Part 14 (1/2)
Flint, Folker, S Putnam, Cooper, Frost, Goldsbury, Hamlin, T Smith, R C
Smith, and Woodworth But a third part of these, and aslist, are confessedly mere modifiers of Murray's compilation; and perhaps, in such a case, those have done best who have deviated least from the track of him whom they professed to follow[72]
9 So the number of the parts of speech, and of the rules for their construction, the study of grammar would be rendered more easy and more profitable to the learner But this, as would appear froression towards the rudeness of its earlier stages It is hardly worth while to dispute, whether there shall be nine parts of speech or ten; and perhaps enough has already been stated, to establish the expediency of assue ained by er and less nue to the differences in things; and the si words shall be at first regarded To overlook, in our primary division, the difference between a verb and a participle, is merely to reserve for a subdivision, or subsequent explanation, a species of words which nized as a distinct sort in their original classification
10 It should be observed that the early period of gralish_ gras whichteach and defend as grao, by the philosophers of Greece and Rome Of the parts of speech, Quintilian, who lived in the first century of our era, gives the following account: ”For the ancients, a ere Aristotle[73] and Theodectes, treated only of verbs, nouns, and conjunctions: as the verb is e say, and the noun, that of which we say it, they judged the power of discourse to be in _verbs_, and the matter in _nouns_, but the connexion in _conjunctions_ Little by little, the philosophers, and especially the Stoics, increased the number: first, to the conjunctions were added _articles_; afterwards, _prepositions_; to nouns, was added the _appellation_; then the _pronoun_; afterwards, as belonging to each verb, the _participle_; and, to verbs in coe [i e, the _Latin_] does not require articles, wherefore they are scattered a the other parts of speech; but there is added to the foregoing the _interjection_ But soht; as Aristarchus, and, in our day, Palaemon; who have included the vocable, or appellation, with the noun, as a species of it But they who make the noun one and the vocable an other, reckon nine But there are also so the forht or touch, as _house, bed_; and the latter, any thing to which either or both are wanting, as _wind, heaven, God, virtue_ They have also added the _asseveration_ and the _attrectation_, which I do not approve Whether the vocable or appellation should be included with the noun or not, as it is a matter of little consequence, I leave to the decision of others”--See QUINTIL _de Inst
Orat_, Lib i, Cap 4, --24
11 Several writers on English grae unsettlement of plan, seem not to have determined in their own ht to be A these are Horne Tooke, Webster, Dalton, Cardell, Green, and Cobb; and perhaps, from what he says above, we may add the name of Priestley The present disputation about the sorts of words, has been chiefly owing to the writings of Horne Tooke, who explains the minor parts of speech as mere abbreviations, and rejects, with needless acrimony, the common classification But many have mistaken the nature of his instructions, no less than that of the corammarians This author, in his third chapter, supposes his auditor to say, ”But you have not all this while informed me _how many parts of speech_ you mean to lay down” To whom he replies, ”That shall be as you please Either _two_, or _twenty_, or _h with his particular purpose; because he meant to teach the derivation of words, and not to meddle at all with their construction But who does not see that it is impossible to lay down rules for the _construction_ of words, without first dividing them into the classes to which such rules apply? For exaree with its subject, or nominative, in person and number,” must he not first show the learner _ords are verbs?_ and ought he not to see in this rule a reason for not calling the participle a verb? Let the careless followers of Lowth and Priestley answer Tooke did not care to preserve any parts of speech at all His work is not a systeular scherant that the same words may possibly be used as different parts of speech, must make his parts of speech either very few or very e their nature in thissometimes to one part of speech, and so them I never could perceive any such fluctuation in any hatever”--_Diversions of Purley_, Vol i, p 68
12 Froenious author never well considered what constitutes the sameness of words, or wherein lies the difference of the parts of speech; and, without understanding these things, a grammarian cannot but fall into errors, unless he will follow somebody that knows them But Tooke confessedly contradicts, and outfaces ”_all other Grae just cited Yet it is plain, that the whole science of gray and syntax, which are its two principal parts--is based upon a division of words into the parts of speech; a division which necessarily refers, into the manner in which they are used ”Certains mots repondent, ainsi au rammaire les emploie diversement”--_Buffier_, Art 150 ”Some words, fro sometimes to one part of speech, sometimes to another”--_M'Culloch's Gram_, p 37 ”And so say all other Grammarians”--_Tooke, as above_
13 The history of _Dr Webster_, as a graeableness, yet always positive; for his inconsistency, yet very learned; for his zeal ”to correct popular errors,”
yet often himself erroneous; for his fertility in resources, yet sore; for his success as an author, yet never satisfied; for his boldness of innovation, yet fond of appealing to antiquity His grammars are the least judicious, and at present the least popular, of his works They consist of four or five different treatises, which for their mutual credit should never be compared: it is impossible to place any firm reliance upon the authority of a ine that the last opinions of so learned a ht, will do well to wait, and see ill be his last: they cannot otherwise knohat his instructions will finally lead: Experience has already taught him the folly of many of his pretended irammar will be most conformable to that just authority hich he has ever been taenuity as well as learning, or that he is alrong when he contradicts a ra when he undertook to disturb the common scheme of the parts of speech, as well as when he resolved to spell all words exactly as they are pronounced
14 It is not commonly knoith how rash a hand this celebrated author has soe In 1790, which was seven years after the appearance of his first grammar, he published an octavo volu of Essays, ht have done hiraraphy Not perceiving that English literature, multiplied as it had been within two or three centuries, had acquired a stability in soined it was still as susceptible of change and improvement as in the days of its infancy Let the reader pardon the length of this digression, if for the sake of any future schemer who may chance to adopt a similar conceit, I cite from the preface to this voluenious attorney had the good sense quickly to abandon this project, and content hi innovations; else he had never stood as he now does, in the estimation of the public But there is the more need to record the example, because in one of the southern states the experiain A still abler member of the same profession, has renewed it but lately; and it is said there are yet re some converts to this notion of i all uess for the_” without
15 ”During the course of ten or twelv yeers, I hav been laboring to correct popular errors, and to assistbrethren in the road to truth and virtue; my publications for theze purposes hav been nuret, and much censure incurred, which my hart tells me I do not dezerv””The reeder wil observ that the _orthography_ of the volum iz not uniform The reezon iz, that many of the essays hav been published before, in the coraphy, and it would hav been a laborious task to copy the whole, for the sake of changing the spelling In the essays, ritten within the last yeer, a considerable change of spelling iz introduced by way of experie of queen Elizabeth, and to this we are indeted for the preference ofover that of Gower and Chaucer The one, one,of _helth, breth, rong, tung, munth_, to be an improovment There iz no alternativ Every possible reezon that could ever be offered for altering the spelling of wurds, stil exists in full force; and if a gradual refore, it wil proov that we are less under the influence of reezon than our ancestors”--_Noah Webster's Essays, Preface_, p xi
16 But let us return, with our author, to the question of the parts of speech I have shown that if we do not mean to adopt some less convenient scheme, we must count them _ten_, and preserve their ancient order as well as their ancient names[74] And, after all his vacillation in consequence of reading Horne Tooke, it would not be strange if Dr Webster should come at last to the same conclusion He was not very far from it in 1828, as may be shown by his own testiive his oords on the point: ”There is great difficulty in devising a correct classification of the several sorts of words; and probably no classification that shall be simple and at the same time philosophically correct, can be invented There are some words that do not strictly fall under any description of any class yet devised Many atte to remedy this evil; but such schemes as I have seen, do not, in my apprehension, correct the defects of the old schemes, nor simplify the subject On the other hand, all that I have seen, serve only to obscure and eements and new terible I have attentively viewed these subjects, in all the lights which my opportunities have afforded, and aenerally received, _is the best that can be forht alterations adapted to the particular construction of the English language”
17 This passage is taken from the advertisement, or preface, to the Grareat quarto Dictionary Now the several sche those which he had that he had ”_seen_;” so that he here condemns them all collectively, as he had previously condemned some of theh he here plainly gives his vote for that common scheme which he first condeht alterations;” and in contriving these alterations he is inconsistent with his own professions He ht_, thus: ”1 The name or noun; 2 The pronoun or substitute; 3 The adjective, attribute, or attributive; 4 The verb; 5
The adverb; 6 The preposition; 7 The connective or conjunction; 8 The exclalish Grammar, published in 1811, ”to unfold the _true principles_ of the language,” his parts of speech were _seven_; ”viz 1 Names or nouns; 2 Substitutes or pronouns; 3 Attributes or adjectives; 4 Verbs, with their participles; 5
Modifiers or adverbs; 6 Prepositions; 7 Connectives or conjunctions” In his Philosophical and Practical Grammar, published in 1807, a book which professes to teach ”the _only legitie, a twofold division of words is adopted; first, into two general classes, primary and secondary; then into ”_seven species_ or parts of speech,” the first two belonging to the former class, the other five to the latter; thus: ”1 Names or nouns; 2 Verbs; 3 Substitutes; 4
Attributes; 5 Modifiers; 6 Prepositions; 7 Connectives” In his ”Ie,” published in 1831, the same scheme is retained, but the usual names are preferred
18 How many different schemes of classification this author invented, I know not; but heany; for, so far as appears, none of his last three grammars ever came to a second edition In the sixth edition of his ”Plain and Corounded on the _true principles_ and idiorainally fashi+oned ”on the model of Lowth's,” the parts of speech are reckoned ”_six_; nouns, articles, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, and abbreviations or particles” This work, which he says ”was extensively used in the schools of this country,” and continued to be in demand, he voluntarily suppressed; because, after a profitable experirounded on ”true principles,” that the whole sche from this sixth edition, printed in 1800, the only one which I have seen, I cannot but concur with him in the opinion More than one half of the volume is a loose _Appendix_ composed chiefly of notes taken froreat want of method in as ine his several editions ras are of no uncommon occurrence, and I cannot otherwise account for the assertion that this book was compiled ”on _the model of Lowth's_, and on the same principles as [those on which] Murray has constructed his”--_Advertisement in Webster's Quarto Dict, 1st Ed_
19 In a treatise on grammar, a bad scheme is necessarily attended with inconveniences for which no merit in the execution can possibly co, therefore, which a skillful teacher will notice in a work of this kind, is the arrangeht, what it is, he will be sure it is bad; for a lucid order is what he has a right to expect frorammarians Dr Webster is not the only reader of the EPEA PTEROENTA, who has been thereby prorammar; nor is he the only one who has atte the parts of speech to _six_ John Dalton of Manchester, in 1801, in a srammar which he dedicated to Horne Tooke, made them six, but not the same six He would have them to be, nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, conjunctions, and prepositions This writer, like Brightland, Tooke, Fisher, and some others, insists on it that the articles are _adjectives_ Priestley, too, throwing theo alth assigns them to the same class, in one of his notes And so has Dr Webster fixed them in his late valuable, but not faultless, dictionaries But David Booth, an etyist perhaps equally learned, in his ”Introduction to an analytical Dictionary of the English Language,”
declares them to be of the same species as the _pronouns_; froe that they were ever separated! See _Booth's Introd_, p
21
20 Nohat can be more idle, than for teachers to reject the common classification of words, and puzzle the heads of school-boys with speculations like these? It is easy to ady can show to be true, and still justify the old arrangerammar
And if we depart froht that the parts of speech are only _five_; as did the latter stoics, whose classes, according to Priscian and Harris, were these: articles, nouns appellative, nouns proper, verbs, and conjunctions Others have made them _four_; as did Aristotle and the elder stoics, and, htland, Harris, Ware, Fisher, and the author of a work on Universal Gra the four, each of these contrives to differ from _all the rest!_ With Aristotle, they are, ”nouns, verbs, articles, and conjunctions;” with Milnes, ”nouns, adnouns, verbs, and particles;” with Brightland, ”names, qualities, affirmations, and particles;” with Harris, ”substantives, attributives, definitives, and connectives;” with Ware, ”the name, the word, the assistant, the connective;” with Fisher, ”names, qualities, verbs, and particles;” with the author of Enclytica, ”names, verbs, modes, and connectives” But why make the classes so numerous as four? Many of the ancients, Greeks, Hebrews, and Arabians, according to Quintilian,to Vossius, were nouns, verbs, and particles
”Veteres Arabes, Hebraei, et Graeci, tres, non amplius, classes faciebant; l
Nomen, 2 Verbum, 3 Particula seu Dictio”--_Voss de anal_, Lib i, Cap
1
21 Nor is this nuh most of these come at it in an other way D St Quentin, in his Rudiments of General Graeneral classes” last mentioned; viz, ”1 Nouns, 2 Verbs, 3
Particles”--P 5 Booth, who published the second edition of his ety severally the ten parts of speech, and finding what he supposed to be the true origin of all the words in some of the classes, was led to throw one into an other, till he had destroyed seven of theht to be classed according to the y fixes upon it, he refers the number of classes to _nature_, thus: ”If, then, each [word] has a _ an idea in the mind, that idea must have its prototype in nature It must either denote an _exertion_, and is therefore a _verb_; or a _quality_, and is, in that case, an _adjective_; or it e_ of qualities, such as is observed to belong to some individual object, and is, on this supposition, the _naiven an account of the different divisions of words, and have found that the whole may be classed under the three heads of Names, Qualities, and Actions; or Nouns, Adjectives, and Verbs”--_Introd to analyt Dict_, p 22
22 This notion of the parts of speech, as the reader will presently see, found an advocate also in the author of the popular little story of Jack Halyard It appears in his Philosophic Grammar published in Philadelphia in 1827 Whether the writer borrowed it froht of ”nature,” I am unable to say: he does not appear to have derived it frorapher has discovered in ”nature” a prototype for this scherammar, the discovery is only to be proved, and the scheive place to it For the reader will observe that this triad of parts is not that which is mentioned by Vossius and Quintilian But authoritythe nu to Harris, and the first inquirers into language, according to Horne Tooke, made them _two_; nouns and verbs, which Crombie, Dalton, M'Culloch, and some others, say, are the only parts essentially necessary for the coraard all words as of _one_ class To them, a word is simply a word; and under what other name it may come, is no concern of theirs
23 Towards this point, tends every atte any of the _ten_ parts of speech Nothing is gained by it; and it is a departure from the best authority We see by what steps this kind of reasoning may descend; and we have an adrammatical works of William S Cardell I shall mention thee whether the author does not ulti series is conducted This writer, in his Essay on Language, reckons seven parts of speech; in his New-York Grammar, six; in his Hartford Grammar, three principal, with three others subordinate; in his Philadelphia Graes, ”The unerring plan of _nature_ has established three classes of perceptions, and consequently three parts of speech”--P 171 He says this, as if he e, we are told, ”Every adjective is either a noun or a participle” Now, by his own showing, there are no participles: he makes them all adjectives, in each of his schemes