Chapter VIII: Part 8

In this mood the verb must have an agent and object, expressed or implied; as, "_farmers_ cultivate the _soil_." But a whole sentence, that is, an idea written out, may perform this duty; as, "The study of grammar, on false principles, is productive of no good." What is productive of no good? What is the agent of _is_? "The _study_," our books and teachers tell us. But does such a construction give the true meaning of the sentence? I think not, for _study_ is indispensable to knowledge and usefulness, and _the study_ of grammar, properly directed, is a most useful branch of literature, which should never be dispensed with. It is the study of grammar _on false principles_, which _is productive of no good_. You discover my meaning, and will not question its correctness. You must also see how erroneous it would be to teach children that "_to study_ is productive of no good." The force of the sentence rests on the "false principles" taught. Hence the whole statement is truly the agent of the verb.

The object on which the action terminates is frequently expressed in a similar manner; as, "He wrote to me, that he will adopt the new system of grammar, if he can procure some books to give his scholars to learn." Will you parse _wrote_? Most grammarians will call it an _intransitive_ verb, and make out that "he wrote" _nothing_ to me, because there is no regular objective word after it. Will you parse _that_? It is a "conjunction _copulative_." What does it connect? "_He wrote_" to the following sentence, according to Rule 18 of Mr. Murray; "conjunctions connect the _same_ moods and tenses of verbs and cases of nouns and pronouns." Unluckily you have two different tenses connected in this case. Will you parse _if_? It is a _copulative_ conjunction, connecting the two members of the sentence--_he will adopt_ if _he can procure_: Rule, as above. How exceeding unfortunate! You have _two_ different moods, and too different tenses, connected by a _copulative_ conjunction which the rule says "connects _the same_ moods and tenses! What nonsense! What a falsehood! What a fine thing to be a grammarian! And yet, I venture the opinion, and I judge from what I have seen in myself and others, there is not one teacher in a hundred who will not learn children to parse as above, and apply the same rule to it. "I _will go_ if I _can_." "I _do_ and _will_ contend." "As it _was_ in the beginning, _is_ now, _and_ ever _shall be_." "I _am_ here and _must_ remain." "He _will do_ your business _if_ he _has_ time." "I _am_ resolved _to expose_ the errors of grammar, _and will do_ it thoroly _if_ I _can_."

In these examples you have different moods and tenses, indiscriminately, yet correctly coupled together, despite the rules of syntax which teach us to explain language "with propriety."

_That_, in the sentence before us, is an adjective, referring to the following sentence, which is the _object_ of _wrote_, or is the thing written. "He wrote to me _that_" fact, sentiment, opinion, determination, or resolution, that writing, letter, or word--"he will adopt the new system of grammar, if he can procure some books."

This subject properly belongs to that department of language called syntax; but as I shall not be able to treat of that in this course of lectures, I throw in here these brief remarks to give you some general ideas of the arrangement of words into sentences, according to their true meaning, as obtained from a knowledge of their etymology. You cannot fail to observe this method of constructing language if you will pay a little attention to it when reading; keeping all the time in view the fact that words are only the signs of ideas, derived from an observation of things. You all know that it is not merely the steam that propels the boat, but that it is steam _applied to machinery_. Steam is the more latent cause; and the engine with its complicated parts is the direct means. In the absence of either, the boat would not be propelled. In the formation of language, I may say correctly, "Solomon _built_ the temple;" for he stood in that relation to the matter which supposes it would not have been built without his direction and command. To accomplish such an action, however, he need not raise a hammer or a gavel, or draw a line on the trestle board. His command made known to his ministers was sufficient to _cause_ the work to be done. Hence the whole fact is _indicated_ or declared by the single expression, "Solomon _built_ the temple."

The Imperative mood is unchanged in form. I can say to one man, _go_, or to a thousand, _go_. The commander when drilling _one_ soldier, says, _march_; and he bids the whole battalion, _march_. The agent who is _to perform_ the action is understood when not expressed; as, _go_, _go thou_, or _go you_. The agent is generally omitted, because the address is given direct to the person who is expected to obey the instruction, request, or command. This verb always agrees with an agent in the _second_ person. And yet our "grammars made easy" have given us _three persons_ in this mood--"_Let me love_; _love_, _love thou_, or _do_ thou _love_; let him love." In the name of common sense, I ask, what can children learn by such instruction? "_Let me love_," in the conjugation of the verb _to love_! To whom is this command given? To _myself_ of course! I command myself to "_let me love_!" What nonsense! "Let _him_ love." I stand here, you set there, and the _third_ person is in Philadelphia. I utter these words, "Let _him love_." What is my meaning? Why, our books tell us, that the verb to _love_ is _third_ person. Then I command _him_ to _let himself love_! What jargon and falsehood! You all know that we can address the _second_ person only. You would call me insane if I should employ language according to the rules of grammar as laid down in the standard books. In my room alone, no person near me, I cry out, "_let me be quiet_"--imperative mood, first person of _to be_! Do I command myself to _let_ myself _be_ quiet? Most certainly, if _be_ is the principal verb in the first person, and _let_ the auxiliary. The teacher observes one of his pupils take a pencil from a classmate who sets near him. He says, "_let him have it_." To whom is the command given? It is the imperative mood, third person of the verb _to have_. Does he command the third person, the boy who _has_ not the pencil? Such is the resolution of the sentence, according to the authority of standard grammars. But where is there a child five years old who does not know better. Every body knows that he addresses the second person, the boy who has the pencil, to _let_ the other _have_ it.

Teachers have learned their scholars the _first_ and _third_ persons of this mood when committing the conjugation of verbs; but not one in ten thousand ever adopted them in parsing. "_Let me love._" _Let_, all parse, Mr. Murray not excepted, in the _second_ person, and _love_ in the infinitive mood after it, without the sign _to_; according to the rule, that "verbs which follow _bid_, _dare_, _feel_, _hear_, _let_, _needs_, _speak_," etc. are in the infinitive mood. It is strange people will not eat their own cooking.

There can be no trouble in understanding this mood, as we have explained it, always in the future tense, that is, future to the command or request, agreeing with the _second_ person, and never varied on account of number.

The only variation in the infinitive mood is the omission of _to_ in certain cases, which is considered as a part of the verb; tho in truth it is no more so than when used in the character of an old fashioned preposition. In certain cases, as we have before observed, it is not expressed. This is when the infinitive verb follows small words in frequent use; as, shall, will, let, can, must, may, bid, do, have, make, feel, hear, etc.

This mood is always in the future tense; that is, it is future to the circumstances or condition of things upon which it depends; as, they are making preparations _to raise_ the building. Here _to raise_ is future to the preparations, for if they make no preparations, the buildings will not be raised. The boy studies his book _to learn_ his lesson. If he does not study, he will not be likely _to learn_ his lesson.

The allied powers of Europe combined their forces _to defeat_ Napoleon. In this instance the whole expression is in the past tense; nevertheless, the action expressed in the infinitive mood, _was future_ to the circumstance on which it depended; that is, the _defeat_ was _future_ to the _combination_ of the forces. Abraham raised the knife _to slay_ his son. Not that he did _slay_ him, as that sentence must be explained on the common systems, which teach us that _to slay_ is in the _present tense_; but he raised the fatal knife for that purpose, the fulfilment of which was future; but the angel staid his hand, and averted the blow. The patriots of Poland _made_ a noble attempt _to gain_ their liberty. But they did not _gain it_, as our grammars would teach us. _To gain_ was future to the attempt, and failed because the circumstances _indicated_ by the event, were insufficient to produce so favorable a result.

No person of common discernment can fail to observe the absolute falsehood of existing systems in respect to this mood. It is used by our authors of grammar in the _present_ and _past_ tenses, but never in the _future_. Let us give a moment to the consideration of this matter. Take the following example. He _will prepare_ himself next week _to go_ to Europe. Let the school master parse _will prepare_. It is a verb, indicative mood, _first future_ tense. _Next week_ is the point in futurity when the _preparation_ will be _made_. Now parse _to go_. It is a verb, infinitive mood, _present tense_! Then _he_ is already on his way to Europe, when he is not _to prepare_ himself till next week! An army is collected _to fight_ the enemy. Is the fight already commenced? _To fight_ is present tense, say the books. We shall study grammar next year, _to obtain_ a knowledge of the principles and use of language. Is _to obtain_ present tense? If so there is little need of spending time and money to study for a knowledge we _already possess_.

"Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never _is_, but always =to be= blest."
_Pope._

"Who _was_, and who _is_, and who _is_ =to come=."--_Bible._ It is not that a man thinks himself already in possession of a sufficiency, but hopes =to be= qualified, etc.

I _am to go_ in an hour. He _is to go_ to-morrow. I _am_ ready _to hear_ you recite your lesson. He _has been waiting_ a long time _to see_ if some new principles will not be introduced. He is prepared _to appear_ before you whenever you shall direct. We _are_ resolved _to employ_ neuter verbs, potential and subjunctive moods, im-perfect, plu-perfect, and second future tenses, no longer. False grammars _are_ only fit-_ted to be_ laid aside. We are in duty bound _to regard_ and _adopt_ truth, and _reject_ error; and we _are_ determined _to do_ it in grammar, and every thing else.

We are not surprised that people cannot comprehend grammar, as usually taught, for it is exceedingly difficult to make error appear like truth, or false teaching like sound sentiment. But I will not stop to moralize. The hints I have given must suffice.

Much more might be said upon the character and use of verbs; but as these lectures are not designed for _a system_ of grammar _to be taught_, but to expose the errors of existing systems, and prepare the way for a more rational and consistent exposition of language, I shall leave this department of our subject, presuming you will be able to comprehend our views, and appreciate their importance. We have been somewhat critical in a part of our remarks, and more brief than we should have been, had we not found that we were claiming too much of the time of the Institute, which is designed as a means of improvement on general subjects. Enough has been said, I am sure, to convince you, if you were not convinced before, why the study of grammar is so intricate and tedious, that it is to be accounted for from the fact that the theories by which it is taught are false in principle, and can not be adopted in practice; and that something ought to be done to make the study of language easy, interesting, and practical. Such a work is here attempted; but it remains with the public to say whether these plain philosophical principles shall be sustained, matured, perfected, and adopted in schools, or the old roundabout course of useless and ineffectual teaching be still preserved.

LECTURE XIV.

ON CONTRACTIONS.

A temporary expedient.--Words not understood.--All words must have
a meaning.--Their formation.--Changes of meaning and form.--Should
be observed.--=Adverbs=.--Ending in _ly_.--Examples.--Ago.--Astray.
--Awake.--Asleep.--Then, when.--There, where, here.--While,
till.--Whether, together.--Ever, never, whenever, etc.--Oft.--Hence.
--Perhaps.--Not.--Or.--Nor.--Than.--As.--So.--Distinctions
false.--Rule 18.--If.--But.--Tho.--Yet.

We have concluded our remarks on the necessary divisions of words. Things _named_, _defined_ and _described_, and their _actions_, _relations_, and _tendencies_, have been considered under the classes of Nouns, Adjectives, and Verbs. To these classes all words belong when properly explained; a fact we desire you to bear constantly in mind in all your attempts to understand and employ language. But there are many words in our language as well as most others, which are so altered and disguised that their meaning is not easily comprehended. Of course they are difficult of explanation. These words we have classed under the head of _Contractions_, a term better calculated than any other we have seen adopted to express their character. We do not however lay any stress on the appropriateness of this appellation, but adopt it as a temporary expedient, till these words shall be better understood. They will then be ranked in their proper places among the classes already noticed.

Under this head may be considered the words usually known as "adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and interjections." That the etymology and meaning of these words have not been generally understood will be conceded, I presume, on all hands. In our opinion, that is the only reason why they have been considered under these different heads, for in numberless cases there is nothing in their import to correspond with such distinctions. Why "an adverb expresses some _quality_ or circumstance respecting a verb, adjective, or other adverb;" why "a conjunction is chiefly used to connect sentences, so as out of _two_ to make only _one_ sentence;" or why "prepositions serve to connect words with one another, and show the relation between them," has never been explained. They have been _passed over_ with little difficulty by teachers, having been furnished with lists of words in each "part of speech," which they require their pupils to commit to memory, and "for ever after hold their peace" concerning them. But that these words have been defined or explained in a way to be understood will not be pretended. In justification of such ignorance, it is contended that such explanation is not essential to their proper and elegant use. If such is the fact, we may easily account for the incorrect use of language, and exonerate children from the labor of studying etymology.

But these words have meaning, and sustain a most important rank in the expression of ideas. They are, generally, abbreviated, compounded, and so disguised that their origin and formation are not generally known. Horne Tooke calls them "the _wheels_ of language, the _wings_ of Mercury." He says "tho we might be dragged along without them, it would be with much difficulty, very heavily and tediously." But when he undertakes to show that they were _constructed_ for this object, he mistakes their true character; for they were not invented for that purpose, but were originally employed as nouns or verbs, from which they have been corrupted by use. And he seems to admit this fact when he says,[19] "_abbreviation_ and _corruption_ are always busiest with the words which are most frequently in use. Letters, like soldiers, being very apt to desert and drop off in a long march, and especially if their passage happens to lie near the confines of an enemy's country."

In the original construction of language a set of literary men did not get together and manufacture a lot of words, finished thro out and exactly adapted to the expression of thought. Had that been the case, language would doubtless have appeared in a much more regular, stiff, and formal dress, and been deprived of many of its beautiful and lofty figures, its richest and boldest expressions. Necessity is the mother of invention. It was not until people had _ideas_ to communicate, that they sought a medium for the transmission of thought from one to another; and then such sounds and signs were adopted as would best answer their purpose. But language was not then framed like a cotton mill, every part completed before it was set in operation. Single expressions, _sign_-ificant of things, or _ideas_ of _things_ and _actions_, were first employed, in the most simple, plain, and easy manner.[20] As the human mind advanced in knowledge, by observing the character, relations, and differences of things, words were changed, altered, compounded, and contracted, so as to keep pace with such advancement; just as many simple parts of a machine, operating on perfect and distinct principles, may be combined together and form a most complicated, curious, and powerful engine, of astonishing power, and great utility. In the adaptation of steam to locomotives, the principles on which stationary engines operated were somewhat modified. Some wheels, shafts, bands, screws, etc., were omitted, others of a different kind were added, till the whole appeared in a new character, and the engine, before fixed to a spot, was seen traversing the road with immense rapidity. The principles of the former engine, so far from being unessential, were indispensable to the construction of the new one, and should be clearly understood by him who would build or _use_ the latter. So, in the formation of language, simple _first_ principles must be observed and traced thro all their ramifications, by those who would obtain a clear and thoro knowledge of it, or "read and write it with propriety."

In mathematics, the four simple rules, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, form the basis on which that interesting science depends. The modifications of these rules, according to their various capabilities, will give a complete knowledge of all that can be known of numbers, relations, and proportions, an acme to which all may aspire, tho none have yet attained it. The principles of language are equally simple, and, if correctly explained, may be as well understood. But the difficulty under which we labor in this department of science, is the paucity of _means_ to trace back to their original form and meaning many words and phrases in common use among us. Language has been employed as the vehicle of thought, for six thousand years, and in that long space has undergone many and strange modifications. At the dispersion from Babel, and the "confusion of tongues" occasioned thereby, people were thrown upon their own resources, and left to pick up by piecemeal such shreds as should afterwards be wove into a system, and adopted by their respective nations. Wars, pestilence, and famine, as well as commerce, enterprize, literature, and religion, brought the different nations into intercourse with each other; and changes were thus produced in the languages of such people. Whoever will take the trouble to compare the idioms of speech adopted by those nations whose affairs, civil, political, and religious, are most intimately allied, will be convinced of the correctness of the sentiment now advanced.

In the lapse of ages, words would not only change their form, but in a measure their meaning, so as to correspond with the ideas of those who use them. Some would become obsolete, and others be adopted in their stead. Many words are found in the Bible which are not in common use; and the manner of spelling, as well as some entire words, have been changed in that book, since it was translated and first published in 1610. With these examples you are familiar, and I shall be spared the necessity of quoting them. I have already made some extracts from old writers, and may have occasion to do so again before I close this lecture.

The words which we class under the head of Contractions, are so altered and disguised in their appearance, that their etymology and connexion are not generally understood. It may appear like pedantry in me to attempt an investigation into their origin and meaning. But to avoid that charge, I will frankly acknowledge the truth, and own my inability to do justice to this subject, by offering a full explanation of all the words which belong to this class. I will be candid, if I am not successful. But I think most of the words long considered difficult, may be easily explained; enough to convince you of the feasibility of the ground we have assumed, and furnish a sample by which to pursue the subject in all our future inquiries into the etymology of words.

But even if I fail in this matter, I shall have one comfort left, that I am not alone in the transgression; for no philologist, with few exceptions, has done any thing like justice to this subject. Our common grammars have not even attempted an inquiry into the _meaning_ of these words, but have treated them as tho they had none. Classes, like pens or reservoirs, are made for them, into which they are thrown, and allowed to rest, only to be named, without being disturbed. Sometimes, however, they are found in one enclosure, sometimes in another, more by mistake, I apprehend, than by intention; for "prepositions" under certain circumstances are parsed as "adverbs," and "adverbs" as "adjectives," and "conjunctions" as either "adverbs" or "prepositions;" and not unfrequently the whole go off together, like the tail of the dragon, drawing other respectable words along with them, under the sweeping cognomen of "adverbial phrases," or "conjunctive expressions;" as, Can you write your lesson? _Not yet quite well enough._ "_But and if_ that evil servant,"[21] etc. Mr. Murray says, "the same word is occasionally used _both as_ a conjunction _and as_ an adverb, and sometimes _as_ a preposition.

Let these words be correctly defined, their meaning be ferreted out from the rubbish in which they have been enclosed; or have their dismembered parts restored to them, they will then appear in their true character, and their connexion with other words will be found regular and easy. Until such work is accomplished, they may as well be called contractions, for such they _mostly_ are, as adverbs or any thing else; for that appellation we regard as more appropriate than any other.

In the attempts we are about to make, we shall endeavor to be guided by sound philosophic principles and the light of patient investigation; and whatever advances we may make shall be in strict accordance with the true and practical use of these words.

Let us begin with _Adverbs_.

I have not time to go into a thoro investigation of the mistakes into which grammarians have fallen in their attempts to explain this "part of speech." Mr. Murray says they "seem originally to have been _contrived_ to express compendiously in _one word_, what must _otherwise_ have required two or more; as, "he acted _wisely_." They could have been "_contrived_" for no such purpose, for we have already seen that they are made up of various words combined together, which are used to express relation, to define or describe other things. Take the very example Mr. M. has given. _Wisely_ is made up of two words; _wise_ and _like_. "He acted wisely," wise-like. What did he _act_? _Wisely_, we are taught, expresses the "_manner_ or quality" of the verb _act_. But _act_, in this case, is a neuter or intransitive verb, and _wisely_ expresses the _manner of action_ where there is none! But he must have _acted something_ which was _wise_ like something else. What did he act? If he produced no _actions_, how can it be known that he _acted_ wisely or unwisely? _Action_ or _acts_ is the direct object of to _act_. Hence the sentence fully stated would stand thus: "He acted _acts_ or _actions_ like wise actions or acts." But stated at length, it appears aukward and clumsy, like old fashioned vehicles. We have modified, improved, cut down, and made eliptical, all of our expressions, as we have previously observed, to suit the fashions and customs of the age in which we live; the same as tailors cut our garments to correspond with the latest fashions.

"The bird sings _sweetly_." The bird sings _songs_, _notes_, or _tunes_, _like sweet notes_, _tunes,_ or _songs_. The comparison here made, is not in reference to the agent or action, but the _object_ of the action; and this explains the whole theory of those _adverbs_, which are said to "qualify manner" of action. We have already seen that no _action_, as such, can exist, or be conceived to exist, separate(-ed) from the _thing_ or _agent_ which _acts_; and such action can only be determined by the _changed_ or altered condition of something which is the _object_ of such action. How then, can any word, in truth, or in thought, be known to _qualify_ the action, as distinct from the object or agent? And if it does not in _fact_, how can we explain words to children, or to our own minds, so as to understand what is not true?

Hence all words of this character are adjectives, describing one thing by its relation or likeness to another, and as such, admit of comparison; as, a likely man, a _very_ likely man, a likelier, and the _likeliest_ man. "He is the _most likely_ pedlar I ever knew." "He is _more liable_ to be deceived." "A _lively_ little fellow." "He is worthless." He is worth less, _less worthy_ of respect and confidence. "He writes very correctly." He writes his letters and words _like very correct_ letters. But I need not enlarge. You have only to bear in mind the fact, that _ly_ is a contraction of _like_, which is often retained in many words; as god_like_, christian_like_, etc., and search for a definition accordingly; and you will find no trouble in disposing of a large portion of this adverb family.

It is a curious fact, and should be maturely considered by all who still adhere to the neuter verb theory, that adverbs _qualify neuter_ as well as active verbs, and express the _quality_ or _manner of action_, where there is none! Adverbs express "manner of action" in a neuter verb! When a person starts wrong it is very difficult to go right. The safest course is to return back and start again.

Adverbs have been divided into classes, varying from _eleven_ to _seventy-two_, to suit the fancies of those who have only observed the nice shades of form which these words have assumed. But a bonnet is a bonnet, let its shape, form, or fashion, be what it may. You may put on as many trimmings, flowers, bows, and ribbons, as you please; it is a bonnet still; and when we speak of it we will call it a _bonnet_, and talk about its _appendages_. But when it is constructed into something else, then we will give it a new name.

Adjectives, we have said, are _derived_ from either nouns or verbs, and we now contend that the words formerly regarded as adverbs are either adjectives, nouns, or verbs. In defence of this sentiment we will adduce a few words in this place for examples.

=Ago.= "Three years _ago_, we dwelt in the country." This word is a past participle from the verb _ago_, meaning the same as _gone_ or _agone_, and was so used a few centuries _ago_--_agone_, or _gone by_.

"For euer the latter ende of ioye is wo,
God wotte, worldly ioye is soone _ago_."
_Chaucer._

"For if it erst was well, tho was it bet
A thousand folde, this nedeth it not require
_Ago_ was euery sorowe and euery fere."
_Troylus, boke 3, p. 2._

"Of such examples as I finde
Upon this point of tyme _agone_
I thinke for to tellen one."
_Gower_, lib. 5, p. 1.

"Which is no more than has been done
By knights for ladies, long _agone_."
_Hudibras._

"Twenty years _agone_."
_Tillotson's sermon._

"Are all _the go_."
_Knickerbocker._

=Astray.= "They went astray." _Astrayed_, wandered or were scattered, and of course soon became _estranged_ from each other. Farmers all know what it is for cattle to _stray_ from home; and many parents have felt the keen pangs of sorrow when their sons _strayed_ from the paths of virtue. In that condition they are _astray-ed_.

"This prest was drank and goth _astrayede_."

"Achab to the bottle went.
When Benedad for all his shelde
Him slough, so that upon the felde
His people goth aboute _astraie_."
_Gower._

=Awake.= "He is _awake_." "Samson _awaked_ out of his sleep." "That I may _awake_ him out of sleep." "It is high time to _awake_." "As a man that is _wakened_ out of sleep." The Irish hold _a wake_--they do not sleep the night after the loss of friends.

=Asleep.=

"When that pyte, which longe _on sleep_ doth tary
Hath set the fyne of al my heuynesse."
_Chaucer, La belle dame, p. 1. c. 1._

"Ful sound _on sleep_ did caucht thare rest be kind."
_Douglas_, b. 9, p. 283.

"In these provynces the fayth of Chryste was all quenchyd and _in sleepe_."--_Fabian._

A numerous portion of these contractions are nouns, which, from their frequent recurrence, are used without their usual connexion with small words. The letter _a_ is compounded with many of these words, which may have been joined to them by habit, or as a preposition, meaning _on_, _to_, _at_, _in_, as it is used in the french and some other languages. You often hear expressions like these, "he is _a_-going; he is _a_-writing; he began _a_-new," etc. The old adverbs which take this letter, you can easily analyze; as, "The house is _a_-fire"--on fire; "He fell _a_-sleep"--he fell _on_ sleep. "When deep sleep falleth on men."--_Job._ "He stept _a_-side"--on one side. "He came _a_-board"--on board. "They put it _a_-foot"--on foot. "He went _a_-way"--a way, followed some _course_, to a distance. "Blue bonnets are all the _go_ now _a_-days," etc.

The following extracts will give you an idea of the etymology of these words:

"Turnus seyes the Troianis in grete yre,
And al thare schyppis and navy set _in fire_."
_Douglas_, b. 9, p. 274.

"Now hand in hand the dynt lichtis with _ane_ swak,
Now bendis he up his bourdon with _ane_ mynt,
_On side_ (a-side) he bradis for to eschew the dynt."
_Idem._

"That easter fire and flame aboute
Both at mouth and at nase
So that thei setten all _on blaze_," (ablaze.)
_Gower._

"And tyl a wicked deth him take
_Him had_ leuer _asondre_ (a-sunder) shake
And let al his lymmes _asondre_ ryue
Thane leaue his richesse in his lyue."
_Chaucer._

Examples of this kind might be multiplied to an indefinite length. But the above will suffice to give you an idea of the former use of these words, and also, by comparison with the present, of the changes which have taken place in the method of spelling within a few centuries.

A large portion of adverbs relate to _time_ and _place_, because many of our ideas, and much of our language, are employed in reference to them; as, _then_, _when_, _where_, _there_, _here_, _hence_, _whence_, _thence_, _while_, _till_, _whether_, etc. These are compound words considerably disguised in their meaning and formation. Let us briefly notice some of them.

_Per annum_ is a latin phrase, _for the year_, a _year_; and _the annum_ is _the year_, _round_ or _period_ of time, from which it was corrupted gradually into its present shape. _Thanne_, tha anne, _thane_, _thenne_, _then_, _than_, are different forms of the same word.

"We see nowe bi a mirror in darcnesse: thanne forsathe, face to face. Nowe I know of partye; _thanne_ forsathe schal know as I am knowen."--1. Cor. 13: 12. _Translation in 1350._

I have a translation of the same passage in 1586, which stands thus: "For nowe we see through a glasse darkley: but _thene_ face to face: now I know in part: but _then_ shal I know even as I am knowen." Here several words are spelled differently in the same verse.

=Then=, _the anne_, that time. =When=, _wha anne_, "_wha-icht-anne_," which, or what _anne_, period of time.

_Area_ means an open space, a plat of ground, a spot or place. Arena is from the same etymon, altered in application. =There=, _the area_, the _place_ or _spot_. "If we go _there_," to that place. =Where=, which, or what ("wha-icht area") place. =Here=, _his_ (latin word for _this_,) _area_, this place. These words refer to _place_, _state_, or _condition_.

_While_ is another spelling for _wheel_. "To while away our time," is to _pass_, spend, or _wheel_ it away. _While_ applies to the _period_, or space of time, in which something _wheels_, _whirls_, _turns_ round, or transpires; as, "You had better remain here _while_ (during the time) he examines whether it is prudent for you to go."

=Till= is _to while_, to the _period_ at which something is expected to follow. "If I will that he tarry _till_ (to the time) I come what is that to thee?"

The idea of _time_ and _place_ are often blended together. It is not uncommon to hear lads and professed scholars, in some parts of our country say "down _till_ the bottom, over _till_ the woods." etc. Altho we do not regard such expressions correct, yet they serve to explain the meaning of the word. The only mistake is in applying it to _place_ instead of _time_.

=Whether= is _which either_. "Shew _whether_ of these _two_ thou hast chosen."--_Acts 1: 24._ It is more frequently applied in modern times to circumstance and events _than to_ persons and things. "I will let you know _whether_ I _will_ or _will not_ adopt it," one or the other.

=Together= signifies two or more united. _Gethered_ is the past participle of _gather_.

"As Mailie, an' her lambs _thegither_,
Were ae day nibbling on the tether."
_Burns._

=Ever= means _time_, _age_, _period_. It originally and essentially signified _life_. _For ever_ is for the age or period. _For ever_ and _ever_, to the ages of ages. _Ever-lasting_ is _age-lasting_. Ever-lasting hills, snows, landmarks, etc.

=Never=, _ne-ever_, _not ever_, at no time, age or period.

=When-ever.=--At what point or space of _time_ or _age_.

=What-ever.=--What thing, fact, circumstance, or event.

=Where-ever.=--To, at, or in what place, period, age, or time.

=Whither-so-ever=, which-way-so-ever, where-so-ever, never-the-less, etc. need only be analyzed, and their meaning will appear obvious to all.

=Oft=, _often_, _oft-times_, often-_times_, can be understood by all, because the noun to which they belong is _oft-en_ retained in practice.

=Once=, twice, at one time, two times.

=Hence=, _thence_, _whence_, from _this_, _that_, or _what_, place, spot, circumstance, post, or starting place.

=Hence-for-ward=, _hence-forth_, in time _to come_, after this period.

=Here-after=, after this _era_, or present time.

=Hither=, to this spot or place. _Thither_, to that place. _Hither-to_, _hither-ward_, etc. the same as _to you ward_, or to God ward, still retained in our bibles.

=Per-haps=, it may hap. _Perchance_, _peradventure_, by chance, by adventure. The latin _per_ means _by_.

=Not=, no ought, not any, nothing. It is a compound of _ne_ and _ought_ or _a_ught.

=Or= is a contraction from other, and _nor_ from _ne-or_, no-or, no other.

=No-wise=, no ways. I will go, or, other-wise, in another way or manner, you must go.

=Than=, _the ane_, the one, that one, alluding to a particular object with which a comparison is made; as, This book is larger _than_ that bible. That _one_ bible, this book is larger. It is always used with the comparative degree, to define particularly the object with which the comparison is made. Talent is better than flattery. Than flattery, often bestowed regardless of merit, talent is better.

=As= is an adjective, in extensive use. It means the, this, that, these, the same, etc. It is a defining word of the first kind. You practice _as_ you have been taught--_the same duties_ or _principles_ understood. We use language _as_ we have learned it; in _the same_ way or manner. It is often associated with other words to particularly specify the way, manner, or degree, in which something is done or compared. I can go _as well as_ you. In _the same well_, easy, convenient way or manner you can go, I can go in _the same_ way. He was _as_ learned, _as_ pious, _as_ benevolent, _as_ brave, _as_ faithful, _as_ ardent. These are purely adjectives, used to denote the degree of the likeness or similarity between the things compared. Secondary words are often added to this, to aid the distinction or definition; as, (_the same_ illustrated,) He is _just as willing_. I am _quite as well_ pleased without it. _As_, like many other adjectives, often occurs without a noun expressed, in which case it was formerly parsed by Murray himself _as_ (like, or the same) a relative pronoun; as, "And indeed it seldom at any period extends to the tip, _as happens_ in acute diseases."--_Dr. Sweetster._ "The ground I have assumed is tenable, _as will appear_."--_Webster._ "Bonaparte had a special motive in decorating Paris, for 'Paris is France, _as has_ often been observed."--_Channing._ "The words are such _as seem_."--_Murray's Reader! p. 16, intro._

=So= has nearly the same signification as the word last noticed, and is frequently used along with it, to define the other member of the comparison. _As_ far _as_ I can understand, _so_ far I approve. _As_ he directed, _so_ I obeyed. It very often occurs as a secondary adjective; as, "In pious and benevolent offices _so_ simple, _so_ minute, _so_ steady, _so_ habitual, that they will carry," etc. "He pursued a course _so_ unvarying."--_Channing._

These words are the most important of any small ones in our vocabulary, because (_for this cause_, be this the cause, this is the cause) they are the most frequently used; and yet there are no words _so_ little understood, or _so_ much abused by grammarians, _as_ these are.

We have barely time to notice the remaining parts of speech. "Conjunctions" are defined to be a "part of speech void of signification, but so formed as to help signification, by making two or more significant sentences to be one significant sentence." Mr. Harris gives about forty "species." Murray admits of only the _dis_-junctive and copulative, and reduces the whole list of words to twenty-four. But what is meant by a _dis_-junctive _con_-junctive word, is left for you to determine. It must be in keeping with _in_definite _defining_ articles, and _post_-positive _pre_-positions. He says, "it joins words, but disjoins the sense."[22] And what is a _word_ with out _sense_," pray tell us? If "words are the signs of ideas," how, in the name of reason, can you give the sign and separate the sense? You can as well separate the shadow from the substance, or a quality from matter.

We have already noticed Rule 18, which teaches the use of conjunctions. Under that rule, you may examine these examples. "As it _was_ in the beginning, _is_ now, _and_ ever _shall be_."--_Common Prayer._ "What I _do_, _have done,_ or _may_ hereafter _do_, _has been_, and _will_ always _be_ matter of inclination, the gratifying of which _pays_ itself: and I _have_ no more merit in employing my time and money in the way I _am known_ to do, than another has in other occupations."--_Howard._

The following examples must suffice.

=If.= This word is derived from the saxon _gifan_, and was formerly written _giff_, _gyff_, _gif_, _geve_, _give_, _yiff_, _yef_, _yeve_. It signifies _give_, _grant_, _allow_, _suppose_, _admit_, and is always a verb in the imperative mood, having the following sentence or idea for its object. "_If_ a pound of sugar cost ten cents, what will ten pounds cost?" _Give_, grant, allow, suppose, (the fact,) _one pound cost_, etc. In this case the supposition which stands as a predicate--_one pound of sugar cost ten cents_, is the object of _if_--the thing to be allowed, supposed, or granted, and from which the conclusion as to the cost of _ten_ pounds is to be drawn.

"He will assist us if he has the means." Allow, admit, (the fact,) he has the means, he will assist us.

"_Gif_ luf be vertew, than is it leful thing;
_Gif_ it be vice, it is your undoing."
_Douglas_ p. 95.

"Ne I ne wol non reherce, _yef_ that I may."
_Chaucer._

"She was so charitable and so pytous
She wolde wepe _yf that_ she sawe a mous
Caught in a trappe, _if_ it were deed or bledde."
_Prioresse._

"O haste and come to my master dear."

"_Gin_ ye be Barbara Allen."
_Burns._

=But.= This word has two opposite significations. It is derived from two different radicals. _But_, from the saxon _be_ and _utan_, _out_, means _be out_, _leave out_, _save_, _except_, _omit_, as, "all _but_ one are here." _Leave out_, _except_, _one_, all are here.

"Heaven from all creation hides the book of fate
All _but_ (_save_, _except_) the page prescribed our present state."

"When nought _but_ (_leave out_) the _torrent_ is heard on the hill,
And nought _but_ (_save_) the nightingale's _song_ in the grove."

"Nothing _but fear_ restrains him." In these cases the direct _objects_ of the verb, the things to be omitted are expressed.

_But_ is also derived from _botan_, which signifies _to add_, _superadd_, _join_ or _unite_; as, in the old form of a deed, "it is _butted_ and bounded as follows." Two animals _butt_ their heads together. The _butt_ of a log is that end which was _joined_ to the stump. A _butt_, _butment_ or _a-butment_ is the joined end, where there is a connexion with something else. A _butt_ of ridicule is an object to which ridicule is attached.

"Not only saw he all that was,
_But (add) much_ that never came to pass."
_M'Fingal._

_To button_, _butt-on_, is derived from the same word, to join one side to the other, to fasten together. It was formerly spelled _botan_, _boote_, _bote_, _bot_, _butte_, _bute_, _but_. It is still spelled _boot_ in certain cases as a verb; as,

"What _boots it_ thee to fly from pole to pole,
Hang o'er the earth, and with the planets roll?
What boots ( ) thro space's fartherest bourns to roam,
_If_ thou, O man, a stranger art at home?"
_Grainger._

"If love had _booted_ care or cost."

A man exchanged his house in the city for a farm, and received fifty dollars to _boot_; _to add_ to his property, and make the exchange equal.

_Let_ presents the same construction in form and meaning as _but_, for it is derived from two radicals of opposite significations. It means sometimes to _permit_ or _allow_; as, _let_ me go; _let_ me have it; and to _hinder_ or _prevent_; as, "I proposed to come unto you, _but_ (add this fact) I was _let_ hitherto."--_Rom. 1: 13._ "He who now _letteth_, will _let_ until he be taken out of the way."--_2 Thess. 2: 7._

=And= is a past participle signifying _added_, _one-ed_, _joined_. It was formerly placed after the words; as, "James, John, David, _and_, (_united to-_gether_-ed_,) go to school." We now place it _before_ the last word.

=Tho=, _altho_, _yet_. "Tho (_admit_, _allow_, _the fact_) he slay me, yet (_get_, _have_, _know_, _the fact_) I will trust in him." _Yes_ is from the same word as _yet_. It means _get_ or _have_ my consent to the question asked. _Nay_ is the opposite of _yes_, _ne_-aye, nay, no. The _ayes_ and _noes_ were called for.

I can pursue this matter no farther. The limits assigned me have been overrun already. What light may have been afforded you in relation to these words, will enable you to discover that they have _meaning_ which must be learned before they can be explained correctly; that done, all difficulty is removed.

Interjections deserve no attention. They form no part of language, but may be used by beasts and birds as well as by men. They are indistinct utterances of emotions, which come not within the range of human speech.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The reader is referred to "The Red Book," by William Bearcroft,
revised by Daniel H. Barnes, late of the New-York High School, as a
correct system of teaching practical orthography.

[2] Gall, Spurzheim, and Combe, have reflected a light upon the science
of the mind, which cannot fail of beneficial results. Tho the
doctrines of phrenology, as now taught, may prove false--which is
quite doubtful--or receive extensive modifications, yet the
consequences to the philosophy of the mind will be vastly useful.
The very terms employed to express the faculties and affections of
the mind, are so definite and clear, that phrenology will long
deserve peculiar regard, if for no other reason than for the
introduction of a vocabulary, from which may be selected words for
the communication of ideas upon intellectual subjects.

[3] Metaphysics originally signified the science of the causes and
principles of all things. Afterwards it was confined to the
philosophy of the mind. In our times it has obtained still another
meaning. Metaphysicians became so abstruse, bewildered, and lost,
that nobody could understand them; and hence, _metaphysical_ is now
applied to whatever is abstruse, doubtful, and unintelligible. If a
speaker is not understood, it is because he is too metaphysical.
"How did you like the sermon, yesterday?" "Tolerably well; but he
was too metaphysical for common hearers." They could not understand
him.

[4] In this respect, many foreign languages possess a great advantage
over ours. They can augment or diminish the same word to increase
or lessen the meaning. For instance; in the Spanish, we can say
_Hombre_, a man; _Hombron_, a _large_ man; _Hombrecito_, a _young_
man, or youth; _Hombrecillo_, a _miserable little_ man; _Pagaro_, a
bird; _Pagarito_, a _pretty little_ bird; _Perro_, a dog;
_Perrillo_, an _ugly little_ dog; _Perrazo_, a _large_ dog.

The Indian languages admit of diminutives in a similar way. In the
Delaware dialect, they are formed by the suffix _tit_, in the class
of animate nouns; but by _es_, to the inanimate; as, _Senno_, a
man; _Sennotit_, a _little_ man; _Wikwam_, a house; _Wikwames_, a
_small_ house.--_Enc. Amer. Art. Indian Languages, vol. 6, p. 586._

[5] Mr. Harris, in his "Hermes," says, "A preposition is a part of
speech, _devoid itself of signification_; but so formed as to unite
two words that are significant, and that refuse to coalesce or
unite themselves."

Mr. Murray says, "Prepositions serve to _connect_ words with one
another, and show the relation between them."

[6] "Me thou shalt use in what thou wilt, and doe that with a slender
_twist_, that none can doe with a tough _with_."
_Euphues and his England, p. 136._

"They had arms under the straw in the boats, and had cut the
_withes_ that held the oars of the town boats, to prevent any
pursuit."
_Ludlow's Memoirs, p. 435._

"The only furniture belonging to the houses, appears to be an
oblong vessel made of bark, by tying up the ends with a _withe_."
_Cooke's Description of Botany Bay._

[7] See Galatians, chap. 1, verse 15. "When it pleased God, who
_separated_ me," &c.

[8] Acts, xvii, 28.

[9] St. Pierre's Studies of Nature.--Dr. Hunter's translation, pp.
172-176.

[10] It is reported on very good authority that the same olive trees
are now standing in the garden of Gethsemane under which the
Saviour wept and near which he was betrayed. This is rendered more
probable from the fact, that a tax is laid, by the Ottoman Porte,
on all olive trees planted since Palestine passed into the
possession of the Turks, and that several trees standing in
Gethsemane do not pay such tribute, while all others do.

[11] We do not assent to the notions of ancient philosophers and poets,
who believed the doctrine that the world is animated by a soul,
like the human body, which is the spirit of Deity himself; but that
by the operation of wise and perfect laws, he exerts a supervision
in the creation and preservation of all things animate and
inanimate. Virgil stated the opinions of his times, in his Æneid,
B. VI. l. 724.

"Principio coelum, ac terras, camposque liquentes,
Lucentemque globum, Lunæ, Titaniaque astra
Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus
Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet."

"Know, first, that heaven, and earth's compacted frame,
And flowing waters, and the starry flame,
And both the radiant lights, _one common soul_
Inspires and feeds--and _animates the whole_.
This active mind, infused thro all the space,
Unites and mingles with the mighty mass."
_Dryden_, b. VI. l. 980.

This sentiment, he probably borrowed from Pythagoras and Plato, who
argue the same sentiment, and divide this spirit into
"_intellectus_, _intelligentia_, et _natura_"--intellectual,
intelligent, and natural. Whence, "_Ex hoc Deo, qui est mundi
anima: quasi decerptæ particulæ sunt vitæ hominum et pecudum._" Or,
"Omnia animalia ex quatuor elementis et _divino spiritu_ constare
manifestum est. Trahunt enim a terra carnem, ab aqua humorem, ab
ære anhelitum, ab igne fervorem, _a divino spiritu
ingenium_."--_Timeus, chap. 24, and Virgil's Geor. b. 4, l. 220,
Dryden's trans. l. 322._

Pope alludes to the same opinion in these lines:

"All are but parts of one stupendous whole.
Whose body nature is, and God the soul."

[12] Page 41.

[13] Exodus, iii. 2, 3.

[14] Cardell's grammar.

[15] The Jews long preserved this name in Samaritan letters to keep it
from being known to strangers. The modern Jews affirm that by this
mysterious name, engraven on his rod, Moses performed the wonders
recorded of him; that Jesus stole the name from the temple and put
it into his thigh between the flesh and skin, and by its power
accomplished the miracles attributed to him. They think if they
could pronounce the word correctly, the very heavens and earth
would tremble, and angels be filled with terror.

[16] Plutarch says, "This title is not only _proper_ but _peculiar to
God_, because =He= alone is _being_; for mortals have no
participation of _true being_, because that which _begins_ and
_ends_, and is constantly _changing_, is never _one_ nor the
_same_, nor in the same state. The deity on whose temple this word
was inscribed was called =Apollo=, Apollon, from _a_ negative and
_pollus_, _many_, because God is =one=, his nature simple, and
_uncompounded_."--_Vide, Clark's Com._

[17] The same fact may be observed in other languages, for all people
form language alike, in a way to correspond with their ideas. The
following hasty examples will illustrate this point.

_Agent._ _Verb._ _Object._
_English_ Singers Sing Songs
_French_ Les chanteurs Chantent Les chansons
_Spanish_ Los cantores Cantan Las cantinelas
_Italian_ I cantori Cantano I canti
_Latin_ Cantores Canunt Cantus

_English_ Givers Give Gifts
_French_ Les donneurs Donnent Les dons
_Spanish_ Los donadores Dan o donan Los dones
_Italian_ I danatori Dano o danano I doni
_Latin_ Datores Donant Dona

_English_ Fishers Fish Fishes
_French_ Les pecheurs Pechent Les poissons
_Spanish_ Los pescadores Pescan Los peces
_Italian_ I pescatori Pescan I pesci
_Latin_ Piscatores Piscantur Pisces

_English_ Students Study Studies
_French_ Les etudiens Etudient Les etudes
_Spanish_ Los estudiantes Estudian Los estudios
_Italian_ I studienti Studiano I studii
_Latin_ Studiosi Student Studia

[18] Mr. Murray says, "These compounds," _have_, _shall_, _will_,
_may_, _can_, _must_, _had_, _might_, _could_, _would_, and
_should_, which he uses as auxiliaries to _help_ conjugate _other_
verbs, "are, however, to be considered as _different forms_ of the
_same_ verb." I should like to know, if these words have any thing
to do with the _principal_ verbs; if they only alter the _form_ of
the verb which follows them. I _may_, _can_, _must_, _shall_,
_will_, or _do love_. Are these only different forms of _love_? or
rather, are they not distinct, important, and original verbs, pure
and perfect _in_ and _of_ themselves? Ask for their etymons and
meaning, and then decide.

[19] Diversions of Purley, vol. 1, p. 77.

[20] Dr. Edwards observes, in a communication to the Connecticut Society
of Arts and Sciences, from personal knowledge, that "the Mohegans
(Indians) have _no adjectives_ in all their language. Altho it may
at first seem not only singular and curious, but impossible, that a
language should exist without adjectives, yet it is an indubitable
fact." But it is proved that in later times the Indians employ
adjectives, derived from nouns or verbs, as well as other nations.
Altho many of their dialects are copious and harmonious, yet they
suffered no inconvenience from a want of contracted words and
phrases. They added the ideas of definition and description to the
things themselves, and expressed them in the _same_ word, in a
modified form.

[21] Matthew, chap. 24, v. 48.

[22] Examples of a _dis_-junctive conjunction. "They came with her,
_but_ they went without her."--_Murray._