Chapter III: Part 3

In the proper place I shall consider those words formerly called "Adjective Pronouns," "Pronoun Adjectives," or "Pronominal Adjectives," to suit the varying whims of those grammar makers, who desired to show off a speck of improvement in their "simplifying" works without ever having a new idea to express. It is a query in some minds whether the seventy-two "simplifiers" and "improvers" of Murray's grammar ever had any distinct notions in their heads which they did not obtain from the very man, who, it would seem by their conduct, was unable to explain his own meaning.

LECTURE VI.

ON ADJECTIVES.

Definition of adjectives.--General character.--Derivation.--How
understood.--Defining and describing.--Meaning changes to suit the
noun.--Too numerous.--Derived from nouns.--Nouns and verbs made from
adjectives.--Foreign adjectives.--A general list.--Difficult to be
understood.--An example.--Often superfluous.--Derived from
verbs.--Participles.--Some prepositions.--Meaning unknown.--With.--
In.--Out.--Of.

The most important sub-division of words is the class called Adjectives, which we propose to notice this evening. _Adjective_ signifies _added_ or _joined to_. We employ the term in grammar to designate that class of words which are _added to nouns to define or describe them_. In doing this, we strictly adhere to the principles we have already advanced, and do not deviate from the laws of nature, as developed in the regulation of speech.

In speaking of things, we had occasion to observe that the mind not only conceived ideas of things, but of their properties; as, the hardness of flint; the heat of fire; and that we spoke of one thing in reference to another. We come now to consider this subject more at large.

In the use of language the mind first rests on the thing which is present before it, or the word which represents the idea of that thing. Next it observes the changes and attitudes of these things. Thirdly, it conceives ideas of their qualities and relations to other things. The first use of these words is to name things. This we call _nouns_. The second is to express their actions. This we call _verbs_. The last is to define or describe things. This we call _adjectives_. There is a great similarity between the words used to name things and to express their actions; as, builders build buildings; singers sing songs; writers write writings; painters paint paintings. In the popular use of language we vary these words to avoid the monotony and give pleasantness and variety. We say builders _erect_ houses, barns, and other buildings; singers perform pieces of music; musicians play tunes; the choir sing psalm tunes; artists paint pictures.

From these two classes a third is derived which partakes somewhat of the nature of both, and yet from its secondary use, it has obtained a distinctive character, and as such is allowed a separate position among the classes of words.

It might perhaps appear more in order to pass the consideration of adjectives till we have noticed the character and use of verbs, from which an important portion of them is derived. But as they are used in connexion with nouns, and as the character they borrow from the verb will be readily understood, I have preferred to retain the old arrangement, and consider them in this place.

_Adjectives are words added to nouns to define or describe them._ They are derived either, 1st, from nouns; as, _window_ glass, _glass_ window, a stone house, building stone, maple sugar, sugar cane; or, 2d, from verbs; as, a _written_ paper, a _printed_ book, a _painted_ house, a _writing_ desk. In the first case we employ one noun, or the name of one thing, to define another, thus giving it a secondary use. A _glass_ window is one made of glass, and not of any thing else. It is neither a _board_ window, nor a _paper_ window. _Maple_ sugar is not _cane_ sugar, nor _beet_ sugar, nor _molasses_ sugar; but it may be _brown_ sugar, if it has been browned, or _white_ if it has been whit_ed_ or whit_ened_. In this case, you at once perceive the correctness of our second proposition, in the derivation of adjectives from verbs, by which we describe a thing in reference to its condition, in some way affected by the operation of a prior action. A _printed_ book is one on which the action of printing has been performed. A _written_ book differs from the former, in as much as its appearance was produced by writing and not by printing.

In the definition or description of things, whatever is best understood is employed as a definitive or descriptive term, and is attached to the object to make known its properties and relations. Speaking of nations, if we desire to distinguish some from others, we choose the words supposed to be best known, and talk of European, African, American, or Indian nations; northern, southern, eastern, or western nations. These last words are used in reference to their relative position, and may be variously understood; for we speak of the northern, eastern, western, and southern nations of Europe, of Africa, and the world.

Again, we read of civiliz_ed_, half-civilized, and barbarous nations; learned, unlearned, ignorant, and enlightened; rich, powerful, enterprising, respected, ancient or modern, christian, mahomedan or pagan. In these, and a thousand similar cases, we decide the meaning, not alone from the word employed as an adjective, but from the subject of remark; for, were we to attach the same meaning to the same word, wherever used, we could not receive correct or definite impressions from the language of others--our inferences would be the most monstrous. A _great_ mountain and a _great_ pin, a _great_ continent and a _great_ farm, a _great_ ocean and a _great_ pond, a _great_ grammar and a _great_ scholar, refer to things of very different dimensions and character; or, as Mr. Murray would say, "_qualities_." A mountain is great by comparison with other mountains; and a pin, compared with other pins, may be very large--exceeding great--and yet fall very far short of the size of a very small mountain. A _small_ man may be a _great_ scholar, and a rich neighbor a poor friend. A sweet flower is often very bitter to the taste. A _good_ horse would make a _bad_ dinner, but _false_ grammar can never make _true_ philologists.

All words are to be understood according to their use. Their meaning can be determined in no other way. Many words change their forms to express their relations, but fewer in our language than in most others, ancient or modern. Other words remain the same, or nearly so, in every position; noun, adjective, or verb, agent or object, past or present. To determine whether a word is an adjective, first ascertain whether it names a thing, defines or describes it, or expresses its action, and you will never be at a loss to know to what class it belongs.

The business of adjectives is twofold, and they may be distinguished by the appellations of _defining_ or _describing_ adjectives. This distinction is in many cases unimportant; in others it is quite essential. The same word in one case may _define_, in others _describe_ the object, and occasionally do both, for we often specify things by their descriptions. The learner has only to ascertain the meaning and use of the adjective to decide whether it defines or describes the subject of remark. If it is employed to distinguish one thing from the general mass, or one class from other classes, it has the former character; but after such thing is pointed out, if it is used to give a description of its character or properties, its character is different, and should be so understood and explained.

_Defining adjectives_ are used to _point out_, specify or distinguish certain things from others of their kind, or one sort from other sorts, and answer to the questions _which_, _what_, _how many_, or _how much_.

_Describing adjectives_ express the character and qualities of things, and give a more full and distinct knowledge than was before possessed.

In a case before mentioned, we spoke of the "Indian nations." The word _Indian_ was chosen to specify or define what nations were alluded to. But all may not decide alike in this case. Some may think we meant the aborigines of America; others, that the southern nations of Asia were referred to. This difficulty originates in a misapprehension of the definitive word chosen. India was early known as the name of the south part of Asia, and the people there, were called Indians. When Columbus discovered the new world, supposing he had reached the country of India, which had long been sought by a voyage round the coast of Africa, he named it India, and the people Indians. But when the mistake was discovered, and the truth fully known, instead of effecting a change in the name already very generally understood, and in common use, another word was chosen to distinguish between countries so opposite and _West_ India became the word to distinguish the newly discovered islands; and as India was little better known in Europe at that time, instead of retaining their old name unaltered, another word was prefixed, and they called it _East_ India. When, therefore, we desire to be definite, we retain these words, and say, East Indians and West Indians. Without this distinction, we should understand the native people of our own country; but in Europe, Asia, and Africa, they would think we alluded to those in Asia. So with all other adjectives which are not understood. _Indian_, as an adjective, may also be employed to _describe_ the character and condition of the aborigines. We talk of an indian temper, indian looks, indian blankets, furs, &c.

In writing and conversation we should employ words to explain, to define and describe, which are better understood than those things of which we speak. The pedantry of some modern writers in this respect is ridiculous. Not satisfied to use plain terms which every body can understand, they hunt the dictionaries from alpha to omega, and not unfrequently overleap the "king's english," and ransack other languages to find an unheard of word, or a list of adjectives never before arranged together, in so nice a manner, so that their ideas are lost to the common reader, if not to themselves. This fault may be alleged against too many of our public speakers, as well as the affected gentry of the land. They are like Shakspeare's Gratiano, "who speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice; his reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff: you shall seek all day ere you find them; and, when you have found them, they are not worth the search." Such sentences remind us of the painting of the young artist who drew the form of an animal, but apprehensive that some might mistake it, wrote under it, "_This is a horse._"

In forming our notions of what is signified by an adjective, the mind should pause to determine the meaning of such word when used as a distinct name for some object, in order to determine the import of it in this new capacity. A _tallow_ candle is one made of a substance called tallow, and is employed to distinguish it from wax or spermaceti candles. The adjective in this case, names the article of which the candle is made, and is thus a noun, but, as we are not speaking of tallow, but of candles, we place it in a new relation, and give it a new grammatical character. But you will perceive the correctness of a former assertion, that all words may be reduced to two classes, and that adjectives are derived from nouns or verbs.

But you may inquire if there are not some adjectives in use which have no corresponding verb or noun from which they are derived. There are many words in our language which in certain uses have become obsolete, but are retained in others. We now use some words as verbs which originally were known only as nouns, and others as nouns which are unknown as verbs. We also put a new construction upon words and make nouns, verbs and adjectives promiscuously and with little regard to rule or propriety. Words at one time unknown become familiar by use, and others are laid aside for those more new or fashionable. These facts are so obvious that I shall be excused from extending my remarks to any great length. But I will give an example which will serve as a clew to the whole. Take the word _happy_, long known only as an adjective. Instead of following this word _back_ to its primitive use and deriving it directly from its noun, or as a past participle, such as it is in truth, we have gone _forward_ and made from it the noun _happiness_, and, in more modern days, are using the verb _happify_, a word, by the way, in common use, but which has not yet been honored with a place in our dictionaries; altho Mr. Webster has given us, as he says, the _unauthorised_ (un-author-ised) word "_happifying_." Perhaps he had never heard or read some of our greatest savans, who, if not the authors, employ the word _happify_ very frequently in the pulpit and halls of legislation, and at the bar, as well as in common parlance.

_Happy_ is the past participle of the verb _to hap_, or, as afterwards used, with a nice shade of change in the meaning, _to happen_. It means _happied_, or made happy by those favorable circumstances which have _happened_ to us. Whoever will read our old writers no further back than Shakspeare, will at once see the use and changes of this word. They will find it in all its forms, simple and compound, as a verb, noun, and adjective. "It may _hap_ that he will come." It happened as I was going that I found my lost child, and was thereby made quite happy. The man desired to _hap_pify himself and family without much labor, so he engaged in speculation; and _hap_pily he was not so _hap_less in his pursuit of _hap_piness as often _hap_pens to such _hap_-hazard fellows, for he soon became very _hap_py with a moderate fortune.

But to the question. There are many adjectives in our language which are borrowed from foreign words. Instead of _adjectiving_ our own nouns we go to our neighbors and _adjective_ and anglicise [english-ise] their words, and adopt the pampered urchins into our own family and call them our favorites. It is no wonder that they often appear aukward and unfamiliar, and that our children are slow in forming an intimate acquaintance with them. You are here favored with a short list of these words which will serve as examples, and enable you to comprehend my meaning and apply it in future use. Some of them are regularly used as adjectives, with or without change; others are not.

ENGLISH NOUNS. FOREIGN ADJECTIVES.

Alone Sole, solitary
Alms Eleemosynary
Age Primeval
Belief Credulous
Blame Culpable
Breast Pectoral
Being Essential
Bosom Graminal, sinuous
Boy, boyish Puerile
Blood, bloody Sanguinary, sanguine
Burden Onerous
Beginning Initial
Boundary Conterminous
Brother Fraternal
Bowels Visceral
Body Corporeal
Birth Natal, native
Calf Vituline
Carcass Cadaverous
Cat Feline
Cow Vaccine
Country Rural, rustic
Church Ecclesiastical
Death Mortal
Dog Canine
Day Diurnal, meridian, ephemeral
Disease Morbid
East Oriental
Egg Oval
Ear Auricular
Eye Ocular
Flesh Carnal, carnivorous
Father Paternal
Field Agrarian
Flock Gregarious
Foe Hostile
Fear Timorous, timid
Finger Digital
Flattery Adulatory
Fire Igneous
Faith Fiducial
Foot Pedal
Groin Inguinal
Guardian Tutelar
Glass Vitreous
Grape Uveous
Grief Dolorous
Gain Lucrative
Help Auxiliary
Heart Cordial, cardiac
Hire Stipendiary
Hurt Noxious
Hatred Odious
Health Salutary, salubrious
Head Capital, chief
Ice Glacial
Island Insular
King Regal, royal
Kitchen Culinary
Life Vital, vivid, vivarious
Lungs Pulmonary
Lip Labial
Leg Crural, isosceles
Light Lucid, luminous
Love Amorous
Lust Libidinous
Law Legal, loyal
Mother Maternal
Money Pecuniary
Mixture Promiscuous, miscellaneous
Moon Lunar, sublunary
Mouth Oral
Marrow Medulary
Mind Mental
Man Virile, male, human, masculine
Milk Lacteal
Meal Ferinaceous
Nose Nasal
Navel Umbilical
Night Nocturnal, equinoctial
Noise Obstreperous
One First
Parish Parochial
People Popular, populous, public, epidemical, endemical
Point Punctual
Pride Superb, haughty
Plenty Copious
Pitch Bituminous
Priest Sacerdotal
Rival Emulous
Root Radical
Ring Annular
Reason Rational
Revenge Vindictive
Rule Regular
Speech Loquacious, garrulous, eloquent
Smell Olfactory
Sight Visual, optic, perspicuous, conspicuous
Side Lateral, collateral
Skin Cutaneous
Spittle Salivial
Shoulder Humeral
Shepherd Pastoral
Sea Marine, maritime
Share Literal
Sun Solar
Star Astral, sideral, stellar
Sunday Dominical
Spring Vernal
Summer Estival
Seed Seminal
Ship Naval, nautical
Shell Testaceous
Sleep Soporiferous
Strength Robust
Sweat Sudorific
Step Gradual
Sole Venal
Two Second
Treaty Federal
Trifle Nugatory
Tax Fiscal
Time Temporal, chronical
Town Oppidan
Thanks Gratuitous
Theft Furtive
Threat Minatory
Treachery Insidious
Thing Real
Throat Jugular, gutteral
Taste Insipid
Thought Pensive
Thigh Femoral
Tooth Dental
Tear Lachrymal
Vessel Vascular
World Mundane
Wood Sylvan, savage
Way Devious, obvious, impervious, trivial
Worm Vermicular
Whale Cutaceous
Wife Uxorious
Word Verbal, verbose
Weak Hebdomadal
Wall Mural
Will Voluntary, spontaneous
Winter Brumal
Wound Vulnerary
West Occidental
War Martial
Women Feminine, female, effeminate
Year Annual, anniversary, perennial, triennial

Such are some of the adjectives introduced into our language from other nations. The list will enable you to discover that when we have no adjective of our own to correspond with the noun, we borrow from our neighbors an adjective derived from one of their nouns, to which we give an english termination. For example:

_English Noun._ _Latin Noun._ _Adjective._

Boy Puer Puerile
Grief Dolor Dolorous
Thought Pensa Pensive
Wife Uxor Uxorious
Word Verbum Verbal, verbose
Year Annum Annual
Body Corpus Corporeal
Head Caput Capital
Church Ekklesia (_Greek_) Ecclesiastical
King Roi (_French_) Royal
Law Loi " Loyal

It is exceedingly difficult to understand the adjectives of many nouns with which we are familiar, from the fact above stated, that they are derived from other languages, and not our own. The most thoro scholars have found this task no easy affair. Most grammarians have let it pass unobserved; but every person has seen the necessity of some explanation upon this point, to afford a means of ascertaining the etymological derivation and meaning of these words. I would here enter farther into this subject, but I am reminded that I am surpassing the limits set me for this course of lectures.

The attention I have bestowed on this part of the present subject, will not be construed into a mere verbal criticism. It has been adopted to show you how, in the definition or description of things, the mind clings to one thing to gain some information concerning another. When we find a thing unlike any thing else we have ever known, in form, in size, in color, in every thing; we should find it a difficult task, if not an impossibility, to describe it to another in a way to give any correct idea of it. Having never seen its like before, we can say little of its character. We may give it a _name_, but that would not be understood. We could say it was as large as--no, it had no size; that it was like--but no, it had no likeness; that it resembled--no, it had no resemblance. How could we describe it? What could we say of it? Nothing at all.

What idea could the Pacha of Egypt form of ice, having never seen any till the french chemists succeeded in freezing water in his presence? They told him of ice; that it was _cold_; that it would freeze; that whole streams were often frozen over, so that men and teams could walk over them. He believed no such thing--it was a "christian lie." This idea was confirmed on the first trial of the chemists, which failed of success. But when, on the second attempt, they succeeded, he was all in raptures. A new field was open before him. New ideas were produced in his mind. New qualities were learned; and he could now form some idea of the _ice_ bergs of the north; of _frozen_ regions, which he had never seen; of _icy_ hearts, and storms of _frozen_ rain.

We often hear it said, such a man is very _stoical_; another is an _epicurean_; and another is a _bacchanal_, or _bacchanalian_. But what idea should we form of such persons, if we had never read of the Stoics and their philosophy; of Epicurus and his notions of happiness and duty; or of Bacchus, the god of wine and revelry, whose annual feasts, or Dionysia, were celebrated with the most extravagant licentiousness thro out Greece and Rome, till put down by the Senate of the latter.

You can not fail to see the importance of the knowledge on which we here insist. The meaning you attach to words is exceedingly diverse; and hence you are not always able to think alike, or understand each other, nor derive the same sentiment from the same language. The contradictory opinions which exist in the world may be accounted for, in a great measure, in this way. Our knowledge of many things of which we speak, is limited, either from lack of means, or disposition to employ them. People always differ and contend most about things of which they know the least. Did we all attach the same meaning to the same words, our opinions would all be the same, as true as the forty-fifth problem of Euclid. How important, then, that children should always be taught the same meaning of words, and learn to use them correctly. Etymology, viewed in this light, is a most important branch of science.

Whenever a word is sufficiently understood, no adjective should be connected with it. There is a ridiculous practice among many people, of appending to every noun one or more adjectives, which have no other effect than to expose their own folly. Some writers are so in the habit of annexing adjectives to all nouns, that they dare not use one without. You will not unfrequently see adjectives different in form, added to a noun of very similar meaning; as, sad melancholy, an ominous sign, this mundane earth, pensive thoughts.

When words can be obtained, which not only name the object, but also describe its properties, it should be preferred to a noun with an adjective; as _pirate_, for _sea robber_; _savan_, for a _learned_ or _wise man_.[4]

In relation to that class of adjectives derived from verbs, we will be brief. They include what have been termed participles, not a distinct "part of speech," but by some included in the verbs. We use them as adjectives to describe things as standing in some relation to other things on the account of the action expressed by the verb from which they are derived. "The man is respected." _Respected_, in this case, describes the man in such a relation to those who have become acquainted with his good qualities, that he now receives their respect. He is respect_able_, (_able_ to command, or worthy of respect,) and of course, respected for his respectability. To avoid repetition, we select different words to assist in the expression of a complex idea. But I indulge in phrases like the above, to show the nice shades of meaning in the common use of words, endeavoring to analyze, as far as possible, our words and thoughts, and show their mutual connexion and dependencies.

What has been termed the "present participle" is also an adjective, describing things in their present condition in reference to actions. "The man is writing." Here, _writing_ describes the man in his present employment. But the consideration of this matter more properly belongs to the construction of sentences.

* * * * *

There is another class or variety of words properly belonging to this division of grammar, which may as well be noticed in this place as any other. I allude to those words generally called "Prepositions." We have not time now to consider them at large, but will give you a brief view of our opinion of them, and reserve the remainder of our remarks till we come to another part of these lectures.

Most of the words called prepositions, in books of grammar, are participles, derived from verbs, many of which are still in use, but some are obsolete. They are used in the true character of adjectives, _describing one thing by its relation to another_. But their meaning has not been generally understood. Our dictionaries have afforded no means by which we can trace their etymology. They have been regarded as a kind of cement to stick other words together, having no meaning or importance in themselves.[5] Until their meaning is known, we can not reasonably expect to draw them from their hiding places, and give them a respectable standing in the transmission of thought.

Many words, from the frequency of their use, fail to attract our attention as much as those less employed; not because they are less important, but because they are so familiarly known that the operations of thought are not observed in the choice made of them to express ideas. If we use words of which little is known, we ponder well before we adopt them, to determine whether the sense usually attached to them accords exactly with the notions we desire to convey by them. The same can not be said of small words which make up a large proportion of our language, and are, in fact, more necessary than the others, in as much as their meaning is more generally known. Those who employ carriages to convey their bodies, observe little of their construction, unless there is something singular or fine in their appearance. The common parts are unobserved, yet as important as the small words used in the common construction of language, the vehicle of thought. As the apostle says of the body politic, "those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary;" so the words least understood by grammarians are most necessary in the correct formation of language.

It is an easy matter to get along with the words called prepositions, after they are all learned by rote; but when their meaning and use are inquired into, the best grammarians have little to say of them.

A list of prepositions, alphabetically arranged, is found in nearly every grammar, which scholars are required to commit to memory, without knowing any thing of their meaning or use, only that they are prepositions when an objective word comes after them, _because the books say so_; but occasionally the same words occur as adverbs and adjectives. There is, however, no trouble in "parsing" them, unless the list is forgotten. In that case, you will see the pupil, instead of inquiring after the meaning and duty of the word, go to the book and search for it in the lists of prepositions or conjunctions; or to the dictionary, to see if there is a "_prep._" appended to it. What will children ever learn of language in this way? Of what avail is all such grammar teaching? As soon as they leave school it is all forgotten; and you will hear them say, at the very time they should be reaping the harvest of former toil, that they once understood grammar, but it is all gone from them. Poor souls! their memory is very treacherous, else they have never learned language as they ought. There is a fault somewhere. To us it is not difficult to determine where it is.

That certain words are prepositions, there can be no doubt, because the books say they are; but _why_ they are so, is quite another matter. All we desire is to have their meaning understood. Little difficulty will then be found in determining their use.

I have said they are derived from verbs, many of which are obsolete. Some are still in use, both as verbs and nouns. Take for example the word =with=. This word signifies _joined_ or _united_. It is used to show that two things are some how joined together so that they are spoke of in connexion. It frequently occurs in common conversation, as a verb and noun, but not as frequently in the books as formerly. The farmer says to his _hired_ man, "Go and get a _withe_ and come and _withe_ up the fence;" that is, get some pliant twigs of tough wood, twist them together, and _withe_ or bind them round these posts, so that one may stand firm _with_, or _withed_ to, the other. A book _with_ a cover, is one that has a cover _joined_, bound, or attached to it. "A father _with_ a son, a man _with_ an estate, a nation _with_ a constitution." In all such cases _with_ expresses the relation between the two things mentioned, produced by a _union_ or connexion with each other.[6]

=In= is used in the same way. It is still retained as a noun and is suspended on the signs of many public houses. "The traveller's _inn_," is a house where travellers _in_ themselves, or go _in_, for entertainment. It occurs frequently in Shakspeare and in more modern writers, as a verb, and is still used in common conversation as an imperative. "Go, _in_ the crops of grain." "_In_ with you." "_In_ with it." In describes one thing by its relation to another, which is the business of adjectives. It admits of the regular degrees of comparison; as, _in_, _inner_, _innermost_ or _inmost_. It also has its compounds. _In_step, the _inner_ part of the foot, _in_let, _in_vestment, _in_heritance. In this capacity it is extensively used under its different shades of meaning which I cannot stop to notice.

=Of= signifies _divided_, _separated_, or _parted_. "The ship is _off_ the coast." "I am bound _off_, and you are bound _out_." "A part _of_ a pencil," is that part which is _separated_ from the rest, implying that the act of _separating_, or _offing_, has taken place. "A branch _of_ the tree." There is the tree; this branch is from it. "Our communication was broken _off_ several years ago." "Sailors record their _off_ings, and parents love their _off_spring," or those children which sprung from them.[7] "We also _are his offspring_;" that is, sprung from God.[8] In all these, and every other case, you will perceive the meaning of the word, and its office will soon appear essential in the expression of thought. Had all the world been a compact whole, nothing ever separated from it, we could never speak of a part _of_ it, for we could never have such an idea. But we look at things, as separated, divided, parted; and speak of one thing as separated from the others. Hence, when we speak of the part of the earth we inhabit, we, in imagination, separate it from some other _part_, or the general whole. We can not use this word in reference to a thing which is indivisible, because we can conceive no idea of a part _of_ an indivisible thing. We do not say, a portion _of_ our mind taken as a whole, but as capable of division. A share _of_ our regards, supposes that the remainder is reserved for something else.

=Out=, out_er_ or utter, outer_most_ or utmost, admits of the same remark as _in_.

* * * * *

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

LECTURE VII.

ON ADJECTIVES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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