Chapter V: Part 5

It is unnecessary, and perhaps impossible, to describe the whole process of the formation of languages; but we may reason from the nature of things that the _necessary_ parts of speech would be the first formed; and it is very evident from etymology that all the others are derived from these, either by abbreviation or combination. The necessary parts of speech are the _noun_ and _verb_; and perhaps we may add the _article_. Pronouns are not necessary, but from their utility, must be a very early invention.

That the noun and verb are the only parts of speech, absolutely necessary for a communication of ideas among rude nations, will be obvious to any person who considers their manner of life, and the small number of their necessary ideas. Their employments are war and hunting; and indeed some tribes are so situated as to have no occupation but that of procuring subsistence. How few must be the ideas of a people, whose sole employment is to catch fish, and take wild beasts for food! Such nations, and even some much farther advanced towards civilization, use few or no prepositions, adverbs and conjunctions, in their intercourse with each other, and very few adjectives. Some tribes of savages in America use no adjectives at all; but express qualities by a particular form of the verb; or rather blend the affirmation and quality into one word.[86] They have, it is said, some connecting words in their own languages, some of which have advanced towards copiousness and variety. But when they attempt to speak English, they use nouns and verbs long before they obtain any knowlege of the particles. They speak in this manner, go, way---- sun, shine---- tree, fall---- give, Uncas, rum; with great deliberation and a short pause between the words. They omit the connectives and the abbreviations, which may be called the "wings of Mercury." Thus it is evident, that, among such nations, a few nouns and verbs will answer the purposes of language.

Many of this kind of expressions remain in the English language to this day. _Go away_ is the savage phrase with the article _a_, derived perhaps from _one_, or what is more probable, added merely to express the sound, made in the transition from one word to the other, for if we attend to the manner in which we pronounce these or two similar words, we shall observe that we involuntarily form the sound expressed by _a_ or _aw_. In some such manner are formed _astray_, _awhile_, _adown_, _aground_, _ashore_, _above_, _abaft_, _among_, and many others. They are usually called adverbs and prepositions; but they are neither more nor less than nouns or verbs, with the prefix _a_.[87] That all the words called adverbs and prepositions, are derived in like manner, from the principal parts of language, the noun and verb, is not demonstrable; but that _most_ of them are so derived, etymology clearly proves.

HORNE TOOKE's THEORY _of the_ PARTICLES.

This theory derives great strength from analizing the words called _conjunctions_. It will perhaps surprize those who have not attended to this subject, to hear it asserted, that the little conjunction _if_, is a _verb_ in the Imperative Mode. That this is the fact can no more be controverted than any point of history, or any truth that our senses present to the mind. _If_ is radically the same word as _give_; it was in the Saxon Infinitive, _gifan_, and in the Imperative, like other Saxon verbs, lost the _an_; being written _gif_. This is the word in its purity; but in different dialects of the same radical tongue, we find it written _gife_, _giff_, _gi_, _yf_, _yef_, and _yeve_. Chaucer used _y_ instead of _g_.[88]

"Unto the devil rough and blake of hewe
_Yeve_ I thy body and my panne also."

Freres Tale, 7204.

But the true Imperative is _gif_, as in the Sad Shepherd. Act 2. Sc. 2.

----"My largesse
Hath lotted her to be your brother's mistress
_Gif_ she can be reclaimed; _gif_ not, his prey."

This is the origin of the conjunction _if_; and it answers, in sense and derivation to the Latin _si_, which is but a contraction of _sit_. Thus what we denominate the Subjunctive mode is resolvable into the Indicative. "_If_ ye love me, ye will keep my commandments," is resolvable in this manner; "Give, (give the following fact, or suppose it) ye love me, ye will keep my commandments." Or thus, "Ye love me, give that, ye will keep my commandments." But on this I shall be more particular when I come to speak of errors in the use of verbs.

_An_ is still vulgarly used in the sense of _if_. "_An_ please your honor," is the usual address of servants to their masters in England; tho it is lost in New England. But a word derived from the same root, is still retained; viz. the Saxon _anan_, to give; which is sometimes pronounced _nan_, and sometimes _anan_. It is used for _what_, or _what do you say_; as when a person speaks to another, the second person not hearing distinctly, replies, _nan_, or _anan_; that is, _give_ or _repeat_ what you said. This is ridiculed as a gross vulgarism; and it is indeed obsolete except among common people; but is strictly correct, and if persons deride the use of the word, it proves at least that they do not understand its meaning.

Unless, _lest_ and _else_, are all derivatives of the old Saxon verb _lesan_, _to dismiss_, which we preserve in the word _lease_, and its compounds. So far are these words from being conjunctions, that they are, in fact, verbs in the Imperative mode; and this explanation serves further to lay open the curious structure of our language. For example:

"Unless ye believe ye shall not understand," may be thus resolved; "Ye believe; _dismiss_ (that fact) ye shall not understand." Or thus, "_Dismiss_ ye believe, (that circumstance being away) ye shall not understand." Thus by analizing the sentence we find no Subjunctive mode; but merely the Indicative and Imperative.

"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry," is resolvable in the same manner: "Kiss the Son, _dismiss_ (that) he will be angry." _Else_ is used nearly in the same sense, as in Chaucer, Freres Tale, 7240:

"Axe him thyself, if thou not trowest me,
Or _elles_ stint a while and thou shalt see."

That is, "If thou dost not believe me, ask him thyself, or _dismissing_ (omitting that) wait and thou shalt be convinced."

_Though_, or _tho_, commonly called a conjunction, is also a verb in the Imperative Mode. It is from the verb _thafian_ or _thafigan_, which, in the Saxon, signified to _grant_ or _allow_. The word in its purity is _thaf_ or _thof_; and so it is pronounced by many of the common people in England, and by some in America.

"_Tho_ he slay me, yet will I trust in him," may be thus explained; "_Allow_ (suppose) he should slay me, yet will I trust in him." That this is the true sense of _tho_, is evident from another fact. The old writers used _algife_ for _although_; and its meaning must be nearly the same.

"----Whose pere is hard to find,
_Algife_ England and France were thorow saught."

Rel. An. Poet. 115.

_Since_ is merely a participle of the old verb _seon_, to see. In ancient authors we find it variously written; as _sith_, _sithence_, _sin_, _sithen_, &c. and the common people in New England still pronounce it _sin_, _sen_ or _sence_. Of all these, _sin_ or _sen_, which is so much ridiculed as vulgar, comes nearest to the original _seen_.[89] This explanation of _since_ unfolds the true theory of languages, and proves that all words are originally derived from those which are first used to express ideas of sensible objects. Mankind, instead of that abstract sense which we annex to _since_, if we have any idea at all when we use it, originally said, _seen the sun rose, it has become warm_; that is, after the sun rose, or that circumstance being _seen_ or _past_. We use the same word now, with a little variation; but the etymology is lost to most people, who still employ the word for a precise purpose, intelligible to their hearers.

_But_ has two distinct meanings, and two different roots. This is evident to any person who attends to the manner of using the word. We say, "_But to proceed_;" that is, _more_ or _further_. We say also, "All left the room, _but_ one;" that is, except one. These two significations, which are constantly and insensibly annexed to the word, will perhaps explain all its uses; but cannot be well accounted for, without supposing it to have two etymologies. Happily the early writers furnish us with the means of solving the difficulty. Gawen Douglass the poet, was cotemporary with Chaucer, or lived near his time, was Bishop of Dunkeld in Scotland, and probably wrote the language in the purity of his age and country. As the Scots in the Low Lands, are descendants of the Saxons, in common with the English, and from their local situation, have been less exposed to revolutions, they have preserved more of the Saxon idiom and orthography than their southern brethren. In Douglass we find two different words to express the two different meanings, which we now annex to one; viz. _bot_ and _but_. The first is used in the sense of _more_, _further_ or _addition_; and the last in the sense of _except_ or _take away_.

"_Bot_ thy work shall endure in laude and glorie,
_But_ spot or falt condigne eterne memorie."

The first Mr. Horne derives from _botan_, _to boot, to give more_; from which our English word _boot_, which is now for the most part confined to jockeys, is also derived; and the other from _be utan_,[90] _to be out or away_. That these etymologies are just is probable, both from old writings and from the present distinct uses of the word _but_. This word therefore is the blending or corruption of _bot_ and _beut_, the Imperatives of two Saxon verbs, _botan_ and _beutan_.[91]

_And_ is probably a contraction of _anan_, to give, the verb before mentioned; and _ad_, the root of the verb _add_, and signifying _series_ or _remainder_. _An ad, give the remainder._

The word _with_, commonly called a preposition, is likewise a verb. It is from the Saxon _withan_, to join; or more probably from _wyrth_, to be, or the German _werden_, devenir, to be. The reason for this latter conjecture, is that we have preserved the Imperative of _wyrth_ or _werden_, in this ancient phrase, "woe _worth_ the day;" that is, woe be to the day. The German verb, in its inflections, makes _wirst_ and _wurde_; and is undoubtedly from the same root as the Danish _værer_, to be. But whether _with_ has its origin in _withan_, to join, or in _werden_, to be, its sense will be nearly the same; it will still convey the idea of connection. This will plainly appear to any person who considers, that _by_ is merely a corruption of _be_, from the old verb _beon_; and that this word is still used to express connection or nearness; "He lives _by_ me;" "He went _by_ me;" that is, he lives _be_ me.

This verb _be_ was formerly used in this phrase; _be my faith, be my troth_; that is, _by my faith_, as in Chevy Chace.[92] We still find the same verb in a multitude of compounds, _be-come_, _be-yond_, _be-tween_, _be-side_, _be-fore_. Thus we see what are called _prepositions_, are mere combinations or corruptions of verbs; they are not a primitive part of language, and if we resolve this phrase, _he went beyond me_, we shall find it composed of these words, _he went_, _be_, _gone_, _me_; _yond_ being nothing but the participle of _go_.

Will my grammatical readers believe me, when I assert that the affirmation _yea_, or _yes_, is a verb? That it is so, is undeniable. The English _yea_, _yes_, and the German _ja_, pronounced _yaw_, are derived from a verb in the Imperative Mode; or rather, they are but corruptions of _aye_, the Imperative of the French _avoir_, to have. The pure word _aye_, is still used in English. The affirmation _yea_ or _yes_, is _have_, an expression of assent, _have what you say_.[93]

That all the words, called _adverbs_, are abbreviations or combinations of nouns, verbs and adjectives, cannot perhaps be proved; for it is extremely difficult to trace the little words, _when_, _then_, _there_, _here_, &c. to their true origin.[94] But excepting a few, the whole class of words, denominated _adverbs_, can be resolved into other parts of speech. The termination _ly_, which forms a large proportion of these words, is derived from the Saxon _liche_, _like_.

"And as an angel heaven_lich_ she sung."

Chaucer, Cant. Tales, 1057.

We have in a few words retained the original pronunciation, as _Godlike_; but in strictness of speech, there is no difference between _Godlike_ and _Godly_.[95]

Notwithstanding it is evident that conjunctions, prepositions, and adverbs are not original and necessary parts of speech, yet as species of abbreviations, or compound terms to express assemblages of ideas, they may be considered as very useful, and as great improvements in language. Every person, even without the least knowlege of etymology, acquires a habit of annexing a certain idea, or certain number of ideas to _unless_, _lest_, _yes_, _between_, and the other particles; he uses them with precision, and makes himself understood by his hearers or readers. These words enable him to communicate his ideas with greater facility and expedition, than he could by mere names and affirmations. They have lost the distinguishing characteristics of verbs, person, time, and inflection. It is therefore convenient for grammatical purposes, to assign them distinct places and give them names, according to their particular uses. Such of these old verbs as exhibit some connection between the members of a discourse, may be properly denominated _conjunctions_. Others, that are used to show certain relations between words and are generally prefixed to them, may be well called _prepositions_. A third species, which are employed to qualify the sense of other words, may, from their position and uses in a discourse, be denominated _adverbs_. But the foregoing investigation is necessary to unfold the true principles on which language is constructed, and the philosophical enquirer is referred for a more general view of the subject, to Mr. Horne Tooke's _Diversions of Purley_.

The _verb_ or _word_ is so called by way of eminence; the ancient grammarians having considered it as the principal part of speech. The _noun_ is however entitled to the precedence; it is of equal importance in language, and undoubtedly claims priority of origin. Philosophy might teach us that the _names_ of a few visible objects would be first formed by barbarous men, and afterwards the words which express the most common actions. But with respect to names of abstract ideas, as they are usually called, they not only precede the formation of the verbs which represent the action, but it often happens that the same word is used, with a prefix to denote the action of the object to which the name is given. For example, _love_ and _fear_ are the names of certain passions or affections of the mind. To express the action or exertion of these affections, we have not invented distinct terms; but custom has for this purpose prefixed the word _do_ or _to_, which, in its primitive sense, is _to act_, _move_, or _make_.[96] Thus I _do love_, or _do fear_, are merely, I _act, love_, or _act, fear_; and _to love_ and _to fear_ in the Infinitive, are _act, love_, and _act, fear_.

To confirm these remarks, let it be considered that formerly _do_ and _did_ were almost invariably used with the verb; as _I do fear_, _he did love_; and the omission of these words in affirmative declarations is of a modern date. They are still preserved in particular modes of expression; as in the negative and interrogative forms, and in emphatical assertions.

The present hypothesis will derive additional strength from another circumstance. Grammarians allege that the termination of the regular preterit tense, _ed_, is a corruption of _did_. If so, it seems to have been originally optional, either to place the word _did_, which expressed the _action_ of the object, before or after the _name_. Thus, _he feared_, is resolvable into _he fear did_, and must be a blending of the words in a hasty pronunciation. But it was also a practice to say _he did fear_, which arrangement is not yet lost nor obscured; but in no case are both these forms used, _he did feared_; a presumptive evidence of the truth of the opinion, that _ed_ is a contraction of _did_. Indeed I see no objection to the opinion but this, that it is not easy on this supposition, to account for the formation of _did_ from _do_. If _did_ is itself a contraction of _doed_, the regular preterit, which is probable, whence comes _ed_ in this word? To derive _ed_ in other words from _did_ is easy and natural; but this leaves us short of the primary cause or principle, and consequently in suspense, as to the truth of the opinion. Yet whatever may be the true derivation of the regular ending of the past time and perfect participle of English verbs, the use of _do_, _did_ and _to_ before the verb, is a strong evidence, that at least one class of affirmations are formed by the help of _names_, with a prefix to denote the action of the objects expressed by the names. _I fear_, therefore, is a phrase, composed of the pronoun _I_, and the noun _fear_; and the affirmation, contained in the phrase, is derived from the single circumstance of the position of the name after _I_. _I fear_ is a modern substitute for _I do fear_; that is, _I act, fear_; all originally and strictly _nouns_. But by a habit of uniting the personal name _I_ with the name of the passion _fear_, we instantly recognize an affirmation that the passion is exerted; and _do_, the primitive name of _act_, has become superfluous.

EXAMINATION _of_ PARTICULAR PHRASES.

Having made these few remarks on the formation of our language, I shall proceed to examin the criticisms of grammarians on certain phrases, and endeavor to settle some points of controversy with respect to the use of words; and also to detect some inaccuracies which prevail in practice.

NOUNS.

Writers upon the subject of propriety in our language, have objected to the use of _means_, with the article _a_ and the definitive pronouns singular, _this_ and _that_. The objection made is, that as this word ends in _s_, it must be plural, and cannot be joined in construction with words in the singular. This objection supposes that all nouns ending with _s_ are plural; but this would perhaps prove too much, and make it necessary to consider all nouns, _not_ ending in _s_, as singular, which cannot be true, even on the principles of those who bring the objection. The supposition in both cases would be equally well founded.

It appears to me however, that the sense of the word, and particularly the universal practice of the English nation, ought to have induced the critical grammarian, who wished to reduce the language to some certainty, to suppress the objection. The word _means_, applied to a single instrument of action, or cause, conveys a _single_ idea; and I presume, was generally used for this purpose, till Bishop Lowth questioned the propriety of the practice; at least _mean_ is scarcely used as a noun, in any author from Chaucer to Lowth. On the contrary, the best writers have used _means_ either in the singular or plural number, according as they had occasion to express by it an idea of one cause or more.

"By _this means_, it became every man's interest, as well as his duty to prevent all crimes."----Temple, Works, vol. 3. p. 133.

"And by _this means_ I should not doubt," &c.---- Wilkins Real Character, book 1.

"And finding themselves by _this means_ to be safe."----Sidney on Gov. chap. 3. sect. 36.

"For he hopeth by _this means_ to acquit himself."----Rawley's Sylva Sylvarum.

"And by _that means_ they lost their barrier."----Moyle on the Lacedem. Gov.

"Clodius was now quæstor and by _that means_ a senator."----Middleton L. of Cic. vol. 1. p. 261.

"By _this means_ however, there was nothing left to the Parliament of Ireland."----Blackstone's Com. vol. 1. p. 102.

In this manner was the word used by the elegant writers in Queen Anne's reign.

But we have not only the authority of almost every good writer in the language, for this use of _means_ in the singular as well as plural number, but we have the authority of almost unanimous national practice in speaking. It is rare to hear _mean_ used as a noun, and by those only who are fettered by the arbitrary rules of grammarians. I question whether the word, in the singular form, has obtained such an establishment, as to be entitled to a place among the English nouns. The use of it appears like pedantry. No man, whatever may be his rank and abilities, has a right to reject a mode of speech, established by immemorial usage and universal consent. Grammars should be formed on _practice_; for practice determines what a language is. I do not mean a _local_ practice, for this would subject us to perpetual variety and instability; but _national_ or _general_ practice. The latter, it has been remarked, is the standard of propriety, to which all local idioms and private opinions should be sacrificed. The business of a grammarian is not to examin whether or not national practice is founded on philosophical principles; but to _ascertain_ the national practice, that the learner may be able to weed from his own any local peculiarities or false idioms.

If _this means_ and _a means_ are now, and have immemorially been, used by good authors and the nation in general, neither Johnson, Lowth, nor any other person, however learned, has a right to say that the phrases are not _good English_. That this is the fact, every person may satisfy himself, by consulting the good authors and observing the universal practice in discourse.

Besides, the general practice of a nation is not easily changed, and the only effect that an attempt to reform it can produce, is, to make _many_ people doubtful, cautious, and consequently uneasy; to render a _few_ ridiculous and pedantic by following nice criticisms in the face of customary propriety; and to introduce a distinction between the learned and unlearned, which serves only to create difficulties for both.

Dr. Priestley is the only writer upon this subject who seems to have been guided by just principles. He observes, with great propriety, that "Grammarians have leaned too much to the analogies of the Latin language, contrary to our mode of speaking and to the analogies of other languages, more like our own. It must be allowed, that the custom of speaking, is the original and only just standard of any language." Pref. to Gram. page 9. His criticisms are exceedingly judicious, and are entitled to the consideration of the student, in preference to those of Lowth, or any other English author. He considers _means_ as belonging "to that class of words which do not change their termination on account of number." It is used in both numbers, _a means_, or _these means_, with equal propriety.

To the same class of words belong _pains_, _news_, and perhaps some others. Every person who has read good English authors, or lived where the language is spoken in purity, must have observed that the word _pains_ is usually preceded by _much_, and followed by a verb in the singular number; _much pains was taken_. If the word is a plural noun, it should neither be followed by a singular verb, nor preceded by _much_; for we never prefix _much_ to plurals. The most untutored ear would be offended at _much papers_, _much labors_. But do we not always say _much pains_? Do we ever say _many pains were_ taken? I confess I never yet heard or saw the expression. Yet Lowth contends that _pains_ is plural. This criticism upon the word is an authority in vindication of an erroneous practice of using it with a plural verb, even when it is preceded by _much_. So in Sheridan's Art of Reading, we observe these words; "If so _much pains were_ thought necessary among them," &c. Temple indulges the same mistake; "I know how _much pains have been_ taken to deduce the words _Baro_ and _feudum_ from the Latin and Greek, and even from the Hebrew and Egyptian tongue." Works, vol. 3. p. 365.

Might not these writers have used, _much sheep were killed_, with the same propriety?

The sense of the word _pains_ does not require that we should consider it as a plural; for it signifies _labor_ or _fatigue_, in contradistinction to those uneasy sensations, each of which singly is called a _pain_, and to express a number of which _pains_ is used as a plural. On the other hand we have the authority of general practice for uniting with it _much_, which can in no case be used with a plural, and also a verb in the singular number.

--"And taken _much pains_ so to proportion the powers of the several magistrates."----Sidney on Gov. sect. I.

"I found _much art_ and _pains_ employed."----Middleton.

"He will assemble materials with _much pains_."----Bolling. on Hist. letter 4.

"As to our own language, several persons have taken _much pains_ about the orthography of it."----Wilkins Real Char. book I. chap. 5.

There are a few instances in which good authors have considered _news_ as a plural; as

"From all regions where the best _news are_ made."----B. Johnson, Staple of News.

"And seal the news and issue _them_."----The same.

But can an English ear relish this affected correctness? Hear the language of Cowley and Shakespear, who wrote as the nation spoke:

"A GENERAL joy at _this glad newes_ appear'd."

Cowley's Davideis, book 1.

"Now by St. Paul _this news_ is bad indeed!"

The same.

"No news so bad abroad as _this_ at home."

Rich. III. scene 1.

Such is the language at this day, and a man would expose himself to ridicule, who should say, _these news are good_.

Late writers seem to consider _riches_ as plural; but erroneously. It is merely a contraction of _richesse_, the French singular, which was probably introduced into England under the Norman kings. Chaucer uses _richesse_ as the singular:

"But for ye speken of swiche gentillesse,
As is descended out of old _richesse_."

Cant. Tales, 6691.

--"And he that ones to love doeth his homage
Full oftentymes dere bought _is the richesse_."

La Belle Dame sans mercy, 323.

The word _richesse_ here is no more plural than _gentilnesse_, _distresse_, _doublenesse_, which the author uses in the same poem; and _riches_ now, in strictness of speech, is no more plural than _gentleness_, _distress_, or any other word of similar ending. When Chaucer had occasion for a plural, he wrote the word _richesses_; as in the Tale of Melibeus: "Thou hast dronke so muche hony of swete temporal _richesses_ and delices and honors of this world," &c.---- Works, vol. 4. p. 170. Bell's edit.

The word _riches_ therefore is in the singular number and merely an abbreviation of _richesse_; as _distress_ is of _distresse_; _weakness_, of _weaknesse_, &c. and the reason why the plural _richesses_ has been neglected, may be, that the idea it conveys does not admit of number any more than that of _wealth_, which is also destitute of a plural form.

"Was ever _riches_ gotten by your golden mediocrities?"----Cowley on Cromwell's Gov.

"When love has taken all thou hast away,
His strength by too much riches will decay."

Cowley.

"The envy and jealousy which great _riches_ is always attended with."----Moyle's Essay on Lacedem. Gov. 48.

"In one hour _is_ so great _riches_ come to nought."----Bible.

Here _riches_ is considered in its true light. Notwithstanding this, the termination of the word has led late writers into the opinion, that it is plural; so that we generally see it followed by a plural verb: Should this become the unanimous opinion and a general correspondent practice ensue, _riches_ will be established as a plural, contrary to etymology and ancient usage.

_Alms_ is also in the singular number; being a contraction of the old Norman French, _almesse_, the plural of which was _almesses_. So in Chaucer:

"Ye knowen wel that I am poure and olde, Kithe (show) your
_almesse_ upon me poure wretche."

Freres Tale, 7190.

"_This almesse_ shouldest thou do of thy propre thinges," &c.---- Vol. 5. p. 217. Bell.

"These ben generally the _almesses_ and werkes of charitie of hem that have temporel richesses."----The same.

_Alms_ is used as a noun singular in the Bible; "To ask _an alms_." "He gave _much alms_;" that is, _almesse_, or charity. The plural of this word is not used.

_Largess_ is a word of this class. It is from the old French _largesse_; but the idea admits of number, and accordingly we find the plural, _largesses_, still in use.

_Laches_, from the French _lachesse_, is still retained in the law stile; but custom has abbreviated the word into _lache_, a single syllable.

_Amends_ may properly be considered as in the singular number, and so it is used by one of our best writers. "They must needs think that this honor to him, when dead, was but _a_ necessary _amends_ for the injury which they had done him, when living."----Middleton's L. of Cic. vol. 3. p. 131.

The idea here conveyed by _amends_ is as single as that expressed by _compensation_. The word has no change of termination, and may be considered as singular or plural, at the choice of the writer.

_Wages_ is a word of the same kind.

_Victuals_ is derived from the old French _vitaille_,[97] and was formerly used in the singular form, _victual_. But the latter is now wholly disused, and _victuals_ generally used with a singular verb and pronoun. So Swift uses the word. "We had such very fine _victuals_ that I could not eat _it_."[98] The editor of his works remarks, _that here is false concord_; but I believe Swift has followed the general practice of the English. The word seems to have lost the plurality of ideas, annexed to many different articles included in the term, and to have assumed the general meaning of the word _food_, which does not admit of the plural.

The word _odds_ seems to be of the same kind. We sometimes find a plural verb united to it, as in Pope's translation of Homer:

"On valor's side the _odds_ of combat _lie_,
The brave live glorious, or lamented die."

Iliad, b. 15. l. 670.

But in common practice _odds_ is considered as in the singular number. We always say, "What _is_ the _odds_;" and I should rank this among the words, which, altho they have the termination of regular plurals, more properly belong to the singular number.

The word _gallows_ is evidently of this class. "Let _a gallows_ be made," say the translators of the Bible, with perfect propriety. Indeed I cannot conceive how any man who has read English authors, can consider this word as in the plural.

_Bellows_, _tongs_, _sheers_, _scissors_, _snuffers_, _pincers_, have no change of termination, and it is the practice to prefix to them the word _pair_. Yet notwithstanding these articles are composed of two principal parts, both are necessary to form a single indivisible instrument, and the names might have been considered as nouns in the singular.[99] _Pair_ is more properly applied to two separate articles of the same kind, and used together; a _pair of shoes_, or _gloves_. Custom, however, has sanctioned the use of it before the words just enumerated, and therefore a pair of tongs, &c. must be admitted as good English.[100]

There are many other words in our language which have the plural termination; as _billiards_, _ethics_, _metaphysics_, _mathematics_, _measles_, _hysterics_, and many others; which properly belong to the singular number. _Ethics is a science_, is better English than _ethics are_.

On the other hand, there are many words, which, without ever taking the plural termination, often belong to the plural. _Sheep_, _deer_ and _hose_, are often mentioned as belonging to this description. To these we may add many names of fish; as _trout_, _salmon_, _carp_, _tench_ and others, which are in fact names of species; but which apply equally to the individuals of the species. We say _a trout_, or _five trout_; but never _five trouts_.

POSSESSIVE CASE.

In many instances we find two or three words used to describe or designate a particular person or thing; in which case they are to be considered as a single noun or name, and the sign of the possessive annexed to the last; as, "the _King of France's_ army."

"_Fletcher of Salton's plan_ of a militia differs little from that of Harrington."[101]---- Home, Sketch 9.

ARTICLE.

Most grammarians have given the article the first rank among the parts of speech. To me this arrangement appears very incorrect; for the article is a mere appendage of the noun, and without it cannot even be defined. The _noun_ is the primary and principal part of speech, of which the _article_, _pronoun_ and _adjective_ are mere adjuncts, attendants, or substitutes, and the latter therefore should follow the former in grammatical order and definition.

Under this head I will introduce a few observations on the use of _a_. Grammarians have supposed that _a_, in the phrases _a going_, _a hunting_, is a corruption of the preposition _on_; a supposition, which, if we attend to the sense of the phrases, appears highly absurd, but which etymology, in a great measure, overthrows.

In the first place, the preposition is not among the original parts of language; its use, and consequently its formation, are not necessary among rude nations; it is a part of speech of a late date in the progress of language, and is itself a derivative from other words. I have, in another place,[102] given some reasons to prove _on_ to be an abbreviation of the numeral _one_, or _top one_. It is very evident that _on_ is a contraction of _upon_, which was formerly written _uppone_; and there are good reasons for believing the latter to be derived from _top one_. In addition to the authorities quoted in the Institute, an example or two from Chaucer will almost place the question beyond a doubt.

"There lith on--up myn hed."

Cant. Tales, 4288.

That is, there lieth one upon my head; where _up_ is used for _upon_, as it is in other places.

"No more, _up paine_ of losing of your hed."

Ibm. 1709.

That is, _upon pain of losing your head_.

The word _up_ is undoubtedly but a corruption of _top_, or a noun derived from the same root, and this hypothesis is supported by the true theory of language; which is, that rude nations converse mostly by names. _Up myn hed_, is _top mine head_. An improvement of this phrase would be the use of _one_, _ane_ or _an_, to ascertain particular things; _uppone_, _upon_. In the progress of language, these words would be contracted into _on_, which we denominate a preposition.

I am very sensible that Chaucer used _on_ in the manner mentioned by Lowth; _on live_ for _alive_; _on hunting_; _on hawking_; which would seem to warrant the supposition of that writer, that _a_ is a contraction of _on_, considering _on_ originally as a preposition. But it is contrary to all just ideas of language to allow such a primitive part of speech. On the other hand, Chaucer uses _on_ for other purposes, which cannot be explained on Lowth's hypothesis.

"His brede, his ale, was alway _after on_."

Cant. Tales, 343.

So also in line 1783. In this example _on_ is allowed on all hands to be a contraction of _one_; _after one_ (way, manner) that is, _alike_, or in the same manner.

"They were _at on_;" line 4195. They were _at one_; that is, together or agreed.

"Ever _in on_;" line 1773, and 3878; ever _in one_ (way, course, &c.) that is, _continually_.

If therefore we suppose _on_ to be merely a corruption of _one_, we can easily explain all its uses. _On hunting_, or contractedly, _a hunting_, is _one hunting_. _On live_, _on life_, or _alive_, is merely _one life_. This form of expression is very natural, however childish or improper it may appear to us. It seems very obvious to resolve _ashore_, _abed_, into _on shore_, _on bed_; but even Lowth himself would be puzzled to make us believe that _adry_, _athirst_, came from _on dry_, _on thirst_; and Wallis would find equal difficulty to convince us that they came from _at dry_, _at thirst_. If we suppose _a_ to be a contraction of _one_, or the Saxon _ane_ or _an_, the solution of all these phrases is perfectly easy, and corresponds with Horne's theory of the particles. For if rude nations converse without particles, they must say _go shore_, or _go one shore_; _he is bed_, or _he is one bed_; _he is dry_, or _one dry_; _I am thirst_, or _I am one thirst_. Indeed every person who will attend to the manner of speaking among the American savages, must believe this explanation of the phrases to be probably just.

That _on_ was formerly used both as a preposition and an adjective, is acknowleged by the Editor of the British Poets;[103] but its uses in all cases may be easily explained on the single principle before mentioned.

This hypothesis however will be confirmed by the fact, that the English article _a_, "is nothing more than a corruption of the Saxon adjective, _ane_ or _an_ (one) before a substantive beginning with a consonant." Editor of Chaucer's works, Gloss. p. 23. And the article _a_ and the numeral _one_ have still the same signification. That _ane_ or _an_, and _one_ are originally the same, is a point not to be controverted. We have therefore the strongest reason to believe that _a_ in the phrases _a going_, _a hunting_, _a fishing_ is derived from _one_. _On_, as a contraction of _upon_, has, in modern language, a different sense, and cannot be well substituted for _a_; for _on going_, _on fishing_, have an awkward appearance and will not obtain in the language, to the exclusion of _a going_, _a fishing_. The vulgar practice is more correct than Lowth's correction, and ought by no means to be rejected.

"O let my life, if thou so many deaths _a coming_ find,
With thine old year its voyage take."----

Cowley's Ode to the New Year.

"But these fantastic errors of our dream,
Lead us to solid wrong;
We pray God, our friend's torments to prolong,
And wish uncharitably for them,
To be as long _a dying_ as Methusalem."

Cowley.

If the foregoing opinion of the origin of _a_ in such phrases, should not be deemed satisfactory, we may perhaps ascribe its origin to a mere custom of forming expletive sounds in the transition from one word to another.[104]

The following phrases, _three shillings a piece_, _a day_, _a head_, _a bushel_, it is said are elliptical forms of speech; some preposition being implied, as, _for_ or _by_. This assertion can proceed only from an imperfect view of the subject. Unless grammarians can prove that some preposition was formerly used, which is now omitted, they cannot prove that any is implied, nor should they have recourse to implication to find a rule to parse the phrases. The truth is, no such preposition can be found, nor is there need of any. _A_, in this form of speech, carries the full meaning of the Latin _per_, and the substitution of the latter, for want, as it is said, of an English word, in the phrases, _per day_, _per head_, _per pound_, is a burlesque upon the English to this day. We see continually a wretched jargon of Latin and English in every merchant's book, even to the exclusion of a pure English phrase, more concise, more correct, and more elegant. It is to be wished that _a_ might be restored to its true dignity, as it is used by some of the purest English writers.

"He had read almost constantly, twelve or fourteen hours _a day_;"
that is, _one day_.---- Bolingbroke on History, letter 4.

"To the sixteen scholars twenty pounds _a piece_."----Cowley.

This is pure elegant English, and the common people have the honor of preserving it, unadulterated by foreign words.

+VERB.+

The most difficult branch of this subject is the verb. Next to the noun, this is the most important part of speech, and as it includes all the terms by which we express action and existence, in their numberless varieties, it must, in all languages, be very comprehensive.

The English verb suffers very few inflections or changes of termination, to express the different circumstances of person, number, time and mode. Its inflections are confined to the three persons of the singular number, in the present tense, indicative mode, and the first and second persons of the past tense; unless we consider the irregular participles as a species of inflection belonging to the verb. All the other varieties of person, number, time and mode, are expressed by prefixing other words, by various combinations of words, or by a particular manner of utterance.

This simplicity, as it is erroneously called, is said to render our language easy of acquisition. The reverse however of this is true; for the use of auxiliaries or combinations of words, constitutes the most perplexing branch of grammar; it being much easier to learn to change the termination of the verb, than to combine two, three or four words for the same purpose.

Grammarians have usually divided the English verbs into _active_, _passive_ and _neuter_. "_Active_ verbs," say they,[105] "express action, and necessarily imply an agent and an object acted upon." But is not a man _passive_ in _hearing_? Yet _hear_ is called an _active_ verb.

"A verb _neuter_ expresses being, or a state or condition of being; when the agent and object coincide, and the event is properly neither action nor passion, but rather something between both." But is there neither _action_ nor _passion_ in _walking_, _running_, _existing_? One would think that _running_ at least might be called _action_.

The common definitions, copied, in some measure, from the Latin Grammars, are very inaccurate. The most correct and general division of English verbs, is, into _transitive_ and _intransitive_; the former term comprehending all verbs that may be followed by any object receiving the action, or of which any thing is affirmed; the latter, all those verbs, the affirmation in which is limited to the agent. Thus _hear_ is a _transitive_ verb, for it affirms something of an object; _I hear the bell_.

_Run_ is an _intransitive_ verb, for the action mentioned is confined to the agent; _he runs_. Yet the last is an _active_ verb, and the first, strictly speaking, is not;[106] so that there is a distinction to be made between a verb _active_ and _transitive_.

In strict propriety, we have in English no passive verb; that is, we have no single word which conveys the idea of passion or suffering, in the manner of the Greek or Latin passive verb. It may be useful, in teaching English to youth or foreigners, to exhibit a specimen of the combinations of the verb _be_, with the participles of other verbs in all their varieties; but each word should be parsed as a distinct part of speech; altho two or more may be necessary to convey an idea which is expressed by a single word in another language.

TIME.

Time is naturally divided into _past_, _present_ and _future_. The English verb has but two variations of ending to express time; the present, as _love_, _write_; and the past, as _loved_, _wrote_. The usual division of tenses, or combinations of words corresponding to the Latin tenses, is not wholly accurate. The definition of the second tense, in the ordinary arrangement of them in Latin grammars, may be correct, as it relates to the Roman tongue; but does not apply to the English tense, which is commonly called by the same name, the _Imperfect_. The Latin words _movebam_, _legebam_, are translated _I moved_, _I read_. Now the English words express actions _perfectly past_, and therefore the time or tense cannot be justly denominated _imperfect_. If the Latin words expressed, in the Roman tongue, actions _imperfectly past_, they should be rendered by us, _I was moving_, _was reading_, which convey ideas of actions, as taking place at some preceding period, but not then past. In this sense, the name of the tense might have been used with propriety. But the English form of expression, _he moved_, conveys the idea of an action completely past, and does not fall within the definition of the Latin _Imperfect_.

It is surprizing that the great Lowth should rank this form of the verb, _they moved_, under the head of _indefinite_ or _undetermined_ time; and yet place this form, _have moved_, or what is called the perfect tense, under the head of _definite_ or _determined_ time. The truth is, the first is the most _definite_. _I have loved_, or _moved_, expresses an action performed and completed, generally within a period of time not far distant; but leaves the particular point of time wholly _indefinite_ or _undetermined_. On the other hand, _I loved_ is necessarily employed, when a particular _period_ or _point_ of time is specified. Thus it is correct to say, _I read a book yesterday_, _last week_, _ten years ago_, &c. but it is not grammatical to say, _I have read a book yesterday_, _last week_, &c. so that, directly contrary to Lowth's rule, _I moved_, is the _definite_, and _I have moved_, the _indefinite_ time.

Great inaccuracy is likewise indulged in the usual description of the English future tense. There is no variation of the verb to express a future action; to remedy this defect, the English use _shall_ and _will_, before the verb in its radical form. But these words are both in the present time; being merely the Teutonic verbs _sollen_ and _wollen_, which formerly had, and in the German still have, most of the inflections of regular verbs. Thus:

Ind. Pref. _Ich soll_, I ought or should. _Ich will_, I will.

Imp. _Ich sollt_, I ought or should. _Ich wollt_, I would.

Preter. _Ich habe gesollt_, I ought or should have. _Ich habe
gewollt_, I would or would have, &c. &c.[107]

_I will go_ is really nothing more than a _present_ promise of a _future_ action. I _shall go_ is a _present_ prediction of a _future_ action. In the second and third persons, _will_ expresses the prediction; and as one cannot promise for a second or third person, _shall_, in these persons, implies a promise of the first person, that he will _command_ or _oblige_ the second or third person to do an action in some future time. The whole may be thus explained:

_I will go_,

Is my own _present_ promise to do a future action.

_Thou wilt go_--_He will go_,

are my (the speaker's) _present_ predictions that the persons mentioned will do a future action; or perhaps more properly, a declaration of their inclination or intention.

_I shall go_,

is my _present_ prediction of a future action.

_Thou shalt go_--_He shall go_,

are my (the speaker's) _present_ promise that the second and third persons will do a future action. But as a man cannot compel a superior, he can promise only for himself or inferiors; therefore these last expressions imply a promise in the speaker, and a right to command the second and third persons to do the thing promised; for which reason they are used only in addressing or speaking of, inferiors or subjects. The same remarks apply to the three persons in the plural number.

Hence we observe the inaccuracy of translating the future tense of the Greeks, Romans, and French, by _shall_ or _will_ indifferently. It is probable that the future tense in those languages, and perhaps in others, where the tense is formed by inflections, was employed merely to _foretell_. If so, _shall_ only should be used in the first person of the English translation, and _will_, in the second and third. Thus:

_Latin._ _French._ _English._

Habebo, J'aurai, I shall have.
Habebimus, nous aurons, we shall have.
Habebis, tu auras, thou wilt have.
Habebit, il aura, he will have.
Habebitis, vous aurez, you will have.
Habebunt, ils auront, they will have.

On the other hand, a promise in the first person expressed in English by _will_, and a promise or command in the second and third, expressed by _shall_, seem, in these languages, to be communicated by other words or a circumlocution.

In strictness of speech therefore, we have no future tense of the verb in English; but we use auxiliaries, which, in the present tense, express a prediction of an action, or a disposition of mind to produce an action. These auxiliaries, united with the verb or affirmation, answer the purposes of the future tenses of verbs in other languages; and no inconvenience can arise from calling such a combination a _tense_.

MODE.

Most languages are so constructed, that the verbs change their terminations for the purpose of expressing the _manner_ of being or action. In this particular, the English is singular; there being but one inflection of a single verb, which can be said to be peculiar to the conditional or subjunctive mode.[108] In all other respects, the verbs in the declaratory and conditional modes are the same; and the condition is known only by some other word prefixed to the verb.

It is astonishing to see how long and how stupidly English grammarians have followed the Latin grammars in their divisions of time and mode; but in particular the latter. By this means, we often find _may_, _can_, _should_ and _must_ in a conditional mode, when they are positive declarations and belong to the indicative. All unconditional declarations, whether of an action, or of a _right_, _power_ or _necessity_ of doing an action, belong to the _indicative_; and the distinction between the _indicative_ and _potential_ is totally useless. _Should_ is commonly placed in the imperfect time of the subjunctive; yet is frequently used to express an unconditional obligation, as _he should go_; and belongs to the present time of the indicative, as much as _he ought_, or the French _il faut_ or _il doit_.

_Would_ is sometimes employed in a declaratory sense to express a present volition, and then belongs to the indicative. In the past time, _should_, _would_, _might_, _could_, often express unconditional ideas, and belong to the indicative. In short, the usual arrangement of the English verbs and auxiliaries in our grammars is calculated to perplex and mislead a learner; and I have never found a foreigner who could use them with tolerable propriety.

NUMBER _and_ PERSON.

Under this head, I shall remark on a single article only, the use of _you_ in the singular number, with a plural verb. The use of the plural _nos_ and _vos_, for _ego_ and _tu_ in Latin; of _nous_ and _vous_ for _je_ and _tu_ in French; seems to have been very ancient, and to have been originally intended to soften the harshness of egotism, or to make a respectful distinction in favor of great personages. But the practice became general in the French nation, was introduced by them into England, and gradually imitated by the English in their own tongue. _You_, in familiar discourse, is applied to an individual, except by a single sect of Christians; the practice is general and of long standing; it has become correct English, and ought to be considered, in grammar, as a pronoun in the singular number. It may be objected, that we unite with it a verb in the plural number, _you are_, _you have_; this is true, but the verb, in these instances, becomes singular; and both the pronoun and verb should be placed in the singular number.

In the union of _you_ with a plural verb in the present time, we are all unanimous; but in the past time, there is a difference between books and common practice in a single instance. In books, _you_ is commonly used with the plural of the verb _be_, _you were_; in conversation, it is generally followed by the singular, _you was_. Notwithstanding the criticisms of grammarians, the antiquity and universality of this practice must give it the sanction of propriety; for what but practice forms a language? This practice is not merely vulgar; it is general among men of erudition who do not affect to be fettered by the rules of grammarians, and some late writers have indulged it in their publications. I should therefore inflect the verb _be_ in the past time after this manner; _I was_, _thou wast_, or _you was_, _he was_, &c. Whatever objections may be raised to this inflection, _it is the language of the English_, and rules can hardly change a general practice of speaking; nor would there be any advantage in the change, if it could be effected.

AUXILIARIES.