Chapter IV: Adjectives (1)

An Adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality: as, A _wise_ man; a _new_ book. You _two_ are _diligent_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--Adjectives have been otherwise called attributes, attributives, qualities, adnouns; but none of these names is any better than the common one. Some writers have classed adjectives with verbs; because, with a neuter verb for the copula, they often form logical predicates: as, "Vices _are contagious_." The Latin grammarians usually class them with nouns; consequently their nouns are divided into nouns substantive and nouns adjective. With us, substantives are nouns; and adjectives form a part of speech by themselves. This is generally acknowledged to be a much better distribution. Adjectives cannot with propriety be called _nouns_, in any language; because they are not _the names_ of the qualities which they signify. They must be _added_ to nouns or pronouns in order to make sense. But if, in a just distribution of words, the term "_adjective nouns_" is needless and improper, the term "_adjective pronouns_" is, certainly, not less so: most of the words which Murray and others call by this name, are not pronouns, but adjectives.

OBS. 2.--The noun, or substantive, is a _name_, which makes sense of itself. The adjective is an adjunct to the noun or pronoun. It is a word added to denote quality, situation, quantity, number, form, tendency, or whatever else may characterize and distinguish the thing or things spoken of. Adjectives, therefore, are distinguished _from_ nouns by their _relation to_ them; a relation corresponding to that which qualities bear to things: so that no part of speech is more easily discriminated than the adjective. Again: English adjectives, as such, are all indeclinable. When, therefore, any words usually belonging to this class, are found to take either the plural or the possessive form, like substantive nouns, they are to be parsed as nouns. To abbreviate expression, we not unfrequently, in this manner, convert adjectives into nouns. Thus, in grammar, we often speak of _nominatives, possessives_, or _objectives_, meaning nouns or pronouns of the nominative, the possessive, or the objective case; of _positives, comparatives_, or _superlatives_, meaning adjectives of the positive, the comparative, or the superlative degree; of _infinitives, subjunctives_, or _imperatives_, meaning verbs of the infinitive, the subjunctive, or the imperative mood; and of _singulars, plurals_, and many other such things, in the same way. So a man's _superiors_ or _inferiors_ are persons superior or inferior to himself. His _betters_ are persons better than he. _Others_ are any persons or things distinguished from some that are named or referred to; as, "If you want enemies, excel _others_; if you want friends, let _others_ excel you."--_Lacon_. All adjectives thus taken substantively, become _nouns_, and ought to be parsed as such, unless this word _others_ is to be made an exception, and called a "_pronoun_."

"Th' event is fear'd; should we again provoke
Our _stronger_, some worse way his wrath may find."
--_Milton, P. L._, B. ii, l. 82.

OBS. 3.--Murray says, "Perhaps the words _former_ and _latter_ may be properly ranked amongst the demonstrative pronouns, _especially in many of their applications_. The following sentence may serve as an example: 'It was happy for the state, that Fabius continued in the command with Minutius: the _former's_ phlegm was a check upon the _latter's_ vivacity.'"--_Gram._, 8vo, p. 57. This I take to be bad English. _Former_ and _latter_ ought to be adjectives only; except when _former_ means _maker_. And, if not so, it is too easy a way of multiplying pronouns, to manufacture two out of one single anonymous sentence. If it were said, "The deliberation of _the former_ was a seasonable chock upon the fiery temper of _the latter_" the words _former_ and _latter_ would seem to me not to be pronouns, but adjectives, each relating to the noun _commander_ understood after it.

OBS. 4.--The sense and relation of words in sentences, as well as their particular form and meaning, must be considered in parsing, before the learner can say, with certainty, to what class they belong. Other parts of speech, and especially nouns and participles, by a change in their construction, may become adjectives. Thus, to denote the material of which a thing is formed, we very commonly make the name of the substantive an adjective to that of the thing: as, A _gold chain_, a _silver spoon_, a _glass pitcher_, a _tin basin_, an _oak plank_, a _basswood slab_, a _whalebone rod_. This construction is in general correct, whenever the former word may be predicated of the latter; as, "The chain is gold."--"The spoon is silver." But we do not write _gold beater_ for _goldbeater_, or _silver smith_ for _silversmith_; because the beater is not gold, nor is the smith silver. This principle, however, is not universally observed; for we write _snowball, whitewash_, and many similar compounds, though the ball is snow and the wash is white; and _linseed oil_, or _Newark cider_, may be a good phrase, though the former word cannot well be predicated of the latter. So in the following examples: "Let these _conversation_ tones be the foundation of public pronunciation."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 334. "A _muslin_ flounce, made very full, would give a very agreeable _flirtation_ air."--POPE: _Priestley's Gram._, p. 79.

"Come, calm Content, serene and sweet,
O gently guide my _pilgrim_ feet
To find thy _hermit_ cell."--_Barbauld_.

OBS. 5.--Murray says, "Various nouns placed before other nouns assume the nature of adjectives: as, sea fish, wine vessel, corn field, meadow ground, &c."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 48. This is, certainly, very lame instruction. If there is not palpable error in all his examples, the propriety of them all is at least questionable; and, to adopt and follow out their principle, would be, to tear apart some thousands of our most familiar compounds. "_Meadow ground_" may perhaps be a correct phrase, since the ground is meadow; it seems therefore preferable to the compound word meadow-ground. What he meant by "_wine vessel_" is doubtful: that is, whether a ship or a cask, a flagon or a decanter. If we turn to our dictionaries, Webster has _sea-fish_ and _wine-cask_ with a hyphen, and _cornfield_ without; while Johnson and others have _corn-field_ with a hyphen, and _seafish_ without. According to the rules for the figure of words, we ought to write them _seafish, winecask, cornfield_. What then becomes of the thousands of "adjectives" embraced in the "&c." quoted above?

OBS. 6.--The pronouns _he_ and _she_, when placed before or prefixed to nouns merely to denote their gender, appear to be used adjectively; as, "The male or _he_ animals offered in sacrifice."--_Wood's Dict., w. Males_. "The most usual term is _he_ or _she, male_ or _female_, employed as an adjective: as, a _he bear_, a _she bear_; a _male elephant_, a _female elephant_."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 69. Most writers, however, think proper to insert a hyphen in the terms here referred to: as, _he-bear, she-bear_, the plurals of which are _he-bears_ and _she-bears_. And, judging by the foregoing rule of predication, we must assume that this practice only is right. In the first example, the word _he_ is useless; for the term "_male animals_" is sufficiently clear without it. It has been shown in the third chapter, that _he_ and _she_ are sometimes used as nouns; and that, as such, they may take the regular declension of nouns, making the plurals _hes_ and _shes_. But whenever these words are used adjectively to denote gender, whether we choose to insert the hyphen or not, they are, without question, indeclinable, like other adjectives. In the following example, Sanborn will have _he_ to be a noun in the _objective_ case; but I consider it rather, to be an adjective, signifying _masculine_:

"(_Philosophy_, I say, and call _it He_;
For, whatsoe'er the painter's fancy be,
It a male-virtue seems to me.")--_Cowley_, Brit. Poets, Vol. ii, p. 54.

OBS. 7.--Though verbs give rise to many adjectives, they seldom, if ever, become such by a mere change of construction. It is mostly by assuming an additional termination, that any verb is formed into an adjective: as in _teachable, moveable, oppressive, diffusive, prohibitory_. There are, however, about forty words ending in _ate_, which, without difference of form, are either verbs or adjectives; as, _aggregate, animate, appropriate, articulate, aspirate, associate, complicate, confederate, consummate, deliberate, desolate, effeminate, elate, incarnate, intimate, legitimate, moderate, ordinate, precipitate, prostrate, regenerate, reprobate, separate, sophisticate, subordinate_. This class of adjectives seems to be lessening. The participials in _ed_, are superseding some of them, at least in popular practice: as, _contaminated_, for _contaminate_, defiled; _reiterated_, for _reiterate_, repeated; _situated_, for _situate_, placed; _attenuated_, for _attenuate_, made thin or slender. _Devote, exhaust_, and some other verbal forms, are occasionally used by the poets, in lieu of the participial forms, _devoted, exhausted_, &c.

OBS. 8.--Participles, which have naturally much resemblance to this part of speech, often drop their distinctive character, and become adjectives. This is usually the case whenever they stand immediately _before_ the nouns to which they relate; as, A _pleasing_ countenance, a _piercing_ eye, an _accomplished_ scholar, an _exalted_ station. Many participial adjectives are derivatives formed from participles by the negative prefix _un_, which reverses the meaning of the primitive word; as, _undisturbed, undivided, unenlightened_. Most words of this kind differ of course from participles, because there are no such verbs as _to undisturb, to undivide_, &c. Yet they may be called participial adjectives, because they have the termination, and embrace the form, of participles. Nor should any participial adjective be needlessly varied from the true orthography of the participle: a distinction is, however, observed by some writers, between _past_ and _passed, staid_ and _stayed_; and some old words, as _drunken, stricken, shotten, rotten_, now obsolete as participles, are still retained as adjectives. This sort of words will be further noticed in the chapter on participles.

OBS. 9.--Adverbs are generally distinguished from adjectives, by the form, as well as by the construction, of the words. Yet, in instances not a few, the same word is capable of being used both adjectively and adverbially. In these cases, the scholar must determine the part of speech, by the construction alone; remembering that adjectives belong to nouns or pronouns only; and adverbs, to verbs, participles, adjectives, or other adverbs, only. The following examples from Scripture, will partially illustrate this point, which will be noticed again under the head of syntax: "Is your father well?"--_Gen._, xliii, 27. "Thou hast well said."--_John_, iv, 17. "He separateth very friends."--_Prov._, xvii, 9. "Esaias is _very_ bold."--_Rom._, x, 20. "For a pretence, ye make _long_ prayer."--_Matt._, xxiii, 14. "They that tarry _long_ at the wine."--_Prov._, xxiii, 30. "It had not _much_ earth."--_Mark_, iv, 5. "For she loved _much_."--_Luke_, vii, 47.

OBS. 10.--Prepositions, in regard to their _construction_, differ from adjectives, almost exactly as active-transitive participles differ syntactically from adjectives: that is, in stead of being mere adjuncts to the words which follow them, they govern those words, and refer back to some other term; which, in the usual order of speech, stands before them. Thus, if I say, "A spreading oak," _spreading_ is an adjective relating to oak; if, "A boy spreading hay," _spreading_ is a participle, governing _hay_, and relating to _boy_, because the boy is the agent of the action. So, when Dr. Webster says, "The _off_ horse in a team," _off_ is an adjective, relating to the noun _horse_; but, in the phrase, "A man _off_ his guard," _off_ is a preposition, showing the relation between _man_ and _guard_, and governing the latter. The following are other examples: "From the _above_ speculations."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 194. "An _after_ period of life."--MARSHALL: _in Web. Dict._ "With some other of the _after_ Judaical rites."--_Right of Tythes_, p. 86. "Whom this _beneath_ world doth embrace and hug."--_Shak._ "Especially is _over_ exertion made."--_Journal of Lit. Conv._, p. 119. "To both the _under_ worlds."--_Hudibras_. "Please to pay to A. B. the amount of the _within_ bill." Whether properly used or not, the words _above, after, beneath, over, under, and within_, are here unquestionably made _adjectives_; yet every scholar knows, that they are generally prepositions, though sometimes adverbs.

CLASSES.

Adjectives may be divided into six classes; namely, _common, proper, numeral, pronominal, participial_, and _compound_.

I. A _common adjective_ is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation; as, _Good, bad, peaceful, warlike--eastern, western, outer, inner_.

II. A _proper adjective_ is an adjective formed from a proper name; as, _American, English, Platonic, Genoese_.

III. A _numeral adjective_ is an adjective that expresses a definite number; as, _One, two, three, four, five, six_, &c.

IV. A _pronominal adjective_ is a definitive word which may either accompany its noun, or represent it understood; as, "_All_ join to guard what _each_ desires to gain."--_Pope_. That is, "_All men_ join to guard what _each man_ desires to gain."

V. A _participial adjective_ is one that has the form of a participle, but differs from it by rejecting the idea of time; as, "An _amusing_ story,"--"A _lying_ divination."

VI. A _compound adjective_ is one that consists of two or more words joined together, either by the hyphen or solidly: as, _Nut-brown, laughter-loving, four-footed; threefold, lordlike, lovesick_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--This distribution of the adjectives is no less easy to be applied, than necessary to a proper explanation in parsing. How many adjectives there are in the language, it is difficult to say; none of our dictionaries profess to exhibit all that are embraced in some of the foregoing classes. Of the Common Adjectives, there are probably not fewer than six thousand, exclusive of the common nouns which we refer to this class when they are used adjectively. Walker's Rhyming Dictionary contains five thousand or more, the greater part of which may be readily distinguished by their peculiar endings. Of those which end in _ous_, as _generous_, there are about 850. Of those in _y_ or _ly_, as _shaggy, homely_, there are about 550. Of those in _ive_, as _deceptive_, there are about 400. Of those in _al_, as _autumnal_, there are about 550. Of those in _ical_, as _mechanical_, there are about 350. Of those in _able_, as _valuable_, there are about 600. Of those in _ible_, as _credible_, there are about 200. Of those in _ent_, as _different_, there are about 300. Of those in _ant_, as _abundant_, there are about 170. Of those in _less_, as _ceaseless_, there are about 220. Of those in _ful_, as _useful_, there are about 130. Of those in _ory_, as _explanatory_, there are about 200. Of those in _ish_, as _childish_, there are about 100. Of those in _ine_, as _masculine_, there are about 70. Of those in _en_, as _wooden_, there are about 50. Of those in _some_, as _quarrelsome_, there are about 30. These sixteen numbers added together, make 4770.

OBS. 2.--The Proper Adjectives are, in many instances, capable of being converted into declinable nouns: as, _European, a European, the Europeans; Greek, a Greek, the Greeks; Asiatic, an Asiatic, the Asiatics_. But with the words _English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish_, and in general all such as would acquire an additional syllable in their declension, the case is otherwise. The gentile noun has frequently fewer syllables than the adjective, but seldom more, unless derived from some different root. Examples: _Arabic, an Arab, the Arabs; Gallic, a Gaul, the Gauls; Danish, a Dane, the Danes; Moorish, a Moor, the Moors; Polish, a Pole_, or _Polander, the Poles; Swedish, a Swede, the Swedes; Turkish, a Turk, the Turks_. When we say, _the English, the French, the Dutch, the Scotch, the Welsh, the Irish_,--meaning, _the English people, the French people_, &c., many grammarians conceive that _English, French_, &c., are _indeclinable nouns_. But in my opinion, it is better to reckon them _adjectives_, relating to the noun _men_ or _people_ understood. For if these words are nouns, so are a thousand others, after which there is the same ellipsis; as when we say, _the good, the great, the wise, the learned_.[168] The principle would involve the inconvenience of multiplying our nouns of the singular form and a plural meaning, indefinitely. If they are nouns, they are, in this sense, plural only; and, in an other, they are singular only. For we can no more say, _an English, an Irish_, or _a French_, for _an Englishman, an Irishman_, or _a Frenchman_; than we can say, _an old, a selfish_, or _a rich_, for _an old man, a selfish man_, or _a rich man_. Yet, in distinguishing the _languages_, we call them _English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish_; using the words, certainly, in no plural sense; and preferring always the line of adjectives, where the gentile noun is different: as, _Arabic_, and not _Arab_; _Danish_, and not _Dane_; _Swedish_, and not _Swede_. In this sense, as well as in the former, Webster, Chalmers, and other modern lexicographers, call the words _nouns_; and the reader will perceive, that the objections offered before do not apply here. But Johnson, in his two quarto volumes, gives only two words of this sort, _English_ and _Latin_; and both of these he calls _adjectives_: "ENGLISH, _adj._ Belonging to England; hence English[169] is the language of England." The word _Latin_, however, he makes a noun, when it means a schoolboy's exercise; for which usage he quotes, the following inaccurate example from Ascham: "He shall not use the common order in schools for making of _Latins_."

OBS. 3.--Dr. Webster gives us explanations like these: "CHINESE, _n. sing._ and _plu._ A native of China; also the language of China."--"JAPANESE, _n._ A native of Japan; or the language of the inhabitants."--"GENOESE, _n. pl._ the people of Genoa in Italy. _Addison_."--"DANISH, _n._ The language of the Danes."--"IRISH, _n._ 1. A native of Ireland. 2. The language of the Irish; the Hiberno-Celtic." According to him, then, it is proper to say, _a Chinese, a Japanese_, or _an Irish_; but not, _a Genoese_, because he will have this word to be plural only! Again, if with him we call a native of Ireland _an Irish_, will not more than one be _Irishes?_[170] If a native of Japan be _a Japanese_, will not more than one be _Japaneses?_ In short, is it not plain, that the words, _Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Maltese, Genoese, Milanese_, and all others of like formation, should follow one and the same rule? And if so, what is that rule? Is it not this;--that, like _English, French_, &c., they are always _adjectives_; except, perhaps, when they denote _languages_? There may possibly be some real authority from usage, for calling a native of China _a Chinese_,--of Japan _a Japanese_,--&c.; as there is also for the regular plurals, _Chineses, Japaneses_, &c.; but is it, in either case, good and sufficient authority? The like forms, it is acknowledged, are, on some occasions, mere adjectives; and, in modern usage, we do not find these words inflected, as they were formerly. Examples: "The _Chinese_ are by no means a cleanly people, either in person or dress."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 415. "The _Japanese_ excel in working in copper, iron, and steel."--_Ib._, p. 419. "The _Portuguese_ are of the same origin with the Spaniards."--_Ib._, p. 272. "By whom the undaunted _Tyrolese_ are led."--_Wordsworth's Poems_, p. 122. Again: "Amongst the _Portugueses_, 'tis so much a Fashion, and Emulation, amongst their Children, to _learn_ to _Read_, and Write, that they cannot hinder them from it."--_Locke, on Education_, p. 271. "The _Malteses_ do so, who harden the Bodies of their Children, and reconcile them to the Heat, by making them go stark Naked."--_Idem, Edition of_ 1669, p. 5. "CHINESE, _n. s_. Used elliptically for the language and people of China: plural, _Chineses. Sir T. Herbert_."--_Abridgement of Todd's Johnson_. This is certainly absurd. For if _Chinese_ is used _elliptically_ for the people of China, it is an _adjective_, and does not form the plural, _Chineses_: which is precisely what I urge concerning the whole class. These plural forms ought not to be imitated. Horne Tooke quotes some friend of his, as saying, "No, I will never descend with him beneath even _a Japanese_: and I remember what Voltaire remarks of _that country_."--_Diversions of Purley_, i, 187. In this case, he ought, unquestionably, to have said--"beneath even _a native of Japan_;" because, whether _Japanese_ be a noun or not, it is absurd to call _a Japanese_, "_that country_." Butler, in his Hudibras, somewhere uses the word _Chineses_; and it was, perhaps, in his day, common; but still, I say, it is contrary to analogy, and therefore wrong. Milton, too, has it:

"But in his way lights on the barren plains
Of Sericana, where Chineses[171] drive
With sails and wind their cany _waggons_ light."
--_Paradise Lost_, B. iii, l. 437.

OBS. 4.--The Numeral Adjectives are of three kinds, namely, _cardinal, ordinal_, and _multiplicative_: each kind running on in a series indefinitely. Thus:--

1. _Cardinal_; One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, &c.

2. _Ordinal_; First, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, &c.

3. _Multiplicative_; Single or alone, double or twofold, triple or threefold, quadruple or fourfold, quintuple or fivefold, sextuple or sixfold, septuple or sevenfold, octuple or eightfold, &c. But high terms of this series are seldom used. All that occur above decuple or tenfold, are written with a hyphen, and are usually of round numbers only; as, thirty-fold, sixty-fold, hundred-fold.

OBS. 5.--A cardinal numeral denotes the whole number, but the corresponding ordinal denotes only the last one of that number, or, at the beginning of a series, the first of several or many. Thus: "_One_ denotes simply the number _one_, without any regard to more; but _first_ has respect to more, and so denotes only the first one of a greater number; and _two_ means the number _two_ completely; but _second_, the last one of _two_: and so of all the rest."--_Burn's Gram._, p. 54. A cardinal number answers to the question, "_How many_?" An ordinal number answers to the question, "_Which one_?" or, "_What one_?" All the ordinal numbers, except _first, second, third_, and the compounds of these, as _twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third_, are formed directly from the cardinal numbers by means of the termination _th_. And as the primitives, in this case, are many of them either compound words, or phrases consisting of several words, it is to be observed, that the addition is made to the last term only. That is, of every compound ordinal number, the last term only is ordinal in form. Thus we say, _forty-ninth_, and not _fortieth-ninth_; nor could the meaning of the phrase, _four hundred and fiftieth_, be expressed by saying, _fourth hundredth and fiftieth_; for this, if it means any thing, speaks of three different numbers.

OBS. 6.--Some of the numerals are often used as _nouns_; and, as such, are regularly declined: as, _Ones, twoes, threes, fours, fives_, &c. So, _Fifths, sixths, sevenths, eighths, ninths, tenths_, &c. "The _seventy's_ translation."--_Wilson's Hebrew Gram._, p. 32. "I will not do it for _forty's_ sake."--_Gen._, xviii, 29. "I will not destroy it for _twenty's_ sake."--_Ib._, ver. 31. "For _ten's_ sake."--_Ib._, ver. 32. "They sat down in ranks, by _hundreds_, and by _fifties_."--_Mark_, vi, 40. "There are _millions_ of truths that a man is not concerned to know."--_Locke_. With the compound numerals, such a construction is less common; yet the denominator of a fraction may be a number of this sort: as, seven _twenty-fifths_. And here it may be observed, that, in stead of the ancient phraseology, as in 1 Chron., xxiv, 17th, "The _one and twentieth_ to Jachin, the _two and twentieth_ to Gamul, the _three and twentieth_ to Delaiah, the _four and twentieth_ to Maaziah," we now generally say, _the twenty-first, the twenty-second_, &c.; using the hyphen in all compounds till we arrive at _one hundred_, or _one hundredth_, and then first introducing the word _and_; as, _one hundred and one_, or _one hundred and first_, &c.

OBS. 7.--The Pronominal Adjectives are comparatively very few; but frequency of use gives them great importance in grammar. The following words are perhaps all that properly belong to this class, and several of these are much oftener something else: _All, any, both, certain, divers, each, either, else, enough, every, few, fewer, fewest, former, first, latter, last, little, less, least, many, more, most, much, neither, no_ or _none, one, other, own, only, same, several, some, such, sundry, that, this, these, those, what, whatever, whatsoever, which, whichever, whichsoever_.[172] Of these forty-six words, seven are always singular, if the word _one_ is not an exception; namely, _each, either, every, neither, one, that, this_: and nine or ten others are always plural, if the word _many_ is not an exception; namely, _both, divers, few, fewer, fewest, many, several, sundry, these, those_. All the rest, like our common adjectives, are applicable to nouns of either number. _Else, every, only, no_, and _none_, are definitive words, which I have thought proper to call pronominal adjectives, though only the last can now with propriety be made to represent its noun understood. "Nor has Vossius, or _any else_ that I know of, observed it."--_Johnson's Gram. Com._, p. 279. Say, "or any _one_ else." Dr. Webster explains this word _else_ thus: "ELSE, _a._ or _pron._ [Sax. _elles_] Other; one or something _beside_; as, Who _else_ is coming?"--_Octavo Dict._ "Each and _every_ of them," is an old phrase in which _every_ is used pronominally, or with ellipsis of the word to which it refers; but, in common discourse, we now say, _every one, every man_, &c., never using the word _every_ alone to suggest its noun. _Only_ is perhaps most commonly an adverb; but it is still in frequent use as an adjective; and in old books we sometimes find an ellipsis of the noun to which it belongs; as, "Neither are they the _only_ [verbs] in which it is read."--_Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries_, p. 373. "But I think he is the _only_ [one] of these Authors."--_Ib._, p. 193. _No_ and _none_ seem to be only different forms of the same adjective; the former being used before a noun expressed, and the latter when the noun is understood, or not placed after the adjective; as, "For _none_ of us liveth to himself, and _no_ man dieth to himself."--_Romans_, xiv, 7. _None_ was anciently used for _no_ before all words beginning with a vowel sound; as, "They are sottish children; and they have _none_ understanding."--_Jeremiah_, iv, 22. This practice is now obsolete. _None_ is still used, when its noun precedes it; as,

"Fools! who from hence into the notion fall,
That _vice_ or _virtue_ there is _none_ at all."--_Pope_.

OBS. 8.--Of the words given in the foregoing list as pronominal adjectives, about one third are sometimes used _adverbially_. They are the following: _All_, when it means _totally; any_, for _in any degree; else_, meaning _otherwise; enough_, signifying _sufficiently; first_, for _in the first place; last_, for _in the last place; little_, for _in a small degree; less_, for _in a smaller degree; least_, for _in the smallest degree; much_, for _in a great degree; more_, for _in a greater degree; most_, for _in the greatest degree; no_, or _none_, for _in no degree; only_, for _singly, merely, barely; what_, for _in what degree_, or _in how great a degree_.[173] To these may perhaps be added the word _other_, when used as an alternative to _somehow_; as, "_Somehow_ or _other_ he will be favoured."--_Butler's Analogy_, p. 89. Here _other_ seems to be put for _otherwise_; and yet the latter word would not be agreeable in such a sentence. "_Somewhere or other_," is a kindred phrase equally common, and equally good; or, rather, equally irregular and puzzling. Would it not be better, always to avoid both, by saying, in their stead, "_In some way or other_,"--"_In someplace or other?_" In the following examples, however, _other_ seems to be used for _otherwise_, without such a connection: "How is THAT used, _other_ than as a Conjunction?"--_Ainsworth's Gram._, p. 88.

"Will it not be receiv'd that they have done 't?
--Who dares receive it _other?_"--SHAK.: _Joh. Dict., w. Other_.

OBS. 9.--_All_ and _enough, little_ and _much, more_ and _less_, sometimes suggest the idea of quantity so abstractly, that we can hardly consider them as adjuncts to any other words; for which reason, they are, in this absolute sense, put down in our dictionaries as _nouns_. If nouns, however, they are never inflected by cases or numbers; nor do they in general admit the usual adjuncts or definitives of nouns.[174] Thus, we can neither say, _the all_, for _the whole_, nor _an enough_, for _a sufficiency_. And though _a little, the more_, and _the less_, are common phrases, the article does not here prove the following word to be a noun; because the expression may either be elliptical, or have the construction of an adverb: as, "Though _the more_ abundantly I love you, _the less_ I be loved."--_2 Cor._, xii, 15. Dr. Johnson seems to suppose that the partitive use of these words makes them nouns; as, "They have _much of the poetry_ of Mecænas, but _little of his liberality_."--DRYDEN: _in Joh. Dict._ Upon this principle, however, adjectives innumerable would be made nouns; for we can just as well say, "_Some of the poetry_,"--"_Any of the poetry_,"--"_The best of Poetry_," &c. In all such expressions, the name of the thing divided, is understood in the partitive word; for a part of any thing must needs be of the same species as the whole. Nor was this great grammarian sufficiently attentive to adjuncts, in determining the parts of speech. _Nearly all, quite enough, so little, too much, vastly more, rather less_, and an abundance of similar phrases, are familiar to every body; in none of which, can any of these words of quantity, however abstract, be very properly reckoned nouns; because the preceding word is an adverb, and adverbs do not relate to any words that are literally nouns. All these may also be used partitively; as, "_Nearly all of us_."

OBS. 10.--The following are some of Dr. Johnson's "_nouns_;" which, in connexion with the foregoing remarks, I would submit to the judgement of the reader: "'Then shall we be news-crammed.'--'_All_ the better; we shall be the more remarkable.'"--SHAK.: _in Joh. Dict._ "_All_ the fitter, Lentulus; our coming is not for salutation; we have business."--BEN JONSON: _ib._ "'Tis _enough_ for me to have endeavoured the union of my country."--TEMPLE: _ib._ "Ye take too _much_ upon you."--NUMBERS: _ib._ "The fate of love is such, that still it sees too _little_ or too _much_."--DRYDEN: _ib._ "He thought not _much_ to clothe his enemies."--MILTON: _ib._ "There remained not so _much_ as one of them."--_Ib., Exod._, xiv, 28. "We will cut wood out of Lebanon, as _much_ as thou shalt need."--_Ib._, _2 Chronicles_. "The matter of the universe was created before the flood; if any _more_ was created, then there must be as _much_ annihilated to make room for it."--BURNET: _ib._ "The Lord do so, and much _more_, to Jonathan."--1 SAMUEL: _ib._ "They that would have _more_ and _more_, can never have _enough_; no, not if a miracle should interpose to gratify their avarice."--L'ESTRANGE: _ib._ "They gathered some _more_, some _less_."--EXODUS: _ib._ "Thy servant knew nothing of this, _less_ or _more_."--1 SAMUEL: _ib._ The first two examples above, Johnson explains thus: "That is, '_Every thing is the better_.'--_Every thing is the fitter_."--_Quarto Dict._ The propriety of this solution may well be doubted; because the similar phrases, "_So much_ the better,"--"_None_ the fitter," would certainly be perverted, if resolved in the same way: _much_ and _none_ are here, very clearly, adverbs.

OBS. 11.--Whatever disposition may be made of the terms cited above, there are instances in which some of the same words can hardly be any thing else than nouns. Thus _all_, when it signifies _the whole_, or _every thing_, may be reckoned a noun; as, "Our _all_ is at stake, and irretrievably lost, if we fail of success."--_Addison_. "A torch, snuff and _all_, goes out in a moment, when dipped in the vapour."--_Id._ "The first blast of wind laid it flat on the ground; nest, eagles, and _all_."--_L'Estrange_.

"Finding, the wretched _all_ they here can have,
But present food, and but a future grave."--_Prior_.

"And will she yet debase her eyes on me;
On me, whose _all_ not equals Edward's moiety?"--_Shak_.

"Thou shalt be _all_ in _all_, and I in thee,
Forever; and in me all whom thou lov'st."--_Milton_.

OBS. 12.--There are yet some other words, which, by their construction alone, are to be distinguished from the pronominal adjectives. _Both_, when it stands as a correspondent to _and_, is reckoned a conjunction; as, "For _both_ he that sanctifieth, _and_ they who are sanctified, are all of one."--_Heb._, ii, 11. But, in sentences like the following, it seems to be an adjective, referring to the nouns which precede: "Language and manners are _both_ established by the usage of people of fashion."--_Amer. Chesterfield_, p. 83. So _either_, corresponding to _or_, and _neither_, referring to _nor_, are conjunctions, and not adjectives. _Which_ and _what_, with their compounds, _whichever_ or _whichsoever, whatever_ or _whatsoever_, though sometimes put before nouns as adjectives, are, for the most part, relative or interrogative pronouns. When the noun is used after them, they are adjectives; when it is omitted, they are pronouns: as, "There is a witness of God, _which witness_ gives true judgement."--_I. Penington_. Here the word _witness_ might be omitted, and _which_ would become a relative pronoun. Dr. Lowth says, "_Thy, my, her, our, your, their_, are pronominal adjectives."--_Gram._, p. 23. This I deny; and the reader may see my reasons, in the observations upon the declension of pronouns.

OBS. 13.--The words _one_ and _other_, besides their primitive uses as adjectives, in which they still remain without inflection, are frequently employed as nouns, or as substitutes for nouns; and, in this substantive or pronominal character, they commonly have the regular declension of nouns, and are reckoned such by some grammarians; though others call them indefinite pronouns, and some, (among whom are Lowth and Comly,) leave them with the pronominal adjectives, even when they are declined in both numbers. Each of them may be preceded by either of the articles; and so general is the signification of the former, that almost any adjective may likewise come before it: as, _Any one, some one, such a one, many a one, a new one, an old one, an other one, the same one, the young ones, the little ones, the mighty ones, the wicked one, the Holy One, the Everlasting One_. So, like the French _on_, or _l'on_, the word _one_, without any adjective, is now very frequently used as a general or indefinite term for any man, or any person. In this sense, it is sometimes, unquestionably, to be preferred to a personal pronoun applied indefinitely: as, "Pure religion, and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep _himself_ [better, _one's self_] unspotted from the world."--_James_, i, 27. But, as its generality of meaning seems to afford a sort of covering for egotism, some writers are tempted to make too frequent a use of it. Churchill ridicules this practice, by framing, or anonymously citing, the following sentence: "If _one_ did but dare to abide by _one's_ own judgement, _one's_ language would be much more refined; but _one_ fancies _one's_ self obliged to follow, whereever the many choose to lead _one_."--See _Churchill's Gram._, p. 229. Here every scholar will concur with the critic in thinking, it would be better to say: "If _we_ did but dare to abide by _our_ own judgement, _our_ language would be much more refined; but _we_ fancy _ourselves_ obliged to follow wherever the many choose to lead _us_."--See _ib._

OBS. 14.--Of the pronominal adjectives the following distribution has been made: "_Each, every_, and _either_, are called _distributives_; because, though they imply all the persons or things that make up a number, they consider them, not as one whole, but as taken separately. _This, that, former, latter, both, neither_, are termed _demonstratives_; because they point out precisely the subjects to which they relate. _This_ has _these_ for its plural; _that_ has _those_. _This_ and _that_ are frequently put in opposition to each other; _this_, to express what is nearer in place or time; _that_, what is more remote. _All, any, one, other, some, such_, are termed _indefinite_. _Another_ is merely _other_ in the singular, with the indefinite article not kept separate from it.[175] _Other_, when not joined with a noun, is occasionally used both in the possessive case, and in the plural number: as,

'Teach me to feel _an other's_ wo, to hide the fault I see;
That mercy I to _others_ show, that mercy show to me.'--_Pope_.

_Each other_ and _one another_, when used in conjunction, may be termed _reciprocals_; as they are employed to express a reciprocal action; the former, between two persons or things; the latter, _between_[176] more than two. The possessive cases of the personal pronouns have been also ranked under the head of pronominal adjectives, and styled possessives; but for this I see no good reason."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 76.

OBS. 15.--The reciprocal terms _each other_ and _one an other_ divide, according to some mutual act or interchangeable relation, the persons or things spoken of, and are commonly of the singular number only. _Each other_, if rightly used, supposes two, and only two, to be acting and acted upon reciprocally; _one an other_, if not misapplied, supposes more than two, under like circumstances, and has an indefinite reference to all taken distributively: as, "Brutus and Aruns killed _each other_." That is, _Each combatant_ killed _the other_. "The disciples were commanded to love _one an other_, and to be willing to wash _one an other's_ feet." That is, _All_ the disciples were commanded to love _mutually_; for both terms, _one_ and _other_, or _one disciple_ and _an other disciple_, must be here understood as taken indefinitely. The reader will observe, that the two terms thus brought together, if taken substantively or pronominally in parsing, must be represented as being of _different cases_; or, if we take them adjectively the noun, which is twice to be supplied, will necessarily be so.

OBS. 16.--Misapplications of the foregoing reciprocal terms are very frequent in books, though it is strange that phrases so very common should not be rightly understood. Dr. Webster, among his explanations of the word _other_, has the following: "Correlative to _each_, and applicable to _any number_ of individuals."--_Octavo Dict._ "_Other_ is used as a substitute for a noun, and in this use has the plural number and the sign of the possessive case."--_Ib._ Now it is plain, that the word _other_, as a "correlative to _each_," may be so far "a substitute for a noun" as to take the form of the possessive case singular, and perhaps also the plural; as, "Lock'd in _each other's_ arms they lay." But, that the objective _other_, in any such relation, can convey a plural idea, or be so loosely applicable--"to _any number_ of individuals," I must here deny. If it were so, there would be occasion, by the foregoing rule, to make it plural in form; as, "The ambitious strive to excel _each others_." But this is not English. Nor can it be correct to say of more than two, "They all strive to excel _each other_." Because the explanation must be, "_Each_ strives to excel _other_;" and such a construction of the word _other_ is not agreeable to modern usage. _Each other_ is therefore not equivalent to _one an other_, but nearer perhaps to _the one the other_: as, "The two generals are independent _the one of the other_."--_Voltaire's Charles XII_, p. 67. "And these are contrary _the one to the other_."--_Gal._, v, 17. "The necessary connexion _of the one with the other_."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 304. The latter phraseology, being definite and formal, is now seldom used, except the terms be separated by a verb or a preposition. It is a literal version of the French _l'un l'autre_, and in some instances to be preferred to _each other_; as,

"So fellest foes, whose plots have broke their sleep,
To take _the one the other_, by some chance."--_Shak_.

OBS. 17.--The Greek term for the reciprocals _each other_ and _one an other_, is a certain plural derivative from [Greek: allos], _other_; and is used in three cases, the genitive, [Greek: allælon], the dative, [Greek: allælois], the accusative, [Greek: allælous]: these being all the cases which the nature of the expression admits; and for all these we commonly use the _objective_;--that is, we put _each_ or _one_ before the objective _other_. Now these English terms, taken in a reciprocal sense, seldom, if ever, have any plural form; because the article in _one an other_ admits of none; and _each other_, when applied to two persons or things, (as it almost always is,) does not require any. I have indeed seen, in some narrative, such an example as this: "The two men were ready to cut _each others' throats_." But the meaning could not be, that each was ready to cut "_others' throats_;" and since, between the two, there was but one throat for _each_ to cut, it would doubtless be more correct to say, "_each other's throat_." So Burns, in touching a gentler passion, has an inaccurate elliptical expression:

"'Tis when a youthful, loving, modest pair,
In _others'_ arms, breathe out the tender tale."
--_Cotter's Sat. Night_.

He meant, "In _each other's_ arms;" the apostrophe being misplaced, and the metre improperly allowed to exclude a word which the sense requires. Now, as to the plural of _each other_, although we do not use the objective, and say of many, "They love _each others_," there appear to be some instances in which the possessive plural, _each others'_, would not be improper; as, "Sixteen ministers, who meet weekly at _each other's_ houses."--_Johnson's Life of Swift_. Here the singular is wrong, because the governing noun implies a plurality of owners. "The citizens of different states should know _each others characters_."--_Webster's Essays_, p. 35. This also is wrong, because no possessive sign is used. Either write, "_each others' characters_," or say, "_one an other's character_."

OBS. 18.--_One_ and _other_ are, in many instances, terms relative and partitive, rather than reciprocal; and, in this use, there seems to be an occasional demand for the plural form. In French, two parties are contrasted by _les uns--les autres_; a mode of expression seldom, if ever imitated in English. Thus: "Il les séparera _les uns_ d'avec _les autres_." That is, "He shall separate them _some_ from _others_;"--or, literally, "_the ones_ from _the others_." Our version is: "He shall separate them _one from an other_."--_Matt._, xxv, 32. Beza has it: "Separabit eos _alteros ab alteris_." The Vulgate: "Separabit eos _ab invicem_." The Greek: "[Greek: Aphoriei autous ap allælon]." To separate many "_one from an other_," seems, literally, to leave none of them together; and this is not, "as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." To express such an idea with perfect propriety, in our language, therefore, we must resort to some other phraseology. In Campbell's version, we read: "And _out of them_ he will separate _the good from the bad_, as a shepherd separateth _the_ sheep from the goats." Better, perhaps, thus: "And he shall separate them, _the righteous from the wicked_, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats."

OBS. 19.--Dr. Bullions says, "_One_ and _other_ refer to _the singular only_."--_Eng. Gram._, p. 98. Of _ones_ and _others_ he takes no notice; nor is he sufficiently attentive to usage in respect to the roots. If there is any absurdity in giving a _plural_ meaning to the singulars _one_ and _other_, the following sentences need amendment: "_The one_ preach Christ of contention; but _the other_, of love."--_Philippians_, i, 16. Here "_the one_" is put for "the one _class_," and "_the other_" for "the other _class_;" the ellipsis in the first instance not being a very proper one. "The confusion arises, when _the one_ will put _their_ sickle into _the other's_ harvest."--LESLEY: _in Joh. Dict._ This may be corrected by saying, "_the one party_," or, "_the one nation_," in stead of "_the one_." "It is clear from Scripture, that Antichrist shall be permitted to work false miracles, and that they shall so counterfeit the true, that it will be hard to discern _the one_ from _the other_."--_Barclay's Works_, iii, 93. If in any ease we may adopt the French construction above, "_the ones_ from the _others_," it will be proper here. Again: "I have seen _children_ at a table, who, whatever was there, never asked for any thing, but contentedly took what was given them: and, at an other place, I have seen _others_ cry for every thing they saw; they must be served out of every dish, and that first too. What made this vast difference, but this: That _one was_ accustomed to have what _they_ called or cried for; _the other_ to go without it?"--_Locke, on Education_, p. 55. Here, (with _were_ for _was_,) the terms of contrast ought rather to have been, _the ones--the others_; _the latter--the former_; or, _the importunate--the modest_. "Those nice shades, by which _virtues and vices_ approach _each one another_."--_Murray's Gram._, i, p. 350. This expression should be any thing, rather than what it is. Say, "By which _virtue_ and _vice_ approach _each other_." Or: "By which certain virtues and vices _approximate-- blend--become difficult of distinction_."

OBS. 20.--"Most authors have given the name of _pronoun adjectives_, ['pronouns adjective,' or 'pronominal adjectives,'] to _my, mine; our, ours; thy, thine; your, yours; his, her, hers; their, theirs_: perhaps because they are followed by, or refer to, some substantive [expressed or understood after them]. But, were they adjectives, they must either express the quality of their substantive, or limit its extent: adjectives properly so called, do the first; definitive pronouns do the last. All adjectives [that are either singular or plural,] agree with their substantives in _number_; but I can say, 'They are _my books_:' _my_ is singular, and _books_ plural; therefore _my_ is not an adjective. Besides, _my_ does not express the _quality_ of the books, but only ascertains the possessor, the same as the genitive or substantive does, to which it is similar. Examples: 'They are _my_ books;'--'They are _John's_ books;' &c."--_Alex. Murray's Gram._, p. 108.

OBS. 21.--To the class of Participial Adjectives, should be referred all such words as the following: (1.) The simple participles made adjectives by position; as. "A _roaring_ lion,"--"A _raging_ bear,"--"A _brawling_ woman,"--"A _flattering_ mouth,"--"An _understanding_ heart,"--"_Burning_ coals,"--"The _hearing_ ear, and the _seeing_ eye."--_Bible_. "A _troubled_ fountain,"--"A _wounded_ spirit,"--"An _appointed_ time."--_Ib._ (2.) Words of a participial appearance, formed from nouns by adding _ed_; as, "The eve thy _sainted_ mother died."--_W. Scott_. "What you write of me, would make me more _conceited_, than what I scribble myself."--_Pope_. (3.) Participles, or participial adjectives, reversed in sense by the prefix _un_; as, _unaspiring, unavailing, unbelieving, unbattered, uninjured, unbefriended_. (4.) Words of a participial form construed elliptically, as if they were nouns; as, "Among the _dying_ and the dead."--"The _called_ of Jesus Christ."--_Rom._, i, 6. "Dearly _beloved_, I beseech you."--_1 Pet._, ii, 11. "The _redeemed_ of the Lord shall return."--_Isaiah_, li, 11. "They talk, to the grief of thy _wounded_."--_Psalms_, lxix, 26: _Margin_.

OBS. 22.--In the text, Prov., vii, 26, "She hath cast down many wounded," _wounded_ is a participle; because the meaning is, "_many men wounded_," and not, "_many wounded men_." Our Participial Adjectives are exceedingly numerous. It is not easy to ascertain how many there are of them; because almost any simple participle may be set before a noun, and thus become an adjective: as,

"Where _smiling_ spring its earliest visit paid,
And _parting_ summer's _ling'ring_ blooms delay'd."--_Goldsmith_.

OBS. 23.--Compound Adjectives, being formed at pleasure, are both numerous and various. In their formation, however, certain analogies may be traced: (1.) Many of them are formed by joining an adjective to its noun, and giving to the latter the participial termination _ed_; as, _able-bodied, sharp-sighted, left-handed, full-faced, flat-nosed, thick-lipped, cloven-footed, high-heeled_. (2.) In some, two nouns are joined, the latter assuming _ed_, as above; as, _bell-shaped, hawk-nosed, eagle-sighted, lion-hearted, web-footed_. (3.) In some, the object of an active participle is placed before it; as, _money-getting, time-serving, self-consuming, cloud-compelling, fortune-hunting, sleep-disturbing_. (4.) Some, embracing numerals, form a series, though it is seldom carried far; as, _one-legged, two-legged, three-legged, four-legged_. So, _one-leaved, two-leaved, three-leaved, four-leaved_: or, perhaps better as Webster will have them, _one-leafed, two-leafed, &c_. But, upon the same principle, _short-lived_, should be _short-lifed_, and _long-lived, long-lifed_. (5.) In some, there is a combination of an adjective and a participle; as, _noble-looking, high-sounding, slow-moving, thorough-going, hard-finished, free-born, heavy-laden, only-begotten_. (6.) In some, we find an adverb and a participle united; as, _ever-living, ill-judging, well-pleasing, far-shooting, forth-issuing, back-sliding, ill-trained, down-trodden, above-mentioned_. (7.) Some consist of a noun and a participle which might be reversed with a preposition between them; as, _church-going, care-crazed, travel-soiled, blood-bespotted, dew-sprinkled_. (8.) A few, and those inelegant, terminate with a preposition; as, _unlooked-for, long-looked-for, unthought-of, unheard-of_. (9.) Some are phrases of many words, converted into one part of speech by the hyphen; as, "Where is the _ever-to-be-honoured_ Chaucer?"--_Wordsworth_.

"And, with _God-only-knows-how-gotten_ light,
Informs the nation what is wrong or right."
--_Snelling's Gift for Scribblers_, p. 49.

OBS. 24.--Nouns derived from compound adjectives, are generally disapproved by good writers; yet we sometimes meet with them: as, _hard-heartedness_, for hardness of heart, or cruelty; _quick-sightedness_, for quickness of sight, or perspicacity; _worldly-mindedness_, for devotion to the world, or love of gain; _heavenly-mindedness_, for the love of God, or true piety. In speaking of ancestors or descendants, we take the noun, _father, mother, son, daughter_, or _child_; prefix the adjective _grand_; for the second generation; _great_, for the, third; and then, sometimes, repeat the same, for degrees more remote: as, _father, grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather_. "What would my _great-grandmother_ say, thought I, could she know that thou art to be chopped up for fuel to warm the frigid fingers of her _great-great-great-granddaughters_!"--_T. H. Bayley_.

MODIFICATIONS.

Adjectives have, commonly, no modifications but the forms of _comparison_. Comparison is a variation of the adjective, to express quality in different degrees: as, _hard, harder, hardest; soft, softer, softest._

There are three degrees of comparison; the _positive_, the _comparative_, and the _superlative_.

The _positive degree_ is that which is expressed by the adjective in its simple form: as, "An elephant is _large_; a mouse, _small_; a lion, _fierce, active, bold_, and _strong_."

The _comparative degree_ is that which is _more_ or _less_ than something contrasted with it: as, "A whale is _larger_ than an elephant; a mouse is a much _smaller_ animal than a rat."

The _superlative degree_ is that which is _most_ or _least_ of all included with it: as, "The whale is the _largest_ of the animals that inhabit this globe; the mouse is the _smallest_ of all beasts."--_Dr. Johnson._

Those adjectives whose signification does not admit of different degrees, cannot be compared; as, _two, second, all, every, immortal, infinite._

Those adjectives which may be varied in sense, but not in form, are compared by means of adverbs; as, fruitful, _more_ fruitful, _most_ fruitful--fruitful, _less_ fruitful, _least_ fruitful.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--"Some scruple to call the positive a degree of comparison; on the ground, that it does not imply either comparison, or degree. But no quality can exist, without existing in some degree: and, though the positive is very frequently used without reference to any other degree; as it is _the standard_, with which other degrees of the quality are compared, it is certainly an essential object of the comparison. While these critics allow only two degrees, we might in fact with more propriety say, that there are five: 1, the quality in its standard state, or positive degree; as _wise_: 2, in a higher state, or the comparative ascending; _more wise_: 3, in a lower, or the comparative descending; _less wise_: 4, in the highest state, or superlative ascending; _most wise_: 5, in the lowest state, or superlative descending; _least wise._ All grammarians, however, agree about the things themselves, and the forms used to express them; though they differ about the names, by which these forms should be called: and as those names are practically best, which tend least to perplex the learner, I see no good reason here for deviating from what has been established by long custom."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 231.