Chapter CLXXXI: Appendix: IV (5)

[82] With this opinion concurred the learned James White, author of a Grammatical Essay on the English Verb, an octavo volume of more than three hundred pages, published in London in 1761. This author says, "Our Essays towards forming an English Grammar, have not been very many: from the reign of Queen Elizabeth, to that of Queen Ann, there are but Two that the author of the Present knows of: one in English by the renown'd Ben Jonson, and one in Latin by the learn'd Dr. Wallis. In the reign of Queen Ann indeed, there seems to have arisen a noble Spirit of ingenious Emulation in this Literary way: and to this we owe the treatises compos'd at that period for the use of schools, by Brightland, Greenwood, and Maittaire. But, since that time, nothing hath appear'd, that hath come to this Essayist's knowledge, deserving _to be taken any notice of_ as tending to illustrate our Language by ascertaining the Grammar of it; except Anselm Bayly's Introduction to Languages, Johnson's Grammar prefix'd to the Abridgement of his Dictionary, and the late Dr. Ward's Essays upon the English Language.--These are all the Treatises he hath met with, relative to this subject; all which he hath perus'd _very_ attentively, and made the best use of them in his power. But notwithstanding all these aids, something still remains to be done, at least it so appears to him, _preparatory to attempting with success the Grammar of our Language_. All our efforts of this kind seem to have been render'd ineffectual hitherto, chiefly by the prevaliency of two false notions: one of which is, that our Verbs have no Moods; and the other, that our Language hath no Syntax."--_White's English Verb_, p. viii.

[83] A similar doctrine, however, is taught by no less an author than "the Rev. Alexander Crombie, LL. D.," who says, in the first paragraph of his introduction, "LANGUAGE consists of intelligible signs, and is the medium, by which _the mind_ communicates _its thoughts_. It is either articulate, or inarticulate; artificial, or natural. The former is peculiar to man; the latter is _common to all animals_. By inarticulate language, we mean those instinctive cries, by which the several tribes of inferior creatures are enabled to express their sensations and desires. By articulate language is understood a system of expression, composed of simple _sounds_, differently modified by the organs of speech, and variously combined."--_Treatise on the Etymology and Syntax of the English Language_, p. 1. See the same doctrine also in _Hiley's Gram._, p. 141. The language which "is _common to all animals_," can be no other than that in which Æsop's wolves and weasels, goats and grasshoppers, talked--a language quite too unreal for _grammar_. On the other hand, that which is composed of _sounds_ only, and not of letters, includes but a mere fraction of the science.

[84] The pronoun _whom_ is not properly applicable to beasts, unless they are _personified_: the relative _which_ would therefore, perhaps, have been preferable here, though _whom_ has a better sound.--G. B.

[85] "The great difference between men and brutes, in the utterance of sound by the mouth, consists in the power of _articulation_ in man, and the entire want of it in brutes."--_Webster's Improved Gram._, p. 8.

[86] Strictly speaking, an _articulate sound_ is not a simple element of speech, but rather a complex one, whether syllable or word; for _articulate_ literally means _jointed_. But our grammarians in general, have applied the term to the sound of a letter, a syllable, or a word, indiscriminately: for which reason, it seems not very suitable to be used alone in describing any of the three. Sheridan says, "The essence of a syllable consists in _articulation only_, for every _articulate sound_ of course forms a syllable."--_Lectures on Elocution_, p. 62. If he is right in this, not many of our letters--or, perhaps more properly, none of them--can singly represent articulate sounds. The looseness of this term induces me to add or prefer an other. "The Rev. W. Allen," who comes as near as any of our grammarians, to the true definition of a _letter_, says: 1. "The sounds used in language are called _articulate sounds_." 2. "A letter is a character used in printing or writing, to represent an _articulate_ sound."--_Allen's Elements of E. Gram._, p. 2. Dr. Adam says: 1. "A letter is the mark of _a sound_, or of _an articulation of_ sound." 2. "A vowel is properly called a _simple sound_; and the sounds formed by the concourse of vowels and consonants, _articulate sounds_."--_Latin and English Gram._, pp. 1 and 2.

[87] Of this sort of blunder, the following false definition is an instance: "A _Vowel_ is a letter, _the name of which_ makes a full open sound."--_Lennie's Gram._, p. 5; _Brace's_, 7; _Hazen's_, 10. All this is just as true of a consonant as of a vowel. The comma too, used in this sentence, defeats even the sense which the writers intended. It is surely no description either of a vowel or of a consonant, to say, that it is a letter, and that the name of a letter makes a full open sound. Again, a late grammarian teaches, that the names of all the letters are nothing but _Roman capitals_, and then seems to inquire which of _these names_ are _vowels_, thus: "_Q_. How many letters are in the alphabet? _A_. Twenty-six. _Q_. What are their names? _A_. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. _Q_. Which of _these_ are called _Vowels_?"--_Fowle's Common School Gram., Part First_, p. 7. If my worthy friend Fowle had known or considered _what are the names_ of the letters in English, he might have made a better beginning to his grammar than this.

[88] By the colloquial phrase, "to a Tee" we mean, "to a _nicety_, to a _tittle_, a _jot_, an _iota_. Had the British poet Cawthorn, himself a noted schoolmaster, known how to write the name of "T," he would probably have preferred it in the following couplet:

"And swore by Varro's shade that he
Conceived the medal to a T."--_British Poets_, Vol. VII, p. 65.

Here the name would certainly be much fitter than the letter, because the text does not in reality speak of the letter. With the names of the Greek letters, the author was better acquainted; the same poem exhibits two of them, where the characters themselves are spoken of:

"My eye can trace divinely true,
In this dark curve a little Mu;
And here, you see, there _seems_ to lie
The ruins of a Doric Xi."--_Ibidem_.

The critical reader will see that "_seems_" should be _seem_, to agree with its nominative "_ruins_."

[89] Lily, reckoning without the H, J, or V, speaks of the Latin letters as "_twenty-two_;" but _says nothing_ concerning their names. Ruddiman, Adam, Grant, Gould, and others, who include the H, J, and V, rightly state the number to be "_twenty-five_;" but, concerning their names, are likewise _entirely silent_. Andrews and Stoddard, not admitting the K, teach thus: "The letters of the Latin language are _twenty-four_. They _have the same names_ as the corresponding characters in English."--_Andrews and Stoddard's Latin Gram._, p. 1. A later author speaks thus: "The Latin Alphabet consists of _twenty-five_ letters, _the same in name_ and form as the English, but without the _w_."--_Bullions's Latin Gram._, p. 1. It would probably be nearer to the truth, to say, "The Latin Alphabet, _like the French_, has no W; it consists of twenty-five letters, which are _the same in name_ and form _as the French_." Will it be pretended that the French names and the English do not differ?

[90] The Scotch _Iz_ and the Craven _Izzet_, if still in use anywhere, are names strictly local, not properly English, nor likely to spread. "IZZET, the letter Z. This is probably the corruption of _izzard_, the old and common name for the letter, though I know not, says _Nares_, on what authority."--_Glossary of Craven, w. Izzet._ "_Z z, zed_, more commonly called _izzard_ or _uzzard_, that is, _s hard_."--_Dr. Johnson's Gram._, p. 1.

"And how she sooth'd me when with study sad
I labour'd on to reach the final Zad."--_Crabbe's Borough_, p. 228.

[91] William Bolles, in his new Dictionary, says of the letter Z: "Its sound is uniformly that of a _hard_ S." The _name_, however, he pronounces as I do; though he writes it not _Zee_ but zé; giving not the _orthography_ of the name, as he should have done, but a mere index of its pronunciation. Walker proves by citations from Professor Ward and Dr. Wallis, that these authors considered the _sharp_ or _hissing_ sound of _s_ the "_hard_" sound; and the _flat_ sound, like that of _z_, its "_soft_" sound. See his _Dictionary_, 8vo, p. 53.

[92] Dr. Webster died in 1843. Most of this work was written while he was yet in vigour.

[93] This old definition _John L. Parkhurst_ disputes:--says it "is _ambiguous_;"--questions whether it means, "that the _name_ of such a letter, or the _simple sound_," requires a vowel! "If the latter," says he, "_the assertion is false._ The simple sounds, represented by the consonants, can be uttered separately, distinctly, and perfectly. It can be done with the _utmost ease_, even by a little child."--_Parkhurst's Inductive Gram. for Beginners_, p. 164. He must be one of these modern philosophers who delight to _make mouths_ of these voiceless elements, to show how much may be done without sound from the larynx.

[94] This test of what is, or is not, a vowel sound or a consonant sound, is often appealed to, and is generally admitted to be a just one. Errors in the application of _an_ or _a_ are not unfrequent, but they do not affect the argument. It cannot be denied, that it is proper to use _a_, and not proper to use _an_, before the initial sound of _w_ or _y_ with a vowel following. And this rule holds good, whether the sound be expressed by these particular letters, or by others; as in the phrases, "_a wonder, a one, a yew, a use, a ewer, a humour, a yielding temper_." But I have heard it contended, that these are vowel sounds, notwithstanding they require _a_; and that the _w_ and _y_ are always vowels, because even a vowel sound (it was said) requires _a_ and not _an_, whenever an other vowel sound immediately follows it. Of this notion, the following examples are a sufficient refutation: _an aëronaut, an aërial tour, an oeiliad, an eyewink, an eyas, an iambus, an oäsis, an o'ersight, an oil, an oyster, an owl, an ounce_. The initial sound of _yielding_ requires _a_, and not _an_; but those who call the _y_ a vowel, say, it is equivalent to the unaccented long _e_. This does not seem to me to be exactly true; because the latter sound requires _an_, and not _a_; as, "Athens, as well as Thebes, had _an Eëtion_."

[95] Dr. Rush, in his Philosophy of the Human Voice, has exhibited some acuteness of observation, and has written with commendable originality. But his accuracy is certainly not greater than his confidence. On page 57th, he says, "The _m, n_, and _ng_, are _purely nasal_;" on page 401st, "Some of the tonic elements, and one of the subtonics, are made _by the assistance of the lips_; they are _o_-we, _oo_-ze, _ou_-r, and _m_." Of the intrinsic value of his work, I am not prepared or inclined to offer any opinion; I criticise him only so far as he strikes at grammatical principles long established, and worthy still to be maintained.

[96] Dr. Comstock, by ¸enumerating as elementary the sound of the diphthong _ou_, as in _our_, and the complex power of _wh_, as in _what_, (which sounds ought not to be so reckoned,) makes the whole number of vocal elements in English to be "_thirty-eight_." See _Comstock's Elocution_, p. 19.

[97] This word is commonly heard in two syllables, _yune'yun_; but if Walker is right in making it three, _yu'ne-un_, the sound of _y_ consonant is heard in it but once. Worcester's notation is "_y=un'yun_." The long sound of _u_ is _yu_; hence Walker calls the letter, when thus sounded, a "semi-consonant diphthong."

[98] Children ought to be accustomed to speak loud, and to pronounce all possible sounds and articulations, even those of such foreign languages as they will be obliged to learn; for almost every language has its particular sounds which we pronounce with difficulty, if we have not been early accustomed to them. Accordingly, nations who have the greatest number of sounds in their speech, learn the most easily to pronounce foreign languages, since they know their articulations by having met with similar sounds in their own language."--_Spurzheim, on Education_, p. 159.

[99] If it be admitted that the two semivowels _l_ and _n_ have vocality enough of their own to form a very feeble syllable, it will prove only that there are these exceptions to an important general rule. If the name of _Haydn_ rhymes with _maiden_, it makes one exception to the rule of writing; but it is no part of the English language. The obscure sound of which I speak, is sometimes improperly confounded with that of short _u_; thus a recent writer, who professes great skill in respect to such matters, says, "One of the most common sounds in our language is that of the vowel _u_, as in the word _urn_, or as the diphthong _ea_ in the word _earth_, for which we have no character. Writers have made various efforts to express it, as in _earth, berth, mirth, worth, turf_, in which all the vowels are indiscriminately used in turn. [Fist] _This defect has led_ to the absurd method of placing the vowel after the consonants, instead of between them, when a word _terminates with this sound_; as in the following, _Bible, pure, centre, circle_, instead of _Bibel, puer, center, cirkel_."--_Gardiner's Music of Nature_, p. 498. "It would be a great step towards perfection to spell our words as they are pronounced!"--_Ibid._, p. 499. How often do the reformers of language multiply the irregularities of which they complain!

[100] "The number of simple sounds in our tongue is twenty-eight, 9 Vowels and 19 Consonants. _H_ is no letter, but merely a mark of aspiration."--_Jones's Prosodial Gram. before his Dict._, p. 14.

"The number of simple vowel and consonant sounds in our tongue is twenty-eight, and one pure aspiration _h_, making in all twenty-nine."--_Bolles's Octavo Dict._, Introd., p. 9.

"The number of _letters_ in the English language is twenty-six; but the number of _elements_ is thirty-eight."--_Comstock's Elocution_, p. 18. "There are thirty-eight elements in the English alphabet, and to represent those elements by appropriate characters, we should have thirty-eight letters. There is, then, a deficiency in our alphabet of twelve letters--and he who shall supply this imperfection, will be one of the greatest benefactors of the human race."--_Ib._, p. 19. "Our alphabet is both redundant and defective. _C, q_, and _z_, are respectively represented by _k_ or _s, k_, and _ks_, or _gz_; and the remaining twenty-three letters are employed to represent _forty-one_ elementary sounds."--_Wells's School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 36.

"The simple sounds were in no wise to be reckoned of any certain number: by the first men they were determined to no more than ten, as spine suppose; as others, fifteen or twenty; it is however certain that mankind in general never exceed _twenty_ simple sounds; and of these only five are reckoned strictly such."--_Bicknell's Grammar_, Part ii, p. 4.

[101] "When these sounds are openly pronounced, they produce the familiar assent _ay_: which, by the old English dramatic writers, was often expressed by _I_."--_Walker_. We still hear it so among the vulgar; as, "_I, I_, sir, presently!" for "_Ay, ay_, sir, presently!" Shakspeare wrote,

"To sleepe, perchance to dreame; _I_, there's the rub."
--_Bucke's Classical Gram._, p. 143.

[102] Walker pronounces _yew_ and _you_ precisely alike, "_yoo_;" but, certainly, _ew_ is not commonly equivalent to _oo_, though some make it so: thus Gardiner, in his scheme of the vowels, says, "_ew_ equals _oo_, as in _new, noo_."--_Music of Nature_, p. 483. _Noo_ for _new_, is a _vulgarism_, to my ear.--G. BROWN.

[103] "As harmony is an inherent property of sound, the ear should he first called to the attention of _simple sounds_; though, in reality, all are composed _of three_, so nicely blended as to _appear_ but as one."--_Gardiner's Music of Nature_, p. 8. "Every sound is a mixture of three tones; as much as a ray of light is composed of three prismatic colours."--_Ib._, p. 387.

[104] The titulary name of the sacred volume is "The Holy Bible." The word _Scripture_ or _Scriptures_ is a _common_ name for the writings contained in this inestimable volume, and, in the book itself, is seldom distinguished by a capital; but, in other works, it seems proper in general to write it so, by way of eminence.

[105] "Benedictus es Domine Deus Israel patris nostri ab eterno in eternum."--_Vulgate_. "O Eternel! Dieu d'Israël, notre père, tu es béni de tout temps et à toujours."--_Common French Bible_. "[Greek: Eulogætos ei Kyrie ho theos Israel ho patær hæmon apo tou aionos kai heos tou aionos.]"--_Septuagint._

[106] Where the word "_See_" accompanies the reference, the reader may generally understand that the citation, whether right or wrong in regard to grammar, is not in all respects _exactly_ as it will be found in the place referred to. Cases of this kind, however, will occur but seldom; and it is hoped the reasons for admitting a few, will be sufficiently obvious. Brevity is indispensable; and some rules are so generally known and observed, that one might search long for half a dozen examples of their undesigned violation. Wherever an error is made intentionally in the Exercises, the true reading and reference are to be expected in the Key.

[107] "Et irritaverunt ascendentes in mare, Mare rubrum."--_Latin Vulgate, folio, Psal._ cv, 7. This, I think, should have been "Mare Rubrum," with two capitals.--G. BROWN.

[108] The printers, from the manner in which they place their types before them, call the small letters "_lower-case letters_," or "_letters of the lower case_."

[109] I imagine that "_plagues_" should here be _plague_, in the singular number, and not plural. "Ero more ius, o mors; morsus tuus ero, inferne."--_Vulgate_. "[Greek: Pou hæ dikæ sou, thanate; pou to kentron sou, aidæ;]"--_Septuagint, ibid._

[110] It is hoped that not many persons will be so much puzzled as are Dr. Latham and Professor Fowler, about the application of this rule. In their recent works on The English Language, these gentlemen say, "In certain words of more than one syllable, _it is difficult to say_ to which syllable the intervening Consonant belongs. For instance, _does_ the _v_ in _river_ and the _v_ in _fever_ belong to the first or to the second syllable? Are the words to be divided thus, _ri-ver, fe-ver_? or thus, _riv-er_, _fev-er_?"--_Fowler's E. Gram._, 1850, §85; _Latham's Hand-Book_, p. 95. Now I suppose it plain, that, by the rule given above, _fever_ is to be divided in the former way, and _river_ in the latter; thus, _fe-ver_, _riv-er_. But this paragraph of Latham's or Fowler's is written, not to disembarrass the learner, but just as if it were a grammarian's business to confound his readers with fictitious dilemmas--and those expressed ungrammatically! Of the two Vees, so illogically associated in one question, and so solecistically spoken of by the singular verb "_does_," one belongs to the former syllable, and the other, to the latter; nor do I discover that "it is difficult to say" this, or to be well assured that it is right. What an admirable passage for one great linguist to _steal_ from an other!

[111] "The usual rules for dividing [words into] syllables, are not only _arbitrary_ but false and absurd. They contradict the very definition of a syllable given by the authors themselves. * * * * A syllable in pronunciation is an _indivisible_ thing; and strange as it may appear, what is _indivisible_ in utterance is _divided_ in writing: when the very purpose of dividing words into syllables in writing, is to lead the learner to a just pronunciation."--_Webster's Improved Gram._, p. 156; _Philosophical Gram._, 221.

[112] This word, like _distich_ and _monostich_, is from the Greek _stichos_, a verse; and is improperly spelled by Walker with a final _k_. It should be _hemistich_, with the accent on the first syllable. See _Webster, Scott, Perry, Worcester_, and others.

[113] According to Aristotle, the compounding of terms, or the writing of them as separate words, must needs be a matter of great importance to the sense. For he will have the parts of a compound noun, or of a compound verb, to be, like other syllables, destitute of any distinct signification in themselves, whatever may be their meaning when written separately. See his definitions of the parts of speech, in his _Poetics_, Chapter 20th of the Greek; or Goulston's Version in Latin, Chapter 12th.

[114] Whether _worshipper_ should follow this principle, or not, is questionable. If Dr. Webster is right in making _worship_ a _compound_ of _worth_ and _ship_, he furnishes a reason against his own practice of using a single _p_ in _worshiper, worshiped_, and _worshiping_. The Saxon word appears to have been _weorthscype_. But words ending in _ship_ are _derivatives_, rather than compounds; and therefore they seem to belong to the rule, rather than to the exception: as, "So we _fellowshiped_ him."--_Herald of Freedom: Liberator_, Vol. ix, p. 68.

[115] When _ee_ comes before _e_, or may be supposed to do so, or when _ll_ comes before _l_, one of the letters is dropped that _three_ of the same kind may not meet: as, _free, freer, freest, freeth, freed_; _skill, skilless_; _full, fully_; _droll, drolly_. And, as _burgess-ship_, _hostess-ship_, and _mistress-ship_ are derivatives, and not compounds, I think they ought to follow the same principle, and be written _burgesship, hostesship, mistresship_. The proper form of _gall-less_ is perhaps more doubtful. It ought not to be gallless, as Dr. Webster has it; and galless, the analogical form, is yet, so far as I know without authority. But is it not preferable to the hyphened form, with three Ells, which has authority? "GALL-LESS, a. Without gall or bitterness. _Cleaveland_."--_Chalmers, Bolles, Worcester_.

"Ah! mild and _gall-less_ dove,
Which dost the pure and candid dwellings love,
Canst thou in Albion still delight?"--_Cowley's Odes_.

Worcester's Dictionary has also the questionable word _bellless_. _Treen_, for _trees_, or for an adjective meaning _a tree's_, or _made of a tree_, is exhibited in several of our dictionaries, and pronounced as a monosyllable: but Dr. Beattie, in his Poems, p. 84, has made it a dissyllable, with three like letters divided by a hyphen, thus:--

"Plucking from _tree-en_ bough her simple food."

[116] _Handiwork, handicraft_, and _handicraftsman_, appear to have been corruptly written for _handwork, handcraft_, and _handcraftsman_. They were formerly in good use, and consequently obtained a place in our vocabulary, from which no lexicographer, so far as I know, has yet thought fit to discard them; but, being irregular, they are manifestly becoming obsolete, or at least showing a tendency to throw off these questionable forms. _Handcraft_ and _handcraftsman_ are now exhibited in some dictionaries, and _handiwork_ seems likely to be resolved into _handy_ and _work_, from which Johnson supposes it to have been formed. See _Psalm_ xix, 1. The text is varied thus: "And the firmament _sheweth_ his _handiwork_."--_Johnson's Dict._. "And the firmament _sheweth_ his _handy-work_."--_Scott's Bible_; _Bruce's Bible_; _Harrison's Gram._, p. 83. "And the firmament _showeth_ his _handy work_."--_Alger's Bible_; _Friends' Bible_; _Harrison's Gram._, p. 103.

[117] Here a word, formed from its root by means of the termination _ize_, afterwards assumes a prefix, to make a secondary derivative: thus, _organ_, _organize, disorganize_. In such a case, the latter derivative must of course be like the former; and I assume that the essential or primary formation of both from the word _organ_ is by the termination _ize_; but it is easy to see that _disguise, demise, surmise_, and the like, are essentially or primarily formed by means of the prefixes, _dis, de_, and _sur_. As to _advertise, exercise, detonize_, and _recognize_, which I have noted among the exceptions, it is not easy to discover by which method we ought to suppose them to have been formed; but with respect to nearly all others, the distinction is very plain; and though there may be no _natural reason_ for founding upon it such a rule as the foregoing, the voice of general custom is as clear in this as in most other points or principles of orthography, and, surely, some rule in this case is greatly needed.

[118] _Criticise_, with _s_, is the orthography of Johnson, Walker, Webster, Jones, Scott, Bolles, Chalmers, Cobb, and others; and so did Worcester spell it in his Comprehensive Dictionary of 1831, but, in his Universal and Critical Dictionary of 1846, he wrote it with _z_, as did Bailey in his folio, about a hundred years ago. Here the _z_ conforms to the foregoing rule, and the _s_ does not.

[119] Like this, the compound _brim-full_ ought to be written with a hyphen and accented on the last syllable; but all our lexicographers have corrupted it into _brim'ful_, and, contrary to the authorities they quote, accented it on the first. Their noun _brim'fulness_, with a like accent, is also a corruption; and the text of Shakspeare, which they quote for it, is nonsense, unless _brim_, be there made a separate adjective:--

"With ample and _brimfulness_ of his force."--_Johnson's Dict._ _et al_.

"With _ample_ and _brim fullness_ of his force," would be better.

[120] According to Littleton, the _coraliticus lapis_ was a kind of Phrygian marble, "called _Coralius_ or by an other name _Sangarius_." But this substance seems to be different from all that are described by Webster, under the names of "_coralline_," "_corallinite_," and "_corallite_." See _Webster's Octavo Dict._

[121] The Greek word for _argil_ is [Greek: argilos], or [Greek: argillos], (from [Greek: argos], white,) meaning pure white earth; and is as often spelled with one Lamda as with two.

[122] Dr. Webster, with apparent propriety, writes _caviling_ and _cavilous_ with one _l_, like _dialing_ and _perilous_; but he has in general no more uniformity than Johnson, in respect to the doubling of _l_ final. He also, in some instances, accents similar words variously: as, _cor'alliform_, upon the first syllable, _metal'liform_, upon the second; _cav'ilous_ and _pap'illous_, upon the first, _argil'lous_, upon the second; _ax'illar_, upon the first, _medul'lar_, upon the second. See _Webster's Octavo Dict._

[123] Perry wrote _crystaline, crystalize, crystalization, metaline, metalist, metalurgist_, and _metalurgy_; and these forms, as well as _crystalography, metalic, metalography_, and _metaliferous_, are noticed and preferred by the authors of the _Red Book_, on pp. 288 and 302.

[124] "But if a diphthong precedes, or the accent is on the preceding syllable, the consonant remains single: as, to toil, toiling; to offer, an offering."--_Murray's Octavo Gram._, p. 24; _Walker's Rhym. Dict._, Introd., p. ix.

[125] Johnson, Walker, and Webster, all spell this word _sep'ilible_; which is obviously wrong; as is Johnson's derivation of it from _sepio_, to hedge in. _Sepio_ would make, not this word, but _sepibilis_ and _sepible_, hedgeable.

[126] If the variable word _control, controul_, or _controll_, is from _con_ and _troul_ or _troll_, it should be spelled with _ll_, by Rule 7th, and retain the _ll_ by Rule 6th. Dr. Webster has it so, but he gives _control_ also.

[127] _Ache_, and its plural, _aches_, appear to have been formerly pronounced like the name of the eighth letter, with its plural, _Aitch_, and _Aitches_; for the old poets made "_aches_" two syllables. But Johnson says of _ache_, a pain, it is "now _generally_ written _ake_, and in the plural _akes_, of one syllable."--See his _Quarto Dict._ So Walker: "It is now _almost universally_ written _ake_ and _akes_."--See _Walker's Principles_, No. 355. So Webster: "_Ake_, less properly written _ache_."--See his _Octavo Dict._ But Worcester seems rather to prefer _ache_.--G. B.

[128] This book has, probably, more _recommenders_ than any other of the sort. I have not patience to count them accurately, but it would seem that _more than a thousand_ of the great and learned have certified to the world, that they never before had seen so good a spelling-book! With personal knowledge of more than fifty of the signers, G. B. refused to add his poor name, being ashamed of the mischievous facility with which very respectable men had loaned their signatures.

[129] _Scrat_, for _scratch._ The word is now obsolete, and may be altered by taking _ch_ in the correction.

[130] "_Hairbrained, adj._ This should rather be written _harebrained_; unconstant, unsettled, wild as a _hare._"--_Johnson's Dict._ Webster writes it _harebrained_, as from _hare_ and _brain_. Worcester, too, prefers this form.

[131] "The whole number of verbs in the English language, regular and irregular, simple and compounded, taken together, is about 4,300. See, in Dr. Ward's Essays on the English language, the catalogue of English verbs. The whole number of irregular verbs, the defective included, is about 176."--_Lowth's Gram._, Philad., 1799, p. 59. Lindley Murray copied the first and the last of these three sentences, but made the latter number "about 177."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 109; _Duodecimo_, p. 88. In the latter work, he has this note: "The whole number of _words_, in the English language, is about thirty-five thousand."--_Ib._ Churchill says, "The whole number of verbs in the English language, according to Dr. Ward, is about 4,300. The irregulars, including the auxilaries [sic--KTH], scarcely exceed 200."--_New Gram._, p. 113. An other late author has the following enumeration: "There are in the English language about twenty thousand five hundred nouns, forty pronouns, _eight thousand verbs_, nine thousand two hundred adnouns, two thousand six hundred adverbs, sixty-nine prepositions, nineteen conjunctions, and sixty-eight interjections; in all, above forty thousand words."--_Rev. David Blair's Gram._, p. 10. William Ward, M. A., in an old grammar _undated_, which speaks of Dr. Lowth's as one with which the public had "_very lately_ been favoured," says: "There are _four Thousand and about Five Hundred Verbs_ in the English [language]."--_Ward's Practical Gram._, p. 52.

[132] These definitions are numbered here, because each of them is the first of a series now begun. In class rehearsals, the pupils may be required to give the definitions in turn; and, to prevent any from losing the place, it is important that the numbers be mentioned. When all have become sufficiently familiar with the _definitions_, the exercise may be performed _without them._ They are to be read or repeated till faults disappear--or till the teacher is satisfied with the performance. He may then save time, by commanding his class to proceed more briefly; making such distinctions as are required in the praxis, but ceasing to explain the terms employed; that is, _omitting all the definitions, for brevity's sake._ This remark is applicable likewise to all the subsequent praxes of etymological parsing.]

[133] The _modifications_ which belong to the different parts of speech consist chiefly of the _inflections_ or _changes_ to which certain words are subject. But I use the term sometimes in a rather broader sense, as including not only _variations_ of words, but, in certain instances, their _original forms_, and also such of their _relations_ as serve to indicate peculiar properties. This is no questionable license in the use of the term; for when the position of a word _modifies_ its meaning, or changes its person or case, this effect is clearly a grammatical _modification_, though there be no absolute _inflection_. Lord Kames observes, "_That quality_, which distinguishes one genus, one species, or even one individual, from an other, is termed a _modification_: thus the same particular that is termed a _property_ or _quality_, when considered as belonging to an individual, or a class of individuals, is termed a _modification_, when considered as distinguishing the individual or the class from an other."--_Elements of Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 392.

[134] Wells, having put the articles into the class of adjectives, produces authority as follows: "'The words _a_ or _an_, and _the_, are reckoned by _some_ grammarians a separate part of speech; but, as they in all respects come under the definition of the adjective, it is unnecessary, as well as _improper_, to rank them as a class by themselves.'--Cannon." To this he adds, "The articles are also ranked with adjectives by Priestley, E. Oliver, Bell, Elphinston, M'Culloch, D'Orsey, Lindsay, Joel, Greenwood. Smetham, Dalton, King, Hort, Buchanan, Crane, J. Russell, Frazee, Cutler, Perley, Swett, Day. Goodenow, Willard, Robbins, Felton, Snyder, Butler, S. Barrett, Badgley, Howe, Whiting, Davenport, Fowle, Weld, and others."--_Wells's School Gram._, p. 69. In this way, he may have made it seem to many, that, after thorough investigation, he had decided the point discreetly, and with preponderance of authority. For it is claimed as a "peculiar merit" of this grammar, that, "Every point of practical importance is _thoroughly investigated_, and reference is carefully made to the _researches_ of preceding writers, in all cases which admit of being determined by _weight of authority_."--WILLIAM RUSSELL, _on the cover_. But, in this instance, as in sundry others, wherein he opposes the more common doctrine, and cites concurrent authors, both he and all his authorities are demonstrably to the wrong. For how can they be right, while reason, usage, and the prevailing opinion, are still against them? If we have forty grammars which reject, the articles as a part of speech, we have more than twice as many which recognize them as such; among which are those of the following authors: viz., Adam, D. Adams, Ainsworth, Alden, Alger, W. Allen, Ash, Bacon, Barnard, Beattie, Beck, Bicknell, Bingham, Blair, J. H. Brown, Bucke, Bullions, Burn, Burr, Chandler, Churchill, Coar, Cobbett, Cobbin, Comly, Cooper, Davis, Dearborn, Ensell, Everett, Farnum, Fisk, A. Flint, Folker, Fowler, Frost, R. G. Greene, Greenleaf, Guy, Hall, Hallock, Hart, Harrison, Matt. Harrison, Hazen, Hendrick, Hiley, Hull, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Johnson, Kirkham, Latham, Lennie, A. Lewis, Lowth, Maltby, Maunder, Mennye, Merchant, T. H. Miller, Murray, Nixon, Nutting, Parker and Fox, John Peirce, Picket, Pond, S. Putnam, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, R. C. Smith, Rev. T. Smith, Spencer, Tower, Tucker, Walker, Webber, Wilcox, Wilson, Woodworth, J. E. Worcester, S. Worcester, Wright. The articles characterize our language more than some of the other parts of speech, and are worthy of distinction for many reasons, one of which is the very great _frequency_ of their use.

[135] In Murray's Abridgement, and in his "Second Edition," 12mo, the connective in this place is "_or_;" and so is it given by most of his amenders; as in _Alger's Murray_, p. 68; _Alden's_, 89; _Bacon's_, 48; _Cooper's_, 111; _A. Flint's_, 65; _Maltby's_, 60; _Miller's_, 67; _S. Putnam's_, 74; _Russell's_, 52; _T. Smith's_, 61. All these, and many more, repeat both of these ill-devised rules.

[136] When this was written, Dr. Webster was living.

[137] In French, the preposition _à, (to,)_ is always carefully distinguished from the verb _a, (has,)_ by means of the grave accent, which is placed over the former for that purpose. And in general also the Latin word _à, (from,)_ is marked in the same way. But, with us, no appropriate sign has hitherto been adopted to distinguish the preposition _a_ from the article _a_; though the Saxon _a, (to,)_ is given by Johnson with an acute, even where no other _a_ is found. Hence, in their ignorance, thousands of vulgar readers, and among them the authors of sundry grammars, have constantly mistaken this preposition for an article. Examples: "Some adverbs are composed of _the article a_ prefixed to nouns; as _a_-side, _a_-thirst, _a_-sleep, _a_-shore, _a_-ground, &c."--_Comly's Gram._, p67. "Repeat some [adverbs] that are composed of _the article a_ and nouns."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 89. "To go a fishing;" "To go a hunting;" i.e. "to go _on_ a fishing _voyage_ or _business_;" "to go _on_ a hunting _party_."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 221; _Fisk's_, 147; _Ingersoll's_, 157; _Smith's_, 184; _Bullions's_, 129; _Merchant's_, 101; _Weld's_, 192, _and others._ That this interpretation is false and absurd, may be seen at once by any body who can read Latin; for, _a hunting, a fishing_, &c., are expressed by the supine in _um_: as, "_Venatum ire_."--Virg. Æn. I.e., "To go _a_ hunting." "_Abeo piscatum_."--Beza. I.e. "I go _a_ fishing."--_John_, xxi, 3. Every school-boy ought to know better than to call this _a_ an article. _A fishing_ is equivalent to the infinitive _to fish_. For the Greek of the foregoing text is [Greek: Hupágo hálieúein,] which is rendered by Montanus, "_Vado piscari_;" i.e., "_I go to fish_." One author ignorantly says, "The _article a_ seems to have _no particular meaning_, and is _hardly proper_ in such expressions as these. 'He went _a-hunting_,' She lies _a-bed_ all day.'"--_Wilcox's Gram._, p. 59. No marvel that he could not find the meaning of an _article_ in this _a!_ With doltish and double inconsistency, Weld first calls this "The _article a_ employed _in the sense_ of a _preposition_," (_E. Gram._, p. 177,) and afterwards adopts Murray's interpretation as above cited! Some, too, have an absurd practice of joining this preposition to the participle; generally with the hyphen, but sometimes without: thus, "A-GOING, In motion; as, to set a mill _agoing_."--_Webster's Dict._ The doctor does not tell us what part of speech _agoing_ is; but, certainly, "to set the mill _to_ going," expresses just the same meaning, and is about as often heard. In the burial-service of the Common Prayer Book, we read, "They are even as _asleep_;" but, in the ninetieth Psalm, from which this is taken, we find the text thus: "They are as _a sleep_;" that is, as a dream that is fled. Now these are very different readings, and cannot both he right.

[138] Here the lexicographer forgets his false etymology of _a_ before the participle, and writes the words _separately_, as the generality of authors always have done. _A_ was used as a preposition long before the article _a_ appeared in the language; and I doubt whether there is any truth at all in the common notions of its origin. Webster says, "In the words _abed, ashore_, &c., and before _the_ participles _acoming, agoing, ashooting_, [he should have said, 'and _before participles_; as, _a coming, a going, a shooting_,'] _a_ has been supposed a contraction of _on_ or _at_. It may be so _in some cases_; but with the participles, it _is sometimes_ a contraction of the Saxon prefix _ge, and sometimes_ perhaps of the Celtic _ag_."--_Improved Gram._, p. 175. See _Philos. Gram._, p. 244. What admirable learning is this! _A_, forsooth, is a _contraction_ of _ge!_ And this is the doctor's reason for _joining_ it to the participle!

[139] The following construction may he considered an _archaism_, or a form of expression that is now obsolete: "You have bestowed _a_ many _of_ kindnesses upon me."--_Walker's English Particles_, p. 278.

[140] "If _I_ or _we_ is set before a name, it [the name] is of the first person: as, _I, N-- N--, declare; we, N-- and M-- do promise_."--_Ward's Gram._, p. 83. "Nouns which relate to the person or persons _speaking_, are said to be of the _first_ person; as, I, _William_, speak to you."--_Fowle's Common School Gram._, Part ii, p. 22. The first person of nouns is admitted by Ainsworth, R. W. Bailey, Barnard, Brightland, J. H. Brown, Bullions, Butler, Cardell, Chandler, S. W. Clark, Cooper, Day, Emmons, Farnum, Felton, Fisk, John Flint, Fowle, Frazee, Gilbert, Goldsbury, R. G. Greene, S. S. Greene, Hall, Hallock, Hamlin, Hart, Hendrick, Hiley, Perley, Picket, Pinneo, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, Smart, R. C. Smith, Spear, Weld, Wells, Wilcox, and others. It is denied, either expressly or virtually, by Alger, Bacon, Comly, Davis, Dilworth, Greenleaf, Guy, Hazen, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Kirkham, Latham, L. Murray, Maltby, Merchant, Miller, Nutting, Parkhurst, S. Putnam, Rev. T. Smith, and others. Among the grammarians who do not appear to have noticed the persons of nouns at all, are Alden, W. Allen, D. C. Allen, Ash, Bicknell, Bingham, Blair, Buchanan, Bucke, Burn, Burr, Churchill, Coar, Cobb, Dalton, Dearborn, Abel Flint, R. W. Green, Harrison, Johnson, Lennie, Lowth, Mennye, Mulligan, Priestley, Staniford, Ware, Webber, and Webster.

[141] Prof. S. S. Greene most absurdly and erroneously teaches, that, "When the speaker wishes to represent himself, _he cannot use his name_, but _must_ use some other word, as, _I_; [and] when he wishes to represent the hearer, he _must_ use _thou_ or _you_."--_Greene's Elements of E. Gram._, 1853, p. xxxiv. The examples given above sufficiently show the falsity of all this.

[142] In _shoe_ and _shoes, canoe_ and _canoes_, the _o_ is sounded slenderly, like _oo_; but in _doe_ or _does, foe_ or _foes_, and the rest of the fourteen nouns above, whether singular or plural, it retains the full sound of its own name, _O_. Whether the plural of _two_ should be "_twoes_" as Churchill writes it, or "_twos_," which is more common, is questionable. According to Dr. Ash and the Spectator, the plural of _who_, taken substantively, is "_whos_."--_Ash's Gram._, p. 131.

[143] There are some singular compounds of the plural word _pence_, which form their own plurals regularly; as, _sixpence, sixpences_. "If you do not all show like gilt _twopences_ to me."--SHAKSPEARE. "The _sweepstakes_ of which are to be composed of the disputed difference in the value of two doubtful _sixpences._"--GOODELL'S LECT.: _Liberator_. Vol. ix, p. 145.

[144] In the third canto of Lord Byron's Prophecy of Dante, this noun is used in the singular number:--

"And ocean written o'er would not afford
Space for the _annal_, yet it shall go forth."

[145] "They never yet had separated for their daylight beds, without a climax to their _orgy_, something like the present scene."--_The Crock of Gold_, p. 13. "And straps never called upon to diminish that long whity-brown interval between shoe and _trowser_."--_Ib._, p. 24. "And he gave them _victual_ in abundance."--_2 Chron._, xi, 23. "Store of _victual_."--_Ib._, verse 11.

[146] The noun _physic_ properly signifies medicine, or the science of medicine: in which sense, it seems to have no plural. But Crombie and the others cite one or two instances in which _physic_ and _metaphysic_ are used, not very accurately, in the sense of the singular of _physics_ and _metaphysics_. Several grammarians also quote some examples in which _physics, metaphysics, politics, optics_, and other similar names of sciences are used with verbs or pronouns of the singular number; but Dr. Crombie justly says the plural construction of such words, "is more common, and more agreeable to analogy."--_On Etym. and Syntax_, p. 27.

[147] "Benjamin Franklin, following the occupation of a compositor in a printing-office, at a limited weekly _wage_," &c.--_Chambers' Edinburgh Journal_, No. 232. "WAGE, Wages, hire. The singular number is still frequently used, though _Dr. Johnson_ thought it obsolete."--_Glossary of Craven_. 1828.

[148] Our lexicographers generally treat the word _firearms_ as a close compound that has no singular. But some write it with a hyphen, as _fire-arms_. In fact the singular is sometimes used, but the way of writing it is unsettled. Dr. Johnson, in his Dictionary, defines a _carbine_ as, "a small sort of _fire arm_;" Webster has it, "a short gun, or _fire arm_;" Worcester, "a small _fire-arm_;" Cobb, "a sort of small _firearms_." Webster uses "_fire-arm_," in defining "_stock_."

[149] "But, soon afterwards, he made a glorious _amend_ for his fault, at the battle of Platæa."--_Hist. Reader_, p. 48.

[150] "There not _a dreg_ of guilt defiles."--_Watts's Lyrics_, p. 27.

[151] In Young's Night Thoughts, (N. vii, l. 475.) _lee_, the singular of _lees_, is found; Churchill says, (Gram., p. 211,) "Prior has used _lee_, as the singular of _lees_;" Webster and Bolles have also both forms in their dictionaries:--

"Refine, exalt, throw down their poisonous _lee_,
And make them sparkle in the bowl of bliss."--_Young_.

[152] "The 'Procrustean bed' has been a myth heretofore; it promises soon to be _a shamble_ and a slaughterhouse in reality."--_St. Louis Democrat_, 1855.

[153] J. W. Wright remarks, "Some nouns admit of no plural distinctions: as, _wine, wood_, beer, _sugar, tea, timber, fruit, meat_, goodness, happiness, and perhaps all nouns ending in _ness_."--_Philos. Gram._, p. 139. If this learned author had been brought up in the _woods_, and had never read of Murray's "richer _wines_," or heard of Solomon's "dainty _meats_,"--never chaffered in the market about _sugars_ and _teas_, or read in Isaiah that "all our _righteousnesses_ are as filthy rags," or avowed, like Timothy, "a good profession before many _witnesses_,"--he might still have hewed the _timbers_ of some rude cabin, and partaken of the wild _fruits_ which nature affords. If these nine plurals are right, his assertion is nine times wrong, or misapplied by himself seven times in the ten.

[154] "I will not suppose it possible for my dear James to fall into either the company or the language of those persons who talk, and even write, about _barleys, wheats, clovers, flours, grasses_, and _malts_."-- _Cobbett's E. Gram._, p. 29.

[155] "It is a general rule, that all names of things measured or weighed, have no plural; for in _them_ not number, but quantity, is regarded: as, _wool, wine, oil_. When we speak, however, of different kinds, we use the plural: as, the coarser _wools_, the richer _wines_, the finer _oils_."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 41.

[156] So _pains_ is the regular plural of _pain_, and, by Johnson, Webster, and other lexicographers, is recognized only as plural; but Worcester inserts it among his stock words, with a comment, thus: "Pains, _n._ Labor; work; toil; care; trouble. [Fist] According to the best usage, the word _pains_, though of plural form, is used in these senses as singular, and is joined with a singular verb; as, 'The pains they had taken _was_ very great.' _Clarendon_. 'No pains _is_ taken.' _Pope_. 'Great pains _is_ taken.' _Priestley_. '_Much_ pains.' _Bolingbroke_."--_Univ. and Crit. Dict._ The multiplication of anomalies of this kind is so undesirable, that nothing short of a very clear decision of Custom, against the use of the regular concord, can well justify the exception. Many such examples may be cited, but are they not examples of false syntax? I incline to think "the best usage" would still make all these verbs plural. Dr. Johnson cites the first example thus: "The _pains_ they had taken _were_ very great. _Clarendon_."--_Quarto Dict., w. Pain_. And the following recent example is unquestionably right: "_Pains have_ been taken to collect the information required."--_President Fillmore's Message_, 1852.

[157] "And the _fish_ that _is_ in the river shall die."--_Exod._, vii, 18. "And the _fish_ that _was_ in the river died."--_Ib._, 21. Here the construction is altogether in the singular, and yet the meaning seems to be plural. This construction appears to be more objectionable, than the use of the word _fish_ with a plural verb. The French Bible here corresponds with ours: but the Latin Vulgate, and the Greek Septuagint, have both the noun and the verb in the plural: as, "The _fishes_ that _are_ in the river,"--"The _fishes_ that _were_," &c. In our Bible, _fowl_, as well _fish_, is sometimes plural; and yet both words, in some passages, have the plural form: as, "And _fowl_ that may fly," &c.--_Gen._, i, 20. "I will consume the _fowls_ of the heaven, and the _fishes_ of the sea."--_Zeph._, i, 3.

[158] Some authors, when they give to _mere words_ the construction of plural nouns, are in the habit of writing them in the form of possessives singular; as, "They have of late, 'tis true, reformed, in some measure, the gouty joints and darning work of _whereunto's, whereby's, thereof's, therewith's_, and the rest of this kind."--_Shaftesbury_. "Here," says Dr. Crombie, "the genitive singular is _improperly_ used for the objective case plural. It should be, _whereuntos, wherebys, thereofs, therewiths_."-- _Treatise on Etym. and Synt._, p. 338. According to our rules, these words should rather be, _whereuntoes, wherebies_, _thereofs, therewiths_. "Any word, when used as the name of itself, becomes a noun."--_Goodenow's Gram._, p. 26. But some grammarians say, "The plural of words, considered as words merely, is formed by the apostrophe and _s_; as, 'Who, that has any taste, can endure the incessant, quick returns of the _also's_, and the _likewise's_, and the _moreover's_, and the _however's_, and the _notwithstanding's_?'--CAMPBELL."--_Wells's School Gram._, p. 54. Practice is not altogether in favour of this principle, and perhaps it would be better to decide with Crombie that such a use of the apostrophe is improper.

[159] "The Supreme Being (_God, [Greek: Theos], Deus, Dieu_, &c.) is, in all languages, masculine; in as much as the masculine sex is the superior and more excellent; and as He is the Creator of all, the Father of gods and men."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 54. This remark applies to all the direct names of the Deity, but the abstract idea of _Deity itself_, [Greek: To Theion], _Numen, Godhead_, or _Divinity_, is not masculine, but neuter. On this point, some notions have been published for grammar, that are too heterodox to be cited or criticised here. See _O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p. 208.

[160] That is, we give them sex, if we mean to represent them _as_ persons. In the following example, a character commonly esteemed feminine is represented as neuter, because the author would seem to doubt both the sex and the personality: "I don't know what a _witch_ is, or what _it_ was then."--_N. P. Rogers's Writings_, p. 154.

[161] There is the same reason for doubling the _t_ in _cittess_, as for doubling the _d_ in _goddess_. See Rule 3d for Spelling. Yet Johnson, Todd, Webster, Bolles, Worcester, and others, spell it _citess_, with one _t_.

"Cits and _citesses_ raise a joyful strain."--DRYDEN: _Joh. Dict._

[162] "But in the _English_ we have _no Genders_, as has been seen in the foregoing Notes. The same may be said of _Cases_."--_Brightland's Gram._, Seventh Edition, Lond., 1746, p. 85.

[163] The Rev. David Blair so palpably contradicts himself in respect to this matter, that I know not which he favours most, two cases or three. In his main text, he adopts no objective, but says: "According to the _sense_ or _relation_ in which nouns are used, they are in the NOMINATIVE or [the] POSSESSIVE CASE, thus, _nom._ man; _poss._ man's." To this he adds the following marginal note: "In the English language, the distinction of the objective case is observable only in the pronouns. _Cases_ being nothing but _inflections_, where inflections do not exist, there can be no grammatical distinction of cases, for the terms _inflection_ and _case_ are _perfectly synonymous_ and _convertible_. As the English noun has _only one change_ of termination, _so no other case_ is here adopted. The _objective_ case is noticed in the _pronouns_; and _in parsing nouns_ it is easy to distinguish _subjects_ from _objects_. A noun which _governs the verb_ may be described as in the _nominative_ case, and one governed by the verb, or following a preposition, as in the _objective_ case."--_Blair's Practical Gram., Seventh Edition_, London, 1815, p. 11. The terms _inflection_ and _case_ are not practically synonymous, and never were so in the grammars of the language from which they are derived. The man who rejects the objective case of English nouns, because it has not a form peculiar to itself alone, must reject the accusative and the vocative of all neuter nouns in Latin, for the same reason; and the ablative, too, must in general be discarded on the same principle. In some other parts of his book, Blair speaks of the objective case of nouns as familiarly as do other authors!

[164] This author says, "We choose to use the term _subjective_ rather than _nominative_, because it is shorter, and because it conveys its meaning by its sound, whereas the latter word means, indeed, little or nothing in itself."--_Text-Book_, p. 88. This appears to me a foolish innovation, too much in the spirit of Oliver B. Peirce, who also adopts it. The person who knows not the meaning of the word _nominative_, will not be very likely to find out what is meant by _subjective_; especially as some learned grammarians, even such men as Dr. Crombie and Professor Bullions, often erroneously call the word which is governed by the verb its _subject_. Besides, if we say _subjective_ and _objective_, in stead of _nominative_ and _objective_, we shall inevitably change the accent of both, and give them a pronunciation hitherto unknown to the words.--G. BROWN.