Part 98 (1/2)
OBSERVATIONS ON METHODS OF analYSIS
OBS 1--The almost infinite variety in the forms of sentences, will sometimes throw difficulty in the way of the analyzer, be his scheme or his skill what itseries have shown, that the distinction of sentences as _simple_ or _compound_, which constitutes the chief point of the First Method of analysis above, is not always plain, even to the learned The definitions and exaenerally_ so; and, where it is otherwise, the question or puzzle, it is presumed, cannot often be of much practical importance If the difference be not obvious, it can hardly be a momentous error, to mistake a phrase for an elliptical clause, or to call such a clause a phrase
OBS 2--The Second Method above is, I think, easier of application than any of the rest; and, if other analysis than the regularseem desirable, this will probably be found as useful as any There is, in nition of the principles of this analysis--some mention of ”the _principal parts_ of a sentence,” in accordance hat are so called above,--and also, in a few, some succinct account of the parts called ”_adjuncts_;” but there see these principles, in any stated or well-digested ersoll, Wells, and others, tell of these ”PRINcipaL PARTS;”--Lowth calling theent_, the _attribute_, and the _object_;” (_Graersoll, and others, calling them, ”the _subject_, the _attribute_, and the _object_;”--Hiley and Hart calling them, ”the _subject_ or _nominative_, the _attribute_ or _verb_, and the _object_;”--Allen calling them, ”the _nominative_, the _verb_, and (if the verb is active,) the _accusative_ governed by the verb;” and also saying, ”The nominative is sometimes called the _subject_; the verb, the _attribute_; and the accusative, the _object_;”--Wells calling them, ”the _subject_ or _no the ”_adjuncts_,” as a species which ”embraces all the words of a simple sentence [,] except the _principal parts_;”--yet not ht, and they but little, about the forlish Grammar, which is one of the best, and likewise in Wells's, which is equally prized, this reduction of all connected words, or parts of speech, into ”the principal parts” and ”the adjuncts,” is fully recognized; the adjuncts, too, are discriminated by Allen, as ”either primary or secondary,” nor are their more particular species or relations overlooked; but I find no method prescribed for the analysis intended, except what Wells adopted in his early editions but has since changed to an other or abandoned, and no other allusion to it by, Allen, than this Note, which, with some appearance of intrusion, is appended to his ”Method of Parsing the Infinitive Mood:”--”The pupil _in_ to analyse [_analyze_]
the sentences, by distinguishi+ng the principal words and their adjuncts”--_W Allen's E Graeneral, and ent, subject, or no is said, affirmed, or denied; that the attribute, verb, or predicate, is that which is said, affirmed, or denied, of the subject; and that the object, accusative, or case sequent, is that which is introduced by the finite verb, or affected by the action affir the agent, usually goes before the verb, or attribution; and the objective case, denoting the object, follows the verb active”--_Short Introd_, p 72 Murray copies, but not literally, thus: ”The nooes before the verb [,] or attribute; and the word _or phrase_, denoting the object, follows the verb: as, 'A wise overns his passions' Here, a _wiseaffirmed; and _his passions_, the object”--_Murray's Octavo_, p 142; _Duodecimo_, 116
To include thus the adjuncts with their principals, as the logicians do, is _here_ rammatical analyzer is chiefly concerned to separate, and tends to defeat the main purpose for which ”THE PRINcipaL PARTS” are so nauished
OBS 4--The Third Method of analysis, described above, is an attereat scheraicians, thenof their own, next amplified with small details, and, in some instances, branched out and extended to enorth Of course, they have not failed to set forth the comparative ht The two ingenious gentle it popular, say in their preface, ”The rules of syntax contained in this work result directly from the analysis of propositions, and of compound sentences; and for this reason the student shouldto _subject_ and _predicate_, and should be able readily to analyze sentences, whether simple or compound, and to explain their structure and connectionThis exercise _should always precede_ theIf the latter be conducted, as it often is, independently of previous analysis, the _principal advantage_ to be derived froe, as an intellectual exercise, will inevitably be lost”--_Latin Grammar of Andrews and Stoddard_, p vi N Butler, who bestows upon this subject about a dozen duodecies, says in his preface, ”The rules for the analysis of sentences, which is a _very useful and interesting_ exercise, have been taken froes and additions being made”--_Butler's Practical Gram_, p iv[332]
OBS 5--Wells, in the early copies of his School Grammar, as has been hinted, adopted a method of analysis similar to the _Second_ one prescribed above; yet referred, even from the first, to ”Andrews and Stoddard's Latin Grammar,” and to ”De Sacy's General Grammar,” as if these were authorities for what he then inculcated Subsequently, _he changed his scheme_, from that of _Parts Principal_ and _Adjuncts_, to one of _Subjects_ and _Predicates_, ”either graical,” also ”either si Andrews and Stoddard's, yet differing frora [sic--KTH] the _Third Method_ above, yet differing froical subject and predicate before the grammatical ”The chapter on analysis,” said he then, ”has been Revised and enlarged with great care, and will be found to embody all the most important principles on this subject [] _which_ are contained in the works of De Sacy, Andrews and Stoddard, Kuhner, Crosby, and Crane It is gratifying to observe that the attention of teachers is now so generally directed _to this ie, _in connection with_ the ordinary exercises of _ety”--_Wells's School Gram_, New Ed, 1850, p iv
OBS 6--In view of the fact, that Wells's chief one an ale plausible perhaps, but of doubtful utility,--that, up to the date of the words just cited, and afterwards, so far and so long as any copies of his early ”Thousands” remain in use, the author himself has earnestly directed attention to a method which he now ratulation expressed above seeular If it has been found practicable, to slide ”the attention of teachers,” and their approbation too, adroitly over fro the structure of our language,” to an other;--if ”it is gratifying to observe,” that the direction thus given to public opinion sustains itself so well, and ”is so generally” acquiesced in;--if it is proved, that the stereotyped praise of one system of analysis may, without alteration, be so transferred to an other, as to answer the double purpose of co;--it is not improbable that the author's next new plates will bear the stamp of yet _other_ ”most important principles” of analysis This process is here recommended to be used ”_in connection with_ the ordinary exercises of _ety,”--exercises, which, in Wells's Graled; and if, to these, may be profitably conjoined either his present or his former scheether and sho
OBS 7--But there are other passages of the School Grammar, so little suited to this notion of ”_connection_” that one can hardly believe the word ought to be taken in what seems its only sense ”Advanced classes should attend less to the couage”--_Wells's Grammar_, ”3d Thousand,” p 125; ”113th Thousand,” p 132 This iical exercise, that parsing is more rudimental than the other forms of analysis
It also intihtly instructede is used with reference to either for coed, stands permanently at the head of ”the chapter on analysis,” to commend first one mode, and then an other: ”It is particularly desirable that pupils _should pass as early as practicable from the formalities_ of common PARSING, to the _more important_ exercise of analYZING critically the structure of language Theis peculiarly liable to beco the various relations and offices of words in a sentence_, is adapted to call the orous action, and can hardly fail of exciting the deepest interest,”--_Wells's Gram_, 3d Th, p 181; 113th Th, p 184
OBS 8--An ill scheood one, is al_, or an ill use of a good one, would be in arithht suspect that, in selecting, devising, or using, a technical process for the exercising of learners in the principles of etyy and syntax, this author had been less fortunate than the generality of his fellows Not only is it i is no critical analysis, but even what is set _in opposition_ to the ”mechanical routine,” --”_the practice of explaining the various relations and offices of words in a sentence_!” If this ”practice,”
well ordered, can be at once interesting and profitable to the learner, soNor, after all, is even this author's h it is in several respects, less ”important” to the users of his book, or less valued by teachers, than the analysis which he sets above it
OBS 9--S S Greene, a public teacher in Boston, who, in answer to a supposed ”delish language,” has entered in earnest upon the ”analysis of Sentences,” having devoted to one method of it es, speaks of analysis and of parsing, thus: ”The resolving of a sentence into its elements, or of any complex element into the parts which compose it, is called _analysis_”--_Greene's analysis_, p 14 ”Parsing consists in nareement or dependence, and the rule for its construction _analysis_ consists in pointing out the words or groups of words which constitute the ele”--_Ib_, p 26
”A large proportion of the eleroups of words These groups perform the office of the _substantive_, the _adjective_, or the _adverb_, and, in some one of these relations, enter in as the component parts of a sentence The pupil who learns to determine the elements of a sentence, _must, therefore, learn the force of these cole words which coe_ is wholly lost in the ordinary ”--_Ib_, p 3
OBS 10--On these passages, it may be remarked in the first place, that the distinction atte is by no means clear, or well drawn Nor indeed could it be; because parsing is a species of analysis The first assertion would be just as true as it is noere the for of a sentence into its elements, or of any complex ele_” Next, the ”_Parsing_” spoken of in the second sentence, is _Syntactical_ Parsing only; and, without a limitation of the species, neither this assertion nor the one concerning precedence is sufficiently true Again, the suggestion, that, ”_analysis_ consists in _pointing out_ the words or groups of words which _constitute the ele distinctive in it; and, without some idea of the author's peculiar system of ”elements,” previously iible Lastly, that a pupil , ”_learn the force of the words cohtly, is a very plain and certain truth; but what ”advantage” over parsing this truth gives to the lesser analysis, which deals with ”groups,”
it is not easy to discover If the author had any clear idea of ”_this advantage_,” he has conveyed no such conception to his readers
OBS 11--Greene's analysis is the most expanded for kernel, was the old partition of _subject_ and _predicate_, derived froic Its chief principles may be briefly stated thus: Sentences, which are simple, or complex, or compound, are rand classes of elements, called the _first_, the _second_, and the _third_ class From these, each sentence must have two elements; the _Subject_, or Substantive element, and the _Predicate_, or Predicative element, which are principal; and a sentence _ the Adjective element, the Objective element, and the Adverbial element The five elements have sundry modifications and subdivisions Each of the five may, like a sentence, be simple, or corand classes The development of this scheenious, methodical, mostly true, and somewhat elaborate; but it is neither very useful nor very accurate It seereat tree, beautiful, symmetrical, and full of leaves, but raised or desired only for fruit, yet bearing little, and soood quality, but knurly or bitter The chief end of a graue, is, to shohat is, and what is not, good English To this end, the system in question does not appear to be well adapted
OBS 12--Dr Bullions, the projector of the ”Series of Gralish, Latin, and Greek, all _on the same plan_,” inserted in his Latin Grammar, of 1841, a short sketch of the new analysis by ”subjects and predicates,”
”graical,” the schelish Grammar, which appeared in 1834, was too early for this ”new and ilish Graard to _sameness of ”plan_” or conformity of definitions, he carefully devoted to thisthe topic, not injudiciously, in the first part of his syntax, and referring to it thus in his Preface: ”The subject of analYSIS, wholly omitted in the former work, is here introduced in its proper place; and to an extent in accordance with its importance”-- _Bullions, analyt and Pract Gra any of the different eneral perhaps be best to use each _separately_; the teacher directing which one is to be applied, and to what examples The selections prepared for the stated praxes of this work, will be found as suitable as any analysis of sentences is a central and essential rammar; but the truest and the _; which, because it is a uished by a technical name of its own, is not commonly denominated analysis The relation which other _, is, as we have seen, variously stated by different authors _Etyht to be, distinct exercises The for the most simple, the most elementary, and also requisite to be used before the pupil is prepared for the latter, should, without doubt, take precedence of all the rest, and be made familiar in the first place Those who say, ”_analysis should precede parsing_,” will scarcely find the application of other analysis practicable, till this is so, when corammatical resolution, it seems proper to have introduced the other methods before it, as above It can hardly be said that any of these are _necessary_ to this exercise, or to one an other; yet in a full course of grammatical instruction, each may at tiests, that, ”_analysis_ should precede _Syntactical parsing_, because, till we know the parts and elements of a sentence, we can not understand their relations, nor intelligently combine them into one consistent whole”--_analytical and Pract Gram_, p 114
This reason is entirely fictitious and truthless; for the _words_ of a sentence are intuitively known to be its ”parts and elements;” and, to ”_understand_ their relations,” is as necessary to one forently to _cos to the _writer_; and where he has not done it, he must be criticised and censured, as one that knows not hat he says In W Allen's Graical are not divided Wells intersperses his ”Exercises in Parsing,” at seven points of his Syntax, and places ”the chapter on analysis,” at the end of it Allen treats first of the several parts of grammar, didactically; then presents a series of exercises adapted to the various heads of the whole At the beginning of these, are fourteen ”Methods of Parsing,” which show, successively, the properties and construction of his nine parts of speech; and, _at the ninth method_, which resolves _infinitives_, it is proposed that the pupil begin to apply a method of analysis similar to the Second one above
EXAMPLES FOR PARSING PRAXIS XII--SYNTACTICAL
_The grand clew to all syntactical parsing is THE SENSE; and as any cohtly deliver the authors , so every solution of a word or sentence is necessarily erroneous, in which thatis not carefully noticed and literally preserved
In all co, it is required of the pupil--to distinguish the different parts of speech and their classes; to mention their reeovernment; and to apply the Rules of Syntax Thus_:--
EXAMPLE ParseD