Part 13 (1/2)
The same may be said of all the characters used for abbreviation; as, & for _and_,for _dollars_, or the ists, &c None of these are alphabetic, and they represent significant words, and not single elereat dullness, to assume that a word and an ele But the reader will observe that this definition embraces _no idea_ contained in the faulty one to which I a; neither indeed could it, without a blunder So wide from the mark is that notion of a letter, which the popularity of Dr Lowth and his copyists hasto an other erroneous definition given by these saentlemen, ”_Words_ are articulate _sounds_, used by cons of our ideas”--_Murray's Graer's_, 12; _Russell's_, 7; _Merchant's_, 9; _Fisk's_, 11; _Greenleaf's_, 20; and many others See _Lowth's Gram_, p 6; from which almost all authors have taken the notion, that words consist of ”_sounds_” only But letters are no principles or parts of _sounds_ at all; unless you will either have visible n to be a principle or part of the thing signified Nor are they always principles or parts of _words_: we sometimes write what is _not a word_; as when, by letters, we denote pronunciation alone, or imitate brute voices If words were formed of articulate sounds only, they could not exist in books, or be in any wise known to the deaf and dumb These two priether, they involve the absurdity of dividing things acknowledged to be indivisible In utterance, we cannot divide consonants from their vowels; on paper, we can Hence letters are the least parts of written language only; but the least parts of spoken words are syllables, and not letters
Every definition of a consonant implies this
15 They who cannot define a letter or a word, ra is ritten, that can possibly be est_ a wrong idea, this alone is enough to condey, to say, that a more reasonable construction can be put upon it By Murray and others, the young learner is told, that, ”A _vowel_ is an articulate _sound_, that can be perfectly _uttered by itself_;” as if a voere nothing but a sound, and that a sort of echo, which can _utter itself_; and next, that, ”A _consonant_ is an articulate _sound_, which cannot be perfectly uttered _without the help of_ a vowel”
Now, by their own showing, every letter is either a vowel or a consonant; hence, according to these definitions, all the letters are articulate _sounds_ And, if so, what is a ”silent letter?” It is a _silent articulate sound!_ Again: ask a boy, ”What is a _triphthong?_” He answers in the words of Murray, Weld, Pond, Ser, Worcester, and others: ”A triphthong is the union of three vowels, _pronounced in like manner_: as _eau_ in beau, _iew_ in view” He accurately cites an entire paragraph frorammar, but does he well conceive how the three vowels in _beau_ or _view_ are ”pronounced _in like ain: ”A _syllable_ is a _sound_, either sile impulse of the voice”--_Murray's Gram_, 8vo, p
22 This definition resolves syllables into _sounds_; whereas their true elements are _letters_ It also mistakes the participle _compounded_ for the adjective _compound_; whereas the latter only is the true reverse of _simple_ A _compound sound_ is a sound composed of others which may be separated; a _sound coredient with others, but which may itself be simple
16 It is observable, that in their atterammar, Murray, and uage; whereas their very science itself took its origin, na; and has consequently no bearing upon any dialect which has not been written Their definitions absurdly resolve letters, vowels, consonants, syllables, and words, all into _sounds_; as if none of these things had any existence on paper, or any significance to those who read in silence Hence, their explanations of all these eles equally essential to the study, are palpably erroneous I attribute this to the carelessness hich rammar; and that carelessness to those various circura here to ed to accuse hirammar that is much less objectionable in this respect, than Murray's; and yet I areatly mistaken, if nine tenths of all the definitions in Murray's system are not faulty ”It was this sort of definitions, which raraph_ 5th, above
17 Nor can this objection be neutralized by saying, it is ain rivalry For, though we have an to particular words a ree arbitrary; yet whenever we attes under the naer left to arbitrary explications; but are bound to think and to say that only which shall coether true to nature When a word is well understood to denote a particular object or class of objects, the definition of it ought to be in strict confor and properties of the thing or things contemplated A definition of this kind is a proposition susceptible of proof and illustration; and therefore whatsoever is erroneously assu of such a ter upon trust, and choose both to learn and to teach mechanically, often becoy of their text-books, that, be the absurdity of a particular expression what it may, they can neither discover nor suspect any inaccuracy in it It is also very natural even for ard with soravely impressed upon them in childhood Hence the necessity that all school-books should proceed fros as they are, and never falter through negligence
18 I have adeneral knowledge of the ie may be acquired; nor are they the only e s_ and tell their nae part of that instruction by which thee or apposition of teruard against the possibility of misapprehension, and show precisely what is meant by a word, we e, many words which do not admit of a for particles e, translation, or derivation; and nature reserves to herself the power of explaining the objects of our si for complex ideas are definable; but those by which we denote simple ideas, are not
For the perceptions of this latter class, having no other entrance into the mind, than by sensation or reflection, can be acquired only by experience”--_Duncan's Logic_, p 63 ”And thus we see, that as our sie, so the names of siuage, beyond which we cannot trace the nification of words When we come to them, we suppose the ideas for which they stand to be already known; or, if they are not, experience alone must be consulted, and not definitions or explications”--_Ibid_, p 69
19 But this is no apology for the defectiveness of any definition which lish grammars, in the frequent omission of all explanation, and the more frequent adoption of some indirect form of expression It is often much easier to iven word or term in science, than to fra; because it is easier to refer to some of the relations, qualities, offices, or attributes of things, than to discern wherein their essence consists, so as to be able to tell directly and clearly what they are The irammatical code in this respect, was one of the principal objects which I thought it needful to atterammarian I cannot pretend to have seen, of course, every definition and rule which has been published on this subject; but, if I do not , I have reater nuraether And not a few of them have, since their first publication in 1823, been cora with the authorshi+p which has been spoken of in an other chapter; but I am constrained to say, it affords no proof that they ritten If it did, the definitions and rules in Murray's graht the iven: they have been more frequently copied than any others
20 But I have ventured to suggest, that nine tenths of this author's definitions are bad, or at least susceptible of some amendment If this can be shown to the satisfaction of the reader, will he hope to find an other English grammar in which the eye of criticism may not detect errors and deficiencies with the same ease? My object is, to enforce attention to the proprieties of speech; and this is the very purpose of all grammar To exhibit here all Murray's definitions, with criticis We must therefore be content to take a part of the only upon the worst, ill take a _series_ Let us then consider in their order his definitions of the nine parts of speech;--for, calling the participle a verb, he reduces the sorts of words to that nuh not one of his nine definitions now stands exactly as it did in his early editions, I think it may be said, that not one of therammatically
21 FIRST DEFINITION:--”An Article is a word _prefixed_ to substantives, _to point thenification extends”--_Murray, and others, from, Lowth's Gram_, p 10 This is obscure In what manner, or in what respect, does an article point out substantives? To point them out _as such_, or to shohich words are substantives, see intended; but it is said soon after, ”_A_ or _an_ is used in a vague sense, to _point out_ one single _thing_ of the kind, in other respects _indeter ain: ”It is _of the nature_ of both the articles to deter_ spoken of”--_Murray's Gra the parts of speech, and to point out _things_ as individuals of their class, are very different matters; and which of these is the purpose for which articles are used, according to Lowth and Murray? Their definition says the former, their explanations imply the latter; and I am unable to determine which they really meant The term _placed before_ would have been better than ”_prefixed_;” because the latter commonly implies junction, as well as location The word ”_indeterminate_” is not a very easy one for a boy; and, when he has found out what itnouns it ought to be referred:--”in a vague _sense_, to point out one single _thing_ of the _kind_, in other _respects_ indeterue sense?” and what is it, that is ”indeterminate?”
22 SECOND DEFINITION:--”A Substantive or Noun is the na _that_ exists, or of _which_ we have any notion”--_Murray, and others_
According to his own syntax, this sentence of Murray's is wrong; for he hiests, that when two or more relative clauses refer to the same antecedent, the same pronoun should be used in each Of clauses connected like these, this is true He should therefore have said, ”A Substantive, or Noun, is the na _which_ exists, or of _which_ we have any notion” His rule, however, though good against a text like this, is utterly wrong in regard to_two_ for a ”_series_” thus: ”Whatever relative is used, in one of a _series_ of clauses relating to the saenerally to be used in _the sentence, _this rule is violated_: 'It is reainst _which_ the as undertaken, and _that_, in the very beginning, was reduced to the brink of destruction, lost nothing' The clause ought to have been, 'and _which_ in the very beginning'”--_Murray's Gram_, 8vo, p 155 But both the rule and the example, badly as they correspond, were borrowed from Priestley's Grammar, p 102, where the text stands thus: ”Whatever relative _be_ used, in one of a _series_ of clauses, relating to the saht to be used in _them all_ 'It is remarkable, that Holland,'” &c
23 THIRD DEFINITION:--”An Adjective is a word added to a substantive, to express _its_ quality”--_Lowth, Murray, Bullions, Pond, and others_ Here we have the choice of twoto truth It seems doubtful whether ”_its_ quality” is the _adjective's_ quality, or the _substantive's_; but in either sense, the phrase is false; for an adjective is added to a noun, not to express any quality either of the adjective or of the noun, but to express sonified_ by the noun But the definition is too much restricted; for adjectives may be added to pronouns as well as to nouns, nor do they always express _quality_
24 FOURTH DEFINITION:--”A pronoun is a word used instead of a noun, to _avoid the too frequent_ repetition of _the same word_”--_Dr Ash's Graer's_, 13; _Bacon's_, 10; _and others_ The latter part of this sentence is needless, and also contains several errors 1 The verb _avoid_ is certainly very ill-chosen; because it iency, and not that which is merely instrumental 2 The article _the_ is misemployed for _a_; for, ”_the_ too frequent repetition,” should mean _some particular_ too frequent repetition--an idea not intended here, and in itself not far from absurdity 3 The phrase, ”_the same word_” may apply to the pronoun itself as well as to the noun: in saying, ”_I_ came, _I_ saw, _I_ conquered,”
there is as frequent a repetition of _the sa, ”_Caesar_ came, _Caesar_ saw, _Caesar_ conquered” If, therefore, the latter part of this definition must be retained, the whole should be written thus: ”A pronoun is a word used _in stead_ of a noun, to _prevent_ too frequent _a_ repetition of _it_”
25 FIFTH DEFINITION:--”A Verb is a hich signifies _to be, to do_, or _to suffer_”--_Lowth, Murray, and others_ NOTE:--”A verbsense_ with any of the personal pronouns, or the word _to_ before it”--_Murray, and others_ It is confessedly difficult to give a perfect definition of a _verb_; and if, with Murray, ill have the participles to be verbs, thereone that shall be tolerable Against the foregoing old explanation, itnow understood in a more limited sense than formerly, does not well express the nature or import of a passive verb I have said, ”A Verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_” Children cannot readily understand, how every thing that is in any way _acted upon_, may be said _to suffer_
The participle, I think, should be taken as a distinct part of speech, and have its own definition The note added by Murray to his definition of a verb, would prove the participle not to be included in this part of speech, and thus practically contradict his scheme It is also objectionable in respect to construction The phrase ”_by its lish; for ”_itssense_” supposes it to be an active participle But Lowth says, ”Let it be either the one or the other, and abide by its own construction” Nay, the author hih he therein contradicts an other note of his own, virtually conde words in _ing_, ”as if they were of an _amphibious species_, partly nouns and partly verbs”--_Murray's Gram_, 8vo, p 193
26 SIXTH DEFINITION:--”_An_ Adverb is _a part of speech joined_ to a verb, an adjective, _and sometimes to_ another adverb, to express so _it_”--_Murray's Gram_, pp 28 and 114 See _Dr Ash's Gram_, p 47 This definition contains ross blunders 1 The first word, ”_An_,” is erroneously put for _The: an_ adverb is _one_ adverb, not the whole class; and, if, ”_An_ adverb is a part of speech,” any and every adverb is a _part of speech_; then, how many parts of speech are there? 2 The word ”_joined_” is not well chosen; for, with the exception of _not_ in _cannot_, the adverb is very rarely _joined_ to the word to which it relates 3 The want of a comma before _joined_, perverts the construction; for the phrase, ”_speech joined_ to a verb,” is nonsense; and to suppose _joined_ to relate to the noun _part_, is not much better 4 The word ”_and_” should be _or_; because no adverb is ever added to three or four different terms at once
5 The word ”_sometimes_” should be omitted; because it is needless, and because it is inconsistent with the only conjunction which will make the definition true 6 The preposition ”_to_” should either be inserted before ”_an adjective_,” or suppressed before the term which follows; for when several words occur in the same construction, uniformity of expression is desirable 7 For the say,) the article ”_an_” ought, in cases like this, if not always, to be separated from the word _other_; thus, ”An adverb is a word added to _a_ verb, _a_ participle, _an_ adjective, or _an_ other adverb” Were the eye not faular as _theother_ 8 The word ”_quality_” is wrong; for no adverb ever expresses any _quality_, as such; qualities are expressed by _adjectives_, and never, in any direct manner, by adverbs 9 The ”_circu to the _words_, as this definition avers that they do, but always to the _actions_ or _qualities_ which the words signify 10
The pronoun _it_, according to Murray's second rule of syntax, ought to be _them_, and so it stands in his own early editions; but if _and_ be changed to _or_, as I have said it should be, the pronoun _it_ will be right
27 SEVENTH DEFINITION:--”Prepositions serve to connect words with _one another_, and to show the relation _between them_”--_Lowth, Murray, and others_ This is only an observation, not a definition, as it ought to have been; nor does it at all distinguish the preposition fro in question Besides, it contains an actual solecism in the expression The word ”_between_” is; and the phrase ”_one another_” is not applicable where there are but two
It should be, ”to connect words with _each other_, and to show the _relation between_ them;”--or else, ”to connect words with _one an other_, and to show the _relations a_ them” But the latter mode of expression would not apply to prepositions considered severally, but only to the whole class
28 EIGHTH DEFINITION:--”A Conjunction is _a part of speech_ that is _chiefly_ used to connect sentences; so as, out of two _or more_ sentences, to make but one: it sometimes connects only words”--_Murray, and others_
Here are ether; and all that is said in theht be much better expressed in half the number For example: ”A Conjunction is a hich connects other terms, and commonly of two sentences makes but one” But verbosity and want of unity are not the worst faults of this definition We have three others to point out 1 ”A conjunction is” not ”_a part of speech_;” because _a_ conjunction is _one_ conjunction, and a part of speech is a whole class, or sort, of words A similar error was noticed in Murray's definition of an adverb; and so common has this blunder become, that by a coiven of the parts of speech, probably it will be found, that, by some hand or other, every one of the ten has been commenced in this way 2 The words ”_or ht to be omitted; for no one conjunction can connect more than two terms, in that consecutive order which the sense requires Three or more simple sentences may indeed form a compound sentence; but, as they cannot be joined in a _cluster_, they must have two or ests, that any or every conjunction ”_sometimes connects only words_;” but the conjunctions which may connect only words, are not more than five, whereas those which connect only sentences are four times as many
29 NINTH DEFINITION:--”Interjections are words _thrown in between the parts of a sentence_, to express the passions or emotions of the _speaker_; as, 'O Virtue! how amiable thou art!'”--_Murray, and rarammar, and committed to memory millions of times, is obviously erroneous, and directly contradicted by the exah thrown in between the parts of a _discourse_, are very rarely ”thrown in between the parts of a _sentence_” Theyof a sentence than any where else; and, in such cases, they do not come under this narrow definition The author, at the head of his chapter on interjections, appends to this definition two other examples; both of which contradict it in like manner: ”_Oh_! I have alienated ain: Interjections are used occasionally, in _written_, as well as in _oral_ discourse; nor are they less indicative of the emotions of the _writer_, than of those ”of the _speaker_”
30 I have thus exhibited, with all intentional fairness of criticism, the entire series of these nine prie whether they sustain the praises which have been bestowed on the book,[69]