of.”--_Swift’s Examiner._ Here is another egregious solecism. He should have said, “those ill manners,” or “that species of ill manners.”

“The landlord was quite unfurnished of every kind of provision.”--_Sheridan’s Life of Swift._ We say, “to furnish _with_,” not “to furnish _of_.” _Furnished_ and _unfurnished_ are construed in the same manner. It should be, “unfurnished _with_.”

“A child of four years old was thus cruelly deserted by its parents.” This form of expression frequently occurs, and is an egregious solecism. It should be, “a child four years old,” or “aged four years,” not “of four years.” Those who employ this incorrect phraseology, seem misled by confounding two very different modes of expression, namely, “a child of four years of age,” or “of the age of four years,” and “a child four years old.” The preposition _of_ is requisite in the two first of these forms, but inadmissible in the third. They would not say, “I am of four years old,” but “I am four years old;” hence, consistently, they ought to say, “a child four years old.” “At ten years old, I was put to a grammar school.”--_Steele._ Grammatically this is, “I old at ten years.”

“This account is very different _to_ what I told you.” “I found your affairs had been managed in a different manner _than_ what I advised.” Both these phraseologies are faulty. It should be in each, “different _from_.” The verb “to differ” is construed with _from_ before the second object of disparity; the adjective therefore should (by Rule xvii.) be construed in the same manner.

“These words have the same sense of those others.” _Same_ should be followed with _as_, _with_, or the relatives _who_, _which_, _that_. It ought, therefore, to be, “as those,” or “with those,” or “have the sense of those others.”

“I shall ever depend on your constant friendship, kind memory, and good offices, though I were never to see or hear the effects of them, like the trust we have in benevolent spirits, who, though we never see or hear them, we think are constantly serving and praying for us.”--_Pope’s Letters to Atterbury._ _Like_ can have no grammatical reference to any word in the sentence but _I_, and this reference is absurd. He should have said, “_as_, or _just as_, we trust in benevolent spirits.”

“This gentleman rallies the best of any man I know.”--_Addison._ The superlative must be followed by _of_, the preposition implying _out of_ a plurality, expressed either by a collective noun, or a plural number. But here we have a selection denoted by _of_, and the selection to be made out of one. This is absurd. It should be, “better than any other”--the best of all men--“I know;” “this gentleman, of all my acquaintance, rallies the best;” or “of all my acquaintance, there is no one, who rallies so well as this gentleman.”

“Besides, those, whose teeth are too rotten to bite, are best, of all others, qualified to revenge that defect with their breath.”--_Preface to A Tale of a Tub._

“Here,” says Sheridan, “the disjunction of the word _best_ from the word _qualified_ makes the sentence uncouth, which would run better thus, ‘are, of all others, best qualified.’” So far Mr. Sheridan is right; but he has left uncorrected a very common error. The antecedent subject of comparison is here absurdly referred at once to the same, and to a different aggregate, the word _of_ referring it to _others_, to which it is opposed, and to which therefore it cannot, without a contradiction, be said to belong. The sentence, therefore, involves an absurdity: either the word _others_ should be expunged, when the sentence would run thus, “Those, whose teeth are too rotten to bite, are, of all, best qualified to revenge that defect;” or, if the word _others_ be retained, the clause should be, “are better qualified than all others.”[141]

The phraseology here censured is admissible in those cases only where a previous comparison has been made. If we say, “To engage a private tutor for a single pupil is, perhaps, of all others, the least eligible mode of giving literary instruction,” (_Barrow on Education_,) without making that previous discrimination, which the word _others_ implies, we commit an error. But we may say with propriety, “I prefer the mode of education adopted in our public schools; and of all _other modes_, to engage a private tutor appears to me the least eligible.”

IMPROPRIETY.

“They could easier get them by heart, and retain them in memory.”--_Adams’s History of England._ Here the adjective is improperly used for the adverb; it ought to be “more easily.” Swift commits a similar error, when he says, “Ned explained his text so full and clear,” for “so fully and clearly.”

“Thus much, I think, is sufficient to serve, by way of address, to my patrons, the true modern critics, and may very well atone for my past silence as well as for that, which I am like to observe for the future.”--_Swift._ _Like_, or _similar_, is here improperly used for _likely_, a word in signification nearly synonymous with _probable_. We say, “he is likely to do it,” or “it is probable he will do it.”

“Charity vaunteth not itself, doth not behave itself unseemly.” Here the adjective _unseemly_ is improperly used for the adverb, denoting “in an unseemly manner.” _Unseemlily_ not being in use, the word _indecently_ should be substituted.

“The Romans had no other subsistence but the scanty pillage of a few farms.” _Other_ is redundant; it should be, “no subsistence but,” or “no other subsistence than.” In the Saxon language, and the earlier English writers, the word _other_ is not uniformly followed by _than_, but sometimes with _but_, _before_, _save_, _except_[142], thus, Mark xii. 32, “thær an God is, and nis other butan him,” thus rendered in the Bishops’ Translation, “there is one God, and there is none but he,” and in the common version, “none other but he.” In the Book of Common Prayer we have, “Thou shalt have no other Gods but me;” and the same form of expression occurs in Addison, Swift, and other contemporary writers. Usage, however, seems of late to have decided almost universally in favour of _than_. This decision is not only consistent with analogy, if the word _other_ is to be deemed a comparative, but may also, in some cases, be subservient to perspicuity. _No other but_, _no other beside_, _no other except_, are equivalent expressions, and do not perhaps convey precisely the same idea with _none but_, _no other than_. Thus, if we take an example similar to Baker’s, and suppose a person to say “A called on me this morning,” B asks, “No one else?” “No other,” answers A, “but my stationer.” Here the expression, as Baker remarks, seems strictly proper, the words _no other_ having a reference to A. But if the stationer had been the only visitor, he should say, “none but,” or “no other _than_ the stationer called on me this morning.” This is the opinion of Baker. The distinction, which he wishes to establish, is sufficiently evident; but that it is warranted by strict analysis, I do not mean to affirm.

“He has eaten no bread, nor drunk no water, these two days.” _No_ is here improperly used for _any_, two negatives making an affirmative: it should be, “nor drunk any water.”

“The servant must have an undeniable character.” _Undeniable_ is equivalent to _incontrovertible_, or “not admitting dispute.” An “undeniable character,” therefore, means, a character which cannot be denied or disputed, whether good or bad: it should be “unexceptionable.”

“But you are too wise to propose to yourselves an object inadequate to your strength.”--_Watson’s History of Philip III._ _Inadequate_ means “falling short of due proportion,” and is here improperly used in a sense nearly the reverse. It should be “to which your strength is inadequate,” or “superior to your strength.”

“I received a letter to-day from our mutual friend.” I concur with Baker in considering this expression to be incorrect. A may be a friend to B, and also to C, and is therefore a friend common to both; but not their mutual friend: for this implies reciprocity between two individuals, or two parties. The individuals may be mutually friends; but one cannot be the mutual friend of the other. Locke more properly says, “I esteem the memory of our common friend.” This is, doubtless, the correct expression; but, as the term _common_ may denote “ordinary,” or “not uncommon,” the word _mutual_, though not proper, may, perhaps, as Baker observes, be tolerated.

The superlatives _lowest_ and _lowermost_, _highest_ and _uppermost_, appear to me to be frequently confounded. Thus we say, “the lowest house in the street,” when we mean the lowest in respect to measurement, from the basement to the top, and also the lowest in regard to position, the inferiority being occasioned by declivity. Now it appears to me, that when we refer to dimension, we should say, _lowest_ or _highest_; and when we refer to site or situation, we ought to say, _lowermost_ or _uppermost_.

“It was due, perhaps, more to the ignorance of the scholars, than to the knowledge of the masters.”--_Swift._ It should be rather, “it was owing,” or “it is ascribable.” The author had previously been speaking of the first instructors of mankind, and questioning their claim to the title of sages. To say, then, that their right to this title, or that the appellation itself, “was due more to ignorance than to knowledge,” is manifestly improper. Swift, however, was not singular in using the adjective in this sense. Steele, and some other contemporary writers, employed it in the same acceptation. “The calamities of children are due to the negligence of the parents.”--_Spectator_, No. 431. It is now seldom or never employed as equivalent to “owing to,” or “occasioned by.”

“Risible,” “ludicrous,” and “ridiculous,” are frequently confounded. _Risible_ denotes merely the capacity of laughing, and is applied to animals having the faculty of laughter, as, “man is a risible creature.” _Ludicrous_ is applicable to things exciting laughter simply; _ridiculous_ to things exciting laughter with contempt. The tricks of a monkey are _ludicrous_, the whimsies of superstition are _ridiculous_. “The measure of the mid stream for salmon among our forefathers is not less risible.”--_Kames’s Sketches._ He should have said “ridiculous.”

We have already expressed our doubt of the propriety of using the numeral adjective _one_, as referring to a plurality of individuals, denoted by a plural noun. (_See_ p. 48.) There is something which is not only strange to the ear, but also strikes us as ungrammatical, in saying[143], “The Greeks and the Trojans continued the contest; the one were favoured by Juno, the other by Venus.” At the same time, it must be acknowledged, that there seems to be an inconsistency in questioning this phraseology, and yet retaining some others, which appear to be analogous to it, and can plead in their defence reputable usage. We say, “The Romans and the Carthaginians contended with each other;” and “The English, the Dutch, and the Spaniards disputed, one with another, the sovereignty of the sea.” Here _each_ and _one_ clearly refer to a plurality, expressed by a noun plural. A similar example occurs in the following sentence: “As the greatest part of mankind are more affected by things, which strike the senses, than by excellences, that are discovered by reason and thought, they form very erroneous judgments, when they compare _one_ with the other.”--_Guardian._ If we inquire, what one? we find the answer to be “things.” Here is a manifest incongruity, which might have been prevented, by saying, “one subject with the other,” or “when they compare them together.” As this construction of _one_, referring to a noun plural, seems irreconcilable with the notion of unity, and may be avoided, it becomes a question, whether this phraseology ought to be imitated. The subject, as far as I know, has not been considered by any of our grammarians.

“That this was the cause of the disaster, was apparent to all.” _Apparent_ is sometimes used in this sense. The word, however, is equivocal, as it denotes _seeming_, opposed to _real_; and _obvious_, opposed to _doubtful_ or _obscure_. “I consider the difference between him and the two authors above mentioned, as more apparent than real.”--_Campbell._ Here _apparent_ is opposed to _real_; and to this sense it would be right to confine it, as thus all ambiguity would be effectually prevented. “But there soon appeared very apparent reasons for James’s partiality.”--_Goldsmith._ _Obvious_, or _evident_, would unquestionably be preferable.

“How seldom, then, does it happen, that the mind does not find itself in similar circumstances? Very rare indeed.”--_Trusler’s Preface to Synon._ The adjective _rare_ is here improperly used for the adverb. As the question, indeed, is adverbially proposed, it is somewhat surprising that the author should answer _adjectively_: it ought to be, “very rarely.”

“No man had ever _less_ friends, and more enemies.” _Less_ refers to quantity, _fewer_ to number; it should be, “_fewer_ friends.”

“The mind may insensibly fall off from this relish of virtuous actions, and by degrees exchange that pleasure, which it takes in the performance of its duty, for delights of a much more inferior and unprofitable nature.”--_Addison._ _Inferior_ implies comparison, but it is grammatically a positive. When one thing is, in any respect, lower than another, we say, “it is inferior to it;” and if a third thing were still lower, we should say, “it is still more inferior.” But the author is comparing only two subjects; he should therefore have said, “of a much inferior, and more unprofitable nature.” The expression “more preferable” is for the same reason faulty, unless when two degrees of excess are implied.

The adjectives _agreeable_, _suitable_, _conformable_, _independent_, _consistent_, _relative_, _previous_, _antecedent_, and many others, are often used, where their several derivative adverbs would be more properly employed; as, “he lives _agreeable_ to nature,” “he wrote to me _previous_ to his coming to town,” “_tolerable_ good,” “he acted _conformable_ to his promise.” It is worthy of remark, however, that the idiom of our language is not repugnant to some of these phraseologies; a circumstance which many of our grammarians have overlooked, if we may judge from the severity with which they have condemned them. If I say, “he acted according to nature,” the expression is deemed unobjectionable: but is not _according_ a participle, or, perhaps, here more properly a _participial_? “He acted contrary to nature” is also considered as faultless; but is not _contrary_ an adjective? Were we to reason on abstract principles, or to adopt what is deemed the preferable phraseology, we should say, “contrarily” and “accordingly to nature.” This, however, is not the case. “Contrary to nature,” “according to nature,” and many similar phraseologies, are admitted as good: why, then, is “conformable to nature,” an expression perfectly analogous, so severely condemned? Johnson has, indeed, uselessly enough, in my opinion, called _according_ a preposition; fearful, however, of error, he adds, it is properly a participle, for it is followed by _to_. _According_ is always a participle, as much as _agreeing_, and can be nothing else. Because _secundum_ in Latin is termed a preposition, hence some have referred _according_ to the same species of words. With equal propriety might _in the power of_ be deemed a preposition, because _penes_ in Latin is so denominated. Now, if “he acted contrary to nature” and “according to nature” be deemed unexceptionable expressions, with many others of the same kind, which might be adduced, it follows that, “he acted agreeable,” “conformable,” “suitable to nature,” may plead in their favour these analogous phraseologies. I offer these observations, in order to show that, misled by abstract reasonings, or by the servile imitation of another language, we sometimes hastily condemn, as altogether inadmissible, modes of expression, which are not repugnant to our vernacular idiom. I would not, however, be understood to mean, that the adverb is not, in these cases, much to be preferred, when it can be employed consistently with good usage. For, if we say, “he acts agreeable to the laws of reason,” the question is, who or what is agreeable? the answer, according to the strict construction of the sentence, is _he_; but it is not _he_, but _his mode of acting_, of which the accordance is predicated; _agreeably_ is, therefore, the preferable term.

I observe also, that, wherever the adjective is employed to modify the meaning of another adjective, it becomes particularly exceptionable, and can scarcely, indeed, plead aught in its favour, as, “indifferent good,” “tolerable strong,” instead of “indifferently good,” and “tolerably strong.” The following phraseology is extremely inelegant, and is scarcely admissible on any principle of analogy: “Immediately consequent to the victory, Drogheda was invested.”--_Belsham’s History._ What was consequent? Grammatically “Drogheda.”

“No other person, besides my brother, visited me to-day.” Here the speaker means to say that no person, besides his brother, visited him to-day; but his expression implies two exceptions from _none_, the terms _other_ and _besides_ each implying one, and can, therefore, be correct on this supposition only, that some one besides his brother had visited him. It should be rather, “no person besides.”

“The old man had, some fifty years ago, been no mean performer on the vielle.”--_Sterne._ This phraseology appears to me very objectionable; and can be proper in no case, except when the date of the period is to be expressed as uncertain. The word _some_ should be cancelled. We may say, “I was absent some days,” because the period is indefinite; but to say, “I was absent some five days,” either involves an incongruity, representing a period as at once definite and indefinite; or denotes “some five days or other,” a meaning which the expression is rarely intended to signify.

“Brutus and Aruns killed one another.” It should be, “each other:” “one another” is applied to more than two. “The one the other” would be correct, though inelegant.

“It argued the most extreme vanity.”--_Hume._ _Extreme_ is derived from a Latin superlative, and denotes “the farthest,” or “greatest possible:” it cannot, therefore, be compared.

“Of all vices pride is the most universal.” _Universal_ is here improperly used for _general_. The meaning of the latter admits intension and remission, and may, therefore, be compared. The former is an adjective, whose signification cannot be heightened or lessened; it therefore rejects all intensive and diminutive words, as, _so_, _more_, _less_, _least_, _most_. The expression should be, “Of all vices pride is the most general.”

“Tho’ learn’d, well-bred; and tho’ well-bred, sincere: Modestly bold, and humanly severe.”--_Pope._

_Human_ and _humane_, as Dr. Campbell observes, are sometimes confounded. The former properly means “belonging to man;” the latter, “kind and compassionate:” _humanly_, therefore, is improperly, in the couplet now quoted, used for _humanely_.

SECTION III.

THE PRONOUN.

BARBARISM.

Pronouns are so few in number, and so simple, that this species of error, in respect to them, can scarcely occur. To this class, however, may perhaps be reduced such as, _his’n_, _her’n_, _our’n_, _your’n_, _their’n_, for _his own_, _her own_, _our own_, &c., or for _his one_, _her one_, &c.

SOLECISM.

“Who calls?” “’T is me.” This is a violation of that rule, by which the verb _to be_ has the same case after it that it has before it. It should be, “It is I.”

“You were the quarrel,” says Petulant in “The Way of the World.” Millamant answers, “Me!” For the reason just given it should be “_I_.”

“Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults.” As the relative refers to persons, it should be _who_.

“Nor is mankind so much to blame, in his choice thus determining him.”--_Swift._ _Mankind_ is a collective noun, and is uniformly considered as plural; _his_, therefore, is a gross solecism.

“By this institution, each legion, to whom a certain portion of auxiliaries was allotted, contained within itself every species of lighter troops, and of missile weapons.”--_Gibbon._ It ought to be, _to which_--the pronoun _itself_, which follows, referring to a noun of the neuter gender. _To whom_ and _itself_ cannot each agree with one common antecedent.

“The seeming importance given to every part of female dress, each of which is committed to the care of a different sylph.”--_Essay on the Writings of Pope._ This sentence is ungrammatical. _Each_ implying “one of two,” or “every one singly of more than two,” requires the correlative to be considered as plural; yet the antecedent _part_, to which it refers, is singular. It should be “all parts of female dress.”

“To be sold, the stock of Mr. Smith, left off business.” This is an ungrammatical and very offensive vulgarism. The verb _left off_, as Baker observes, has no subject, to which it can grammatically belong. It should be, “who has left off,” or “leaving off business” “A. B. lieutenant, _vice_ C. D. resigned.” Here is a similar error. Is C. D. resigned? or is it the office which has been resigned? An excessive love of brevity gives occasion to such solecisms.

“He was ignorant, the profane historian, of the testimony which he is compelled to give.”--_Gibbon’s Decline of the Roman Empire._

“The youth and inexperience of the prince, he was only fifteen years of age, declined a perilous encounter.”--_Ib._

In the former sentence _the historian_ appears neither as the nominative, nor the regimen to any verb. If it be intended to agree with _he_ by apposition, it should have immediately followed the pronoun. If it be designed emphatically, and ironically, to mark the character of the historian, it should have been thrown into the form of a parenthetic exclamation. In the latter sentence a phraseology occurs, which, notwithstanding its frequency in Gibbon, is extremely awkward and inelegant. The fault may be corrected either by throwing the age of the prince into a parenthesis, or, preferably, by the substitution of _who_ for _he_.

“Fare thee well” is a phraseology which, though sanctioned by the authority of a celebrated poet, and also by other writers, involves a solecism. The verb is intransitive, and its imperative is _fare thou_. No one would say, “I fare me well,” “we fare us well.”

“That faction in England, who most powerfully opposed his arbitrary pretensions.”--_Mrs. Macaulay._ It ought rather to be, “that faction in England, _which_.” It is justly observed by Priestley, “that a term, which only implies the idea of persons, and expresses them by some circumstance or epithet, will hardly authorize the use of _who_.”

“He was certainly one of the most acute metaphysicians, one of the deepest philosophers, and one of the best critics, and most learned divines, which modern times have produced.”--_Keith on the Life and Writings of Campbell._

“Moses was the mildest of all men, which were then on the face of the earth.”--_Geddes._

“Lord Sidney was one of the wisest and most active governors, whom Ireland had enjoyed for several years.”--_Hume._

In the two first of these passages, _which_ is improperly applied to persons; in the last, the author has avoided this impropriety, and used _whom_. The pronoun _that_, however, is much preferable to _who_, or _which_, after a superlative.

“Such of the Morescoes might remain, who demeaned themselves as Christians.”--_Watson’s Life of Philip III._ _Such_ is here improperly followed by _who_ instead of _as_. The correlative terms are _those who_, and _such as_.

“It is hard to be conceived, that a set of men could ever be chosen by their contemporaries, to have divine honours paid to them, while numerous persons were alive, who knew their imperfections, and who themselves, or their immediate ancestors, might have as fair a pretence, and come in competition with them.”--_Prideaux’s Connexion._ The identity of subject, in the relative clauses of this sentence, requires the repetition of the same pronoun. It should be, “who themselves, or whose immediate ancestors.”

“If you were here, you would find three or four in the parlour, after dinner, whom you would say past their afternoons very agreeably.”--_Swift._ The pronoun _whom_ should not be under the government of the verb _would say_, having no connection with it; but should be a nominative to the verb _passed_; thus, “who, you would say, passed their afternoons.”

“By these means, that religious princess became acquainted with Athenias, whom she found was the most accomplished woman of her age.” _Whom_, for the reason already assigned, should be _who_, being the nominative to the verb _was_. If it were intended to be a regimen to the verb _found_, the sentence should proceed thus, “whom she found to be.”

“Solomon was the wisest man, him only excepted, who was much greater and wiser than Solomon.” In English the absolute case is the nominative; it should, therefore, be, “he only excepted.”

“Who, instead of being useful members of society, they are pests to mankind.” Here the verb _are_ has two nominatives, _who_ and _they_, each representing the same subjects of discourse. One of them is redundant; and by the use of both, the expression becomes solecistical, there being no verb to which the relative _who_ can be a nominative.

“My banks, they are furnish’d with bees,”

is faulty for the same reason, though here, perhaps, the poetic licence may be pleaded in excuse.

“It is against the laws of the realm, which, as they are preserved and maintained by your majesty’s authority, so we assure ourselves, you will not suffer them to be violated.” _Which_ is neither a regimen nor a nominative to any verb; the sentence, therefore, is ungrammatical--_Them_ is redundant.

“Whom do men say that I am?” The relative is here in the objective case, though there be no word in the sentence by which it can be governed. In such inverted sentences, it is a good rule for those who are not well acquainted with the language to arrange the words in the natural order, beginning with the nominative and the verbs, thus, “men say, that I am who,” a sentence precisely analogous to “men say, that I am he,” the verb requiring the same case after it, as before it. Hence it is obvious, that it should be, “Who do men say that I am?”

“Who do you speak to?” It ought to be _whom_, the relative being under the government of the preposition, thus, “To whom do you speak?”

“Who she knew to be dead.”--_Henry’s Hist. of Britain._ Here also the relative should be in the objective case, under the government of the verb, thus, “whom she knew,” or “she knew whom to be dead.”

“Than whom, Satan except, none higher sat.”--_Milton._

“The king of dykes, than whom no sluice of mud, With deeper sable blots the silver flood.”--_Pope._

This phraseology I have already examined. In answer to Mr. Baker’s reason for condemning the phrase “than whom,” Story’s observations betray, as I conceive, extreme ignorance, and require correction. “The English,” says he, “is strictly good; for the relative _whom_ is not in the same case with _sluice_, (which is the nominative to the verb _blots_,) but referring to its antecedent, _the king of dykes_, is very properly in the objective case, even though the personal pronoun _he_, if substituted in its place, would be in the nominative.”

If Mr. Story conceives that the relative must agree with its antecedent in case, he labours under an egregious mistake. Every page of English evinces the contrary. Yet, such must be his opinion, or his argument means nothing; for the only reason, which he offers for _whom_, is, that its antecedent is in the objective case. Besides, if _than whom_ be admissible, nay proper, he will have difficulty in assigning a good reason, why it should not be also _than him_. But Mr. Story should have known, that, when two nouns are coupled by a conjunction, the latter term is not governed by the conjunction, but is either the nominative to the verb, or is governed by it, or by the preposition understood. The sentence proceeds thus, “no sluice of mud blots with deeper sable, than _he_ or _who_ blots.”

“It is no wonder if such a man did not shine at the court of Queen Elizabeth, who was but another name for prudence and economy.”--_Hume._ The word _Elizabeth_, as represented in the latter clause, is here a mere word, _nuda vox_, and not the sign of a person; for it is said to be another name for _prudence_ and _economy_. Not the person, but the word, is said to be significant of this quality. The pronoun, therefore, should be _which_, not _who_. The sentence, however, even thus corrected, would be inelegant. Better thus, “Queen Elizabeth, whose name was but another word for prudence and economy.”

“Be not diverted from thy duty by any idle reflections the silly world may make upon you.” Consistency requires either “_your_ duty,” or “upon _thee_.” _Thy_ and _your_, a singular and a plural pronoun, each addressed to the same individual, are incongruous.

A similar error occurs in the following passage: “I pray _you_, tarry all night, lodge here, that _thy_ heart may be merry.”--_Bible._

“It is more good to fall among crows than flatterers, for these only devour the dead, those the living.” The pronoun _this_ always refers to the nearer object, _that_ to the more remote. This distinction is here reversed. It should be, “those (crows) devour the dead; these (flatterers) the living.” I observe also, in passing, that those adjectives, whose mode of comparison is irregular, are not compared by _more_ and _most_. It ought to be, “it is better.”

“It is surprising, that this people, so happy in invention, have never penetrated beyond the elements of geometry.” It should be _has_, _this people_ being in the singular number. We may say, “people have,” the noun being collective, but not “this people have.”

“I and you love reading.” This is a Latinism, and not accordant with our mode of arrangement. Wolsey was right, when he said, “Ego, et rex meus;” but in English we reverse the order. It should be, “you and I.” We say also, “he and I,” “they and I.” _You_ always precedes.

“Each of the sexes should keep within its proper bounds, and content themselves with the advantages of their particular districts.”--_Addison._ Here the pronoun does not agree with the word to which it refers, the word _each_ being singular; whereas _themselves_ and _their_ are plural. It should be, _itself_ and _its_.

A similar error occurs in the following sentence: “Some of our principal public schools have each a grammar of _their_ own.”--_Barrow on Education._ It ought to be, “each a grammar of _its_ own.” The expression is elliptical, for “schools have each (has) a grammar of its own.” Thus we say, “Simeon and Levi took each man _his sword_,” not _their swords._--_Gen._ xxxiv. 25.

“Let each esteem other better than themselves.”--_Bible._ For the reason just given, it ought to be _himself_.

“So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”--_Bible._ Here is a manifest solecism, the pronoun _their_ referring to “his brother,” a singular subject.

“I wonder that such a valiant hero as you should trifle away your time in making war upon women.”--_Essay on the Writings of Pope._ Here the pronoun disagrees in person with the noun to which it refers, _hero_ being of the third person, and _your_ of the second. The connexion is, “I wonder that such a valiant hero should trifle away _his_ time.”

“The venison, which I received yesterday, and was a present from a friend,” &c. _Which_ is here in the objective case, and cannot properly be understood as the nominative to the verb _was_: better, therefore, “and which was a present.” The following sentence is still more faulty: “It was happy for them, that the storm, in which they were, and was so very severe, lasted but a short time.” This is ungrammatical, the verb “was” having no nominative. It should be, “which was.”

“There is not a sovereign state in Europe, but keeps a body of regular troops in their pay.” This expression, to say the least of it, is inelegant and awkward. Better, “its pay.” “Is any nation sensible of the lowness of their own manners?”--_Kames. Nation_ is here improperly construed as both singular and plural. It should be rather “its own.”

“The treaty he concluded can only be considered as a temporary submission, and of which he took no care to secure the continuance of it.”--_Dryden._ The redundancy of the words _of it_, renders the sentence somewhat ungrammatical. It should run thus, “The treaty he concluded can only be considered as a temporary submission, of which he took no care to secure the continuance.”

An improper reference occurs in the following sentence: “Unless one be very cautious, he will be liable to be deceived.” _One_ here answers to the indefinite word _on_ in French, and cannot be represented by any pronoun. It must, therefore, be repeated, thus, “Unless one be very cautious, one will be liable to be deceived.”

IMPROPRIETY.

“Give me them books.” Here the substantive pronoun is used adjectively, instead of the demonstrative _those_ or _these_. The substantive pronouns, which are, strictly speaking, the only pronouns, cannot be construed as adjectives agreeing with substantives. We cannot say, “it book,” “they books,” “them books:” but “this” or “that book,” “these” or “those books.” The former phraseology may be deemed solecistical.

“Great numbers were killed on either side.”--_Watson’s Philip III._ “The Nile flows down the country above five hundred miles from the tropic of Cancer, and marks on either side the extent of fertility by the measure of its inundation.”--_Gibbon._

It has been already observed, that the Saxon word _ægther_ signifies _each_, as Gen. vii. 2. “Clean animals thou shalt take by sevens of each kind,” _ægthres gecyndes_. The English word _either_ is sometimes used in the same sense. But as this is the only word in our language, by which we can express “one of two,” “which of the two you please,” and as it is generally employed in that sense, perspicuity requires that it be strictly confined to this signification. For, if _either_ be used equivocally, it must, in many cases, be utterly impossible for human ingenuity to ascertain, whether only “one of two,” or “both,” be intended. In such expressions, for example, as “take either side,” “the general ordered his troops to march on either bank,” how is the reader or hearer to divine, whether _both sides_, _both banks_, or _only one_, be signified? By employing _each_ to express “both,” taken individually, and _either_ to denote “one of the two,” all ambiguity is removed.

“The Bishop of Clogher intends to call on you this morning, as well as your humble servant, in my return from Chapel Izzard.”--_Addison to Swift._ After the writer has spoken of himself in the third person, there is an impropriety in employing the pronoun of the first. Much better “in his return.”

“The ends of a divine and human legislator are vastly different.”--_Warburton._ From this sentence it would seem, that there is only one subject of discourse, _the ends_ belonging to one individual, _a divine and human legislator_. The author intended to express two different subjects, namely, “the objects of a divine,” and “the objects of a human legislator.” The demonstrative _those_ is omitted. It should be, “the ends of a divine, and those of a human legislator, are vastly different.” This error consists in defect, or an improper ellipsis of the pronoun: in the following sentence the error is redundancy. “They both met on a trial of skill.” _Both_ means “they two,” as _ambo_ in Latin is equivalent to “οἱ δύο” It should therefore be, “both met on a trial of skill.”

“These two men (A and B) are both equal in strength.” This, says Baker, is nonsense; for these words signify only, that A is equal in strength, and B equal in strength, without implying to whom; so that the word _equal_ has nothing to which it refers. “A and B,” says he, “are equal in strength,” is sense; this means, that they are equal to each other. “A and B are both equal in strength to C,” is likewise sense. It signifies, that A is equal to C, and that B likewise is equal to C. Thus Mr. Baker. Now, it appears to me, that, when he admits the expression, “are both equal,” as significant of the equality of each, he admits a phraseology which does not strictly convey that idea. For if we say, “A and B are both equal,” it seems to me to imply, that the two individuals are possessed of two attributes or qualities, one of which is here expressed; and in this sense only, as I conceive, is this phraseology correct. Thus we may say, with strict propriety, “A and B are both equal in strength, and superior in judgment to their contemporaries.” Or it may denote, that “they two together, namely, A and B, are equal to C singly.” In the former case, _both_ is necessarily followed by _and_, which is in Latin rendered by _et_. Thus, “A and B are the two things, (both) _equal in strength_, and (add) _superior in judgment_ to their contemporaries.” In the latter case, it is equivalent to _ambo_, expressing two collectively, as, “they two _together_ are equal to C, but not _separately_.” I am aware, that the word _both_ in English, like _ambo_ in Latin, is an ambiguous term, denoting either “the two collectively,” or “the two separately,” and that many examples of the latter usage may be adduced. But that surely cannot be deemed a correct or appropriate term, which, in its strict signification, conveys an idea different from that intended by the speaker; or which leaves the sentiment in obscurity, and the reader in doubt. The word _each_, substituted for _both_, renders the expression clear and precise, thus, “A and B are each equal to C, in strength.”[144]

An error the reverse of this occurs in the following sentence: “This proves, that the date of each letter must have been nearly coincident.” Coincident with what? Not surely with itself; nor can the date of each letter be coincident with each other. It should be, “that the dates of both letters must have been nearly coincident with each other.”

“It’s great cruelty to torture a poor dumb animal.” Better, _’Tis_, in order to distinguish the contraction from the genitive singular of the pronoun _it_.

“Neither Lady Haversham, nor Miss Mildmay, will ever believe but what I have been entirely to blame.” The pronoun _what_, equivalent to _that which_, is here improperly used for _that_. This mode of expression still obtains among the lower orders of the people, and is not confined to them in the northern parts of the island. It should be, “_that_ I have been.” The converse of this error occurs in the following passages:

“That all our doings may be ordered by thy governance, to do always that is righteous in thy sight.”--_Book of Common Prayer._

“For, if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted, according to that a man hath.”--_Bible._

The pronouns _it_ and _that_ were formerly used as including the relative. “This submission is it implieth them all.” “This is it men mean by distributive justice.”--_Hobbes._ “To consider advisedly of that is moved.”--_Bacon._ This usage is now obsolete. The clauses should therefore proceed thus, “to do always what,” or “that, which is righteous.” “According to what,” or “that, which a man hath.”

SECTION IV.

THE VERB.

BARBARISM.

“Thus did the French ambassadors, with great show of their king’s affection, and many sugared words, seek to _addulce_ all matters between the two kings.”--_Bacon._ The verb “to addulce” is obsolete.

“Do villany, do; since you profess to Like workmen, I’ll example you with thievery.” _Shakspeare._

The verb “to example,” as equivalent to the phrase “to set an example,” is obsolete; and when used for “to exemplify,” may be deemed obsolescent. “The proof whereof,” says Spencer in his _State of Ireland_, “I saw sufficiently exampled;” better “exemplified.”

“I called at noon at Mrs. Masham’s, who desired me not to let the prophecy be published, for fear of angering the queen.”--_Swift._ The verb “to anger” is almost obsolete. In Scotland, and in the northern part of England, it is still colloquially used; but in written language, of respectable authority, it now rarely occurs. I have met with it once or twice in Swift or Pope; since their time it appears to have been gradually falling into disuse.

“Shall we once more go to fight against our brethren, or shall we surcease?”--_Geddes’s Transl._ The verb to “surcease” is obsolete.

“And they and he, upon this incorporation and institution, and onyng of themself into a realme, ordaynyd,” &c.--_Fortescue._ Here we have the participle of the verb “to one,” now obsolete, for “to unite.”

“For it is no power to may alien, and put away; but it is a power to may have, and kepe to himself. So it is no power to may syne, and to do ill, or to may be syke, or wex old, or that a man may hurt himself; for all thees powers comyne of impotencye.”--_Ib._ It has been already observed, that the verb _may_ is derived from the Saxon mægan, _posse_.--_See_ p. 97. From the passage before us it appears, that in the time of Fortescue (anno 1440) the infinitive “to may,” for “to be able,” was in use. It has now been long obsolete. In the following passage, it forms what is called a compound tense with the word _shall_, the sign of the infinitive being suppressed. “Wherthorough the parlements schall may do more good in a moneth.”--_Ib._ That is, “shall be able to do.”

“Wherefor al, that he dothe _owith_ to be referryed to his kingdom.”--_Ib._ The verb to _owe_, as expressive of duty, is now obsolete. It has been supplanted by _ought_, formerly its preterite tense, and now used as a present. We should now say, “ought to be referred.”

“Both these articles were unquestionably true, and could easily have been proven.”--_Henry’s History of Britain._ “Admitting the charges against the delinquents to be fully proven.”--_Belsham’s History._ _Proven_ is now obsolete, having given place to the regular participle. It is still, however, used in Scotland, and is therefore deemed a Scotticism.

“Methoughts I returned to the great hall, where I had been the morning before.” _Methoughts_ is barbarous, and also violates analogy, the third person being _thought_, and not _thoughts_.

SOLECISM.

“You was busy, when I called.” Here a pronoun plural is joined with a verb in the singular number. It should be, “you were.”

“The keeping good company, even the best, is but a less shameful art of losing time. What we here call science and study are little better.” _What_ is equivalent to _that which_. It should be _is_, and not _are_; thus, “that, which we call ... is little better.”

“Three times three _is_ nine,” and “three times three are nine,” are modes of expression in common use; and it has become a question, which is the more correct. The Romans admitted both phraseologies. “Quinquies et vicies duceni quadrageni singuli _fiunt_ sex millia et viginti quinque.”--_Colum._ Here the distributive numerals are the nominatives to the verb. “Ubi _est_ septies millies sestertium.”--_Cic._ Here the adverbial numerals make the nominative, and the verb is singular. Plurality being evidently implied, the plural verb seems more consonant with our natural conception of numbers, as well as with the idiom of our language.

“This is one of those highwaymen, that was condemned last sessions.” According to the grammatical construction of this sentence, “one of those highwaymen” is the predicate; for the syntactical arrangement is, “This (highwayman), that was condemned last sessions, is one of those highwaymen.” But this is not the meaning which this sentence is in general intended to convey: for it is usually employed to denote, that several highwaymen were condemned, and that this is one of them. The sentence, therefore, thus understood, is ungrammatical; for the antecedent is, in this case, not _one_, but _highwaymen_. The relative, therefore, being plural, should be joined with a plural verb, thus, “This is one of those highwaymen, that _were_ condemned last sessions.”

“I had went to Lisbon, before you knew that I had arrived in England.” This is an egregious solecism, the auxiliary verb _had_, which requires the perfect participle, being here joined with the preterite tense. It should be, “I had gone.”

“He would not fall the trees this season.” The verb “to fall” is intransitive, and cannot therefore be followed by an objective case, denoting a thing acted upon. It should be, “he would not fell.”

“Let him know, that I shall be over in spring, and that by all means he sells the horses.”--_Swift._ Here we have in the latter clause a thing expressed as done or doing, for a thing commanded. It should be, “that he should sell;” or elliptically, “that he sell.”

“It is very probable that neither of these are the meaning of the text.” Neither, means, “not the one, nor the other,” denoting the exclusion of each of two things. It should, therefore, be, “neither _is_ the meaning of the text.”

“He was a man, whose vices were very great, and had the art to conceal them from the eyes of the public.” According to the grammatical construction of this sentence, _vices_ understood is the nominative to the verb _had_; thus, “whose vices were very great, and whose vices had the art to conceal them.” It should be, “and who had the art to conceal them.”

“At the foot of this hill was soon built such a number of houses, that amounted to a considerable city.” Here the verb _amounted_ has no nominative. To render the sentence grammatical, it should be, “that they amounted,” or “as amounted to a considerable city.”

“It requires more logic than you possess, to make a man to believe that prodigality is not a vice.” After the verb “to make,” the sign of the infinitive should be omitted. _See_ Rule xv. note 3.

“He dare not,” “he need not,” may be justly pronounced solecisms, for “he dares,” “he needs.”

“How do your pulse beat?” _Pulse_ is a noun singular, and is here ungrammatically joined with a verb plural. It should be, “how _does_ your pulse beat?”

“The river had overflown its banks.” _Overflown_ is the participle of the verb _to fly_, compounded with _over_. It should be “overflowed,” the participle of “overflow.”

“They that sin rebuke before all.” The pronoun, which should be the regimen of the verb _rebuke_, is here put in the nominative case. It should, therefore, be _them_. The natural order is, “rebuke them, that sin.”

“There are principles innate in man, which ever have, and ever will incline him to this offence.” If the ellipsis be supplied, the sentence will be found to be ungrammatical; thus “which ever have incline, and ever will incline.” It should be, “which ever have inclined, and ever will incline.”

“Nor is it easy to conceive that in substituting the manners of Persia to those of Rome, he was actuated by vanity.”--_Gibbon._ “Substitute _to_,” is a Latinism. It should be, “substitute _for_.”

“I had rather live in forty Irelands, than under the frequent disquiets of hearing, that you are out of order.”--_Swift’s Letters._ “You had better return home without delay.” In both these examples _would_ is far preferable, thus, “I would rather live,” “you would better return,” or “you would do better to return.”

“That he had much rather be no king at all, than have heretics for his subjects.”--_Watson’s Philip III._ Here is involved the same error. It should be, “he would.”

“The nobility of England consisted only of one duke, four earls, one viscount, and twenty-nine barons, all the nobles of the Lancastrian party having been either killed in battles, or on scaffolds, or had fled into foreign parts.”--_Henry’s History._ This sentence is ungrammatical. The word _nobles_ joined to the participle _having_ must be regarded as put absolutely, and therefore to the verb _had_ there is strictly no nominative. But, even were a nominative introduced, the structure of the sentence would be still highly objectionable, the two last clauses, “having been killed,” and “they had fled,” being utterly discordant one with the other. The primary idea to be expressed is the _fewness of the nobility_; this forms the subject of the principal clause. There are two reasons to be assigned for this fewness, _their destruction_ and _their flight_; these form the subjects of the two subordinate clauses. Between these two, therefore, there should be the strictest congruity; and in this respect the sentence is faulty. It ought to proceed either thus, “The nobility of England consisted only of one duke, four earls, one viscount, and twenty-nine barons; for all the nobles of the Lancastrian party had either been killed in battles, or on scaffolds, or had fled into foreign parts;” or thus, “all the nobles having been killed, or having fled.” The latter is the preferable form.

“He neglected to profit of this occurrence.” This phraseology occurs frequently in Hume. “To profit of,” is a Gallicism; it ought to be, “to profit _by_ this occurrence.”

“The people of England may congratulate _to_ themselves, that the nature of our government and the clemency of our king, secure us.”--_Dryden._ “Congratulate to,” is a Latinism. The person congratulated should be in the objective case governed by the verb; the subject is preceded by the preposition _on_, as, “I congratulate you _on_ your arrival.”

“You will arrive to London before the coach.”

“A priest newly arrived to the north-west parts of Ireland.”--_Swift’s Sacr. Test._

In these examples the verb “to arrive,” is followed by _to_, instead of _at_, an error which should be carefully avoided. Good writers never construe it with the preposition significant of motion or progression concluded, but with those prepositions which denote propinquity or inclusion, namely, _at_ or _in_. Hence also to join this verb with adverbs, expressive of motion to, or towards a place, is improper. We should say, “he arrived _here_, _there_, _where_,” not--“_hither_, _thither_, _whither_.”

“Elizabeth was not unconcerned; she remonstrated to James.”--_Andrew’s Continuation of Henry’s History._ This is incorrect. We remonstrate _with_ and not _to_ a person, and _against_ a thing.

“I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth the earth abroad by myself.” According to the structure of the second and third clauses of this sentence, _the Lord_ is the antecedent to _that_, which is, therefore, properly joined with the third person of the verbs following, “maketh,” “spreadeth;” but the pronoun of the first person, _myself_, in the last clause, does not accord with this structure; for as we cannot say, “he spreadeth the earth by myself,” there being only one agent implied, and where _he_ and _myself_ are supposed to allude to one person, so we cannot say, “that (Lord) spreadeth the earth by myself,” but “by himself,” an identity of person being indispensably requisite. The sentence, therefore, should conclude thus, “that spreadeth abroad the earth by himself.” If _myself_ be retained, the pronoun _I_ must be considered as the antecedent, and the sentence will then run thus: “I am the Lord, that make all things, that stretch forth the heavens alone, that spread abroad the earth by _myself_.”

“Thou great First Cause, least understood, Who all my sense confin’d To know but this, that thou art good, And that myself am blind.”--_Pope._

The antecedent to the pronoun _who_ is the pronoun of the second person singular. The relative, therefore, being of the same person, should be joined to the second person singular of the verb, namely, “confinedst.”

“The executive directory, to prove that they will not reject any means of reconciliation, declares,” &c.--_Belsham’s Hist._ The nominative is here joined to a verb singular, and at the same time represented by a pronoun plural. The error may be corrected either by the substitution of _it_ for _they_, or _declare_ instead of _declares_.

“These friendly admonitions of Swift, though they might sometimes produce good effects, in particular cases, when properly timed, yet could they do but little towards eradicating faults.”--_Sheridan._ The nominative _admonitions_ is connected with no verb, the pronoun _they_ being the nominative to the verb _could_. The sentence, therefore, is ungrammatical; nor can the figure _hyperbaton_ be here pleaded in excuse, as the simplicity and shortness of the sentence render it unnecessary. _They_ in the third clause should be suppressed.

“This dedication may serve for almost any book, that has, is, or shall be published.”--_Bolingbroke._ _Has_ being merely a part of a compound tense, conveys no precise meaning without the rest of the tense. When joined, then, to the participle, here belonging to the three auxiliaries, the sentence proceeds thus, “This dedication may serve for almost any book, that _has_ published.” It ought to be “has been, is, or shall be published.” The following sentence is chargeable with an error of the same kind.

“This part of knowledge has been always growing, and will do so, till the subject be exhausted.” Do what? The auxiliary cannot refer to _been_, for the substantive verb, or verb of existence, does not imply action, nor can we say, “do growing.” It ought to be, “has been growing, and will still be so.”

“All that can be now urged, is the reason of the thing, and this I shall do.”--_Warburton._ Here is a similar incongruity. He should have said, “and this shall be done.”

Some of the preceding errors, with those which follow under this head, may be denominated rather inaccuracies, than solecisms.

“’T was twenty years and more, that I have known him,” says Pope to Gay, speaking of Congreve’s death. It ought to be, “It is twenty years and more,” the period concluding with the present time, or the time then present. He might have said, “It is now twenty years,” where the adverb _now_, being obviously admissible, points to present time, and necessarily excludes the preterite tense. Pope says, “’T was twenty years.” When? not surely in some part of the past time, but at the time of writing.

“It _were_ well for the insurgents, and fortunate for the king, if the blood, that was now shed, had been thought a sufficient expiation for the offence.”--_Goldsmith._ “It were,” which is equivalent to “it would be,” is evidently incongruous with the following tense, “had been thought.” It ought to be, as he was speaking of past time, “it would have been,” or, “it had been, well for the insurgents.”

“Was man like his Creator in wisdom and goodness, I should be for allowing this great model.”--_Addison._ This form of expression cannot be pronounced entirely repugnant to analogy, the preterite of the auxiliary “to have” being used in a similar sense. But the verb “to be” having a mood appropriate to the expression of conditionality, the author should have said, “Were man like his Creator.”

“If you please to employ your thoughts on that subject, you would easily conceive the miserable condition many of us are in.”--_Steele._ Here there is obviously an incongruity of tense. It should be either, “if you please to employ, you _will_ conceive,” or “if it pleased you to employ, you _would_ conceive.”

“James used to compare him to a cat, who always fell upon her legs.”--_Adam’s Hist. of England._ Here the latter clause, which is intended to predicate an attribute of the species, expresses simply a particular fact; in other words, what is intended to be signified as equally true of all, is here limited to one of the kind. It should be, “always _falls_ upon her legs.”

“This is the last time I shall ever go to London.” This mode of expression, though very common, is certainly improper after the person is gone, and can be proper only before he sets out. The French speak correctly when they say, “la dernière fois que je vais,” _i.e._ the last time of my going. We ought to say, “this is the last time I shall be in London.”

“He accordingly draws out his forces, and offers battle to Hiero, who immediately accepted it.” Consistency requires, that the last verb be in the same tense with the preceding verbs. The actions are described as present; the language is graphical, and that which has been properly enough denominated the “historical tense” should not be employed. It ought to be, “who immediately accepts it.”

“I have lost this game, though I thought I should _have won_ it.” It ought to be, “though I thought I should _win_ it.” This is an error of the same kind, as, “I expected to have seen you,” “I intended to have written.” The preterite time is expressed by the tenses “expected,” “intended;” and, how far back soever that expectation or intention may be referred, the seeing or writing must be considered as contemporary, or as soon to follow; but cannot, without absurdity, be considered as anterior. It should be, “I expected to see,” “I intended to write.” Priestley, in defending the other phraseology, appears to me to have greatly erred, the expression implying a manifest impossibility. The action, represented as the object of an expectation or intention, and therefore, in respect to these, necessarily future, cannot surely, without gross absurdity, be exhibited as past, or antecedent to these. In the following passage the error seems altogether indefensible. “The most uncultivated Asiatics discover that sensibility, which, from their situation on the globe, we should expect them to have felt.”--_Robertson’s History of America._ The author expresses himself, as if he referred to a past sensation, while the introductory verb shows that he alludes to a general fact. The incongruity is obvious. He should have said, “expect them to feel.”

“Fierce as he moved, his silver shafts resound.”--_Pope._

Much better, “Fierce as he moves.” Congruity of tense is thus preserved; and there is, besides, a peculiar beauty in employing the present,--a beauty, of which the preterite is wholly incapable. The former imparts vivacity to the expression; it presents the action, with graphical effect, to the mind of the reader; and thus, by rendering him a spectator of the scene, impresses the imagination, and rouses the feelings with greater energy. Compared to the latter, it is like the pencil of the artist to the pen of the historian.

“Jesus answering said unto him, What wilt thou, that I should do unto thee?” The blind man said unto him: “Lord, that I might receive my sight.” It ought to be, “that I may receive my sight,” _I will_ being understood; thus, “I will, that I may receive my sight,” where the present wish, and the attainment of it, are properly represented as contemporary.

“These things have I spoken unto you, that your joy might be full.” Better, “that your joy may be full.”

“If an atheist would peruse the volume of nature, he would confess, that there was a God.” Universal, or abstract truths, require the present tense; it should be, “that there _is_ a God.”

“ ... impresses us with a feeling, as if refinement was nothing, as if faculties were nothing, as if virtue was nothing, as if all that was sweetest, and all that was highest in human nature was an idle show.”--_Godwin’s Life of Chaucer._ This sentence errs at once against elegance and accuracy. The former offence may be partly corrected, by substituting the conditional for the indicative tense, in the hypothetical clauses. But the author’s principal error consists in converting a general proposition into a particular fact, by representing that as past which is always present and immutable. The sentence should proceed thus: “Impresses us with a feeling, as if refinement _were_ nothing, as if faculties _were_ nothing, as if virtue _were_ nothing, as if all that _is_ sweetest, and all that _is_ highest in human nature, _were_ an idle show.”

A similar error occurs in this passage: “He proceeded to demonstrate, that death _was_ not an evil;” and also in this, “I have frequently been assured by great ministers, that politics _were_ nothing, but common sense.”

“Tom has wit enough to make him a pleasant companion, _was_ it polished by good manners.” As the latter clause is intended to be purely hypothetical, the verb should not be in the indicative mood. “_Were_ it polished,” is the proper expression.

“He understood the language of Balnibarbi, although it were different from that of this island.”--_Swift’s Voyage to Laputa._ From the phraseology here employed, the reader might naturally infer, that the language of the island, and that of Balnibarbi, were identical; for a concessive term, as I have already said, when joined to what is called the conjunctive form of the verb, implies pure hypothesis, as contrary to fact; or, in other words, implies a negation of the attribute expressed. The author’s intention was to signify, that the languages _were not_ the same. He should, therefore, have said, “although it _was_ different.”

“The circumstances were as follows.” Several grammarians and critics have approved this phraseology; I am inclined, however, to concur with those, who prefer “as follow.” To justify the former mode of expression, the verb must be considered as impersonal. This, I own, appears to me a very questionable solution of the difficulty; for I am convinced, that we have no impersonal verbs in English, but such as are uniformly preceded by _it_. We frequently, indeed, meet with sentences, where verbs occur without a nominative, and in the singular number. These are, by some, considered as impersonal verbs, to which the nominative _it_ is understood. I apprehend, however, that, on strict inquiry, some one or other of the preceding words, which are now considered as conjunctions, adverbs, or particles, was originally the nominative; and that it is only since the primitive and real character of these words has been obliterated and lost, that we have found it necessary to inquire for another nominative. Thus, if the word _as_ be equivalent to _it_, _that_, or _which_[145], then it is obvious, that, when we say, “the circumstances were _as follows_,” there is no real ellipsis of the nominative involved, nor, therefore, any ground for asserting the impersonality of the verb, in order to explain the syntax, or construction of the phrase; for the word _as_, equivalent to _it_, _that_, or _which_, is the true nominative. It is evident, then, that this solution of the difficulty must be rejected as false; and that the argument in favour of “as follows,” resting on the supposed impersonality of the verb, and the suppression of the pronoun, is entirely unfounded.

If _as_ then be the nominative to the verb, and be synonymous with _it_, _that_, or _which_, it is of importance to determine, whether _as_ be a singular, or a plural word; or whether it be either the one, or the other. That it is construed as singular, there can be no doubt. We say, “his insensibility is such, _as excites_ our detestation.” That it is also joined to a verb plural is equally certain, thus, “his manners are such, _as are_ universally pleasing.” In the former example, _such as_ is equivalent to _that which_, and in the latter to _those which_. If _as_, then, be either singular or plural, and synonymous with _it_, _that_, or _which_, I conceive that, when it refers to a plural antecedent, it must, like _which_, be considered as plural, and joined to a plural verb. Now, it is surely more consonant with analogy to say, “the circumstances were, which follow,” than _it follows_, or _that follows_. Besides, when the demonstrative _such_ precedes, and is joined to a plural noun, it is universally admitted, that _as_ must then be followed by a plural verb. If so, the construction of the word _as_ cannot, I apprehend, be in the least degree affected by the ellipsis of the correlative term. Let us now hear those who adopt the contrary opinion.

Baker prefers the verb singular, and remarks “that there are instances in our language of verbs in the third person without a nominative case, as, ‘he censures her, so far as regards.’” In answer to this it may be observed, that, if the word _as_ is to be considered in no other light, than as a conjunctive particle, it is certainly true, that the verb _regards_ has no nominative. But I am persuaded, no person who has examined the theory of Mr. Tooke can entertain a doubt respecting the original and real character of this word. Nay, if we investigate the true and primitive import of the correspondent Latin terms _ut_ and _uti_, we shall find, that these, which are termed adverbs, are, in fact, the pronouns ὅτι, ὁτ’, and that _quod_ (anciently written _quodde_) is nothing else than καὶ ὅττι, which, like our word _that_, is sometimes called a conjunction, and sometimes a pronoun. Why the original character and real import of the word _as_ have been completely merged in the name of adverb, while the word _that_ has been assigned the double character of pronoun and conjunction, it would be easy to show, if the discussion were essential to the question before us. But in answer to Baker’s remark, it is sufficient to observe, that _as_ means properly _it_, _that_, or _which_.

Campbell adopts the opinion of Baker. “When a verb,” says he, “is used impersonally, it ought undoubtedly to be in the singular number, whether the neuter pronoun be expressed or understood.” But a question naturally arises, whence has the author learned that the verb is impersonal? There appears to me to be no more impersonality in the verb, when we say, “it is as follows,” than when we say, “it is such, as follows,” or, “they are such, as follow.” If _as_ be admitted as the nominative in two of these examples, I can perceive no reason for rejecting it in the third. But here lies, as will presently appear, the author’s great error. Unacquainted with the true meaning of the word _as_, he conceived it as incapable of becoming a nominative to a verb, as _ut_ or _uti_ is deemed in Latin; and he therefore immediately recurs to _ellipsis_.

“For this reason” (that is, because the verb is impersonal), he proceeds to observe, “analogy as well as usage favour this mode of expression, _The conditions of the agreement were as follows_, and not _as follow_.”

How analogy favours this mode of expression, I am utterly at a loss to conceive. The general rule surely is, that to every verb there shall be a nominative, and that this nominative shall be expressed, unless its presence in some preceding clause shall render the repetition of it unnecessary. But how is it consonant with analogy, that no nominative shall appear; or that the supposed nominative shall not be found in any part of the sentence? This surely is repugnant to analogy.

“A few late writers,” he observes, “have inconsiderately adopted this last form (as follow) through a mistake of the construction.” But, if the verb be not impersonal, the error is his, not theirs. I must observe, likewise, that from the manner in which the author expresses himself, one would naturally infer, that a few writers, either contemporary, or immediately preceding his own time, had inconsiderately introduced a solecism into our language. When he offered this observation, he surely was not aware that Steele and Addison, nearly seventy years before the publication of “The Philosophy of Rhetoric,” used the plural form. “The most eminent of the kennel,” says Steele, “are blood-hounds, which lead the van, and are _as follow_.”--_Tatler_, No. 62. “The words were _as follow_.”--_Ibid._ No. 104. “The words are _as follow_.”--_Addison_, _Spectator_, No. 513.

“For the same reason,” continues he, still presuming the verb to be impersonal, “we ought to say, _I shall consider his censures so far only, as concerns my friend’s conduct_, not _concern_. It is manifest,” he observes, “that the word _conditions_ in the first case, and _censures_ in the second, cannot serve as nominatives.” This observation demonstrates that the author’s argument is founded in his ignorance of the real character of the word _as_. The most extraordinary part of his reasoning follows. “But,” says he, “if we give either sentence another turn, and instead of _as_, say _such as_, the verb is no longer impersonal. The pronoun _such_ is the nominative, whose number is determined by its antecedent. Thus we must say, _they were such as follow_; _such of his censures only as concern my friend_.” This is truly an extraordinary assertion. The antecedent correlative term _such_ can have no connexion whatever with the subsequent verb, but must agree with the principal subject of discourse. Not only does analogy require this, but the usage of every language with which I am acquainted. If we say, _Perseverantia fuit tanta, quantus erat furor._ _Is est, quem dicimus._ _Talis est, qualem esse creditis._ _Illæ erant conditiones, quæ sequuntur_,--the antecedent correlative terms _tanta_, _is_, _talis_, _illæ_,--have no connexion whatever with the verbs in the subsequent clause, _erat_, _dicimus_, _creditis_, _sequuntur_. The truth of this observation must be sufficiently obvious to every classical scholar.

But to illustrate the extreme inaccuracy of the learned author’s opinion, let us change the correlative terms, and say, “I will consider those censures only, which concern my friend.” In this sentence it will not be questioned that _those_ and _censures_ are in the objective case, under the government of the verb. And can it be doubted, if we say, “I will consider such censures,” that _censures_ with its concordant adjective are in the same case? It is impossible, I conceive, to make this plainer; but we shall suppose, for the sake of illustration, if this should yet be deemed necessary, the example in question to be thus rendered in Latin, _eas tantum reprehensiones perpendam, quæ ad amicum meum attinent_. Now, what should we think of his classical attainments who should contend that _eas_ or _reprehensiones_ is the nominative to the verb? If we revert, then, to the original terms, and say, “I will consider such of his censures as concern my friend,” by what rule of grammar, by what principle of analysis, can we suppose _such_ to be the nominative to the verb? For let me ask, what is he to consider? Is it not _such censures_? And are we, contrary to every principle of English grammar, to represent the object or subject after an active verb, as in the nominative case? The absurdity is too monstrous for a moment’s consideration. The very argument, therefore, by which the author defends his doctrine is founded in error, and involves an absurdity. Murray, as usual, adopts the opinion of Campbell.

If it should be inquired how _as_, an adverb or a conjunctive particle, can be the nominative to a verb, it may be answered, that to whatever order of words we reduce this term, it was evidently at first what we denominate a pronoun; and that it still so far retains its primitive character as to supply the place of a nominative. It is of little moment by what designation it be called, if its character and real import are well understood, any more than it can be of consequence whether we call _that_ a conjunction or a pronoun, provided we know, that it is truly and essentially the same word in the same meaning wherever it occurs. I would observe, also, though my limits will not permit me to illustrate the principle, that those, who disapprove the verb singular in the examples in question, may notwithstanding admit it in such expressions as _so far as_, _so long as_, and all similar phraseologies.

“To illustrate, and often to correct him, I have meditated Tacitus, examined Suetonius, and consulted the following moderns.”--_Gibbon._ _To meditate_, when a regimen is assigned to it, as here, means _to plot_, _to contrive_, as, “he meditated designs against the state.” When it signifies _to ponder_, or _to reflect seriously_, it should be followed by the preposition _on_, as, “he meditates _on_ the law of God day and night.”

IMPROPRIETY.

“They form a procession to proceed the palanquin of the ambassador.”--_Anderson’s Embassy to China._ Here the verb _to proceed_, or _go forward_, is improperly used for _to precede_, or _to go before_.

“He waved the subject of his greatness.”--_Dryden._ “To wave” is properly “to move loosely,” and should be distinguished from “to waive,” _i.e._ “to leave” or “to turn from.”--_See_ _Skinner’s Etym._

“It lays on the table; it laid on the table.” This error is very common, and should be carefully avoided. The verb _to lay_ is an active verb; _to lie_ is a neuter verb. When the subject of discourse is active, the former is to be used; when the subject is neither active nor passive, the latter ought to be employed. Thus, “he lays down the book,” “he laid down the book,” where the nominative expresses an agent, or a person acting. “The book lies there,” “the book lay there,” where the nominative expresses something, neither active, nor passive. When we hear such expressions as these, “he lays in bed,” “he laid in bed,” a question naturally occurs, what does he lay? what did he lay? This question demonstrates the impropriety of the expressions. The error has originated, partly in an affected delicacy, rejecting the verb “to lie,” as being synonymous with the verb “to tell a falsehood wilfully,” and partly from the identity of the one verb in the present with the other in the preterite sense; thus, “_lay_,” “laid,” “laid;” “lie,” “_lay_,” “lain.”

“The child was overlain.” The participle, for the reason now given, should be _overlaid_.

“It has been my brother you saw in the theatre, and not my cousin.” This use of the preterite definite is, I believe, confined to Scotland, where, in colloquial language, it is very common. The Scots employ it in those cases, in which an Englishman uses either the preterite indefinite, or the verb signifying necessity. Thus, in the preceding instance, an Englishman would say, “it _must have been_ my brother, you saw in the theatre.”

“Without having attended to this, we will be at a loss in understanding several passages in the classics.”--_Blair’s Lectures._ “In the Latin language, there are no two words we would more readily take to be synonymous, than _amare_ and _diligere_.”--_Ib._ This error occurs frequently in Blair. In the former example it should be _shall_, and in the latter _should_. (See p. 98.)

An error, the reverse of this, occurs in the following passage. “There is not a girl in town, but let her have her will, in going to a mask, and she shall dress like a shepherdess.”--_Spectator_, No. 9. It should be, _she will_. The author intended to signify mere futurity; instead of which he has expressed a command.

“He _rose_ the price of bread last week.” Here _rose_, the preterite of the neuter verb _to rise_, and, therefore, unsusceptible of a regimen, is ungrammatically joined with an objective case, instead of _raised_, the preterite of the active verb _to raise_. This error, therefore, involves a solecism, as well as an impropriety.

“Does the price of bread raise this week?” This error is the converse of the former, the active verb being here used instead of the neuter. The question, What does it raise? shows the impropriety of the expression. It ought to be, “Does the price of bread rise this week?” These verbs, like the verb _to lay_ and _to lie_, are very often confounded in vulgar use.

“It would be injurious to the character of Prince Maurice, to suppose, that he would demean himself so far, as to be concerned in those anonymous pamphlets.”--_Watson’s Philip III._ Here the verb _to demean_, which signifies “to behave,” is used as equivalent to the verb _to debase_, or “to degrade.” This impropriety is now, I believe, almost entirely confined to Scotland; it has, therefore, been ranked in the number of Scotticisms. “I demean myself” is equivalent to “I behave myself;” and in this sense the author last quoted has, in another passage, very properly used it. “Such of the Morescoes might remain, who, for any considerable time, demeaned themselves as Christians.”--_Ibid._

“Considerable arrears being now resting to the soldiers.”--_Ibid._ “Resting,” which is equivalent to “being quiet,” or “remaining,” is, in the sense in which it is here employed, a rank Scotticism: it should be, “due,” or “owing.”

“The reason will be accounted for hereafter.”--_Warburton._ _Accounted for_ is here improperly used for _assigned_. “To account for a reason,” is “to account for an account.”

“But no evidence is admitted in the house of lords, this being a distinct jurisdiction, which differs it considerably from these instances.”--_Blackstone._ The verb _to differ_ is a neuter verb, and cannot admit a regimen. The author has improperly used it in an active sense, for “to make to differ.” It should be, “by which it differs,” or “which makes it differ considerably from these instances.”[146]

“In order to have this project reduced to practice, there seems to want nothing more, than to put those in mind,” &c.--_Swift._ Here, “to want,” that is, “to need,” “to require,” is improperly used for “to be wanting,” “to be required,” “to be wanted.” It should be, “there seems to be nothing wanting.” The verb _to want_ was frequently employed by Pope and Swift in the sense in which we here find it. Johnson, likewise, in one or two passages, has adopted the same usage, thus, “there had never wanted writers to talk occasionally of Arcadia and Strephon.”--_Life of Phillips._ But in this sense it may now be deemed obsolescent, if not entirely obsolete.

The reader will here permit me to observe, that there is an idiom in our language, respecting the use of active for passive verbs, which seems worthy of attention, and which I do not recollect to have seen remarked by any of our grammarians. In the languages of antiquity, the distinction between active and passive was strictly observed; but in English the active is frequently employed for the passive voice. Of this remarkable idiom numberless examples might be produced; but the few following will suffice. Thus we say, “the sentence _reads_ ill,” “the wine _drinks_ harsh,” “the grass _cuts_ easily,” “the apples _eat_ hard,” “the drum _beats_ to arms,” “the metal _works_ well.” In these examples, the subject clearly is acted upon; the verb, therefore, must be considered as having a passive signification. It is almost unnecessary to observe, that this phraseology should be avoided, whenever it is likely to create ambiguity.

“Lead me forth in thy truth, and learn me.”--_Book of Common Prayer_, Psal. xxv. The verb _to learn_ formerly denoted, either “to teach,” or “to acquire knowledge.” In the former sense it is now obsolete. It should therefore be, “lead me forth in thy truth, and _teach_ me.”

“Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings by thy most gracious favour.”--_Book of Common Prayer._ “He had prevented the hour, because we might have the whole day before us.”--_Bacon._ The verb _to prevent_, as signifying “to go before,” or “come before,” is now obsolete.

“There was no longer any doubt, that the king was determined to wreck his resentment on all concerned.”--_Watson’s Philip II._

“They not only wrecked their vengeance on the living, but on the ashes of the dead heretics.”--_Henry’s Britain._

Here the verb _to wreck_, or “to destroy, by dashing on rocks,” is improperly used for “to wreak,” or “to discharge.” In the last example the adverbs _not only_ are improperly placed. It should be, “they wreaked their vengeance not only,” &c.

“We outrun our present income, not doubting to disburse ourselves out of the profits of some future plan.”--_Addison._ “To disburse,” or “to expend money,” is here improperly used for “to reimburse,” or “to repay.”

“And wrought a great miracle conform to that of the apostles.”--_Bacon._

“The last is the most simple, and the most perfect, as being conform to the nature of knowledge.”--_Hutton’s Investigation_, vol. i. p. 643. _Conform_, here used for _conformable_, is, in this sense, deemed a Scotticism.

SECTION V.

THE ADVERB.

BARBARISM.

“Friendship, a rare thing in princes, more rare between princes, that so holily was observed to the last, of those two excellent men.”--_Sidney on Government._ _Holily_ is obsolete.

“Enquire, what be the stones, that do easiliest melt.”--_Bacon._ The adverb _easily_ is not compared,--see p. 70. _Easiliest_ is, therefore, a barbarism.

“Their wonder, that any man so near Jerusalem should be a stranger to what had passed there, their acknowledgment to one they met accidently, that they believed in this prophet,” &c.--_Guardian._ Steele has here used _accidently_, for _accidentally_. The former is a barbarism, and its derivation is repugnant to analogy.

“Uneath may she endure the flinty street, To tread them with her tender feeling feet.”--_Shakspeare._

_Uneath_ is now obsolete, and may therefore be deemed a barbarism.

“In northern clime, a val’rous knight Did whilom kill his bear in fight, And wound a fiddler.”--_Hudibras._

_Whilom_ is now entirely disused. The adverbs _whilere_, _erst_, and perhaps also _anon_, may be ranked in the class of barbarisms.

“And this attention gives ease to the person, because the clothes appear unstudily graceful.”--_Wollstonecraft’s Original Stories._ The word _unstudily_ is barbarous, and its mode of derivation contrary to analogy.

SOLECISM.

“Use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thine often infirmities.” _Often_, an adverb, is here improperly used as an adjective, in accordance with the substantive “infirmities.” It ought to be “thy frequent infirmities.”

“We may cast in such seeds and principles, as we judge most likely to take soonest and deepest root.” Here, as in the preceding example, the adverb “soonest” is used as an adjective; for the connexion is, “_soonest_ root,” and “_deepest_ root.” Now, we cannot say “soon root,” the former term being incapable of qualifying the latter; nor can we, therefore, say, “_soonest_ root.” It ought to be, “the earliest and the deepest root.”

“After these wars, of which they hope for a soon and prosperous issue.” _Soon issue_ is another example of the same error.

“His lordship inveighed, with severity, against the conduct of the then ministry.” Here _then_, the adverb equivalent to _at that time_, is solecistically employed as an adjective, agreeing with _ministry_. This error seems to gain ground; it should therefore be vigilantly opposed, and carefully avoided. “The ministry of that time,” would be correct.

“He tells them, that the time should come, that the temple should be graced with the presence of the Messias.” Here _that_ is incorrectly used for _when_, _i.e._ “at which time the temple should be graced.”

IMPROPRIETY.

“By letters, dated the third of May, we learn that the West India fleet arrived safely.” Here _safely_ is improperly used for _safe_. The adverb is equivalent to “in a safe manner;” and when it is said, “that the fleet arrived _safely_,” it signifies that the manner of the arrival, rather than the fleet itself, was safe or free from accident. If I say, “he carried the parcel as safely as possible,” it implies merely his great attention to the manner of carrying it; but this does not infallibly exclude accident; for I may add, “but he unluckily fell,” or, “he was unfortunately thrown down, and the glass was broken.” But if I say, “he carried it as safe as possible,” or, “he carried it safe,” it implies that it came safe, or escaped all accidents. We should, therefore, say “that the West India fleet arrived safe.” In disapproving the expression, “he arrived _safely_,” I concur with Baker; but the judicious reader will perceive, that my reason for reprehending it, does not entirely coincide with his. The author’s words are these: “If a man says, that he arrived safely, or in a safe manner, he seems to suppose, that there is danger of some mischance in arriving. But what danger is there to be apprehended in the circumstance of arriving? The danger is only during the journey, or voyage; in the arrival there is none at all. The proper way of speaking is, therefore, ‘I arrived safe,’ that is, ‘having escaped all the dangers of the passage.’”

“The poor woman carried them to the person to whom they were directed; and when Lady Cathcart recovered her liberty, she received her diamonds safely.” It should be, “she received her diamonds safe.”

Errors like the one on which I have now animadverted, frequently arise from a desire to avoid the opposite mistake; I mean the improper use of the adjective for the adverb.--_See_ _Syntax, Rule V. Note_ 16. Hence many, when they employ such phraseologies as I have here exemplified, conceive that they express themselves with the strictest accuracy, thus verifying the poet’s observation,

“In vitium ducit culpæ fuga, si caret arte.”

In order to avoid this error, it should be remembered, that many English verbs, while they affirm some action, passion, or state of the subject, frequently serve as a copula, connecting the subject with another predicate. This is one of those idioms, in the grammar of our language, which demand the particular attention of the classical scholar. For, though an acquaintance with the learned languages will not seduce him into an improper use of an adjective for the adverb, it may, as in the example now before us, betray him into the converse error. And I am inclined to think, that from a propensity almost irresistible in the classical scholar to assimilate our language with the Latin tongue, our lexicographers have designated many of our words as adverbs, which are strictly adjectives. When it is said, for example, “it goes hard,” Johnson considers _hard_ as an adverb. Yet when we say, “it goes contrary,” he considers _contrary_ as an adjective. There appears to me to be more of caprice than of reason, more of prejudice than of truth, in this classification. Both words, I am persuaded, belong to one and the same species. Nay, I might venture to assert, that no person, who had studied the principles of the English language, and of that only, would pronounce the one to be an adverb, and the other an adjective. It is to be observed, likewise, that we have the regular adverb _hardly_ to express the manner. When we say, “he reasoned concerning the rule,” “we argued respecting the fact,” “he lives according to nature,” is there not something extremely arbitrary and unphilosophical, in calling _concerning_ a preposition, _according_ a preposition, followed by _to_, but properly a participle, and _respecting_ a participle? Are not all the three participles? Yet Johnson has classed them, as I have now mentioned. But the farther illustration of this subject would lead us into a field much too large for the limits of the present treatise. We must therefore revert to our primary observation, in which we cautioned the reader against the improper use of the adjective for the adverb. It should be remembered that, when it is intended to predicate something of the subject, beside the attribute of the verb, the adjective should be employed; but, when it is intended to express merely some modification of the attribute of the verb, we should then use the adverb. The difference may be illustrated by the following examples. When Gustavus says to his troops, “your limbs tread vigorous and your breasts beat high,” he predicates with the act of treading their physical strength; but had he said, “your limbs tread vigorously,” it would merely modify their treading, and express an act, not a constitutional habit. The same distinction may be made between saying with Arnoldus in the same play, “the tear rolls graceful down his visage,” and “the tear rolls gracefully.” The former predicates grace of the tear itself, the latter merely of its rolling. When we say, “he looks sly,” we mean he has the look or the appearance of being a sly man; when it is said, “he looks slyly,” we signify that he assumes a sly look. When we say, “it tastes good,” we affirm that the subject is of a good quality, whether the taste be pleasant or unpleasant; if we say, “it tastes well,” we affirm the taste of it to be pleasant.

“The manner of it is thus.” The adverb _thus_ means “in this manner.” The expression, therefore, amounts to “the manner of it is in this manner.” It should be, “the manner of it is this,” or, “this is the manner of it.” “This much is certain.” Better, “thus much,” or “so much.”

“It is a long time since I have been devoted to your interest.” _Since_ properly means “from the time when,” and not “during which time.” The expression might be construed into a meaning the reverse of that which is intended, implying, that the attachment had ceased for a long time. It should be, “it is a long time since I became devoted,” or, “it is a long time, that I have been devoted to your interest.”

“It is equally the same.” _Equally_ is here redundant; it ought to be, “it is the same.”

“Whenever I call on him, he always inquires for you.” _Whenever_ means “at what time soever,” “always when,” or “as often as;” _always_, therefore, is redundant.

“They will not listen to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely.” _Never_ is here improperly used for _ever_. It ought to be, “charm he ever so wisely;” that is, “_however wisely_,” or “_how wisely soever_, he may charm.”

“And even in those characteristical portraits, on which he has lavished all the decorations of his style, he is seldom or ever misled.”--_Stewart’s Life of Robertson._ This error is the converse of the former. It ought to be, “seldom or never;” that is, “seldom, or at no time.” “Seldom or ever” is equivalent to “seldom or always,” or to “seldom or at any time;” expressions evidently improper.

“Whether thou be my son or not.”--_Bible._ “Whether you will keep his commandments, or no.” Both these phraseologies are in use; but I am inclined to agree with those grammarians, who prefer the former, as more consistent with the ellipsis--“Whether thou be, or be not.” “Whether you will keep his commandments, or will not keep.”

“Some years after being released from prison, by reason of his consummate knowledge of civil law, and military affairs, he was soon exalted to the supreme power.” The first clause of this sentence is ambiguous; for the sentence may imply, either that he gained the supremacy, some years after he was released from prison, that period being left indeterminate; or that some years after a time previously mentioned, he was released from prison, and attained the chief power. The latter being the author’s meaning, it ought to be, “some years _afterwards_ being released from prison.” Another ambiguity is here involved by improper arrangement; for, as the sentence stands, it is somewhat doubtful, whether his consummate knowledge was the cause of his releasement, or the cause of his elevation. This error, however, belongs more to the rhetorician, than the grammarian. The French term this ambiguity, “construction louche,” or a _squinting construction_.

The following error consists in wrong collocation: “The Celtiberi in Spain borrowed that name from the Celtæ and Iberi, from whom they were jointly descended.” Jointly, with whom? It should be, “from whom (the Celtæ and Iberi) jointly they were descended.”

“And the Quakers seem to approach nearly the only regular body of Deists in the universe, the literati, or the disciples of Confucius in China.”--_Hume’s Essays._ The adverb _nearly_, which is synonymous with _almost_, is here improperly used for _near_[147]. It should be, _approach near_.

“This is the Leviathan, from whence the terrible wits of our age are said to borrow their weapons.”--_Swift._ _From_ is here redundant; _whence_, denoting “from which place.”

“An ancient author prophecies from hence.”--_Dryden._ Here a similar impropriety is involved. It should be, _hence_.

“E’er we can offer our complaints, Behold him present with his aid.”

_E’er_, a contraction for _ever_, which is synonymous with _always_, and also _at any time_, is here improperly used for _ere_ or _before_.

In the two following passages, there appears to me to be a similar error: “Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken.”--_Bible._ “I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.”--_Ibid._

“And, as there is now never a woman in England, I hope, I may talk of women without offence.”--_Steele._

“He spake never a word.”--_Bible._

This usage of the word “never,” is now, I believe, entirely confined to the vulgar.

“As for conflagrations and great droughts, they do not merely dispeople and destroy.”--_Bacon._ _Merely_ is here used, as it is uniformly by Bacon, and very frequently by Shakspeare, for _entirely_. In this sense, it is obsolete; and it now signifies _purely_, _simply_, _only_, _nothing more than_. From inattention to this, the passage, now quoted, has been corrupted in several editions. They have it, “do not merely dispeople, but destroy,” conveying a sentiment very different from what the author intended.

SECTION VI.

THE PREPOSITION.

SOLECISM.

“Who do you speak to?” Here the preposition is joined with the nominative, instead of the objective case. It should be, “whom do you speak to?” or “to whom do you speak?” _To who_ is a solecism.

“He talked to you and I, of this matter, some days ago.” It should be, “to _you_ and _me_;” that is, “to you and to me.”

“Now Margaret’s curse is fallen upon our heads, When she exclaim’d on Hastings you and I.” _Shakspeare._

It ought to be, “on Hastings _you_ and _me_,” the pronouns being under the government of the preposition understood.

“Neither do I think, that anything could be more entertaining, than the story of it exactly told, with such observations, and in such a spirit, style, and manner, as you alone are capable of performing it.” This sentence is extremely faulty. “To perform a story” is not English; and the relative clause is ungrammatical, the preposition being omitted. It should be, “performing it in,” which would be grammatically correct, but inelegant, as well as improper. It would be better expressed thus, “in that spirit, style, and manner, in which you alone are capable of narrating it.”

“Notwithstanding of the numerous panegyrics on the ancient English liberty.”--_Hume’s Essays._ The error here in the use of the preposition after _notwithstanding_, is, I believe, peculiar to Scotland. _Notwithstanding_ is a compound word of the same import as _not preventing_. The grammatical construction therefore is, “the numerous panegyrics notwithstanding,” that is, “not hindering,” the noun and the participle being in the absolute case. _Of_ renders the expression solecistical.

IMPROPRIETY.

“If policy can prevail upon force.”--_Addison._ Here _upon_ is improperly used for _over_. _To prevail on_, is “to persuade;” _to prevail over_, is “to overcome.”

“I have set down the names of several gentlemen, who have been robbed in Dublin streets, for these three years past.”--_Swift._ It should be, “within these three years past.” Swift’s expression implies, as Baker observes, that these gentlemen had been robbed during the whole three years.

“Ye blind guides, who strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” In this sentence, the preposition _at_ is very improperly used for _out_. It should be, “strain out a gnat;” that is, exclude it from the liquor by straining.

“Oliver Proudfute, a freeman and burgess, was slain upon the streets of the city.”--_Scott._ This form of expression is almost universal in Scotland. An Englishman says, “in the streets.”

“I have several times inquired of you without any satisfaction.”--_Pope._ We say, “inquire of,” when we ask a question; and “inquire for,” or “after,” when we desire to know the circumstances, in which any object is placed. He should have employed the latter expression.

“The greatest masters of critical learning differ among one another.”--_Spectator._ If the ellipsis be supplied, the sentence proceeds thus: “The greatest masters of critical learning differ, one differs among another.” Here the preposition _among_, which implies a number, or a plurality, is joined to a term significant of unity. It ought to be, “from one another;” that is “one from another,” or “differ among themselves.”

“I intended to wait _of_ you this morning.” The preposition _of_ is here improperly used for _on_. We say, _to wait on_, not _to wait of_.

“He knows nothing _on_ it.” This is a vile vulgarism for “he knows nothing _of_ it.”

“He is now much altered to the better.” _To_ is here improperly used instead of _for_. “Altered to the better,” may, I believe, be deemed a Scotticism. It ought to be, “he is altered for the better.”

Ambiguity is sometimes produced by putting the preposition in an improper place. “A clergyman is, by the militia act, exempted from both serving and contributing.” This, though intended to express a different meaning, strictly implies, that he is not obliged both to serve and to contribute, but does not exclude his liability to do the one, or the other. If we say, “he is exempted both from serving and contributing,” we express an exemption from both.

“Such of my readers, as have a taste of fine writing.”--_Addison’s Spect._ “To have a taste of a thing,” is “to feel how it affects the sensitive or perceptive faculty;” “to have a taste for a thing,” is “to relish its agreeable qualities;” “to have a taste in a thing,” which is the expression used by Addison in the same paper, is “to have a discriminative judgment in examining the object.” The first expression is incorrect, as not conveying his meaning.

Swift, speaking of Marlborough’s dismission from the queen’s ministry, as a bad requital of his public services, says, “If a stranger should hear these furious outcries of ingratitude against our general, he would be apt to inquire,” &c. One would naturally conclude from the author’s expression, that Marlborough, and not the nation, was charged with ingratitude. He should have said, “ingratitude towards our general.”

“I received the sword in a present from my brother.” This is a very common colloquial Scotticism, and occurs occasionally in written language. The sword was not received _in_, but _as_ a present.

In the use of prepositions, a distinction is properly made between their literal and figurative meaning. “Wit,” says Shakspeare, “depends _on_ dilatory time.” Here the verb is employed figuratively, and the idea involved in the primitive meaning is dismissed.

“From gilded roofs depending lamps display.”--_Dryden._

Here the verb is used in its literal acceptation, denoting “to hang,” and is followed, therefore, by _from_.

To the same purpose it has been remarked by Campbell, that the verb “to found,” used literally, is followed by _on_ preferably to _in_, as, “the house was founded _on_ a rock;” but, when employed metaphorically, is better followed by _in_, as, “dominion is founded in grace.”

“There is no need _for_ your assistance.” It should be, “_of_ your assistance.” We say, “occasion _for_,” and “need _of_.” _Need for_ may likewise be pronounced a Scotticism, as, I believe, this phraseology is seldom or never used by English writers.

“For, what chiefly deters the sons of science and philosophy from reading the Bible, and profiting of that lecture, but the stumbling-block of absolute inspiration?”--_Geddes._ “To profit of” is a Gallicism; it should be, “profiting by.”

SECTION VII.

THE CONJUNCTION.

SOLECISM.

“A system of theology, involving such absurdities, can be maintained, I think, by no rational man, much less by so learned a man as him.” Conjunctions having no government, the word _as_ ought not to be joined with an objective case. It should be, “so learned a man as _he_,” the verb _is_ being understood.

“Tell the cardinal, that I understand poetry better than him.”--_Smollett._ According to the grammatical construction of the latter clause, it means, “I understand poetry better than I understand him.” This, however, is not the sentiment which the writer intended to convey. The clause should proceed thus, “I understand poetry better than _he_;” that is, “than _he_ understands it.” Those who contend for the use of _than_ as a preposition, and justify the phraseology which is here censured, must at least admit, that to construe _than_ as a preposition, creates ambiguity. Thus, when it is said, “you think him handsomer than _me_,” it would be impossible to determine whether the meaning is, “you think him handsomer than I think him,” or “you think him handsomer than you think me.”

“There is nothing more pleases mankind, as to have others to admire and praise their performances, though they are never so trivial.” Here there are two errors. The comparative _more_ is followed by _as_, instead of _than_; and the adverb _never_ is improperly used for _ever_. “How trivial so ever.” It should be, “There is nothing that pleases mankind more, than,” &c.

Conjunctions having no government, the scholar, desirous to avoid error, should carefully observe, whether the predicate be applicable to the two subjects, connected by the conjunction, or, to speak more generally, whether the two nouns be dependent on the same verb or preposition, expressed or understood. “The lover got a woman of greater fortune than her he had missed.”--_Addison_, _Guardian_. This sentence, if not acknowledged to be ungrammatical, is at least inelegant. The pronoun should have been introduced. If _than_ be considered as having the power of a preposition, the charge of solecism is precluded; but if _than_ be a conjunction, he should have said, “than she, whom he had missed.” For, as Lowth observes, there is no ellipsis of the verb _got_, so that the pronoun _her_ cannot be under its government. The meaning is not, “The lover got a woman of greater fortune, than he got her, whom he missed,” for this would be a contradiction, but, “of greater fortune, than she was.” In like manner, in the following passage:

“Nor hope to be myself less miserable, By what I seek, but _others_ to make Such _as I_.”--_Milton._

Bentley says, that it should be _me_. We concur with Dr. Lowth in rejecting this correction, and approving the expression of Milton. There is no ellipsis of the verb _make_; _others_ and _I_ are not under the government of the same word. The meaning is not, “to make others such, as to make me,” but, “such as I _am_” the substantive verb being understood.

In the following passage, on the contrary, the ellipsis seems evident: “I found none so fit as _him_ to be set in opposition to the father of the renowned city of Rome.” It has been contended, that the author should have said, “as he,” and not “as him:” but it appears to me, that the verb _found_ is understood in the secondary clause, and that the expression is correct, the sense being, “I found none so fit, as I found him.”

In the following passage the two subjects belong to the same verb:

“The sun, upon the calmest sea, Appears not half so bright as thee.”--_Prior._

It ought to be, “as thou;” that is, “as thou appearest.”

“So as,” and “as, as,” though frequently, have not always the same import. “These things,” said Thales to Solon, who was lamenting the supposed death of his son, “which strike down _so firm a man as you_, have deterred me from marriage.” The expression clearly refers to Solon; but, if he had said “as firm a man as you,” it might have referred to a different person from Solon, but a man of equal fortitude.

“For ever in this humble cell, Let thee and I, my fair one, dwell.”

The second line of the couplet is ungrammatical, the conjunction connecting an objective with a nominative case, or, to speak more correctly, the pronoun of the first person, which should be a regimen to the verb understood, being here in the nominative case. Thus, “let thee,” and, “let I, my fair one, dwell,” instead of “let _thee_, and let _me_.”

“Let us make a covenant, I and thou.”--_Bible._ The error here, though similar, does not come under precisely the same predicament with the former. The pronoun _us_ is very properly in the objective case, after the verb _let_; _I_ and _thou_ should therefore be in the same case, according to Rule vii. of Syntax. The expression is in fact elliptical, and when completed proceeds thus, “Let us make a covenant: let me and thee make.”

“Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.” The first clause is intended to express a fact, not a hypothesis; the verb, therefore, should be in the indicative mood. Conjunctions have no government, either of cases or moods.

IMPROPRIETY.

“If in case he come, all will be well.” _If_ and _in case_ are synonymous, the one meaning “suppose,” and the other, “on the supposition.” One of them, therefore, is redundant.

“The reason of my desiring to see you was, because I wanted to talk with you.” _Because_ means “by reason;” the expression, therefore, is chargeable with redundancy. It should be, “that I wanted to talk with you.”

“No sooner was the cry of the infant heard, but the old gentleman rushed into the room.”--_Martinus Scrib._ The comparative is here improperly followed by _but_, instead of _than_.

“Scarce had the Spirit of Laws made its appearance, than it was attacked.” _Than_ is employed after comparatives only, and the word _other_. It ought to be “scarce,” or, for reasons formerly given, “scarcely had the Spirit of Laws made its appearance, _when_ it was attacked,” or “no sooner--than.”

“The resolution was not the less fixed, that the secret was as yet communicated to very few, either in the French or English court.” This passage from Hume I have not been able to find. Priestley observes, that it involves a Gallicism, the word _that_ being used instead of _as_. If the meaning intended be, that some circumstances, previously mentioned, had not shaken the resolution, because the secret was as yet known to few, then Priestley’s observation was correct, and the word _as_ should be substituted for _that_, to express the cause of the firmness. But, if the author intended to say, that the very partial discovery of the secret had not shaken the resolution, the clause is then perfectly correct. According to the former phraseology, the circumstance subjoined operated as a cause, preventing the resolution from being shaken: according to the latter, it had no effect, or produced no change of the previous determination. In other words, “the less fixed that,” implies that the subject of the following clause did not affect that of the preceding; “the less fixed _as_” denotes, that the latter circumstance contributed to the production of the former. As it is obvious, that, in such examples, the definite article may refer either to the antecedent or the subsequent clause, the distinction, here specified, should, for the sake of perspicuity, be carefully observed[148].

“His donation was the more acceptable, that it was given without solicitation.” That the word _that_ is frequently used for _because_ cannot be questioned; thus, “I am glad _that_ you have returned safe,” that is, “_because_ you have returned safe.”

“’T is not _that_ I love you less Than when before your feet I lay.”--_Waller._

Here _that_ is equivalent to _because_. English writers, however, after a comparative, employ _as_ or _because_, to denote that the circumstance subjoined was the cause of the preceding one. The use of _that_ in such examples is accounted a Scotticism; it should, therefore, be, “his donation was the more acceptable, _as_” or “_because_ it was given without solicitation.”

“His arguments on this occasion had, it may be presumed, the greater weight, that he had never himself entered within the walls of a playhouse.”--_Stewart’s Life of Robertson._

“A mortification, the more severe, that the joint authority of the archduke and the infanta governed the Austrian Netherlands.”--_Thomson’s Continuation of Watson’s History._

These sentences are chargeable with the same error; and, it is not a little remarkable, though the impropriety has been pointed out again and again, that there is scarcely a Scotch writer, not even among those of the highest name, who is not chargeable with the frequent commission of this error.

“On the east and west sides, it (America) is washed by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.”--_Robertson._ This mode of expression is incorrect; and, though to the geographer intelligible, it strictly conveys a conception not intended by the author. The copulative joins the two sides, which ought to be separated; and combines the two seas, instead of the two facts, implying, that both sides are washed by the same two oceans. It should be rather, “On the east side it is washed by the Atlantic, and on the west (is washed) by the Pacific ocean.”

“Will it be believed, that the four Gospels are as old, or even older than tradition?”--_Bolingbroke._ Here there is a faulty omission of the particle corresponding to _as_; for the positive and comparative cannot be followed by the same conjunction. It ought to be, “as old _as_, or even older _than_ tradition;” or, perhaps, better, “as old as tradition, or even older.”

“The books were to have been sold as this day.” This is a most offensive vulgarism. The conjunction _as_ can have no regimen; nor can it be properly used as equivalent to _on_. It ought to be, “sold this day,” or “on this day.”

“It is supposed, that he must have arrived at Paris as yesterday.” This sentence is chargeable with the same error. Construed strictly, it is, “he must have arrived at Paris _as_, or _in like manner as_, he arrived yesterday.”

“The duke had not behaved with that loyalty, as he ought to have done.” Propriety of correspondence here requires _with that_ to be followed by _with which_, instead of _as_. The sentence, even thus corrected, would be still inelegant and clumsy. “The duke had not behaved with becoming loyalty,” would be much better.

“In _the_ order _as_ they lie in his preface.” This involves a similar impropriety. It should be, “in order as,” or “in the order, in which they lie in his preface.”

“No; this is not always the case neither.”--_Beattie._

“Men come not to the knowledge of ideas which are thought innate, till they come to the use of reason; nor then neither.”--_Locke._

In old English two negatives denied; hence, perhaps, this phraseology originated. Johnson remarks, that the use of _neither_, after a negative, and at the end of a sentence, though not grammatical, renders the expression more emphatic. Analogy, however, is decidedly in favour of the affirmative term; I, therefore, prefer the word “either.” Were Johnson’s argument admitted, such expressions as these, “I forbade you _not_ to go;” “I won’t suffer no such thing;” “He would not have none of my assistance,” might, I apprehend, be justified on the same principle. Those who employ them, doubtless, believe them to be more emphatic, than if they included a single negative.

“This I am the rather disposed to do, that it will serve to illustrate the principles above laid down.”--_Campbell on Rhetoric._ This sentence involves an error, on which I have already animadverted. “_The rather_” should be followed by _as_, not _that_.

“This is another use, that in my opinion contributes rather to make a man learned than wise: and is neither capable of pleasing the understanding, or imagination.” Lowth justly observes, that _or_ is here improperly used for _nor_, the correlative words being _neither_, _nor_. In addition to this observation, I remark, that the word _neither_ is erroneously placed. To render this collocation of the conjunction correct, there should be another attributive opposed to the word “capable,” as, “neither capable of pleasing the understanding, nor calculated to gratify the imagination.” But, as the author intended to exclude two subjects, these should have been contrasted by the exclusive conjunctions, thus, “is capable of pleasing neither the understanding, nor the imagination.”

A similar error occurs in the following sentence: “Adversity both taught you to think and reason.”--_Steele._ The conjunction, which is, in truth, the adjective _both_, is improperly placed. It should be, “taught you both,” _i.e._ the two things, “to think and reason.”

It has been already observed, that the conjunction _or_ is used disjunctively, and subdisjunctively, sometimes denoting a diversity of things, and sometimes merely a difference of names. Hence often arises ambiguity, where the utmost precision of expression is necessary[149]. When Ruddiman delivers it as a rule, that “verbal adjectives, _or_ such as signify an affection of the mind, require the genitive,” I have known the scholar at a loss to understand, whether there be two distinct classes of adjectives, here intended, or one class under two designations. The ambiguity might here be avoided, by using _and_ or _with_ instead of _or_. It may also be prevented in many cases, by more forcibly marking the distinction by the use of _either_. Thus, if we say, “whosoever shall cause, or occasion a disturbance,” it may be doubtful, whether the latter of the two verbs be not designed as explanatory of the former, they, though their meanings be distinct, being often used as synonymous terms. If we say, “shall either cause or occasion,” all doubt is removed. Sometimes ambiguity may be precluded either by the insertion, or the omission, of the article. Thus, if we say, “a peer, or lord of parliament,”[150] meaning to designate only one individual, or one order, the expression is correct. But if it be intended to signify two individuals, every peer not being a lord of parliament, and every lord of parliament not being a peer, we should say, “a peer, or a lord of parliament,” or “either a peer, or lord of parliament.”

Having now endeavoured to explain and illustrate the etymology and syntax of the English language, I cannot dismiss the subject without earnestly recommending to the classical student to cultivate a critical acquaintance with his native tongue. It is an egregious, but common error, to imagine, that a perfect knowledge of Greek and Latin precludes the necessity of studying the principles of English grammar. The structure of the ancient, and that of modern languages, are very dissimilar. Nay, the peculiar idioms of any language, how like soever in its general principles to any other, must be learned by study, and an attentive perusal of the best writers in that language. Nor can any imputation be more reproachful to the proficient in classical literature, than, with a critical knowledge of Greek and Latin, which are now dead languages, to be superficially acquainted with his native tongue, in which he must think, and speak, and write.

The superiority of Greek and Latin over the English language in respect of harmony, graceful dignity, conciseness, and fluency, will be readily admitted. Our language is, comparatively, harsh and abrupt. It possesses strength, indeed; but unaccompanied with softness, with elegance, or with majesty. It must be granted also, that the Greek is, perhaps, a more copious, and is certainly a more ductile[151] and tractable language. But though, in these respects, the English be inferior to the languages of Greece and Rome, yet in preciseness of expression, diversity of sound, facility of communication, and variety of phrase, it may claim the pre-eminence. It would be easy to evince the truth of this assertion, did the limits, which I have prescribed to myself permit. The fact is, that analogous languages almost necessarily possess a superiority in these respects over those, which are transpositive.

It is to be remembered, also, that our language is susceptible of high improvement; and though its abrupt and rugged nature cannot be entirely changed, much may be done to smooth its asperities and soften its harshness.

As a further inducement to the study of the English language, I would assure the young reader, that a due attention to accuracy of diction is highly conducive to correctness of thought. For, as it is generally true, that he, whose conceptions are clear, and who is master of his subject, delivers his sentiments with ease and perspicuity[152]; so it is equally certain, that, as language is not only the vehicle of thought, but also an instrument of invention, if we desire to attain a habit of conceiving clearly and thinking correctly, we must learn to speak and write with accuracy and precision.

It must, at the same time, be remembered, that to give our chief attention to mere phraseology, or to be more solicitous about the accuracy of the diction than the value of the sentiment, is a sure indication of a nerveless and vacant mind. As we estimate a man, not by his garb, but by his intellectual and moral worth, so it is the sentiment itself, not the dress in which it is exhibited, that determines its character, and our opinion of its author.

“True expression, like th’ unchanging sun, Clears and improves whate’er it shines upon; It gilds all objects, _but it alters none_.”--_Pope._

In short, the precept of Quintilian should be studiously observed: “curam ergo verborum, rerum volo esse solicitudinem.”--_Inst. Orat._ lib. viii.

THE END.

G. Woodfall and Son, Printers, Angel Court, Skinner Street, London.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Beattie seems to think that the antediluvians had an alphabet, and that hieroglyphical was posterior to alphabetical writing. “The wisdom and simple manners of the first men,” says he, “would incline me to think, that they must have had an alphabet; for hieroglyphic characters imply quaintness and witticism.” In this reasoning I cannot concur. Alphabetic writing is indeed simple, when known; so also are most inventions. But, simple and easy as it appears to us, we have only to examine the art itself, to be fully convinced, that science, genius, and industry, must have been combined in inventing it. Nay, the learned author himself acknowledges, “that though of easy acquisition to us, it is in itself neither easy nor obvious.” He even admits, “that alphabetical writing must be so remote from the conceptions of those who never heard of it, that without divine aid it would seem to be unsearchable and impossible.” I observe also that in passing from picture-writing to hieroglyphical expression, and in transferring the signs of physical to intellectual and invisible objects, fanciful conceits would naturally take place. It is true also that the manners of the antediluvians were simple; but it is not from prudence nor simplicity of manners, but from human genius, gradually improved, that we are to expect inventions, which require the greatest efforts of the human mind.

[2] Cicero regards the invention of alphabetic writing as an evidence of the celestial character of the soul; and many have ascribed its origin to the inspiration of the Deity. To resort to supernatural causes, to account for the production of any rare or striking event, is repugnant to the principles of true philosophy. And how wonderful soever the art of alphabetical writing may appear, there can be no necessity for referring its introduction to divine inspiration, if the inventive powers of man be not demonstrably unequal to the task. Picture-writing is generally believed to have been the earliest mode of recording events, or communicating information by permanent signs. This was probably succeeded by hieroglyphical characters. How these pictures and hieroglyphical devices would, either through negligence or a desire to abbreviate, gradually vary their form, and lose their resemblance to the objects which they represented, may be easily conceived. Hence that association, which existed between the sign and the thing signified, being founded in resemblance, would in process of time be entirely dissolved. This having taken place, hieroglyphical characters would naturally be converted into a mere verbal denotation, representative of words and not of things. Hence, as Goguet, in his work, “De l’Origine des Loix,” &c., reasonably conjectures, would arise by a partial and easy analysis, a syllabic mode of denotation, which would naturally introduce a literal alphabet. This conjecture must seem highly probable, when it is considered, that both a verbal and syllabic mode of notation are still practised by some Eastern nations.

[3] I am aware, that in considering the letters _y_ and _w_ to be the same with _i_ and _u_ (_oo_), I maintain an opinion, the truth of which has been disputed. The reasons, however, which have been assigned for rejecting it do not appear to me satisfactory.

[4] The mouth is not the proper organ for producing sound; but merely the organ for modulating and articulating the specific sounds.

[5] The sound of _th_ in _thin_, is usually marked with a stroke through the _h_, to distinguish it from its other sound; thus, _tħick_. This distinction is by some writers reversed.

[6] Hutton’s Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge, vol. ii. p. 688.

[7] Plato and Aristotle, when they treat of prepositions, considered the noun and the verb as the only essential parts of speech; these, without the aid of any other word, being capable of forming a sentence. Hence they were called τὰ ἐμψυχότατα μέρη τοῦ λόγου, “the most animated parts of speech.” The latter of these philosophers, in his Poetics, admits four, adding to the noun and the verb the article and the conjunction. The elder Stoics made five, dividing the noun into proper and appellative.

[8]

Noun, Nomen de quo loquimur.

Verb, Verbum seu quod loquimur.--_Quint._ _lib._ i. 4.

Horace has been thought by some to countenance this doctrine when he says,

“Donec verba, quibus voces sensusque notarent, Nominaque invenere.”--_Lib._ i. _Sat._ 3.

[9] The plural number, and the genitive singular, seem to have been originally formed by adding _er_ to the nominative singular, as _you, you-er, your_; _they, they-er, their_; _we, we-er, our_. This termination was afterwards changed into _en_, and then into _es_ or _s_. Thus we have still in provincial usage, though now almost entirely obsolete, _childer_ for the plural of _child_, and the double plural in _child-er-en, children_, with the double genitive in _west-er-en, western_.

[10] _Brethren_, in Scripture, is used for _brothers_.

[11] The obsolete plural occurs in the Bible. “These men were bound in their hosen and hats.”--_Dan._ iii. 21.

[12] Baker inclines also to this usage in preference to the other; but does not affirm it to be a plural noun.

[13] _Much_ is sometimes joined with collective nouns; but these denote number in the aggregate; thus, _much company_.

[14] The gender of _mors_, _virtus_, _sol_, θάνατος, ἀρετή, ἥλιος, was unalterably fixed.

[15] It seems, however, to be more applicable to the English language than to any other with which I am acquainted.

[16] These observations will sufficiently explain the reason why we cannot concur with Dr. Johnson in thinking that there is “an impropriety in the termination,” when we say of a woman, “She is a philosoph_er_.” The female termination in such examples is not wanted; it would be pleonastic and improper. The meaning is, “She is a person given to the study of nature.” If we had been speaking of a lady devoted to philosophy, and had occasion afterwards to mention her by an appellative, we should feel the want of the appropriate termination; and instead of saying “the philosopher,” we should wish, for the sake of discrimination, to be able to say, “the philosophress,” or to employ some equally distinctive term. In the example adduced by the learned lexicographer, the female termination is superfluous; and would intimate a distinction of philosophic character, instead of a distinction of sex, the latter being denoted by the female pronoun.

[17] We remark, in some instances, a similar phraseology in Greek and Latin. Θεὸς and θεὰ, _deus_ and _dea_, are contradistinguished as in English, _god_ and _goddess_; the former of each pair strictly denoting the male, and the latter the female. But the former, we find, has a generical meaning, expressing “a deity,” whether male or female; and is frequently used when the female is designed, if divinity in the abstract be the primary idea without regard to the sex, thus,

... “τὸν δ’ ἐξήρπαξ’ Ἀφροδίτη, Ῥεῖα μάλ’ ὥστε θεός.”--_Hom. Il._ iii. 380.

Here the term θεός is applied to Venus, the character of divinity, and not the distinction of sex, being the chief object of the poet’s attention. Θεός is, therefore, to be considered as either masculine or feminine.

“Ἀλλά μ’ ἁ Διός γ’ ἀλκίμα θεός.”--_Soph. Aj._ 401.

“Μήτε τις οὖν θήλεια θεός.”--_Hom. Il._ Θ. 7.

“Descendo, ac ducente deo, flammam inter et hostes Expedior.”--_Virg. Æn._ ii. 632.

Here, also, _deo_ is applied to Venus, as likewise in the following passage, “_deum_ esse indignam credidi.”--_Plaut. Pœn._ 2, l. 10.

[18] Πτῶσις γενική: general case. It has been supposed by some that the Latins, mistaking the import of the Greek term, called this the genitive case. See _Ency. Brit., Art. Grammar_.

[19] _Amor Dei_ denotes either _amor quo Deus amat_, or _quo Deus amatur_. _Reformatio Lutheri_, either _qua reformavit_, or _qua reformatus est_. _Injuria patris, desiderium amici_, with many other examples which might be produced, have either an active or passive sense. ἡ ἀγαπὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, אהבת יהוה, l’amore de Dio, l’amour de Dieu, severally involve the same ambiguity with “the love of God.”

[20] Of the six declensions, to one or other of which the learned Dr. Hickes conceives the inflexion of almost all the Saxon nouns may be reduced, three form their genitive in _es_, as, _word, wordes_; _smith, smithes_. In the Mœsogothic, a kindred language, the genitive ends in _s_, some nouns having _is_, some _ns_, and others _as_, as, _fan, fanins_; _faukagagja, faukagagjis_.

[21] It must be obvious, that the terms general and universal belong not to real existences, but are merely denominations, the result of intellect, generalising a number of individuals under one head.

[22] Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere curandum.--_Inst._ _lib._ viii. _cap._ 4.

I am inclined to think that our language possesses a superiority in this respect over the Greek itself. Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ may signify either “man in the species, or an individual, was sent from God.” The author of the article Grammar, in the Encyc. Brit., observes, “that the word ἄνθρωπος is here restricted to an individual by its concord with the verb and the participle.” If he mean by this that the term must be significant of only one individual, (and I can annex no other interpretation to his words,) because a singular verb and participle singular are joined with it, he errs egregiously. Numberless examples might be produced to evince the contrary. Job. v. 7. ἄνθρωπος γεννᾶται κόπῳ “man (mankind) is born unto trouble;” where the subject is joined to a verb singular. Psal. xlix. 12. ἄνθρωπος ἐν τιμῇ ὢν οὐ συνῆκε, “man being in honour abideth not.” Here also _man_ for _mankind_ is joined with a participle and verb singular. And here it may be pertinently asked, would not the term _one_ for _a_ in the first example somewhat alter the meaning, and convey an idea different from that intended by the evangelist?

[23] They are the Saxon words _this_ or _thes_, “hic, hæc, hoc,” _that_ or _thæt_, “ille, illa, illud,” which were frequently used by the Saxons for what we term the definite article, as, _send us on thas swyn_, “send us into the swine.” Mark v. 21, _tha eodon tha unclænan gastas on tha swyn_, “then the unclean spirits entered into the swine.”

The Saxon definites are _se_, _seo_, _thæt_, for the three genders severally; and _tha_ in the plural, expressing _the_ or _those_, as, _thæt goed sæd_, the good seed. _Thæt_ is also joined to masculine and feminine nouns, as, _thæt wif_, the woman; _thæt folc_, the people. _Thæ_ (pronounced _they_) still obtains in Scotland, as, “thæ men” for “these men.”

[24] ארץ‏‎ ‎‏הארץ.

[25] אשרי האיש.

[26] Horne Tooke appears to me to have erred in deriving _odd_ from _ow’d_. His words are these: “_Odd_ is the participle _ow’d_. Thus, when we are counting by couples or pairs, we say, ‘one pair,’ ‘two pairs,’ &c., and ‘one ow’d,’ ‘two ow’d,’ to make up another pair. It has the same meaning when we say, ‘an odd man,’ ‘an odd action,’ it still relates to pairing; and we mean ‘without a fellow,’ ‘unmatched.’” Now, I must own, this appears to me a very odd explanation; for, in my apprehension, it leads to a conclusion the very reverse of that which the author intends. The term _odd_ is applied to the one which stands by itself, and not to that which is absent, or ow’d, to complete the pair. If I say, “there are three pairs, and an odd one,” the word _odd_ refers to the single one, over and above the three pairs, and not to the one which is wanting; yet Mr. Tooke refers it to the latter. His explanation seems at once unnatural and absurd. Had he substituted, according to his own etymology, _add_ for _and_, saying, “three pairs, add an ow’d one,” he must, I think, have perceived its inaccuracy. It is the _odd_ and _present one_, of which the singularity is predicated, and not the _absent_ or _ow’d one_.

[27] “_Quivis_ seu _quilibet_ affirmat; _quisquam_, _quispiam_, _ullus_, aut negat aut interrogat,” are the words of an ancient grammarian. It is observable also, that in Latin, _ullus_, any, is a diminutive from _unus_, one; as _any_ in English is from _ane_, the name of unity, as formerly used.

[28] In Anglo-Saxon _ic_, in German _ich_, in Greek ἐγὼ, in Latin _ego_. Mr. Webb delivered it as his opinion, that the pronoun of the first person was derived from the Hebrew ech or ach, _one_, used by _apocope_ for _achad_ or _ahad_, he added, “oned,” or “united.” It is doubtless true, that _ech_ occurs in one or two passages for _one_: see Ezek. xviii. 10, and Ps. xlix. 8; in which latter passage it is rendered in our translation, _brother_, and by R. Jonah, _one_; but we apprehend that this fact will by no means justify his conclusion. And as he considered that the pronoun of the first person radically denoted _one_, he imagined that the pronoun of the second person came from the numeral _duo_, _du_, _tu_, _thu_. Now, it must be granted that there is an obvious resemblance between _ic_ and _ech_, and also between _duo_, _tu_, and _thu_; but were we to draw any conclusion from this similarity, it would be the reverse of that which the author has deduced. It seems quite preposterous to suppose, that the necessity for expressing a number would present itself, before that of discriminating between the person speaking and the person addressed. The rude savage could not converse with his fellow without some sign of this distinction; and if visible signs (as is probable) would be first adopted, we may reasonably presume, on several grounds, that these would soon give place to audible expressions.

The pronoun _ic_ is in Saxon declined thus:

_Sing. Nom._ Ic _Gen._ Min _Dat._ Me _Acc._ Me _Plur. Nom._ We _Gen._ Ure _Dat._ Us _Acc._ Us.

[29] The pronoun of the second person is thus declined:

_Sing. Nom._ Thu _Gen._ Thin _Dat._ The _Acc._ The _Plur. Nom._ Ge (hard) _Gen._ Eower _Dat._ and _Acc._ Eow.

[30] The Anglo-Saxon he is declined thus:

_Sing. Nom._ He _Gen._ His _Dat._ and _Acc._ Him.

[31]

_Sing. Nom._ Heo _Gen._ Hire _Dat._ Hire. _Acc._ Hi.

[32] This pronoun is from the Anglo-Saxon _hyt_ or _hit_, “i” _or_ “that.”

[33] In Anglo-Saxon _hi_, in Teutonic _die_.

[34] In Anglo-Saxon, hwa, hua; _Gen._ hwæs; _Dat._ hwam; _Acc._ hwæne, hwone. Also _hwilc_, whence, says Hickes, proceeded _which_, the letter _l_ being elided.

[35] Mr. Tooke contends, that this part of speech is properly termed adjective noun, and “that it is altogether as much the name of a thing, as the noun substantive.” Names and designations necessarily influence our conceptions of the things which they represent. It is therefore desirable, that in every art or science, not only should no term be employed which may convey to the reader or hearer an incorrect conception of the thing signified, but that every term should assist him in forming a just idea of the object which it expresses. Now, I concur with Mr. Tooke in thinking, that the adjective is by no means a necessary part of speech. I agree with him also in opinion, that, in a certain sense, all words are nouns or names. But, as this latter doctrine seems directly repugnant to the concurrent theories of critics and grammarians, it is necessary to explain in what sense the opinion of Mr. Tooke requires to be understood; and in presenting the reader with this explanation, I shall briefly state the objections which will naturally offer themselves against the justness of this theory. “_Gold_, and _brass_, and _silk_, is each of them,” says Mr. Tooke, “the name of a thing, and denotes a substance. If, then, I say, _a gold-ring_, a brass-tube, a silk-string; here are the substantives _adjectivè posita_, yet names of things, and denoting substances.” It may be contended, however, that these are not substantives, but adjectives, and are the same as _golden_, _brazen_, _silken_. He proceeds: “If again I say, _a golden ring_, _a brazen tube_, _a silken string_; do _gold_, and _brass_, and _silk_, cease to be the names of things, and cease to denote substances, because instead of coupling them with _ring_, _tube_, and _string_, by a hyphen thus (-), I couple them to the same words, by adding the termination _en_?” It may be answered, they do not cease to imply the substances, but they are no longer names of those substances. _Hard_ implies hardness, but it is not the name of that quality. _Atheniensis_ implies _Athenæ_, but it is not the name of the city, any more than _belonging to Athens_ can be called its name. He observes: “If it were true, that adjectives were not the names of things, there could be no attribution by adjectives; for you cannot attribute nothing.” This conclusion may be disputed. An adjective may imply a substance, quality, or property, though it is not the name of it. _Cereus_, “waxen,” implies _cera_, “wax;” but it is the latter only which is strictly the name of the substance. _Pertaining to wax, made of wax_, are not surely names of the thing itself. Every attributive, whether verb or adjective, must imply an attribute; but it is not therefore the name of that attribute. _Juvenescit_, “he waxes young,” expresses an attribute; but we should not call _juvenescit_ the name of the attribute.

It may be asked, what is the difference between _caput hominis_, “a man’s head,” and _caput humanum_, “a human head?” If _hominis_, “man’s,” be deemed a noun, why should not _humanum_, “human,” be deemed a noun also? It may be answered, that _hominis_ does, in fact, perform the office of an adjective, expressing not only the individual, but conjunction also; and that Mr. Wallis assigns to the English genitive the name of adjective. Besides, does not Mr. Tooke himself maintain, “that case, gender, and number, are no parts of the noun”? and does it not hence follow, that the real nouns are not _hominis_, but _homo_,--not _man’s_, but _man_? for such certainly is their form when divested of those circumstances which, according to Mr. Tooke, make no part of them. If the doctrine, therefore, of the learned author be correct, and if the real noun exclude gender, case, and number, as any part of it, neither _hominis_ nor _humanum_, _man’s_ nor _human_, can with consistency be called nouns.

But let Mr. Tooke’s argument be applied to the verb, the τὸ ῥῆμα, which he justly considers as an essential part of speech. “If verbs were not the names of things, there could be no attribution by verbs, for we cannot attribute nothing.” Are we then to call _sapit_, _vivit_, _legit_, names? If so, we have nothing but names; and to this conclusion Mr. Tooke fairly brings the discussion; for he says, that all words are names.

Having thus submitted to the reader the doctrine of this sagacious critic, with the objections which naturally present themselves, I proceed to observe, that the controversy appears to me to be, in a great degree, a mere verbal dispute. It is agreed on both sides, that the adjective expresses a substance, quality, or property; but, while it is affirmed by some critics, it is denied by others, that it is the name of the thing signified. The metaphysician considers words merely as signs of thought, while the grammarian regards chiefly their changes by inflexion: and hence arises that perplexity in which the classification of words has been, and still continues to be, involved. Now, it is evident that every word must be the sign of some sensation, idea, or perception. It must express some substance or some attribute: and in this sense all words may be regarded as names. Sometimes we have the name of the thing simply, as _person_. Sometimes we have an accessary idea combined with the simple sign, as “possession,” “conjunction,” “action,” and so forth, as _personal_, _personally_, _personify_. This accessary circumstance, we have reason to believe, was originally denoted by a distinct word, significant of the idea intended; and that this word was, in the progress of language, abbreviated and incorporated with the primary term, in the form of what we now term an affix or prefix. Thus _frigus_, _frigidus_, _friget_, all denote the same primary idea, involving the name of that quality, or of that sensation, which we term _cold_. _Frigus_ is the name of the thing simply; _frigidus_ expresses the quality _in concreto_, or conjunction. Considering, therefore, all words as names, it may be regarded as a complex name, expressing two distinct ideas,--that of the quality, and that of conjunction. _Friget_ (the subject being understood) may be regarded as a name still more complex; involving, first, the name of the quality; secondly, the name of conjunction; thirdly, the sign of affirmation, as either expressed by an appropriate name, or constructively implied, equivalent to the three words, _est cum frigore_. According, then, to this metaphysical view of the subject, we have first _nomen simplex_, the simple name; secondly, _nomen adjectivum_ or _nomen duplex_, the name of the thing, with that of conjunction; thirdly, _nomen affirmativum_, the name of the thing affirmed to be conjoined.

The simple question now is, whether all words, not even the verb excepted, should be called nouns; or whether we shall assign them such appellations as may indicate the leading circumstances by which they are distinguished. The latter appears to me to be the only mode which the grammarian, as the teacher of an art, can successfully adopt. Considering the subject in this light, I am inclined to say with Mr. Harris, that the adjective, as implying some substance or attribute, not _per se_, but _in conjunction_, or _as pertaining_, is more nearly allied to the verb than to the noun; and that though the verb and the adjective may, in common with the noun, denote the thing, they cannot strictly be called its name. To say that _foolish_ and _folly_ are each names of the same quality, would, I apprehend, lead to nothing but perplexity and error.

It is true, if we are to confine the term noun to the simple name of the subject, we shall exclude the genitive singular from all right to this appellation; for it denotes, not the subject simply, but the subject _in conjunction_--the inflexion being equivalent to “belonging to.” This indeed is an inconsistency which can in no way be removed, unless by adopting the opinion of Wallis, who assigns no cases to English nouns, and considers _man’s_, _king’s_, &c., to be adjectives. And were we to adopt Mr. Tooke’s definition of our adjective, and say, “It is the _name of a thing_ which is directed to be joined to another _name of a thing_,” it will follow, that _king’s_, _man’s_, are adjectives. In short, if the question be confined to the English language, we must, in order to remove all inconsistency, either deny the appellation of _noun_ to the adjective, and, with Wallis, call the genitive case an adjective; or we must first call _man’s_, _king’s_, &c., adjectives; secondly, we must term _happy_, _extravagant_, _mercenary_, &c., nouns, though they are not names; and thirdly, we must assign the appellation of noun to the verb itself.

From this view of the subject the reader will perceive that the whole controversy depends on the meaning which we annex to the term _noun_. If by this term we denote simply the thing itself, without any accessary circumstance, then nothing can be called a noun but the name in its simple form. If to the term noun we assign a more extensive signification, as implying not only the thing itself simply and absolutely, but also any accessary idea, as conjunction, action, passion, and so forth, then it follows, that all words may be termed names.

[36] The Saxons formed their comparative by _er_ or _ere_, _ar_ or _ære_, _er_, _or_, _ur_, _yr_, and their superlative by _ast_, _aste_, _est_, _ist_, _ost_, _ust_, _yst_. Now _ar_ means _before_; hence the English words _ere_ and _erst_. Thus, in Saxon, _riht wisere_ means “righteous _before_,” “just _before_,” or “_more than_.” The suffix is equivalent to the Latin _præ_, and the Hebrew preposition _min_, signifying also _before_; the only difference being this, that what is a suffix to the Saxon adjective is in Hebrew a prefix to the consequent subject of comparison, and that in Latin the preposition following the positive stands alone.

Mr. Bosworth, in his “Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar,” a work displaying sound philological principles, has remarked, that the Gothic superlative in _itsa_ bears an obvious resemblance to some of the Greek superlatives, as, ἄριστος, κάλλιστος, βράδιστος.

[37] _Up_ and _in_ are now used as adverbs and prepositions.

[38] This phraseology is Hebraistic--“more than all his children” is the literal translation of the original, מְּכל־בניו præ omnibus filiis, seu, magis omnibus filiis suis.

[39] See a valuable little volume on English Grammar, by Mr. Grant. The “Institutes of Latin Grammar,” by the same author, we would recommend to the attention of every classical student.

[40] _I, hi, hie_, “to go,” he considers to be from Ἰ-έναι, the Greek verb; and hence to be derived the Latin verb _I-re_, “to go,” “to hie.”

[41] Intransitive verbs sometimes are used transitively, as, when we say, “to walk the horse,” “to dance the child.” They also admit a noun of their own signification, as, “to run a race.”

[42] Conformably to general opinion I here consider the English language as having a passive voice. How far this opinion is well founded shall be the subject of future inquiry.

[43] Mr. Bosworth seems to think, that the word _tense_ is derived from the Latin _tensus_, “used to denote that extension or inflexion of the word, by which difference in time is implied, or difference in action is signified.” I am rather inclined to consider it as derived from the French _tems_ or _temps_, and that from _tempus_.

[44] “Some,” says Dr. Beattie, “will not allow anything to be a tense, but what, in one inflected word, expresses an affirmation with time; for, that those parts of the verb are not properly called tenses, which assume that appearance, by means of auxiliary words. At this rate, in English, we should have two tenses only, the present and the past in the active verb, and in the passive no tenses at all. But this is a needless nicety; and, if adopted, would introduce confusion into the grammatical art. If _amaveram_ be a tense, why should not _amatus fueram_? If _I heard_ be a tense, _I did hear_, _I have heard_, and _I shall hear_, must be equally entitled to that appellation.”

How simplicity can introduce confusion I am unable to comprehend, unless we are to affirm that the introduction of Greek and Latin names, to express nonentities in our language, is necessary to illustrate the grammar, and simplify the study of the language to the English scholar. But the author’s theory seems at variance with itself. He admits, that “we have no cases in English, except the addition of _s_ in the genitive;” whence we may infer, that he considers inflexion as essential to a case. Now, if those only be cases, which are formed by inflexion, those only should, grammatically, be deemed tenses, which are formed in the same manner. When he asks, therefore, if _amaveram_ be a tense, why should not _amatus fueram_ be a tense also? the answer on his own principles is sufficiently obvious, namely, because the one is formed by inflexion, the other by combination. And, I would ask, if _king’s_ be a genitive case, why, according to this theory, is not of _a king_ entitled to the same appellation? I apprehend the answer he must give, consistently with his opinion respecting cases, will sufficiently explain why _amaveram_, and _I heard_, are tenses, while _amatus fueram_, and _I had heard_, are not.

Nay, further, if it be needless nicety to admit those only as tenses, which are formed by inflexion, is it not equally a needless nicety to admit those cases only, which are formed by varying the termination? And if confusion be introduced by denying _I had heard_ to be a tense, why does not the learned author simplify the doctrine of English nouns, by giving them six cases, _a king_, _of a king_, _to_ or _for a king_, _a king_, _O king_, _with, from, in_, or _by a king_? This surely would be to perplex, not to simplify. In short, the inconsistency of those grammarians, who deny that to be a case, which is not formed by inflexion, yet would load us with moods and tenses, not formed by change of termination, is so palpable, as to require neither illustration nor argument to expose it. If these authors would admit, that we have as many cases in English, as there exists relations expressed by prepositions, then, indeed, though they might overwhelm us with the number, we should at least acknowledge the consistency of their theory. But to adopt the principle of inflexion in one case, and reject it in another, precisely parallel, involves an inconsistency which must excite amazement. _Nil fuit sic unquam impar sibi._ Why do not these gentlemen favour us with a dual number, with a middle voice, and with an optative mood? Nay, as they are so fond of tenses, as to lament that we rob them of all but two, why do they not enrich us with a first and second aorist, and a paulo post future? and, if this should not suffice, they will find in Hebrew a rich supply of verbal forms. We should then have kal and niphal, pihhel and pyhhal, hiphhil and hophhal, hithpahhel and hothpahhel, and numerous other species and designations. What a wonderful acquisition this would be to our stock of moods, tenses, and voices!

One of these grammarians, indeed, reverencing the old maxim _est modus in rebus_, observes, that “it is necessary to set bounds to this business, so as not to occasion obscurity and perplexity, when we mean to be simple and perspicuous.” This is so far good; because, though it vindicates the impropriety, it modestly would confine it within decent bounds. But surely it cannot be necessary to remind this writer, that when the boundary between right and wrong, propriety and impropriety, is once passed, it is extremely difficult to prescribe limits to the transgression; and that arbitrary distinctions, resting on no other foundation than prejudice or fashion, must ever be vague, questionable, and capricious. These are truths of which, I am persuaded, the author to whom I allude needs not to be reminded. But it may be necessary to impress on his attention another truth equally incontestable, that no authority, how respectable soever, can sanction inconsistency; and that great names, though they may be honoured by ignorance and credulity with the most obsequious homage, will never pass with the intelligent reader, either for demonstration or for argument. This author, in defence of his theory of cases and tenses, observes, “that the proper form of a tense, in the Greek and Latin languages, is certainly that which it has in the grammars of these languages.” On what evidence is this assumption founded? Here is exhibited a _petitio principii_, too palpable to escape the detection of the most inattentive reader. He proceeds: “But in the Greek and Latin grammars we uniformly find that some of the tenses are formed by variations of the principal verb, and others by the addition of helping verbs.” It is answered that the admission of these forms in Greek and Latin grammars is a question of mere expediency, and nowise affects the doctrine for which we contend, any more than the admission of six cases in all the Latin declensions affects the doctrine of cases; though in no one declension have all the cases dissimilar terminations. This position it would be easy to demonstrate: it would be easy likewise to show why, notwithstanding this occasional identity of termination, six cases are admitted in all the declensions; but the subject is foreign to our present purpose. It is important, however, to observe, what has escaped the notice of the author, that the principle, on which the admission just mentioned may be expedient in a Latin grammar, has no existence whatever in the English language.

“It is, therefore,” he continues, “indisputable, that the principal, or the participle, and an auxiliary, constitute a regular tense in the Greek and Latin languages.” This, as I have remarked, is a palpable _petitio principii_. It is to say, that because _amatus fueram_ is a tense, therefore “I had been loved” is a tense also. The author forgets that the premises must be true, to render the conclusion legitimate. He forgets, that a circular argument is a mere sophism, because it assumes as true what it is intended to prove. Whether _amatus fueram_ be or be not a tense, is the very point in question; and so far am I from admitting the affirmative as unquestionable, that I contend, it has no more claim to the designation of tense, than ἔσομαι τετυφώς--no more claim than _amandum est mihi_, _amari oportet_, or _amandus sum_, have to be called moods. Here I must request the reader to bear in mind the necessary distinction between the grammar of a language and its capacity of expression.

In answer to the objection of inconsistency, in admitting tenses where there is no inflexion, yet rejecting cases where there is no change of termination, the author says, “that such a mode of declension cannot apply to our language.” But why can it not apply? Why not give as English cases, _to a king_, _of a king_, _from a king_, _with a king_, _by a king_, _at a king_, _about a king_, &c. &c.? The mode is certainly applicable, whatever may be the consequences of that application. A case surely is as easily formed by a noun and preposition, as a tense by a participle and auxiliary. But the author observes, “the English language would then have a much greater number of cases than the Greek and Latin languages.” And why not? Is the number of cases in English, or any other language, to be limited by the number in Greek or Latin? or does the author mean to say, that there is any peculiar propriety in the number five or six? The author, to be consistent with himself, ought to acknowledge as many cases as there are prepositions to be found in the English language. This, it may be said, would encumber our grammar, and embarrass the learner. This is, indeed, an argument against the expediency of the application, but not against the practicability of the principle in question. Besides, it may be asked, why does the author confine his love of simplification to cases? Why not extend it to tenses also? Why maintain, that inflexion only makes a case, and that a tense is formed without inflexion? Why dismiss one encumbrance, and admit another?

The author observes, that “from grammarians, who form their ideas and _make_ their decisions respecting this part of grammar, on the principles and construction of languages, which in these points do not suit the peculiar nature of our own, but differ considerably from it, we may naturally expect grammatical schemes that are neither perspicuous nor consistent, and which will tend more to perplex than inform the learner.” Had I been reprehending the author’s own practice, I should have employed nearly the same language. How these observations, certainly judicious and correct, can be reconciled with the doctrine of the writer himself, I am utterly at a loss to conceive. His ideas of consistency and simplicity are to me incomprehensible. He rejects _prepositional_ cases for the sake of simplicity, and he admits various moods and tenses, equally foreign to the genius of our language, in order to avoid perplexity. Surely this is not a “consistent scheme.” Nay, he tells us, “that on the principle of imitating other languages in names and forms (I beseech the reader to mark the words), without a correspondence in nature and idiom, we might adopt a number of declensions, as well as a variety of cases, for English substantives: but,” he adds, “this variety does not at all correspond with the idiom of our language.” After this observation, argument surely becomes unnecessary.

I have here, the reader will perceive, assailed the author’s doctrine merely on the ground of inconsistency. It is liable, however, to objections of a more serious nature; and were I not apprehensive that I have already exhausted the patience of the reader, I should now proceed to state these objections. There is one observation, however, which I feel it necessary to make. The author remarks, that to take the tenses as they are commonly received, and endeavour to ascertain their nature and their differences, “is a much more useful exercise, as well as a more proper, for a work of this kind, than to raise, as might be easily raised, new theories on the subject.” If the author by this intends to insinuate that our doctrine is new, he errs egregiously. For Wallis, one of the oldest, and certainly one of the best of our English grammarians, duly attentive to the simplicity of that language whose grammar he was exhibiting, assigned only two tenses to the English verb. He says, _Nos duo tantum habemus tempora Præsens et Præteritum_; and on this simple principle his explanation of the verb proceeds. In the preface to his grammar, he censures his few predecessors for violating the simplicity of the English language, by the introduction of names and rules foreign to the English idiom. _Cur hujusmodi casuum, generum, modorum, temporumque fictam et ineptam plane congeriem introducamus citra omnem necessitatem, aut in ipsa lingua fundamentum, nulla ratio suadet._ And so little was he aware that the introduction of technical names for things which have no existence, facilitates the acquisition of any art or science, that he affirms it in regard to the subject before us to be the cause of great confusion and perplexity. _Quæ (inutilia præcepta) a lingua nostra sunt prorsus aliena, adeoque confusionem potius et obscuritatem pariunt, quam explicationi inserviunt._

[45] Mr. Gilchrist, in his “Philosophic Etymology,” represents the terminations _ath_, _eth_, _ad_, _ed_, _et_, _en_, _an_, as conjunctives, equivalent to the sign +, denoting _add_, or _join_ (see p. 162). In another part of the same work, he considers _did_ to be _do_ doubled, as _dedi_ from the Latin _do_, which he believes to be the very same word with our _do_. Repetition, he observes, is a mode of expressing complete action. Hence we have _do_, _do-ed_, _dede_, _did_, in English. This explanation is ingenious, and furnishes a probable account of the origin of the word _did_, which he remarks was formerly spelled _dede_.

[46]

I be Thou beest He, she, or it be We be Ye or you be They be, from the Saxon Ic beo Thu beest He beeth,

are obsolete, unless followed by a concessive term. Thus, instead of saying, “Many there _be_ that go in thereat,” we should now say, “Many there _are_.” For “to whom all hearts _be_ open,” we should now write, “to whom all hearts _are_ open.” We find them, however, used with the conjunctions _if_ and _though_; thus, “If this be my notion of a great part of that high science, divinity, you will be so civil as to imagine, I lay no mighty stress upon the rest.”--_Pope._ That this was his notion the author had previously declared; the introductory clause, therefore, is clearly affirmative, and is the same as if he had said, “As this is my notion.” “Although she _be_ abundantly grateful to all her protectors, yet I observe your name most often in her mouth.”--_Swift._ “The paper, although it _be_ written with spirit, yet would have scarce cleared a shilling.”--_Swift._ In the two last sentences the meaning is affirmative; nothing conditional or contingent being implied.

In the following examples, it expresses doubt or contingency. “If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:” _i.e._ “shouldst be.” “If I be in difficulty, I will ask your aid;” _i.e._ “If I should be.”

[47] Though the authority of Milton, Dryden, Pope, and Swift, can be pleaded in favour of _wert_, as the second person singular of this tense, I am inclined to agree with Lowth, that in conformity to analogy, as well as the practice of the best ancient writers, it would be better to confine _wert_ to the imperfect conditional.

[48] If the expression of time with an attribute “be sufficient to make a verb, the participle must be a verb too, because it signifies time also. But the essence of a verb consisting in predication, which is peculiar to it, and incommunicable to all other parts of speech, and these infinitives never predicating, they cannot be verbs. Again, the essence of a noun consisting in its so subsisting in the understanding, as that it may be the subject of predication, and these infinitives being all capable of so subsisting, they must of necessity be nouns.”--_R. Johnson’s Gram. Comment._

[49] The variety of form which this verb assumes, clearly shows that it has proceeded from different sources.

_Am_ is from the Anglo-Saxon _eom_, and _is_ from the Anglo-Saxon _ys_ or _is_; and these have been supposed to have come from the Greek εἰμὶ, εἶς.

The derivation of _are_ is doubtful. It may, perhaps, have proceeded directly from _er_ or _erum_ of the Icelandic verb, denoting “to be.” By Mr. Gilchrist it is considered as “the same with the infinitive termination _are, ere, ire_.” Mr. Webb conjectured, that it might have some relation to the Greek ἔαρ, _spring_. Both these explanations appear to us somewhat fanciful.

_Art_ is from the Anglo-Saxon _eart_. “Thou eart,” _thou art_.

_Was_ is evidently the Anglo-Saxon _wæs_; and _wast_, _wert_, probably from the Franco-Theatisc, _warst_; and _were_ from the Anglo-Saxon _wære_, _wæron_.

_Be_ is from the Anglo-Saxon _Ic beo_, _I am_, which, with the Gaelic verb _bi_, _to be_, Mr. Webb considered to be derived from βίος, _life_, as the Latin _fui_, from φύω, _to grow_. This conjecture he supports by several pertinent quotations. See Mr. Bosworth’s “Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar,” p. 164.

[50] The words _did_, _hast_, _hath_, _has_, _had_, _shall_, _wilt_, are evidently, as Wallis observes, contracted for _doed_, _haveth_, _haves_, _haved_, _shall’st_, _will’st_.

[51] This verb is derived from the Saxon magan, _posse_, the present of which is _Ic mæg_, and the preterite _Ic miht_. Hence also _Ic mot_.

“For as the fisshe, if it be drie, Mote in defaute of water die.”--_Gower._

[52] This verb is derived from cunnan, _scire_, _posse_, _sapere_. Hence is derived the verb “to ken,” or “to know;” or more probably, indeed, they were one and the same word: hence also the word _cunning_. “To ken” is still used in Scotland; and in the expression of Shakspeare, “I ken them from afar,” is erroneously considered by some critics to mean, “I see them.”

[53] This verb is, unquestionably, a derivative from the Saxon ꞅceal, _I owe_ or _I ought_, and was originally of the same import. _I shall_ denoted “it is my duty,” and was precisely synonymous with _debeo_ in Latin. Chaucer says, “The faith I shall to God;” that is, “the faith I owe to God.” “Thou shalt not kill,” or “thou oughtest not to kill.” In this sense _shall_ is a present tense, and denoted present duty or obligation. But, as all duties and all commands, though present in respect to their obligation and authority, must be future in regard to their execution; so by a natural transition, observable in most languages, this word, significant of present duty, came to be a note of future time. I have considered it, however, as a present tense; 1st, because it originally denoted present time; 2dly, because it still retains the form of a present, preserving thus the same analogy to _should_ that _can_ does to _could_, _may_ to _might_, _will_ to _would_; and 3dly, because it is no singular thing to have a verb in the present tense, expressive of future time, commencing from the present moment; for such precisely is the Greek verb μέλλω, _futurus sum_. Nay, the verb _will_ denotes present inclination, yet in some of its persons, like _shall_, expresses futurition. I have considered, therefore, the verb _shall_ as a present tense, of which _should_ is the preterperfect.

Johnson’s explanation of the meaning of this verb is so perspicuous, that, as foreigners are apt to mistake its use, I shall here transcribe his words. _I shall love_: “it will be so that I must love,” “I am resolved to love.” _Shall I love?_ “will it be permitted me to love?” “will it be that I must love?” _Thou shalt love_: “I command thee to love;” “it is permitted thee to love;” “it will be, that thou must love.” _Shalt thou love?_ “will it be, that thou must love?” “will it be permitted thee to love?” _He shall love_: “it will be, that he must love;” “it is commanded that he love.” _Shall he love?_ “is it permitted him to love?” The plural persons follow the signification of the singular.

I transcribe also the same author’s explanation of the verb _I will_. _I will come_: “I am willing to come,” “I am determined to come.” _Thou wilt come_: “it must be, that thou must come,” importing necessity; or “it shall be, that thou shalt come,” importing choice. _Wilt thou come?_ “hast thou determined to come?” importing choice. _He will come_: “he is resolved to come;” or “it must be, that he must come,” importing choice or necessity.

Brightland’s short rule may be of some service in assisting foreigners to distinguish the use of these two verbs. It is this:

“In the first person simply _shall_ foretels: In _will_ a threat, or else a promise, dwells; _Shall_ in the second and the third does threat; _Will_ simply then foretels the future feat.”

In addition to these directions for the use of _shall_ and _will_, it is to be observed, that, when the second and third persons are represented as the subjects of their own expressions, or their own thoughts, _shall_ foretels, as in the first person, thus, “he says he shall be a loser by this bargain:” “do you suppose you shall go?” “He hoped he should recover,” and “he hoped he would recover,” are expressions of different import. In the former, the two pronouns necessarily refer to the same person; in the latter, they do not.

[54] This verb is derived from the Saxon verb willan, _velle_, the preterite of which is Ic wold.

[55] The preterite _would_ is frequently employed, like the Latin preterimperfect tense, to denote what is usual or customary. Thus,

Quintilio si quid recitares, corrige, sodes, Hoc, aiebat, et hoc; melius te posse negares, Bis terque expertum frustra; delere jubebat, Et malè tornatos incudi reddere versus: Si defendere delictum quàm vertere, malles, Nullum ultra verbum, aut operam insumebat inanem. _Horace._

where the verbs aiebat, jubebat, insumebat, may be translated, “he would say,” “he would desire,” “he would spend.” Thus also in English,

Pleas’d with my admiration, and the fire His speech struck from me, the old man _would_ shake His years away, and act his young encounters: Then having show’d his wounds, _he’d_ sit him down.

[56] In Latin the imperfect potential is frequently employed in the same manner to denote present time; thus, _irem si vellem_, expresses present liberty and inclination. And the same analogy obtains in Latin; for we say, either, _tu, si hic sis, aliter sentias_, or _tu, si hic esses, aliter sentires_. In such examples, it is intended to signify either the coexistence of two circumstances, or the one as the immediate consequence of the other. An identity of tense, therefore, best expresses contemporary events.

[57] If it should be said, that the participle may properly be considered as a verb, since it implies an attribute with time, I would ask, whether _affirmation_, the most important of all circumstances, and without which no communication could take place, should be overlooked in our classification of words agreeably to their import, or the offices which they perform. If the verb and participle be referred to one class, the principal part of speech which has been pre-eminently distinguished by the name of verb, or _the word_, is degraded from its rank, and confounded with a species of words which are not even necessary to the communication of thought. Surely, if any circumstance can entitle any sort of words to a distinct reference, it is that of _affirmation_.

If it should be objected that the participle, like the verb, governs a case, I would ask, because _lectio_, _tactio_, and many other substantives, are found sometimes joined with an accusative case, were they ever on this account considered as verbs? Besides, if the government of a case be urged as an argument, what becomes of those participles which govern no case? Nay, if the government of a case be deemed the criterion of a verb, what name shall we assign to those verbs which have no regimen at all? If any species of words is to be distinguished from another, the characteristic difference must surely belong, not to part only, but to the whole.

[58] The termination _ing_ is from the Anglo-Saxon _ande_, _ænde_, _ende_, _ind_, _onde_, _unde_, _ynde_, and corresponds to the termination of the Latin gerunds in _andum_ and _endum_, expressing continuation, _Amandum_, _Lufiande_, _Loving_.

[59] Here I would be understood to reason on their own principles; for the truth is, that each of these tenses admits a definitive.

[60] See the _Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy_, vol. iii.

[61] Dr. Beattie observes, “that the fundamental error of those philosophers who deny the existence of present time is, that they suppose the present instant to have, like a geometrical point, neither parts nor magnitude. But as nothing is, in respect of our senses, a geometrical point, (for whatever we see or touch must of necessity have magnitude,) so neither is the present, or any other instant, wholly unextended.” His argument amounts to this, that as a mathematical point is not an object of sense, nor has any real existence, so neither has a metaphysical instant. It is granted. They are each ideal. But does this prove the author’s position, that philosophers have erred in asserting their similarity? or does it evince that no analogy subsists between them? Quite the reverse. The truth is, a geometrical point is purely ideal; it is necessary to the truth of mathematical demonstration, that it be conceived to have no parts. Finding it convenient to represent it to sense, we therefore give it magnitude. A metaphysical instant, or present time, is in like manner ideal; but we find it convenient to assume as present an extended space. The doctor observes, that sense perceives nothing but what is present. It is true; but it should be remembered that not time, but objects which exist in time, are perceived by the senses. It may enable a person to form a correct idea of this matter, if he will ask himself, what he means by present time. If it be the present hour, is it not obvious that part of it is past, and part of it future? If it be the present minute, it is equally clear, that the whole of it cannot be present at once. Nay, if it be the present vibration of the pendulum, is it not obvious that part of it is performed, and part of it remains to be performed? Nor is it possible to stop in this investigation, till present time, strictly speaking, be proved to have no existence. Did it exist, it must be extended; and if extended, it cannot be present, for past and future must necessarily be included in it. If it should be answered, that this proves time, like matter, infinitely divisible, and that the most tedious process will still leave something capable of division, I reply, that as whatever may be left in the one case must be figure, and not a point, so the remainder, in the other, must be a portion of extended time, how minute soever, and not an instant. The process, therefore, must be continued, till we arrive in idea at a point and an instant, incapable of division, being not made up of parts.

[62] When we say, _God is good_, I would ask Dr. Browne whether the verb be definite or indefinite, whether it denote perfection or imperfection, or have no reference to either. It appears to me that neither of the terms is in his sense applicable; for that the verb denotes simple affirmation with time; or, if applicable, that the tense is, contrary to his opinion, indefinite, the idea of completion or imperfection being entirely excluded.

[63] These phraseologies, as the author last quoted justly observes, are harsh to the ear, and appear exceedingly awkward; but a little attention will suffice to show that they correctly exhibit the ideas implied by the tense which we have at present under consideration.

[64] See Encyc. Brit., Art. Grammar.

[65] I consider that no language, grammatically examined, has more cases, tenses, or moods, than are formed by inflexion. But if any person be inclined to call these forms of expression by the name of imperative mood, I have no objection. Only let him be consistent, and call “Dost thou love?” an interrogative mood, adopting also the precative, the requisitive, the optative, the hortative, &c., together with the various cases in nouns, and tenses in verbs, which are formed by prepositions and auxiliary verbs: I should only apprehend, that language would fail him to assign them names.

If it should be asked, “Agreeably to your doctrine of the verb, as implying affirmation, what part of speech would you make the verbs in the following sentences, _Depart instantly_, _improve your time_, _forgive us our sins_? Will it be said that the verbs in these phrases are assertions?” I should answer that all moods, metaphysically considered, are, in my apprehension, equally indicative. Every possible form of speech can do nothing but express the sentiment of the speaker, his desire, his wish, his sensation, his perception, his belief, &c. Whatever form, therefore, the expression may assume, it must be resolvable into assertion; and must be considered as expressing, in the person of the speaker, what he desires, wishes, feels, thinks, and so forth. No one surely will deny, that “thou oughtest not to kill,” “thou shalt not kill,” “thou art forbidden to kill,” are affirmations. And are not these expressions so nearly equivalent to “do not kill,” that in Greek and Latin they are rendered indifferently either by οὐ φονεύσεις, or, μὴ φόνευε; _non occides_, or _ne occidito_? If then we say, “kill thou,” will it be contended that, though the prohibition implies an affirmation of the speaker, the command does not? The expression I conceive to be strictly equivalent to “thou shalt kill,” “thou art ordered to kill.” Hence _ave_ and _jubeo te avere_, are deemed expressions of the same import. If the question be examined grammatically, or as a subject of pure grammar, I am inclined to think that where there is no variety of termination, there cannot be established a diversity of mood.

[66] This verb is derived from the Saxon verb Ic most, _ego debeo_.

[67] It belongs not to my province to inquire, how _amarem_ came to signify _I might_ or _could love_, or whether it be strictly in the potential or the subjunctive mood. I here take it for granted that _amarem_ does, without an ellipsis, signify, _I might, could, would_, or _should love_, implying _licet_, _possum_, _volo_, _debeo_.--See _Johnson’s Comment_.

[68] Why this verb forms an exception, it would be easy to explain.

[69] See Webster’s Dissertations, p. 263.

[70] A similar phraseology in the use of the pluperfect indicative for the same tense subjunctive, obtains in Latin, as

“Impulerat ferro Argolicas fœdare latebras.”--_Virgil._

[71] The Latins used _si_ in both cases: and though their poets did not attend to this distinction, their prose writers generally observed it, by joining _si_ for _quoniam_ with the indicative mood.

[72] Where R is added, the verb follows also the general rule.

[73] Some have excluded _bore_ as the preterite of this verb. We have sufficient authority, however, for admitting it; thus,

“By marrying her who bore me.”--_Dryden._

[74] _Beholden_ is obsolescent in this sense.

[75] “So kept the diamond, and the rogue was bit.”--_Pope._

“There was lately a young gentleman bit to the bone.”--_Tatler._

[76] _Brake_ seems now obsolescent.

[77] Though Johnson has not admitted the regular form of the participle in this verb, I think there is sufficient authority for concurring with Lowth in receiving _builded_ as the participle as well as _built_, though it be not in such general use.

[78] _Chode_, which occurs twice in the Bible, is now obsolete.

[79] Lowth has given _clomb_ as the preterite of climb. I can find, however, no authority later than Spenser, and am inclined to think it is now obsolete.

[80] The irregular preterite _clad_ is obsolescent.

[81] I know no example in which the preterite, which analogically would be _forwent_, is to be found. It may be here remarked that this verb, in violation of analogy, is generally spelled _forego_, as if it meant “to go before.” This is equally improper as it would be to write _forebid, foresake, foreswear_, for _forbid, forsake, forswear_.

[82] _Fraught_ is more properly an adjective than participle.

[83] This verb, Lowth says, when employed as an active verb, “may perhaps, most properly be used in the regular form.” Here the learned author appears to me, if he be not chargeable with error, to have expressed his meaning incorrectly; for it cannot be disputed that the irregular form of this verb is frequently, and with unquestionable propriety, used in an active sense. Thus we say, “the servant hung the scales in the cellar;” and passively, “the scales were hung by the servant.” I should, therefore, rather say that, when this verb denotes suspension, for the purpose of destroying life, the regular form is far preferable. Thus, “the man was hanged,” not “hung.”

[84] The irregular preterite and participle of this verb are employed in sea language; but the latter rarely.

[85] Lowth has given _holpen_ as the participle; it is now obsolescent, if not obsolete. It belonged to the verb _to holp_, which has been long out of use.

[86] Several grammarians have rejected _hid_ as a participle. It rests, however, on unquestionable authority; but _hidden_ is preferable.

[87] _Holden_, which was some years ago obsolescent, is now returning into more general use.

[88] _Laden_, like _fraught_, may be deemed an adjective.

[89] Priestley, I apprehend, has erred in giving _lain_ as the participle of this verb.

[90] _Lien_, though not so generally used as _lain_, is not destitute of unexceptionable authority. I have, therefore, with Johnson and Lowth, given it as the participle. Murray has omitted it.

[91] Some grammarians have rejected _lit_. It can plead, however, colloquial usage in its favour, and even other authority. “I lit my pipe with the paper.”--_Addison._

[92] With Priestley and Lowth, I have given this verb a regular participle; for which, I believe, there is sufficient authority, without adducing the example of Shakspeare. Most other grammarians have rejected it.

[93] _Quitted_ is far more generally used as the preterite than _quit_.

[94] Priestley has rejected _rid_, and Murray _ridden_, as the participle, while Johnson makes _rid_ the preterite of _ride_. As _rid_ is the present and preterite of another verb, it would, perhaps, be better to dismiss it entirely from the verb _to ride_, and conjugate, with Priestley, _ride, rode, ridden_.

[95] Our translators of the Bible have used _roast_ as the perfect participle. In this sense it is almost obsolete. _Roast beef_ retains its ground.

[96] Story, in his Grammar, has most unwarrantably asserted, that the participle of this verb should be _shaked_. This word is certainly obsolete, and, I apprehend, was never in general use. I have been able to find only one example of _shaked_ as the participle, “A sly and constant knave, not to be _shaked_.”--_Shakspeare._ And two as the preterite, “They shaked their heads.”--_Psal._ cxi. 55. “I shaked my head.”--_Steele_, _Spectator_, No. iv.

[97] Of these preterites, the latter is now more generally used. Our translators of the Bible used the former.

[98] A. Murray has rejected _sung_ as the preterite, and L. Murray has rejected _sang_. Each preterite, however, rests on good authority.

The same observation may be made respecting _sank_ and _sunk_.

[99] _Sitten_, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable attempts, however, have been made to restore it. “To have _sitten_ on the heads of the apostles.”--_Middleton._

“Soon after the termination of this business, the parliament, which had now _sitten_ three years,” &c.--_Belsham’s Hist._

“And he would gladly, for the sake of dispatch, have called together the same parliament, which had _sitten_ under his father.”--_Hume_, vol. vi. p. 199.

Respecting the preterites which have _a_ or _u_, as _slang_, or _slung_, _sank_, or _sunk_, it would be better were the former only to be used, as the preterite and participle would thus be discriminated.

[100] Pope has used the regular form of the preterite:

“In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease, Sprung the rank weed, and thrived with large increase.” _Essay on Crit._

Horsley, with one or two other writers, have employed the regular participle.

[101] _Washen_ seems obsolescent, if not obsolete. The compound _unwashen_ occurs in our translation of the Bible.

[102] Pope, and our translators of the Bible, have used _winded_ as the preterite. The other form, however, is in far more general use.

[103] _Wrote_, as the participle, is generally disused, and likewise _writ_. The latter was used as a preterite by Pope, Swift, and other writers of the same period.

[104] _Wit_ is now confined to the phrase _to wit_, or _namely_. It is an abbreviation from the Anglo-Saxon verb þiꞇan, to know.

[105] This verb, as an auxiliary, is inflexible; thus we say, “he will go,” and “_he wills to go_.”

[106] This verb, which signifies “to think,” or “to imagine,” is now obsolete.

[107] This verb is now used as significant of present duty. It was originally the preterite, and the perfect participle of the verb _to owe_; and is corruptedly used in Scotland still to express a past debt. “Apprehending the occasion, I will add a continuance to that happy motion, and besides give you some tribute of the love and duty I long have ought you.”--_Spelman._

“This blood, which men by treason sought, That followed, sir, which to myself I ought.”--_Dryden._

It is now used in the present tense only; and, when past duty or obligation is to be signified, we note, as I formerly mentioned, the past time by the preterite sense of the subsequent verb; thus, “I ought to read,” “I ought to have read.” The classical scholar knows that the reverse takes place in Latin. _Debeo legere, debui legere_. Cicero, however, though very rarely indeed, uses the preterite of the infinitive after the preterite tense of this verb.

Murray has told us, that _must_ and _ought_ have both a present and past signification, and, in proof of this, he adduces the following examples:--“I must own, that I am to blame.” “He must have been mistaken.” “Speaking things which they ought not.” “These ought ye to have done.” This is truly a strange, and, I verily believe, a singular opinion. Its inaccuracy is so manifest, that every reader of discernment must intuitively perceive it. The opinion itself, indeed, is not more surprising, than the ground on which it is maintained by the author. It surely requires but a moderate portion of sagacity to perceive, that the past time, in the second and fourth examples, is not denoted by _must_ and _ought_, but by the expressions “have been” and “have done.” In Latin, as I have just observed, _necessity_ and _duty_ are expressed as either present, past, or future, the verbs denoting these having the three correspondent tenses; and the object of the necessity or duty is expressed as contemporary, or relatively present. In English, on the contrary, the two verbs _must_ and _ought_ having only the present tense, we are obliged to note the past time by employing the preterite tense of the subsequent verb. Thus, _Me ire oportet_, “I ought to go,” “I must go.” _Me ire oportuit_, “I ought to have gone,” “I must have gone.” As well may it be affirmed, that the past time is denoted by _ire_ and not _oportuit_, as that it is signified by _must_ and not by “have gone.”

In the time of Wallis, the term _must_, as a preterite tense, was almost obsolete. “_Aliquando_,” he remarks, “_sed rarius in præterito dicitur_.” And when it was employed as a preterite, it was followed by the present tense. This verb in German has, I understand, a preterite tense.

[108] _Firstly_, is used by some writers.

[109] Denominativa terminantur in _lic_ vel _lice_, ut þeꞃlic virilis, ælic legitimus, ꞃælic marinus, þiꝼlic muliebris, &c. Hanc terminationem hodie mutavimus in _like_ vel _ly_, ut in _godlike_ vel _godly_. Hickesii Thes.

The correctness of this explanation has been controverted by Mr. Gilchrist, who contends that, though it may answer in some cases, it will fail “in nine times out of ten.” In the expressions “weekly wages,” “daily labour,” “yearly income,” he observes, that the meaning cannot be, “wages like a week,” “labour like a day,” “income like a year.” He rejects, therefore, this explanation, and considers the termination _lic_ to be the same with _lig_ in the Latin verb _ligo_, “to tie,” or “join,” and to have the same effect as other conjunctive particles, as “a friendly part,” “a friend’s part,” “yearly produce,” “year’s produce.” Though a copious induction of examples justifies us in refusing our assent to Mr. Gilchrist’s exaggerated statement, that the derivation proposed by Hickes will fail in nine cases out of ten; we candidly acknowledge, that in many instances it is inadmissible; and that Mr. Gilchrist’s suggestion is ingenious, though it will be found, we apprehend, opposed by the same objection as he urges against Hickes’s explanation. Nor does it appear to us, that Mr. Gilchrist’s argument subverts the doctrine generally received. The termination may have been originally what Hickes supposed, and the principle of analogy may, in time, have introduced similar compositions, when this meaning of the termination ceased to be regarded. Thus the term _candidly_, which we have just now used, was probably introduced, in conformity to _analogy_, with no reference whatever to the meaning of the termination. It may be here also observed, that the import of this term seems inexplicable on the hypothesis that _ly_ is a mere term of conjunction.

[110] These three adverbs, denoting motion or rest in a place, are frequently employed by us, in imitation of the French, to denote motion to a place in the same sense with the three following adverbs. It would be better, however, were the distinction observed. The French use _ici_ for _here_ and _hither_, _là_ for _there_ and _thither_, _où_ for _where_ and _whither_.

[111]

“For blithesome Sir John Barleycorn Had sae allur’d them i’ the morn, That, what wi’ drams, and mony a horn, And reaming bicker, The ferly is, _withouten_ scorn, They wauk’d sae sicker.” _Mayne’s Siller Gun._

This animated little poem will be read with no common pleasure by every admirer of the Scottish muse. In felicity of description the author is not inferior to Burns, while in delicacy of humour he may claim the superiority.

This preposition is supposed by Mr. Gilchrist to be derived from _forth_, or rather to be a different form of that word. See his “Philosophic Etymology,” a work exhibiting considerable ingenuity and philological knowledge, combined with many fanciful and unphilosophical opinions.

[112] It is possible that the Greek ἀπό, and the Latin _ab_ derived from it, had their origin in אב _pater principium_, “author,” or “principle of existence.”

[113] The verb, “to twin,” is still used in Scotland for “to part,” or “separate.”

[114] That the Saxon word _ægther_ signified _each_, is sufficiently evident from a variety of examples; and the adjective _either_ has continued to be used in that sense by reputable writers. Lowth, who, I apprehend, did not advert to its primitive signification, condemns the use of it as equivalent to _each_; and notwithstanding its original import, I agree with him in thinking, that it is much better to confine its meaning to “one of two.” The reason will be assigned hereafter.

[115] _Bot_ ser that Virgil standis _but_ compare.--_Gawin Douglass._

[116] _An_ occurs frequently for _if_ in the earliest English writers. Bacon frequently uses it in this sense. “Fortune is to be honoured and respected, _an_ it be but for her daughters, Confidence and Reputation.” “And certainly it is the nature of extreme self-lovers, as they will set their house on fire, _an_ it were, but to roast their eggs.”--_Bacon’s Essays, Civ. and Mor._ In the folio edition, printed in 1740, it is improperly spelled _and_. _An_ for _if_ is still retained in our address to royalty, _An ’t please your majesty_: and in Scotland is in general use.

[117] The correctness of most of these, and several other of Tooke’s etymologies, has been disputed, in a learned and ingenious article in the Quarterly Review (No. 108). In many of the critic’s animadversions it is impossible not to concur; but we do not agree with him, when he rejects the derivation of _if_ from the Anglo-Saxon verb _gifan_, “to give;” nor do we consider that Jamieson’s argument, to which he refers, is such as to justify the critic’s conclusion. The distinction between _bot_ and _but_ he confidently pronounces to be “a mere chimera,” and maintains that _but_ is in every instance _be utan_, “be out,” without corresponding to the Latin words _sed_, _vero_, _autem_, _sine_. It must be acknowledged that Tooke’s derivation is erroneous, there being no such Anglo-Saxon verb as “botan,” of which _bot_ could be the imperative. But we agree with Dr. Jamieson in thinking, whatever may be the etymology, that _but_ and _bot_ are originally distinct words. Indeed, it appears to us, that the reasoning of the critic is neither correct, nor quite consistent with itself. We do not consider _but_ for _bot_ to be discriminative; nor can we allow, that, if _but_ be equivalent to _sed_, _se_, _sine_, implying separation, it can also be equivalent to _autem_, “moreover,” to which _bot_ corresponds, implying adjection, or subjunction. Nor can we admit, that the synonymous words _mais_ (French), _maar_ (Dutch), _ma_ (Italian), imply preference, as the critic affirms, but something to be added, corresponding with what has been previously said.

[118] The critic to whom we have alluded in the preceding note contends, that _except_ cannot be an imperative, “because it has no subject; and that a verb could not be employed, in any language that distinguishes the different persons, without a gross violation of idiom.” He considers the word to be an abbreviated participle. The correctness of this opinion I am disposed to question. In our Anglo-Saxon translation, the term _except_ is rendered by _buton_, which is no participle; moreover, to place the participle perfect before the noun, the clause being absolute, is irreconcilable with the idiom of our language. “‘All were involved in this affair, except one;’ that is,” says Webster, who seems divided between the imperative and the participle, “‘one excepted.’” Now “one excepted,” and “excepting one,” are perfectly consonant with analogy; but “excepted one” is sanctioned by no authority. I am inclined to think that our translators, without regarding the Latin or the Icelandic idiom, to which the reviewer refers, used the word _except_ as an imperative, without a subject. He denies, however, that it can be so employed. He surely will not deny, that usage warrants us in saying, “His arguments, take them as here exhibited, amount to nothing.” The use of the imperative, infinitive, and participles, in an absolute sense, or without a subject, is a common idiom in our language, and recommends itself, as shall be afterwards shown, by some peculiar advantages.

[119] This phraseology has been censured by Buchanan and the author of the British Grammar; but, as I apprehend, without the shadow of authority. To ask a question with a principal verb, as _burns he_, the latter affirms to be a barbarism. To disprove the assertion, I shall only, in addition to the one quoted from Macbeth, produce these examples. “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?”--_Bible._ “Died he not in bed?”--_Shakspeare._ “Or flies the javelin swifter to its mark?”--_Ib._ “And live there men who slight immortal fame?”--_Pope._

[120] Our translators, as the judicious critic last quoted observes, have totally enervated the strength of the original, which runs thus, ἔπεσε, ἔπεσε, Βαβυλὼν ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη, and which they have rendered, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city.”

[121] The ellipsis of the copulative, in such examples, was termed by the ancients _asyndeton_; and this deviation from the established rules of syntax they referred to a grammatical figure termed _syllepsis indirecta_, or “indirect comprehension of several singulars under one plural,” opposed to the _syllepsis directa_, or that expressed by a copulative.

[122] It is sometimes used for _every_, and applied to more than two.

[123] In the vulgar translation of the Bible, this mode of expression frequently occurs, thus, “I am thy exceeding great reward.” “I will make thee exceeding fruitful.”

Wallis’s admission of this phraseology proves it to have been good English when he wrote, or that, in his opinion at least, it was unobjectionable. His translation of _vir summe sapiens_, is “a man exceeding wise.” This, and similar modes of expression, appear to have been in his time very common, thus,

“Although he was exceeding wealthy.”--_Peers._

“He was moreover extraordinary courteous.”--_Ibid._

“The Athenians were extreme apprehensive of his growing power.”--_Tully._

And in our version of the Bible we find a few such expressions as the following: “The house I am to build, shall be _wonderful_ great.”

Addison likewise often uses the phrase “exceeding great;” and Swift, less pardonably, writes “extreme unwilling,” “extreme good.”

[124] We say, indeed, “Messrs. Thomson;” but we seldom or never say, “the two Messrs. Thomson,” but “the two Mr. Thomsons.”

[125] Horne Tooke observes, that Lowth has rejected much good English: and it is to be apprehended, that the classical scholar is too prone to condemn in his own language whatever accords not with the Latin idiom.

[126] See Johnson’s Comm. p. 351, and Seyer on the Latin Verb, p. 174. To the arguments there offered, many others might be added.

[127] The propriety of this collocation of the _negative_ will be more evident, if we attend to the two very different meanings of the word _but_. According to the former construction of the sentence, _but_ is the imperative of _beutan_, “to be out,” and is synonymous with _unless_ or _except_; thus, “but with the approbation,” or _except_ with the approbation. According to the latter construction, it is properly _bot_, the imperative of _botan_, “to add.” Thus, “he was honoured not with (_i.e._ exclude or except) this reward, but (add) with the approbation of the people.”

[128] It is to be observed that a different collocation is sometimes admissible without any risk of ambiguity, especially when the clause is negative. Thus we may say, “His thoughts were entertained with not only,” _i.e._ “with not one thing,” viz. “the joys” with which he was surrounded; or, “not only with the joys; but (_bot_ or _add_) a noble gratitude and divine pleasure.”

Usage in common conversation, and in familiar language, inclines to this arrangement, and many of our best writers frequently adopt it.

[129] The omission of the auxiliary in such examples tends much to produce ambiguity: for, as the adverb, when placed between the noun and the attributive, may qualify either the former or the latter, perspicuity requires the insertion of the auxiliary.

[130] Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere, curandum.

[131] In this and similar examples, the word _only_ has been generally considered as an adjective, equivalent to _solus_. Thus, if we say, _ille solum erat dives_, it means, “he was only rich,” or “he was nothing but rich.” If we say, _ille solus erat dives_, it means, “he only,” or “he alone was rich.” In the latter example, the word _only_ has been termed an adjective. It is from the equivalence of the words _only_ and _alone_, in such examples as the latter, that several writers have employed them, as if, in all cases, synonymous. They are by no means, however, of the same import. Thus, if we say, “virtue alone is true nobility,” it means “virtue singly, or by itself, is true nobility;” if we say, “virtue only is true nobility,” it implies that nothing but virtue is true nobility. The expressions, therefore, are not equivalent. Both sentiments are conveyed in the following passage:

... “Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus.”--_Juvenal_, Sat. viii.

The same observations are applicable to the collocation of the numeral term _first_, as equivalent either to _primus_ or _primum_; and also to the position of many other words, which are used adjectively and adverbially. The classical scholar needs not to be informed, that _Annibal primus_, and _Annibal primum--Alpes transiit_, are not expressions mutually convertible.

[132] Addison, Pope, Swift, Steele, and Johnson, very generally place the adverb before the attributive, to which it refers, and very often also, before the substantive. “What he said, was only to commend my prudence.”--_Addison._ “He did not pretend to extirpate French music, but only to cultivate and civilise it.”--_Addison._ “I was only scribbling.”--_Johnson._ “Not only the thought, but the language is majestic.”--_Addison._ “Known only to those, who enjoy.”--_Johnson._ “Lay the blame only on themselves.”--_Johnson._ “Witty only by the help of speech.”--_Steele._

Our translators of the Bible have almost uniformly observed the same collocation in respect to the predicate; but have, with few or no deviations, preferred a different arrangement in regard to the subject, placing the adverb after, and not before it. It is in conformity to their practice, that we have recommended the rule here given. From the following examples, to which many more might be added, it will appear that when the adverb referred to a sentence, they made it the introductory word; when it affected an attributive, they placed the adverb before it; and when it referred to a substantive, or the name of a subject, they put the adverb after it. “Only take heed to thyself.” “Only he shall not go in unto the vail.” “Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi.” ... “The thoughts of his heart are only evil.” “Thou shalt be only oppressed.” “They might only touch the hem of his garment.” ... “None followed David, but Judah only.” “He only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave.” “Against thee only have I sinned.” “Take nothing for your journey, but a staff only.” “David did that only which was right.” “They only shall be delivered.” “This only have I found.” “If in this life only we have hope.”

[133] In colloquial language, but chiefly among the vulgar, prepositions are prefixed to verbs indicative.

[134]

“Est vetus, atque probus, centum qui perficit annos. Quid? qui deperiit minor uno mense, vel anno; Inter quos referendus erit? veteresne poetas, An quos et præsens et postera respuet ætas? Iste quidem veteres inter ponetur honestè, Qui vel mense brevi, vel toto est junior anno. Utor permisso, caudæque pilos ut equinæ Paulatim vello; et demo unum, demo etiam unum; Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi, Qui redit ad fastos.” _Horace_, Ep. I. Lib. 2.

[135] The Saxon word is _awiht_, contracted _auht_, _aliquid_.

[136] We have remarked the same violation of common sense, as occurring in Cicero, oftener than once. “Alium alio nequiorem.”--_Ep. Fam._ “Aliam alia jucundiorem.”--_Att._

[137] Deprehendat, quæ barbara, quæ impropria, quæ contra legem loquendi composita.--_Quintil._ lib. i. cap. 5.

[138] In conformity to the example of most of our grammarians, I have employed the term _etymology_ in the title of this work, and wherever else it occurs, as denoting that part of grammar, which teaches the inflection of words. In its primitive acceptation, it means an exposition of their derivation, and is still employed in that sense, as well as in the signification in which it is here used. Some writers have preferred the term _analogy_ to express the doctrine of inflection. If the principle of analogy or similitude were confined to inflection, the designation might be proper; but, as this principle extends to the concord, the government, and the collocation, generally termed the _syntax_ of words, it cannot be considered an appropriate name for that part of grammar, which teaches merely inflection or verbal termination. Analogy is the leading principle, on which every grammatical rule is founded; and those, who have employed the term for etymology, it would be easy to show, have not been observant of strict consistency.

[139] The reader is requested to observe, that under “solecism,” I have included several phraseologies, which, though not consistent with syntactical propriety, may be justly called by the softer name of “inaccuracies.”

[140] See Canon I., p. 229.

[141] We perceive intuitively the error of Milton, when he calls Adam “the comeliest of men since born,” Eve also “the fairest of her daughters,” and we laugh, perhaps, when the Cork almanack-maker gravely tells us, “that the principal republics in Europe, are Venice, Holland, and America;” yet the error here reprehended is precisely of the same species, though it passes frequently unnoticed. See p. 74.

[142] It has been already offered as the opinion of the writer, (see p. 47,) that the English word _other_ is the Saxon oðeꞃ, and that this word with the Arabic _ahd_, the Hebrew _had_ or _ahad_, the Saxon oððe, the Teutonic _odo_, the Swedish _udda_, and probably the Latin _aut_, have all sprung from the same source, or that one of these is the parent of the rest, denoting _unus_ or _singulus_, “one,” or “one by itself.” Of the origin of the Saxon _other_, Lye has hazarded no opinion. It appears to me to be a comparative from oððe. To those who have carefully examined, and have approved the theory of Mr. Tooke, it will furnish no valid objection against this opinion, that the word oððe is uniformly found in Saxon, signifying _aut_. Such can have little or no difficulty in perceiving, not only from the similarity of the elements, but from the affinity in point of sense, that _had_, _ahd_, _aut_, oððe, oðeꞃ, _other_, _or_, are all members of one and the same family.

[143] In French the article and the adjectives admitting a plural termination, the expression “les uns et les autres” joined to a plural verb is in perfect consistence with analogy. So also, in Latin, are _utrique_ and _alteri_, referring to a plurality. But _unus_ was never in this sense used as a plural.

[144] “Utrumque fecisse, dicimus, si et hic et ille fecerit divisim; ambos fecisse dicimus, si duo conjunctim aliquid fecerint.”--_Stephan._ This distinction, however, as the learned critic acknowledges, is not uniformly observed.

[145] “The truth is, that _as_ is also an article; and however and whenever used in English, means the same as _it_, or _that_, or _which_. In the German, where it still evidently retains its original signification and use, (as _so_ also does,) it is written _es_.”--_Tooke’s Diversions._

[146] The error here involved suggests a few observations, which it may be useful to offer, concerning the distinctive character of active and neuter verbs. A neuter verb has been defined to be that, which denotes neither doing nor suffering. An active verb, as its name imports, denotes, that the subject is doing something. Johnson, however, in his Dictionary, gives every active verb the designation of _neuter_, unless followed by an objective case, that is, unless the object or subject of the action be expressed. In the following instances, for example, he considers the verbs as neuter. “’T is sure, that Henry _reads_;” “so I _drank_; and she made the camels _drink_ also;” “if you _plant_ where savages are;” “the priests _teach_ for hire;” “nor feel him where he _struck_;” “they that _sow_ in tears, shall _reap_ in joy.” These are a few out of numberless examples, which might be produced. Indeed, Johnson’s idea seems to be, as has been just now observed, that the verb must be regarded as neuter, unless followed by an objective case. This is certainly a great inaccuracy, and tends to introduce perplexity and confusion. The verb surely does not the less denote action, because it expresses it absolutely, or because the subject acted upon is not particularly specified. In the examples now quoted, can it be questioned, when we say _he struck_, that _he_ was active; or when we say, _they that sow shall reap_, will it be affirmed that _they_ are not active? This would be to confound distinctions not merely acknowledged in theory, and adopted in definition, but also founded in the very nature of things. This matter, I conceive, may be shortly explained, and very easily understood. It is admitted by every grammarian, that an active verb denotes, that the subject is acting, and that a neuter verb signifies that the subject is neither doing nor suffering. Now, of active verbs there are two kinds, transitive and intransitive. The latter is that which denotes immanent action, or that which does not pass from the agent to anything else, as, _I walk_, _I run_. Transitive verbs are such as denote that the action passes from the agent to something acted upon, as, “Hector wounded him,” “Cain slew his brother.” But the subject to which the energy passes, may not always be expressed; the verb, however, is not the less active. Whether we say, “the drummer beats his drum,” or “the drummer beats every day,” it surely will not be contended, that there is less of action implied in the one case than in the other. The reader, then, is requested to observe, that it is not necessary to the active transitive verb, that the subject acted upon should be expressed. The active verb may predicate of its subject merely the action generally and absolutely, as, “he reads in the morning, and writes in the evening;” or with the action may be expressed the subject or object, as, “he reads Homer in the morning, and writes letters in the evening;” or the object or subject may be implied, and not expressed, as, “the drummer beats at night,” namely, his drum. But in all these cases the verb is equally active.

[147] In justice to this respectable sect, it is incumbent on me to observe, that the Quakers are not Deists, nor does their religious creed approach to Deism.

[148] A similar ambiguity sometimes occurs in Latin by the indiscriminate use of _quod_. This may be prevented by employing _quoniam_ when the succeeding member of the sentence expresses the cause of the preceding subject. Thus, “Nec consilium eo minus erat firmum, quoniam secretum cum perpaucis adhuc erat communicatum,” where the _eo_ refers to a preceding circumstance. “Nec consilium eo minus erat firmum, quod” where the _eo_ refers to the subsequent clause. The former phraseology affirms, the latter denies, the influence of the circumstance subjoined.

[149] In our penal statutes, which should be precisely worded, because they are literally interpreted, much ambiguity frequently arises from the loose and incorrect manner in which this conjunction is used.

[150] The issue of a question, respecting a contested election at Rochester in 1820, depended on the construction of this designation, “a peer, or lord of parliament.”

[151] The superior ductility of the Greek, above every other language, must appear from its singular aptitude to form new words by composition or derivation, so as immediately to communicate any new idea. Hence the names of most of our modern discoveries and inventions are of Greek extraction. Thus we have the terms “microscope,” “telegraph,” “panorama,” “odometer,” and many others.

[152]

“Cui lecta potenter erit res, Nec facundia deseret hunc, nec lucidus ordo.

Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur.” _Hor. de Art. Poet._

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources.

Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.

Pg 44: ‘primary preception’ replaced by ‘primary perception’. Pg 46: ‘hartez, illa’ replaced by ‘ha’aretz, illa’. Pg 46 Footnote [24]: ‘ארצ’ replaced by ‘ארץ’. Pg 46 Footnote [24]: ‘הארצ’ replaced by ‘הארץ’. Pg 87 Footnote [45]: ‘eo-ed, dede’ replaced by ‘do-ed, dede’. Pg 102: missing subheading ‘OF THE PARTICIPLE.’ added. Pg 115: ‘I written’ replaced by ‘I have written’. Pg 150: ‘siginifies against’ replaced by ‘signifies against’. Pg 155: ‘I did confess”...’ replaced by ‘I did confess...”’. Pg 173 Footnote [123]: ‘Athough he was’ replaced by ‘Although he was’. Pg 191: ‘the arrrangement is’ replaced by ‘the arrangement is’. Pg 209: ‘The bridegrooms its’ replaced by ‘The bridegroom sits’. Pg 246: ‘I know.” Addison.’ replaced by ‘I know.”--Addison.’. Pg 249: ‘being accasioned’ replaced by ‘being occasioned’. Pg 262: ‘οἱ duo’ replaced by ‘οἱ δύο’. Pg 297: ‘before you feet’ replaced by ‘before your feet’.