Chapter III: WORDS. Words are articulate sounds, used by common consent, as (2)

I have told you, that when the nominative is singular number, the verb must be; when the nominative is plural, the verb must be; and when the nominative is first, second, or third person, the verb must be of the same person. If you look again at the foregoing conjugation of _walk_, you will notice that the verb varies if its endings in the _singular_, in order to agree in _form_ with the first, second, and third person of its nominative; but in the _plural_ it does not vary its endings from the first person singular. The verb, however, agrees in _sense_ with its nominative in the plural, as well as in the singular. Exercise a little mind, and you will perceive that _agreement_ and _government_ in language do not consist _merely_ in the _form_ of words. Now, is it not clear, that when I say, I _walk_, the verb walk is _singular_, because it expresses but _one_ action? And when I say, Two men _walk_, is it not equally apparent, that walk is _plural_, because it expresses _two_ actions? In the sentence, Ten men _walk_, the verb _walk_ denotes _ten_ actions, for there are ten actors. Common sense teaches you, that there must be as many _actions_ as there are _actors_; and that the verb, when it has _no form_ or _ending_ to show it, is as strictly plural, as when it has.--So, in the phrase, _We_ walk, the verb walk is _first_ person, because it expresses the actions performed by the _speakers: Ye_ or _you_ walk, the verb is _second_ person, denoting the actions of the persons _spoken to;_ third person, _They_ walk. The verb, then, when correctly written, always agrees, in _sense_, with its nominative in number and person.

At present you are learning two parts of speech, neither of which can be understood without a knowledge of the other. It therefore becomes necessary to explain them both, in the same lecture. You have been already informed, that nouns have three cases; the nominative, the possessive, and the objective.

POSSESSIVE CASE. The _possessive case_ denotes the possessor of something; as, This is _John's_ horse. This expression implies, that _John_ is the _owner_ or _possessor_ of the horse; and, that horse is the _property_ which he possesses.

When I say, These are the _men's_, and those, the _boys'_ hats, the two words, "boys' hats," plainly convey the idea, if they have any meaning at all, that the boys _own_ or _possess_ the hats. "Samuel Badger sells _boys'_ hats." Who _owns_ the hats? Mr. Badger. How is that fact ascertained? Not by the words, "boys' hats," which, taken by themselves, imply, not that they are _Mr. Badger's_ hats, nor that they are _for_ boys, but that they are hats _of_, or _belonging to_, or _possessed by_ boys. But we _infer_ from the _words connected_ with the phrase, "boys' hats," that the boys are not yet, as the phrase literally denotes, in the actual possession of the hats. The possession is anticipated.

In the phrases, _fine_ hats, _coarse_ hats, _high-crowned_ hats, _broad-brimmed_ hats, _woollen, new, ten, some, these, many_ hats, the words in italics, are adjectives, because they restrict, qualify, or define the term _hats;_ but the term _boys'_ does not _describe_ or limit the meaning of _hats. Boys'_, therefore, is not, as some suppose, an adjective.

"The _slave's_ master." Does the slave possess the master? Yes. The slave _has_ a master. If he _has_ him, then, he _possesses_ him;--he sustains that relation to him which we call possession.

A noun in the possessive case, is always known by its having an apostrophe, and generally an _s_ after it; thus, _John's_, hat; the _boy's_ coat. When a plural noun in the possessive case, ends in _s_, the apostrophe is added, but no additional _s_; as, "_Boys'_ hats; _Eagles'_ wings." When a singular noun ends in _ss_, the apostrophe only is added; as, "For _goodness'_ sake; for _righteousness'_ sake;" except the word witness; as, "The _witness's_ testimony." When a noun in the possessive case ends in _ence_, the _s_ is omitted, but the apostrophe is retained; as, "For _conscience'_ sake."

Now please to turn back, and read over this and the preceding lecture _three_ times, and endeavor, not only to understand, but, also, to _remember_, what you read. In reading, proceed thus: read one sentence over slowly, and then look off the book, and repeat it two or three times over in your mind. After that, take another sentence and proceed in the same manner, and so on through the whole lecture. Do not presume to think, that these directions are of no real consequence to you; for, unless you follow them strictly, you need not expect to make rapid progress. On the other hand, if you proceed according to my instructions, you will be sure to acquire a practical knowledge of grammar in a short time.--When you shall have complied with this requisition, you may commit the following _order of parsing a noun_, and _the order of parsing a verb_; and then you will be prepared to parse or analyze the following examples.

ANALYSIS, OR PARSING.

Do you recollect the meaning of the word _analysis?_ If you do not, I will explain if: and first, I wish you to remember, that analysis is the reverse of synthesis. _Synthesis_ is the act of combining simples so as to form a whole or compound. Thus, in putting together letters so as to form syllables, syllables so as to form words, words so as to form sentences, and sentences so as to form a discourse, the process is called synthetic. _Analysis_, on the contrary, is the act of decomposition; that is, the act of separating any thing compounded into its simple parts, and thereby exhibiting its elementary principles. Etymology treats of the analysis of language. To analyze a sentence, is to separate from one another and classify the different words of which it is composed; and to analyze or _parse_ a word, means to enumerate and describe all its various properties, and its grammatical relations with respect to other words in a sentence, and trace it through all its inflections or changes. Perhaps, to you, this will, at first, appear to be of little importance; but, if you persevere, you will hereafter find it of great utility, for parsing will enable you to detect, and correct, errors in composition.

SYSTEMATIC ORDER OF PARSING.

The _order of parsing_ a NOUN, is--a noun, and why?--common, proper, or collective, and why?--gender, and why?--person, and why?--number, and why?--case, and why?--RULE:--decline it.

_The order of parsing_ a VERB, is--a verb, and why?--active, passive, or neuter, and why?--if _active_--transitive or intransitive, and why?--if _passive_--how is it formed?--regular, irregular, or defective, and why?--mood, and why?--tense, and why?--person and number, and why?--with what does it agree?--RULE:--conjugate it.

I will now parse two nouns according to the order, and, in so doing, by applying the definitions and rules, I shall answer all those questions given in the order. If you have _perfectly committed_ the order of parsing a noun and verb, you may proceed with me; but, recollect, you cannot parse a verb _in full_, until you shall have had a more complete explanation of it.

_John's hand trembles_.

_John's_ is a noun, [because it is] the name of a person--proper, the name of an individual--masculine gender, it denotes a male--third person, spoken of--singular number, it implies but one--and in the possessive case, it denotes possession--it is governed by the noun "hand," according to

RULE 12. _A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the noun it possesses_.

Declined--Sing. nom. John, poss. John's, obj. John. Plural--nom. Johns, poss. Johns', obj. Johns.

_Hand_ is a noun, the name of a thing--common, the name of a sort or species of things--neuter gender, it denotes a thing without sex--third person, spoken of--sing. number, it implies but one--and in the nominative case, it is the actor and subject of the verb "trembles," and governs it agreeably to

RULE 3. _The nominative case governs the verb:_--that is, the nominative determines the number and person of the verb.

Declined--Sing. nom. hand, poss. hand's, obj. hand. Plur. nom. hands, poss. hands', obj. hands.

_Trembles_ is a verb, a word which signifies to do--active, it expresses action--third person, singular number, because the nominative "hand" is with which it agrees, according to

RULE 4. _The verb must agree with its nominative in number and person_.

You must not say that the verb is of the third person because _it is spoken of_. The verb is never spoken of; but it is of the third person, and singular or plural number, because its nominative is.

Conjugated--First pers. sing. I tremble, 2 pers. thou tremblest, 3 pers. he trembles, or, the hand trembles. Plural, 1 pers. we tremble, 2 pers. ye or you tremble, 3 pers. they or the hands tremble.

Government, in language, consists in the power which one word has over another, in causing that other word to be in some _particular case, number, person, mood_, or _tense_.

ILLUSTRATION.

RULE 3. _The nominative case governs the verb_.

If you employ the pronoun _I_, which is of the _first_ person, singular number, as the nominative to a verb, the verb must be of the first pers. sing, thus, I _smile_; and when your nominative is _second_ pers. sing, your verb must be; as, thou smil_est_. Why, in the latter instance, does the ending of the verb change to _est_? Because the nominative changes. And if your nominative is _third_ person, the verb will vary again; thus, he smiles, the man smiles. How clear it is, then, that _the nominative governs the verb_; that is, the nominative has power to change the _form_ and _meaning_ of the verb, in respect to num. and person. Government, thus far, is evinced in the _form_ of the words, as well as in the sense.

RULE 4. _The verb must agree with its nominative in number and person_.

It is improper to say, thou _hear_, the men _hears_. Why improper? Because _hear_ is _first_ pers. and the nominative _thou_ is _second_ pers. _Hears_ is singular, and the nom. _men_ is _plural_. Rule 4th says, _The verb must agree with its nominative_. The expressions should, therefore, be, thou hear_est_, the men _hear_; and then the verb would _agree_ with its nominatives. But _why_ must the verb agree with its nominative? Why must we say, thou talk_est_, the man talks, men _talk_? Because the genius of our language, and the common consent of those who speak it, _require_ such a construction: and this _requisition_ amounts to a _law_ or _rule_. This _rule_, then, is founded in _the nature of things_, and sanctioned by _good usage_.

RULE 12. _A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the noun which it possesses_.

It is correct to say, The _man_ eats, _he_ eats; but we cannot say, the _man_ dog eats, _he_ dog eats. Why not? Because the man is here represented as the _possessor_, and _dog_, the _property_, or _thing possessed_; and the genius of our language requires, that when we add to the possessor, the _thing_ which he is represented as possessing, the possessor shall take a particular form to show its _case_, or _relation to the property_; thus, The _man's_ dog eats, _his_ dog eats. You perceive, then, that the _added_ noun, denoting the thing possessed, has power _to change the form_ of the noun or pronoun denoting the possessor, according to RULE 12. thus, by adding dog in the preceding examples, _man_ is changed to _man's_, and _he_, to _his_.

Now parse the sentence which I have parsed, until the manner is quite familiar to you; and then you will be prepared to analyze correctly and _systematically_, the following exercises. When you parse, you may spread the Compendium before you; and, if you have not already committed the definitions and rules, you may read them on that, as you apply them. This mode of procedure will enable you to learn _all_ the definitions and rules by applying them to practice.

EXERCISES IN PARSING.

Rain descends--Rains descend--Snow falls--Snows fall--Thunder rolls--Thunders roll--Man's works decay--Men's labors cease--John's dog barks--Eliza's voice trembles--Julia's sister's child improves--Peter's cousin's horse limps.

In the next place, I will parse a noun and a _neuter_ verb, which verb, you will notice, differs from an active only in one respect.

_"Birds repose_ on the branches of trees."

_Birds_ is a noun, the name of a thing or creature--common, the name of a genus or class--masculine and feminine gender, it denotes both males and females--third person, spoken of--plural number, it implies more than one--and in the nominative case, it is the _subject_ of the verb "repose," and governs it according to RULE 3. _The nominative case governs the verb_. Declined--Sing. nom. bird, poss. bird's, obj. bird. Plural, nom. birds, poss. birds', obj. birds.

_Repose_ is a verb, a word that signifies to _be_--neuter, it expresses neither action nor passion, but a state of being--third person, plural number, because the nominative "birds" is with which it agrees, agreeably to RULE 4. _The verb must agree with its nominative in number and person_.

Declined--1. pers. sing. I repose, 2. pers. thou reposest, 3. pers. he reposes, or the bird reposes. Plur. 1. pers. we repose, 2. pers. ye or you repose, 3. pers. they repose, or birds repose.

Now parse those nouns and neuter verbs that are distinguished by _italics_, in the following

EXERCISES IN PARSING.

The _book lies_ on the desk--The _cloak hangs_ on the wall--_Man's days are_ few--_Cathmor's warriors sleep_ in death--_Caltho reposes_ in the narrow house--Jocund _day stands_ tiptoe on the misty mountain tops. The _sunbeams rest_ on the grave where her _beauty sleeps_.

You may parse these and the preceding exercises, and all that follow, _five or six times over_, if you please.

OBJECTIVE CASE.--ACTIVE-TRANSITIVE VERBS.

The _objective_ case expresses the object of an action or of a relation. It generally follows a transitive verb, a participle, or a preposition.

A noun is in the objective case when it is the _object_ of something. At present I shall explain this case only as the object of an _action_; but when we shall have advanced as far as to the preposition, I will also illustrate it as the object of a _relation_.

An active verb is _transitive_ when the action passes over from the subject or nominative to an object; as, Richard _strikes_ John.

_Transitive_ means _passing_. In this sentence the action of the verb _strikes_ is _transitive_, because it _passes over_ from the nominative Richard to the object John; and you know that the noun John is in the _objective_ case, because it is _the object of the action_ expressed by the active-transitive verb strikes. This matter is very plain. For example: Gallileo invented the telescope. Now it is evident, that Gallileo did not exert his powers of invention, without some object in view. In order to ascertain that object, put the question, Gallileo invented what? The telescope. _Telescope_, then, is the real object of the action, denoted by the transitive verb invented; and, therefore, telescope is in the objective case. If I say, The horse _kicks_ the servant--Carpenters _build_ houses--Ossian _wrote_ poems--Columbus _discovered_ America--you readily perceive, that the verbs _kick, build, wrote_, and _discovered_, express transitive actions; and you cannot be at a loss to tell which nouns are in the objective case:--they are _servant, houses, poems_, and _America_.

The nominative and objective cases of nouns are generally known by the following rule: the nominative _does something_; the objective _has something done to it_. The nominative generally comes _before_ the verb; and the objective, _after_ it. When I say, George struck the servant, _George_ is in the nominative, and _servant_ is in the objective case; but, when I say, The servant struck George, _servant_ is in the nominative case, and _George_ is in the objective. Thus you perceive, that _Case_ means the different state or situation of nouns with regard to other words.

It is sometimes very difficult to tell the case of a noun. I shall, therefore, take up this subject again, when I come to give you an explanation of the participle and preposition.

Besides the three cases already explained, nouns are sometimes in the nominative case _independent_, sometimes in the nominative case absolute, sometimes in apposition in the same case, and sometimes in the nominative or objective case after the neuter to _be_, or after an active-intransitive or passive verb. These cases are illustrated in Lecture X. and in the 21 and 22 rules of Syntax.

ACTIVE-INTRANSITIVE VERBS.

An active verb is _transitive_, when the action terminates on an object: but

An active verb is _intransitive_, when the action does _not_ terminate on an object; as, John _walks_.

You perceive that the verb _walks_, in this example, is _intransitive_, because the action does not pass over to an object; that is, the action is confined to the agent John. The following _sign_ will generally enable you to distinguish a _transitive_ verb from an _intransitive_. Any verb that will make sense with the words _a thing_ or _a person_, after it, is _transitive_. Try these verbs by the sign, _love, help, conquer, reach, subdue, overcome_. Thus, you can say, I love _a person_ or _thing_--I can help _a person_ or _thing_--and so on. Hence you know that these verbs are transitive. But an intransitive verb will not make sense with this sign, which fact will be shown by the following examples: _smile, go, come, play, bark, walk, fly_. We cannot say, if we mean to speak English, I smile a _person_ or _thing_--I go _a person_ or _thing_:--hence you perceive that these verbs are not transitive, but intransitive.

If you reflect upon these examples for a few moments, you will have a clear conception of the nature of transitive and intransitive verbs. Before I close this subject, however, it is necessary farther to remark, that some transitive and intransitive verbs express what is called a _mental_ or _moral_ action; and others, a _corporeal_ or _physical_ action. Verbs expressing the different affections or operations of the mind, denote moral actions; as, Brutus _loved_ his country; James _hates_ vice; We _believe_ the tale:--to _repent_, to _relent_, to _think_, to _reflect_, to _mourn_, to _muse_. Those expressing the actions produced by matter, denote physical actions; as, The _dog hears_ the bell; Virgil _wrote_ the Aenead; Columbus _discovered_ America;--to _see_, to _feel_, to _taste_, to _smell_, to _run_, to _talk_, to _fly_, to _strike_. In the sentence, Charles _resembles_ his father, the verb _resembles_ does not appear to express any action at all; yet the construction of the sentence, and the office which the verb performs, are such, that we are obliged to parse it as an _active-transitive_ verb, governing the noun _father_ in the objective case. This you may easily reconcile in your mind, by reflecting, that the verb has a _direct reference_ to its object. The following verbs are of this character: _Have, own, retain_; as, I _have_ a book.

Active _in_transitive verbs are frequently made _transitive_. When I say, The birds _fly_, the verb _fly_ is _in_transitive; but when I say, The boy _flies_ the kite, the verb _fly_ is _transitive_, and governs the noun _kite_ in the objective case. Almost any active intransitive verb, and sometimes even neuter verbs, are used as transitive. The horse _walks_ rapidly; The boy _runs_ swiftly; My friend _lives_ well; The man _died_ of a fever. In all these examples the verbs are _in_transitive; in the following they are _transitive_: The man _walks_ his horse; The boy _ran_ a race; My friend _lives_ a holy life; Let me _die_ the death of the righteous.

The foregoing development of the character of verbs, is deemed sufficiently critical for practical purposes; but if we dip a little deeper into the verbal fountain, we shall discover qualities which do not appear on its surface. If we throw aside the veil which art has drawn over the real structure of speech, we shall find, that almost every verb has either a _personal_ or a _verbal_ object, expressed or implied. Verbal objects, which are the _effects_ or _productions_ resulting from the actions, being necessarily implied, are seldom expressed.

The fire _burns_. If the fire burns, it must burn _wood, coal, tallow_, or some other combustible substance. The man _laughs_. Laughs what? Laughs _laughter_ or _laugh_. They _walk_; that is, They walk or take _walks_. Rivers flow (move or roll _them-selves_ or their _waters_) into the ocean.

"I _sing_ the shady _regions_ of the west."

"And _smile_ the _wrinkles_ from the brow of age."

The child _wept itself_ sick; and then, by taking (or _sleeping_) a short _nap_, it _slept itself_ quiet and well again. "He will soon _sleep_ his everlasting _sleep"_; that is, "He will _sleep_ the _sleep_ of death."

Thinkers think _thoughts_; Talkers talk or employ _words, talk,_ or _speeches_; The rain rains _rain_. "Upon Sodom and Gomorrah the Lord _rained fire_ and _brimstone_." "I must _go_ the whole _length_." "I shall soon _go_ the _way_ of all the earth."

Now please to turn back again, and peruse this lecture attentively; after which you may parse, systematically, the following exercises containing nouns in the three cases, and active-transitive verbs.

The printer _prints_ books.

_Prints_ is a verb, a word that signifies to do--active, it expresses action--transitive, the action passes over from the nominative "printer" to the object "books"--third pers. sing. numb. because the nominative printer is with which it agrees.

RULE 4. _The verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person_.

Declined--1. pers. sing. I print, 2. pers. thou printest, 3. pers. he prints, or the printer prints, and so on.

_Books_ is a noun, the name of a thing--common, the name of a sort of things,--neut. gend. it denotes a thing without sex--third pers. spoken of--plur. num. it implies more than one--and in the objective case, it is the object of the action, expressed by the active-transitive verb "prints," and is governed by it according to

RULE 20. _Active-transitive verbs govern the objective case_.

The noun _books_ is thus declined--Sing. nom. book, poss. book's, obj. book--Plur. nom. books, poss. books', obj. books.

RULE 20. Transitive verbs _govern_ the objective case; that is, they _require_ the noun or pronoun following them to be in that case; and this requisition is government. Pronouns have a particular _form_ to suit each case; but nouns have not. We cannot say, She _struck he_; I gave the book _to they_. Why not? Because the genius of our language requires the pronoun following a transitive verb or preposition (_to_ is a preposition) to assume that _form_ which we call the _objective_ form or case. Accordingly, the construction should be, She struck _him_; I gave the book to _them_.--Read, again, the illustration of "government" on page 52.

EXERCISES IN PARSING.

_Nom. case.--Trans. verb--Poss. case--Obj. case._ Julius prints childrens' primers. Harriet makes ladies' bonnets. The servant beats the man's horse. The horse kicks the servant's master. The boy struck that man's child. The child lost those boys' ball. The tempest sunk those merchants' vessels. Pope translated Homer's Illiad. Cicero procured Milo's release. Alexander conquered Darius' army. Perry met the enemy's fleet. Washington obtained his country's freedom.

NOTE 1. The words _the, that, those_, and _his_, you need not parse.
2. A noun in the possessive case, is sometimes governed by a noun
understood; as, Julia's lesson is longer than John's [lesson.]

As you have been analyzing nouns in their three cases, it becomes necessary to present, in the next place, the declension of nouns, for you must decline every noun you parse. _Declension_ means putting a noun through the different cases: and you will notice, that the possessive case varies from the nominative in its termination, or ending, but the _objective_ case ends like the nominative. The nominative and objective cases of nouns, must, therefore, be ascertained by their situation in the sentence, or by considering the office they perform.

DECLENSION OF NOUNS.

SING. PLUR.

_Nom._ king kings _Poss._ king's kings' _Obj._ king. kings.

_Nom._ man men _Poss._ man's men's _Obj._ man. men.

Now, if you have parsed every word in the preceding examples, (except _the, that, those_, and _his_) you may proceed with me and parse the examples in the following exercises, in which are presented nouns and active-intransitive verbs.

"My _flock increases_ yearly."

_Flock_ is a noun, a name denoting animals--a noun of multitude, it signifies many in one collective body--masculine and feminine gender, denoting both sexes--third person, spoken of--singular number, it denotes but one flock--and in the nominative case, it is the active agent of the verb "increases," and governs it, according to RULE 3, _The nominative case governs the verb_. (Decline it.)

_Increases_ is a verb, a word that signifies to do--active, it expresses action--intransitive, the action does not pass over to an object--of the third person, singular number, because its nominative "flock" conveys _unity_ of idea, and it agrees with "flock" agreeably to

RULE 10. _A noun of multitude conveying_ unity _of idea, must have a verb or pronoun agreeing with it in the singular_.

"The divided _multitude_ hastily _disperse_."

_Multitude_ is a noun, a name that denotes persons--a collective noun, or noun of multitude, it signifies many--masculine and feminine gender, it implies both sexes--third person, spoken of--singular number, it represents but one multitude, or collective body; (but in another sense, it is plural, as it conveys plurality of idea, and, also, implies more _individuals_ than one;)--and in the nominative case, it is the actor and subject of the verb "disperse," which it governs, according to RULE 3. _The nom. case governs the verb_.--Declined.--Sing. nom. multitude, poss. multitude's, obj. multitude--Plur. nom. multitudes, poss. multitudes', obj. multitudes.

_Disperse_ is a verb, a word that signifies to do--active, it expresses action--intransitive, the action does not terminate on an object--third person, plural number, because its nominative "multitude" conveys plurality of idea; and it agrees with "multitude" agreeably to RULE 11. _A noun of multitude conveying plurality of idea, must have a verb or pronoun agreeing with it in the plural._

Rules 10, and 11, rest on a sandy foundation. They appear not to be based on the principles of the language; and, therefore, it might, perhaps, be better to reject than to retain them. Their application is quite limited. In many instances, they will not apply to nouns of multitude. The existence of such a thing as "unity or plurality of idea," as applicable to nouns of this class, is _doubtful_. It is just as correct to say, "The _meeting was_ divided in _its_ sentiments," as to say, "The _meeting were_ divided in _their_ sentiments." Both are equally supported by the genius of the language, and by the power of custom. It is correct to say, either that, "The _fleet were_ dispersed;" "The _council were_ unanimous;" "The _council were_ divided;" or that, "The _fleet was_ dispersed;" "The _council was_ unanimous;" "The _council was_ divided." But, perhaps for the sake of euphony, in some instances, custom has decided in favor of a singular, and in others, of a plural construction, connected with words of this class. For example; custom gives a preference to the constructions, "My _people do_ not consider;" "The _peasantry go_ barefoot;" "The _flock is_ his object;" instead of, "_My people doth_ not consider;" "The _peasantry goes_ barefoot;" "The _flock are_ his object." In instances like these, the application of the foregoing rules _may_ be of some use; but the constructions in which they do not apply, are probably more numerous than those in which they do.

EXERCISES IN PARSING.

Nom. case. Intran. verb. Nom. case. Intran. verb. Men labor. The sun sets. Armies march. The moon rises. Vessels sail. The stars twinkle. Birds fly. The rain descends. Clouds move. The river flows. Multitudes perish. The nation mourns.

Your improvement in grammar depends, not on the number of words which you parse, but on the _attention_ which you give the subject. _You may parse the same exercises several times over._

For the gratification of those who prefer it, I here present another

DIVISION OF VERBS.

Verbs are of two kinds, transitive and intransitive.

A verb is transitive when the action affects an object; as, "Earthquakes _rock_ kingdoms; thrones and palaces _are shaken_ down; and potentates, princes, and subjects, _are buried_ in one common grave."

The nominative to a passive verb, is the _object_, but not the _agent_, of the action.

A verb is intransitive when it has no object; as, "The waters _came_ upon me;" "I _am_ he who _was_, and _is_, and _is_ to _come_."

As an exercise on what you have been studying, I will now put to you a few questions, all of which you ought to be able to answer before you proceed any farther.

QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED IN PARSING.

With what two general divisions of grammar does the second lecture begin?--Of what does Etymology treat?--Of what does Syntax treat?--On what is based the true principle of classification?--How do you ascertain the part of speech to which a word belongs?--What is meant by its _manner_ of meaning?--Name the ten parts of speech.--Which of these are considered the most important?--By what sign may a noun be distinguished?--How many kinds of nouns are there?--What belong to nouns?--What is gender?--How many genders have nouns?--What is person?--How many persons have nouns?--What is number?--How many numbers have nouns?--What is case?--How many cases have nouns?--Does case consist in the _inflections_ of a noun?--How many kinds of verbs are there?--By what sign may a verb be known?--What belong to verbs?--What is synthesis?--What is analysis?--What is parsing?--Repeat the order of parsing the noun.--Repeat the order of parsing the verb.--What rule do you apply in parsing a noun in the possessive case?--What rule, in parsing a noun in the nominative case?--What rule applies in parsing a verb?--What is meant by government?--Explain rules 3, 4, and 12.--By what rule are the nominative and objective cases of nouns known?--By what sign can you distinguish a transitive from an intransitive verb?--Do transitive verbs ever express a _moral_ action?--Are intransitive and neuter verbs ever used as transitive?--Give some examples of transitive verbs with _personal_ and _verbal_ objects.--What rule do you apply in parsing a noun in the objective case?--Explain rule 20.--In parsing a verb agreeing with a noun of multitude conveying _plurality_ of idea, what rule do you apply?

* * * * *

QUESTIONS ON THE NOTES.

Whether the learner be required to answer the following questions, or not, is, of course, left _discretionary_ with the teacher. The author takes the liberty to suggest the expediency of _not_, generally, enforcing such a requisition, _until the pupil goes through the book a second time._

Name some participial nouns.--What are abstract nouns?--What is the distinction between abstract nouns and adjectives?--What are natural nouns?--Artificial nouns?--What is the distinction between _material_ and _immaterial_ nouns?--Are nouns ever of the masculine and feminine gender?--Give examples.--When are nouns, naturally neuter, converted into the masculine or feminine gender?--Give examples.--Speak some nouns that are always in the singular number.--Some that are always plural.--Speak some that are in the same form in both numbers.--Name _all_ the various ways of forming the plural number of nouns.--Of what number are the nouns _news, means, alms_, and _amends_?--Name the plurals to the following compound nouns, _handful, cupful, spoonful, brother-in-law, court-martial_.

* * * * *

NOTES ON PHILOSOPHICAL GRAMMAR.

Perhaps no subject has, in this age, elicited more patient research,
and critical investigation of original, constituent principles,
formations, and combinations, than the English language. The
legitimate province of philology, however, as I humbly conceive,
has, in some instances, been made to yield to that of philosophy, so
far as to divert the attention from the combinations of our language
which refinement has introduced, to radical elements and
associations which no way concern the progress of literature, or the
essential use for which language was intended. Were this
retrogressive mode of investigating and applying principles, to
obtain, among philologists, the ascendency over that which
accommodates the use of language to progressive refinement, it is
easy to conceive the state of barbarism to which society would, in a
short time, be reduced. Moreover, if what some call the philosophy
of language, were to supersede, altogether, the province of
philology as it applies to the present, progressive and refined
state of English literature, the great object contemplated by the
learned, in all ages, namely, the approximation of language, in
common with every thing else, to that point of perfection at which
it is the object of correct philology to arrive, would be
frustrated.

The dubious and wildering track struck out by those innovators and
visionaries who absurdly endeavor to teach modern English, by
rejecting the authority and sanction of custom, and by conducting
the learner back to the original combinations, and the detached,
disjointed, and barbarous constructions of our progenitors, both
prudence and reason, as well as a due regard for correct philology,
impel me to shun. Those modest writers who, by bringing to their aid
a little sophistry, much duplicity, and a wholesale traffic in the
swelling phrases, "philosophy, reason, and common sense," attempt to
overthrow the wisdom of former ages, and show that the result of all
the labors of those distinguished philologists who had previously
occupied the field of grammatical science, is nothing but error and
folly, will doubtless meet the neglect and contempt justly merited
by such consummate vanity and unblushing pedantry. Fortunately for
those who employ our language as their vehicle of mental conference,
custom will not yield to the speculative theories of the visionary.
If it would, improvement in English literature would soon be at an
end, and we should be tamely conducted back to the Vandalic age.

As the use of what is commonly called the philosophy of language, is
evidently misapplied by those who make it the test of _grammatical
certainty_, it may not be amiss to offer a few considerations with a
view to expose the fallacy of so vague a criterion.

All reasoning and investigation which depend on the philosophy of
language for an ultimate result, must be conducted _a posteriori_.
Its office, according to the ordinary mode of treating the subject,
is to trace language to its origin, not for the purpose of
determining and fixing grammatical associations and dependances,
such as the agreement, government, and mutual relations of words,
but in order to analyze combinations with a view to develop the
first principles of the language, and arrive at the primitive
meaning of words. Now, it is presumed, that no one who has paid
critical attention to the subject, will contend, that the original
import of single words, has any relation to the syntactical
dependances and connexions of words in general;--to gain a knowledge
of which, is the leading object of the student in grammar. And,
furthermore, I challenge those who have indulged in such useless
vagaries, to show by what process, with their own systems, they can
communicate a practical knowledge of grammar. I venture to predict,
that, if they make the attempt, they will find their systems more
splendid in theory, than useful in practice.

Again, it cannot rationally be contended, that the radical meaning
has any efficiency in controlling the signification which, by the
power of association, custom has assigned to many words;--a
signification _essentially different_ from the original import. Were
this the case, and were the language now to be taught and understood
in compliance with the original import of words, it would have to
undergo a thorough change; to be analyzed, divided, and sub-divided,
almost _ad infinitum_. Indeed, there is the same propriety in
asserting that the Gothic, Danish, and Anglo-Saxon elements in our
language, ought to be pronounced separately, to enable us to
understand our vernacular tongue, that there is in contending, that
their primitive meaning has an ascendency over the influence of the
principle of association in changing, and the power of custom in
determining, the import of words. Many of our words are derived from
the Greek, Roman, French, Spanish, Italian, and German languages;
and the only use we can make of their originals, is to render them
subservient to the force of custom in cases in which general usage
has not varied from the primitive signification. Moreover, let the
advocates of a mere philosophical investigation of the language,
extend their system as far as a radical analysis will warrant them,
and, with Horne Tooke, not only consider adverbs, prepositions,
conjunctions, and interjections, as abbreviations of nouns and
verbs, but, on their own responsibility, apply them, in teaching the
language, _in compliance with their radical import_, and what would
such a course avail them against the power of custom, and the
influence of association and refinement? Let them show me one
grammarian, produced by such a course of instruction, and they will
exhibit a "philosophical" miracle. They might as well undertake to
teach architecture, by having recourse to its origin, as
represented by booths and tents. In addition to this, when we
consider the great number of obsolete words, from which many now in
use are derived, the original meaning of which cannot be
ascertained, and, also, the multitude whose signification has been
changed by the principle of association, it is preposterous to
think, that a mere philosophical mode of investigating and teaching
the language, is the one by which its significancy can be enforced,
its correctness determined, its use comprehended, and its
improvement extended. Before what commonly passes for a
philosophical manner of developing the language can successfully be
made the medium through which it can be comprehended, in all its
present combinations, relations, and dependances, it must undergo a
thorough retrogressive change, in all those combinations, relations,
and dependances, even to the last letter of the alphabet. And before
we can consent to this radical modification and retrograde ratio of
the English language, we must agree to revive the customs, the
habits, and the precise language of our progenitors, the Goths and
Vandals. Were all the advocates for the introduction of such
philosophical grammars into common schools, at once to enter on
their pilgrimage, and recede into the native obscurity and barbarity
of the ancient Britons, Picts, and Vandals, it is believed, that the
cause of learning and refinement would not suffer greatly by their
loss, and that the good sense of the present age, would not allow
many of our best teachers to be of the party.

The last consideration which I shall give a philosophical manner of
investigating and enforcing the English language, is, that by this
mode of analyzing and reducing it to practice, _it cannot, in this
age, be comprehended_ as the medium of thought. Were this method to
prevail, our present literal language would become a dead letter. Of
what avail is language, if it can not be understood? And how can it
be accommodated to the understanding, unless it receive the sanction
of common consent? Even if we admit that such a manner of unfolding
the principles of our language, is more rational and correct than
the ordinary, practical method, I think it is clear that such a mode
of investigation and development, does not meet the necessities and
convenience of ordinary learners in school. To be consistent, that
system which instructs by tracing a few of our words to their
origin, must unfold the whole in the same manner. But the student in
common schools and academies, cannot afford time to stem the tide of
language up to its source, and there dive to the bottom of the
fountain for knowledge. Such labor ought not to be required of him.
His object is to become, not a philosophical antiquarian, but a
practical grammarian. If I comprehend the design (if they have any)
of our modern philosophical writers on this subject, it is to make
grammarians by inculcating a few general principles, arising out of
the genius of the language, and the nature of things, which the
learner, by the exercise of his _reasoning powers_, must reduce to
practice. His own judgment, _independent of grammar rules_, is to be
his guide in speaking and writing correctly. Hence, many of them
exclude from their systems, all exercises in what is called _false
Syntax_. But these profound philological dictators appear to have
overlooked the important consideration, that the great mass of
mankind, and especially of boys and girls in common schools, _can
never become philosophers;_ and, consequently, can never comprehend
and reduce to practice their metaphysical and obscure systems of
grammar. I wish to see children treated as _reasoning_ beings. But
there should be a medium in all things. It is, therefore, absurd to
instruct children as if they were already profound philosophers and
logicians.

To demonstrate the utility, and enforce the necessity, of exercising
the learner in correcting _false Syntax_, I need no other argument
than the interesting and undeniable fact, that Mr. Murray's labors,
in this department, have effected a complete revolution in the
English language, in point of verbal accuracy. Who does not know,
that the best writers of this day, are not guilty of _one_
grammatical inaccuracy, where those authors who wrote before Mr.
Murray flourished, are guilty of _five_? And what has produced this
important change for the better? Ask the hundreds of thousands who
have studied "Mr. Murray's exercises in FALSE SYNTAX." If, then,
this view of the subject is correct, it follows, that the greater
portion of our philosophical grammars, are far more worthy the
attention of literary connoisseurs, than of the great mass of
learners.

Knowing that a strong predilection for philosophical grammars,
exists in the minds of some teachers of this science, I have thought
proper, for the gratification of such, to intersperse through the
pages of this work under the head of "PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES," an
entire system of grammatical principles as deduced from what appears
to me to be the most rational and consistent philosophical
investigations. They who prefer this theory to that exhibited in the
body of the work, are, of course, at liberty to adopt it.

_In general, a philosophical theory of grammar will be found to
accord with the practical theory embraced in the body of this work.
Wherever such agreement exists, the system contained in these NOTES
will be deficient, and this deficiency may be supplied by adopting
the principles contained in the other parts of the work_.

* * * * *

OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL CLASSIFICATION OF WORDS.

According to the method in which philosophical investigations of
language have generally been conducted, all our words should be
reduced to two classes; for it can be easily shown, that from the
noun and verb, all the other parts of speech have sprung. Nay, more.
They may even be reduced to one. Verbs do not, in reality, _express_
actions; but they are intrinsically the mere _names_ of actions. The
idea of action or being communicated by them, as well as the
_meaning_ of words in general, is merely _inferential_. The
principle of reasoning assumed by the celebrated Horne Tooke, if
carried to its full extent, would result, it is believed, in proving
that we have but one part of speech.

_Adnouns_ or _adjectives_ were originally nouns. _Sweet, red,
white_, are the _names_ of qualities, as well as _sweetness,
redness, whiteness_. The former differ from the latter only in their
_manner_ of signification. To denote that the name of some quality
or substance is to be used in connexion with some other name, or,
that this quality is to be _attributed_ to some other name, we
sometimes affix to it the termination _en, ed_, or _y;_ which
signifies _give, add,_ or _join_. When we employ the words wood_en_,
wooll_en_, wealth_y_, grass_y_, the terminations _en_ and _y_, by
their own intrinsic meaning, give notice that we intend to _give,
add, or join_, the names of some other substances in which are found
the properties or qualities of _wood, wool, wealth_, or _grass_.

_Pronouns_ are a class of nouns, used instead of others to prevent
their disagreeable repetition. Participles are certain forms of the
verb. Articles, interjections, adverbs, prepositions, and
conjunctions, are contractions of abbreviations of nouns and verbs.
_An_ (_a, one_, or _one_) comes from _ananad_, to add, to heap.
_The_ and _that_, from the Anglo-Saxon verb _thean_, to get, assume.
_Lo_ is the imperative of _look_; _fy_, of _fian_, to hate; and
_welcome_ means, it is _well_ that you are _come. In_ comes from the
Gothic noun _inna_, the interior of the body; and _about_, from
_boda_, the first outward boundary. _Through_ or _thorough_ is the
Teutonic noun _thuruh_, meaning passage, gate, door. _From_ is the
Anglo-Saxon noun _frum_, beginning, source, author. He came _from
(beginning)_ Batavia. _If_ (formerly written _gif, give, gin_) is
the imperative of the Anglo-Saxon verb _gifan_, to give. I will
remain _if_ (_give_ or _grant that fact_) he will (_remain_.) _But_
comes from the Saxon verb _beon-utan_, to be-out. I informed no one
_but (be-out, leave-out)_ my brother.

This brief view of the subject, is sufficient to elucidate the
manner in which, according to Horne Tooke's principles, the ten
parts of speech are reduced to one. But I am, by no means, disposed
to concede, that this is the _true_ principle of classification; nor
that it is any more _philosophical_ or _rational_ than one which
allows a more practical division and arrangement of words. What has
been generally received as "philosophical grammar," appears to
possess no stronger claims to that imposing appellation than our
common, practical grammars. Query. Is not Mr. Murray's octavo
grammar more worthy the dignified title of a "Philosophical
Grammar," than Horne Tooke's "Diversions of Purley," or William S.
Cardell's treatises on language? What constitutes a _philosophical_
treatise, on this, or on any other subject? _Wherein_ is there a
display of philosophy in a speculative, etymological performance,
which attempts to develop and explain the elements and primitive
meaning of words by tracing them to their origin, _superior_ to the
philosophy employed in the development and illustration of the
principles by which we are governed in applying those words to their
legitimate purpose, namely, that of forming a correct and convenient
medium by means of which we can communicate our thoughts? Does
philosophy consist in ransacking the mouldy records of antiquity, in
order to _guess_ at the ancient construction and signification of
single words? or have such investigations, in reality, any thing to
do with _grammar_?

Admitting that all the words of our language include, in their
_original_ signification, the import of nouns or names, and yet, it
does not follow, that they _now_ possess no other powers, and, in
their combinations and connexions in sentences, are employed for no
other purpose, than _barely_ to _name objects_. The _fact_ of the
case is, that words are variously combined and applied, to answer
the distinct and diversified purposes of _naming_ objects,
_asserting_ truths, _pointing out_ and _limiting_ objects,
_attributing qualities_ to objects, _connecting_ objects, and so on;
and on this _fact_ is founded the _true philosophical principle of
the classification of words_. Hence, an arrangement of words into
classes according to this principle, followed by a development and
illustration of the principles and rules that regulate us in the
proper use and application of words in oral and written discourse,
appears to approximate as near to a true definition _of
philosophical grammar_, as any I am capable of giving.

_Nouns_, or the names of the objects of our perceptions, doubtless
constituted the original class of words; (if I may be allowed to
assume such a hypothesis as an _original_ class of words;) but the
ever-active principle of association, soon transformed nouns into
verbs, by making them, when employed in a particular manner,
expressive of affirmation. This same principle also operated in
appropriating names to the purpose of attributing qualities to other
names of objects; and in this way was constituted the class of words
called _adjectives_ or _attributes_. By the same principle were
formed all the other classes.

In the following exposition of English grammar on scientific
principles, I shall divide words into seven classes; _Nouns_ or
_Names, Verbs, Adjectives, Adnouns_, or _Attributes, Adverbs,
Propositions, Pronouns_, and _Conjunctions_ or _Connectives_.

For an explanation of the noun, refer to the body of the work.

* * * * *

PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.

Plausible arguments may be _advanced_, for rejecting _neuter_ and
passive verbs; but they have been found to be so convenient in
practice, that the theory which recognises them, has stood the test
of ages. If you tell the young learner, that, in the following
expressions, The church _rests_ on its foundation; The book _lies_
on the desk; The boys _remain (are)_ idle, the nouns _church, book_,
and _boys_, are represented as acting, and, therefore, the verbs
_rests, lies, remain_, and _are_, are _active_, he will not believe
you, because there is no action that is apparent to his senses. And
should you proceed further, and, by a labored and metaphysical
investigation and development of the laws of motion, attempt to
prove to him that "every portion of matter is influenced by
different, active principles, tending to produce change," and,
therefore, every thing in universal nature is _always_ acting, it is
not at all probable, that you could convince his _understanding_, in
opposition to the dearer testimony of his senses. Of what avail to
learners is a theory which they cannot comprehend?

Among the various theorists and speculative writers on philosophical
grammar, the ingenious Horne Tooke stands pre-eminent; but,
unfortunately, his principal speculations on the verb, have never
met the public eye. William S. Cardell has also rendered himself
conspicuous in the philological field, by taking a bolder stand than
any of his predecessors. His view of the verb is novel, and
ingeniously supported. The following is the substance of his theory

OF THE VERB.

A verb is a word which expresses _action;_ as, Man _exists_; Trees
_grow_; Waters_flow_; Mountains _stand_; I _am_.

All verbs are active, and have one object or more than one,
expressed or implied. The pillar _stands_; that is, it _keeps
itself_ in an erect or standing posture; it _upholds_ or _sustains
itself_ in that position. They _are_; i.e. they _air_ themselves, or
_breathe_ air; they _inspirit, vivify_, or _uphold_ themselves by
inhaling air.

Many verbs whose objects are seldom expressed, always have a persona
or verbal one implied. The clouds _move_; i.e. move _themselves_
along. The troops _marched_ twenty miles a day; i.e. marched
_themselves_. The moon _shines_:--The moon _shines_ or _sheds_ a
_shining, sheen, lustre_, or _brightness_. The sparrow
_flies:--flies_ or _takes_ a _flight_. Talkers talk or speak _words_
or _talk_; Walkers walk _walkings_ or _walks_; The rain rains
_rain_; Sitters sit or hold _sittings_ or _sessions_.

To prove that there is no such thing as a neuter verb, the following
appear to be the strongest arguments adduced.

1. No portion of matter is ever in a state of perfect quiescence;
but the component parts of every thing are at all times "influenced
by different, active principles, tending to produce change." Hence,
it follows, that no being or thing can be represented in a _neuter_
or _non-acting state_.

This argument supposes the essential character of the verb to be
identified with the primary laws of action, as unfolded by the
principles of physical science. The correctness of this position may
be doubted; but if it can be clearly demonstrated, that every
particle of matter is always in motion, it does not, by any means,
follow, that we cannot _speak of_ things in a state of quiescence.
What is _false_ in fact may be _correct_ in grammar. _The point
contested, is not whether things always_ act, _but whether, when we
assert or affirm something respecting them, we always_ represent
_them as acting_.

2. Verbs were _originally_ used to express the motions or changes of
things which produced obvious actions, and, by an easy transition,
were afterward applied, in the same way, to things whose actions
were not apparent. This assumption is untenable, and altogether
gratuitous.

3. Verbs called neuter are used in the imperative mood; and, as this
mood commands some one to _do_ something, any verb which adopts it,
must be active. Thus, in the common place phrases, "_Be_ there
quickly; _Stand_ out of my way; _Sit_ or _lie_ farther."

It is admitted that these verbs are here employed in an _active_
sense; but it is certain, that they are not used according to their
proper, _literal_ meaning. When I tell a man, _literally_, to
_stand, sit_, or _lie_, by _moving_ he would disobey me; but when I
say, "_Stand_ out of my way," I employ the neuter verb _stand_,
instead of the active verb _move_ or _go_, and in a correspondent
sense. My meaning is, _Move_ yourself out of my way; or _take_ your
_stand_ somewhere else. This, however, does not prove that _stand_
is properly used. If we choose to overstep the bounds of custom, we
can employ any _word_ in the language as an active-transitive verb.
_Be, sit_, and _lie_, may be explained in the same manner.

4. Neuter verbs are used in connexion with adverbs which express the
manner of _action_. They must, therefore, be considered active
verbs. The child _sleeps soundly_; He _sits genteelly_; They _live
contentedly_ and _happily_ together.