Part 19 (1/2)

And _Learning_ was, in the _Dark Ages_, Preserv'd aly_”--CHARLES LESLIE, 1700; _Divine Right of Tythes_, p 228

OBSERVATIONS

OBS 1--The letters of the alphabet, read by their nans, by which we may mark and particularize objects of any sort, named or nameless; as, ”To say, therefore, that while A and B are both quadrangular, A is ular than B, is absurd”--_Murray's Gram_, p 50 Hence they are used in the sciences as sy construed both substantively and adjectively; as, ”In ascending from the note C to D, the interval is equal to an inch; and from D to E, the saine the G clef placed below it”--_Ib_ Any of their forms may be used for such purposes, but the custoebra employs small Italics; Music, Roman capitals; Geometry, for the most part, the same; Astronomy, Greek characters; and Grammar, in some part or other, every sort Examples: ”Then comes _answer_ like an ABC book”--_Beauties of Shakspeare_, p 97 ”Then comes _question_ like an _a, b, c_, book--_Shakspeare_” See A, B, C, in _Johnson's quarto Dict_ Better:--”like an _A-Bee-Cee_ book”

”For A, his ic pen evokes an O, And turns the tide of Europe on the foe”--_Young_

OBS 2--A lavish use of capitals defeats the very purpose for which the letters were distinguished in rank; and carelessness in respect to the rules which govern the

On many occasions, however, their use or disuse is arbitrary, and ement and taste of authors and printers Instances of this kind will, for the most part, concern _chief words_, and cora are still perhaps too few to establish an accurate uniformity They will however tend to this desirable result; and if doubts arise in their application, the difficulties will be in particular exaeneral principles of the rules For instance: In 1 Chron, xxix, 10th, some of our Bibles say, ”Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our father, for ever and ever” Others say, ”Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel, our Father, for ever and ever” And others, ”Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our Father, for ever and ever” The last is wrong, either in the capital F, or for lack of a co; because they construe the word _father_, or _Father_, differently Which is right I know not The first agrees with the Latin Vulgate, and the second, with the Greek text of the Septuagint; which two fauity in either[105]

OBS 3--The innureater or less extent, disgrace the very best editions of our most popular books, are a sufficient evidence of the want of better directions on this point In a the rules for this purpose, I have not been able entirely to satisfy myself; and therefore must needs fail to satisfy the very critical reader But the public shall have the best instructions I can give On Rule 1st, concerning _Books_, it s are mentioned by other terms than their real titles, the principle of the rule does not apply Thus, one reat poeations_ of Horne Tooke” So it is written in the Bible, ”And there was delivered unto him _the book of the prophet_ Esaias”--_Luke_, iv, 17 Because the name of Esaias, or Isaiah, seems to be the only proper title of his book

OBS 4--On Rule 2d, concerning _First Words_, itof other points than the period, to separate sentences that are totally distinct in sense, as is so, is no reason for the o of such sentences; but, rather, an obvious reason for their use Our grammarians frequently manufacture a parcel of puerile examples, and, with the forether in the following oodpeople;” ”we should do nothing beneath our character”--_Murray's Gram_, p 118 These sentences, and all others so related, should, unquestionably, begin with capitals Of theh to be separated by the period and a dash With exa, the quotation points may be used or not, as the writer pleases; but not on their insertion or o point, depends in all cases the propriety or i initial capitals For example: ”The Future Tense is the form of the verb which denotes future tio, they will learn, the sun will rise to-morrow, he will return next week”--_Frazee's I of the punctuation here used, it is certain that the initial words, _you, they, the_, and _he_, should have co _Names of Deity_, it may be observed, that the words _Lord_ and _God_ take the nature of proper names, only when they are used in reference to the Eternal Divinity The former, as a title of honour to men, is usually written with a capital; but, as a common appellative, with a small letter The latter, when used with reference to any fabulous deity, or when in with a capital; for we do not write with a capital any coh there be that are called _Gods_, whether in heaven or in earth--as there be _Gods_ many, and _lords_ n or conception in respect to this kind of distinction, has produced great diversity concerning capitals, not only in original writings, but also in reprints and quotations, not excepting even the sacred books Exa above all _Gods_”--_Gurney's Essays_, p 88

Perhaps the writer here exalts the inferior beings called Gods, that he may honour the one true God the more; but the Bible, in four editions to which I have turned, gives the word _Gods_ no capital See _Psalins with a capital; but when taken literally, it coins with a small letter Several nouns occasionally connected with na diversity: as, ”The Lord of _Sabaoth_;”--”The Lord God of _hosts_;”--”The God of _arood_;”--”The Lord, the righteous _Judge_” All these, and many more like them, are found someti a foreign word, and used only in this particular connexion, usually takes a capital; but the equivalent English words do not seee_,” in the last exaoodness_,” in the preceding ones, the small letter: the one is an eer writes, ”_the Son of Man_,” with two capitals; others, perhaps more properly, ”_the Son of man_,” with one--wherever that phrase occurs in the New Testament But, in some editions, it has no capital at all

OBS 6--On Rule 4th, concerning _Proper Names_, it may be observed, that the application of this principle supposes the learner to be able to distinguish between proper names and common appellatives Of the difference between these two classes of words, almost every child that can speak, must have formed some idea I once noticed that a very little boy, who knew no better than to call a pigeon a turkey because the creature had feathers, was sufficiently master of this distinction, to call many individuals by their several nairl_, &c, with that generality which belongs to theround for this rule But not all is plain, and I will not veil the cause of embarrassra it so Innu assertion is by no means true: ”The distinction between a common and a proper noun is _very obvious_”--_Kirkham's Gram_, p 32 Nor do the remarks of this author, or those of any other that I am acquainted with, reentleibly bad,) that, ”_Nouns_ which denote the genus, species, or variety of beings or things, are always coenus; _oak, ash, chestnut, poplar_, different species; and _red oak, white oak, black oak_, varieties”--_Ib_, p 32 Now, as it requires _but one noun_ to denote either a genus or a species, I know not how to conceive of _those_ ”_nouns_ which denote _the genus_ of things,” except as of other confusion and nonsense; and, as for the three varieties of oak, there are surely no ”_nouns_” here to denote them, unless he will have _red, white_, and _black_ to be nouns But what shall we say of--”the Red sea, the White sea, the Black sea;” or, with two capitals, ”Red Sea, White Sea, Black Sea,” and a thousand other similar terms, which are neither proper names unless they are written with capitals, nor written with capitals unless they are first judged to be proper na of the nature of a proper name; but what is the character of the term, ritten with two capitals, ”the United States?” If we contend that it is not then a proper name, we rammarians who contend, that ”_Heaven, hell, Earth, Sun_, and _Moon_, are proper names;” and that, as such, they should be written with capitals? See _Churchill's Gram_, p 380

OBS 7--It would seeinally sonification, and that very many of our ordinary words and phrases have been converted into proper na applied to particular persons, places, or objects, and receiving the distinction of capitals How many of the oceans, seas, lakes, capes, islands, s, and other things, which we constantly particularize, have no other proper names than such as are thus formed, and such as are still perhaps, in many instances, essentially appellative! The difficulties respecting these will be further noticed below A proper noun is the naroup, or people; as, _Adam, Boston_, the _Hudson_, the _Azores_, the _Andes_, the _Romans_, the _Jews_, the _Jesuits_, the _Cherokees_ This is as good a definition as I can give of a proper noun or nauish the names of particular persons, places, nations, tribes, or sects, with capitals Yet we name the sun, the moon, the equator, and many other particular objects, without a capital; for the word theto a co it into a proper name: but if we say _Sol_, for the sun, or _Luna_, for the moon, rite it with a capital With some apparent inconsistency, we coans, heathens_, and _negroes_, without: thus custoradation The names of the days of the week, and those of the months, however expressed, appear to me to partake of the nature of proper names, and to require capitals: as, _Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday_; or, as the Friends denominate them, _Firstday, Secondday, Thirdday, Fourthday, Fifthday, Sixthday, Seventhday_ So, if they will not use _January, February_, &c, they should write as proper names their _Firstmonth, Secondmonth_, &c The Hebrew names for the months, were also proper nouns: to wit, Abib, Zif, Sivan, Thamuz, Ab, Elul, Tisri, Marchesvan, Chisleu, Tebeth, Shebat, Adar; the year, with the ancient Jews, beginning, as ours once did, in March

OBS 8--On Rule 5th, concerning _titles of Honour_, it h, do not require capitals merely as such; for, e use them alone in their ordinary sense, or simply place the any particular honour, we begin thehty sovereign, Abbas Carascan;”--”David the king;”--”Tidal king of nations;”--”Bonner, bishop of London;”--”The sons of Eliphaz, the first-born you of Esau; duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz, duke Korah, duke Gatam, and duke Amalek”--_Gen_, xxxvi, 15

So, soreatest respect is intended to be shown: as, ”O _sir_, we came indeed down at the first time to buy food”--_Gen_, xliii, 20 ”O my _lord_, let thy servant, I pray thee, speak a word in my _lord's_ ears”--_Gen_, xliv, 18 The Bible, which makes small account of worldly honours, seldom uses capitals under this rule; but, in some editions, we find ”Nehemiah the _Tirshatha_,” and ”Herod the _Tetrarch_,” each with a needless capital Murray, in whose illustrations the word _king_ occurs early one hundred times, seldom honours his Majesty with a capital; and, what isis said of it _that is worth knowing_

Exa_ and the queen had put on their robes”--_Murray's Grauard, has just passed through the village”--_Ib_, 150 ”The _king_ of Great Britain's do_”--_Ib_, 146

”Long live the _King_!”--_Ib_, 146 ”On which side soever the _king_ cast his eyes”--_Ib_, 156 ”It is the _king_ of Great Britain's”--_Ib_, 176

”He desired to be their _king_”--_Ib_, 181 ”They desired hi_”--_Ib_, 181 ”He caused hi_”--_Ib_, 182 These exa the pretended quotations by which this excellent ht ”to pro!”

OBS 9--On Rule 6th, concerning _One Capital for Co rammar, than to find out, auess-work in printing, the true way in which the compound names of places should be written For exaos_,” the _Martial Hill_, occurs twice in the New Testaan_,” which is rendered _Areopagus_; and once, in the genitive, ”_tou Areiou Pagou_,” which, in different copies of the English Bible is made _Mars' Hill, Mars' hill, Mars'-hill, Marshi+ll, Mars Hill_, and perhaps _Mars hill_ But if _Mars_ must needs be put in the possessive case, (which I doubt,) they are all wrong: for then it should be _Mars's Hill_; as the name _Campus Martins_ is rendered ”_Mars's Field_,” in Collier's Life of Marcus Antoninus We often use nouns adjectively; and _Areios_ is an adjective: I would therefore write this naain: _Whitehaven_ and _Fairhaven_ are cole capitals; but, of six or seven _towns_ called _Newhaven_ or _New Haven_, some have the name in one word and some in two

_Haven_ means a _harbour_, and the words, _New Haven_, written separately, would naturally be understood of a harbour: the close compound is obviously land, compounds of this kind are more used than in Ae seems to be, to contract and consolidate such terms Hence the British counties are al with the word _shi+re_; as, Nottinghamshi+re, Derbyshi+re, Staffordshi+re, Leicestershi+re, Northamptonshi+re, Warwickshi+re, Worcestershi+re, &c But the best books we have, are full of discrepancies and errors in respect to nan or domestic; as, ”_Ulswater_ is somewhat s_, p 212 ”_Ulswater_, a lake of England,”

&c ”_Derwent-Water_, a lake in cu situated partly in Westmoreland,”

&c--_Worcester's Gaz_ ”_Derwent Water_, lake, Eng in cumberland”--_Ibid_ These words, I suppose, should be written _Ullswater_ and _Derater_

OBS 10--An affix, or termination, differs froh it may consist of the same letters and have the sae_, it would be understood of a _bridge_; if _sobidge_, of a _town_: or the latter ht even be the name of a _family_ So _Belleisle_ is the proper name of a _strait_; and _Belle Isle_ of several different _islands_ in France and America Upon this plain distinction, and the manifest inconvenience of any violation of so clear an analogy of the language, depends the propriety of most of the corrections which I shall offer under Rule 6th But if the inhabitants of any place choose to call their town a creek, a river, a harbour, or a bridge, and to think it officious in other men to pretend to know better, they may do as they please If between thee of ht Important names are sometimes acquired by mere accident Those which are totally inappropriate, no reasonable design can have bestowed Thus a fancied reseanset Bay, and that of Rhodes, in the aegean Sea, has at length given to a _state_, or _republic_, which lies _chiefly on the main land_, the absurd nauish Aquidneck itself, geographers resort to the strange phrase, ”_the Island of Rhode Island_”--_Balbi_ The official title of this little republic, is, ”_the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations_” But this na for popular use, but it is doubtful in its construction andunderstood in four different ways 1 A stranger to the fact, would not learn from this phrase, that the ”Providence Plantations” are included in the ”State of Rhode Island,” but would naturally infer the contrary 2 The phrase, ”Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,” may be supposed to mean ”Rhode Island [Plantations] and Providence Plantations” 3 It may be understood to mean ”Rhode Island and Providence [ie, two] Plantations” 4 It may be taken for ”Rhode Island” [ie, as an island,] and the ”Providence Plantations”

Which, now, of all these did Charles the Second ave the colony this name, with his charter, in 1663? It happened that he meant the last; but I doubt whether any man in the state, except perhaps some learned lawyer, can _parse_ the phrase, with any certainty of its true construction andThis old title can never be used, except in law To write the popular name ”_Rhodeisland_,” as Dr Webster has it in his A-Book, p 121, would be some improvement upon it; but to make it _Rhodeland_, or simply _Rhode_, would be ht tobut the island; and it is, in fact, _an abuse of language_ to apply it otherwise In one of his parsing lessons, Sanborn gives us for good English the following tautology: ”_Rhode Island_ derived its name from the _island of Rhode Island_”--_analytical Gram_, p 37 Think of that sentence!

OBS 11--On Rules 7th and 8th, concerning _Two Capitals for Coeneral reference to those _cos, that it is often no easy y, whether such common words as may happen to be embraced in them, are to be accounted parts of coarded as appellatives, requiring sain the questionword, according to Rule 6th Let the numerous exae, in respect to each of them, is diverse; so much so, that we not unfrequently find it contradictory, in the very saraph, or even sentence Perhaps we may reach so the several different kinds of phrases thus used 1 We often add an adjective to an old proper name to make a new one, or to serve the purpose of distinction: as, Now York, New Orleans, New England, New Bedford; North America, South America; Upper Canada, Lower Canada; Great Pedee, Little Pedee; East Cae; Troy, West Troy All names of this class require two capitals: except a fehich are joined together; as _Northaically written _North Hampton_ 2 We often use the possessive case with so's Straits, Baffin's Bay, Cook's Inlet, Van Diemen's Land, Martha's Vineyard, Sacket's Harbour, Glenn's Falls Naenerally have more than one capital; and perhaps all of them should be written so, except such as coalesce; as, Gravesend, Moorestown, the Crowsnest 3 We sometimes use two common nouns with _of_ between them; as, the Cape of Good Hope, the Isle of Man, the Isles of Shoals, the Lake of the Woods, the Mountains of the Moon

Such nouns are usually written with more than one capital I would therefore write ”the Mount of Olives” in this h it is not commonly found so in the Bible 4 We often use an adjective and a common noun; as, the Yellow sea, the Indian ocean, the White hills, Crooked lake, the Red river; or, with two capitals, the Yellow Sea, the Indian Ocean, the White Hills, Crooked Lake, the Red River In this class of names the adjective is the distinctive word, and always has a capital; respecting the other tere is divided, but seems rather to favour two capitals 5

We frequently put an appellative, or common noun, before or after a proper naton street, Plye ”The Carondelet canal extends fro lake Pontchartrain with the Mississippi river”--_Balbi's Geog_ This is apposition In phrases of this kind, the common noun often has a capital, but it seldoeneral a small letter is more correct, except in soarded as a perton City, Jersey City_ The words _Mount, Cape, Lake_, and _Bay_, are now generally written with capitals when connected with their proper names; as, Mount Hope, Cape Cod, Lake Erie, Casoby But they are not always so written, even in modern books; and in the Bible we read of ”mount horeb, mount Sinai, le capital

OBS 12--In modern compound names, the hyphen is now less frequently used than it was a few years ago They seldom, if ever, need it, unless they are employed as adjectives; and then there is ait Thus the phrase, ”the New London Bridge,” can be understood only of a new bridge in London; and if we intend by it a bridge in New London, we e” So ”the New York Directory” is not properly a directory for New York, but a new directory for York I have seen several books with titles which, for this reason, were evidently erroneous With respect to the ancient Scripture names, of this class, we find, in different editions of the Bible, as well as in other books, many discrepancies The reader ether the last two vocabularies of Walker's Key He will there meet with an abundance of examples like these: ”Uz'zen Sherah, Uzzen-sherah; Talitha cumi, Talithacumi; Nathan Melech, Nathan'-melech; A'bel Meholath, Abel-meholah; Hazel Elponi, Hazeleponi; Az'noth Tabor, Asnoth-tabor; Baal Ha; Baal Zebub, Baal'zebub; Shethar Boz'nai, Shether-boz'nai; Merodach Bal'adan, Merodach-bal'adan” All these glaring inconsistencies, and many more, has Dr Webster restereotyped from Walker, in his octavo Dictionary! I see no more need of the hyphen in such naht, in soether without it; and, in others, to be written separately, with double capitals But special regard should be had to the ancient text The phrase, ”Talitha, cumi,”--i e, ”Damsel, arise,”--is found in some Bibles, ”Talitha-cumi;” but this form of it is no more correct than either of those quoted above See _Mark_, v, 41st, in _Griesbach's Greek Testament_, where a comma divides this expression

OBS 13--On Rule 10th, concerning _Personifications_, it may be well to observe, that not every noun which is the nain with a capital, but only such as have a resemblance to _proper nouns_; for the word _person_ itself, or _persons_, or any other co persons or a person, demands no such distinction And proper names of persons are so marked, not with any reference to personality, but because they are _proper nouns_--or names of individuals, and not names of sorts Thus, aesop's viper and file are both personified, where it is recorded, ”'What ails thee, fool?' says the _file_ to the _viper_;” but the fable gives to these names no capitals, except in the title of the story

Itto their definitions of personification, our grammarians and the teachers of rhetoric have hitherto forure Lindley Murray says, ”PERSONIFICATION [,] or PROSOPOPOEIA, is that figure by which we attribute _life_ and _action_ to _inanimate_ objects”--_Octavo Gra, doubly wrong,--wrong in relation to what personification is, and wrong too in its specification of the objects whichpeculiar to _persons_, there ure; and, surely, the objects which _Fancy_ thinks it right to personify, are not always ”_inani as follows: ”_Personification_ is a figure by which, in ience and personality to unintelligent beings or abstract qualities”--_Inst_, p 234