Part 290 (1/2)
Besides, if we say _subjective_ and _objective_, in stead of _noe the accent of both, and give them a pronunciation hitherto unknown to the words--G BROWN
[165] The authorities cited by Felch, for his doctrine of ”_possessive adnouns_,” a They are ostensibly two The first is a remark of Dr Adam's: ”'_John's book_ was forht the _'s_ a contraction of _his_, but iined, with more justness, that, by the addition of the _'s_, the substantive is changed into a possessive adjective'--_Adalish Grammar_, p 7”--_Felch's Comp Gram_, p 26 Here Dr Adained_;” for, in the very same place, he declares the possessive case of nouns to be their _only_ case The second is a dogmatical and inconsistent remark of some anonymous writer in some part of the ”_American Journal of Education_,” a work respectable indeed, but, on the subject of grammar, too often fantastical and heterodox Felch thinks it not improper, to use the possessive case before participles; in which situation, it denotes, not the owner of soent, subject, or recipient, of the action, being, or change And what a jura us, in alent of a _nounal_ verb [i e participle] is never expressed,” but that, ”Soerundial_ verb] is _qualified_, in its _nounal capacity_, by a possessive _adnoun_ indicative _of its agent_ as a verb; as, there is _nothing like one's_ BEING useful he doubted _their_ HAVING it:” and then concluding, ”_Hence it appears_, that the _present participle_ ent or object_, and yet retain its character as a verb”--_Felch's Comprehensive Gram_, p 81 Alas for the schools, if the wise rammar such utter confusion, and palpable self-contradiction, as this!
[166] A critic's accuracy is soht into doubt, by subsequent alterations of the texts which, he quotes Many an error cited in this volume of criticism, may possibly not be found in some future edition of the book referred to; as several of those which were pointed out by Lowth, have disappeared from the places named for them Churchill also cites this line as above; (_New Gram_, p 214;) but, inis this: ”By _lov'd Tele years!”--Book xi, L 84
[167] _Corpse_ fors_, xix, 35: ”In the , behold, they were all dead _corpses_”
[168] Murray says, ”An _adjective_ put without a substantive, with the definite article before it, _beco_, and is _written as a substantive_: as, 'Providence rewards _the good_, and punishes _the bad_'” If I understand this, it is very erroneous, and plainly contrary to the fact I suppose the author to speak of _good persons_ and _bad persons_; and, if he does, is there not an ellipsis in his language? How can it be said, that _good_ and _bad_ are here substantives, since they have a pluraland refuse the plural form?
A word ”_written as a substantive_,” unquestionably _is_ a substantive; but neither of these is here entitled to that name Yet Smith, and other satellites of Murray, endorse his doctrine; and say, that _good_ and _bad_ in this example, and all adjectives si”--_Smith's New Gram_, p 52 ”An adjective with the definite article before it, becomes a _noun_, (of the third person, plural number,) and _must be parsed_ as such”--_R G Greene's Gralish_ appears to be used substantively, not by reason of the article, but rather because _it has no article_; for, when the definite article is used before such a word taken in the singular nue_ is understood And it is remarkable, that before the naes, this article may, in many instances, be either used or not used, repeated or not repeated, without any apparent impropriety: as, ”This is the case with _the_ Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish”--_Murray's Gram_, i, p 38 Better, perhaps: ”This is the case with _the_ Hebrew, _the_ French, _the_ Italian, and _the_ Spanish” But we may say: ”This is the case with Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish” In the first of these foruages_, at the end of the sentence; in the second, an ellipsis of the singular noun _language_, after each of the national epithets; in the last, no ellipsis, but rather a substantive use of the words in question
[170] The Doctor ht I know, have taken his notion of this ”_noun_,” fro of his '5000 _Irishes_' in the prison of Argyle” See _Letter of Wendell Phillips, in the Liberator_, Vol xi, p 211
[171] Lindley Murray, or sonorant printer of his octavo Grammar, has omitted this _s_; and thereby spoiled the prosody, if not the sense, of the line:
”Of Sericana, where _Chinese_ drive,” &c
--_Fourth An to correct the error of Milton's word, so should have been inserted The coive the sense, and the right nuht accent It would be sufficiently analogous with our lishmen, Frenchmen, Scotchmen, Dutchmen_, and _Irishmen_, and perhaps not unpoetical, to say:
”Of Sericana, where _Chinese-ht”
[172] The last six words are perhaps more frequently pronouns; and soh all the rest to be pronouns also ”In like lish, there have been _rescued_ froht, each, every, many, none, one, other, some, such, that, those, this, these; and by other writers, all, another, both, either, few, first, last, neither, and several”--_Wilson's Essay on Gram_, p 106 Had the author said _wrested_, in stead of ”_rescued_,” he would have taught a much better doctrine These words are what Dr Lowth correctly called ”_pronominal Adjectives_”--_Lowth's Gram_, p 24 This class of adjectives includes most of the words which Murray, Lennie, Bullions, Kirkham, and others, so absurdly denominate ”_Adjective pronouns_” Their ”Distributive Adjective pronouns, _each, every, either, neither_;” their ”Demonstrative Adjective pronouns, _this, that, these, those_;” and their ”Indefinite Adjective pronouns, _some, other, any, one, all, such_, &c,” are every one of them here; for they all are _Adjectives_, and not _pronouns_ And it is obvious, that the corresponding words in Latin, Greek, or French, are adjectives likewise, and are, for the most part, so called; so that, froes,” arises an argu them as adjectives, rather than as pronouns But the learned Dr Bullions, after i that every adjectivethat no such definitives can rightly be called _adjectives_, es_,” or ”_the usages of_ other languages,” generally assign to these _English words_ the place of _substitutes_! But so remarkable for self-contradiction, as well as other errors, is this gentleman's short note upon the classification of these words, that I shall present the whole of it for the reader's consideration
”NOTE The distributives, demonstratives, and indefinites, cannot strictly be called _pronouns_; since they never stand _instead_ of nouns, but always _agree_ with _a noun_ expressed or understood: _Neither can they be properly_ called _adjectives_, since they never express _the quality of a noun_ They are here classed _with pronouns_, in accordance with _the usages of other languages_, which _generally assign theether with the _possessives_, in parsing,_uniforarded as such_ in syntax”--_Bullions's Principles of English Gram_, p 27 (See also his _Appendix_ III, E Grarammatical instruction is here! The pronominal adjectives ”cannot properly _be called adjectives_,” but ”they may with sufficient propriety be _termed adjectives_!” And so may ”_the possessives_,” or _the personal pronouns in the possessive case_! ”Here,” ie, in _Etyy_, they are all ”_classed with pronouns_;” but, ”in _Syntax_,” they are ”uniforarded as adjectives_!” Precious MODEL for the ”Series of Gralish, Latin, and Greek, all on THE SAME PLAN!”
[173] _Soariser than that of a period”--_Sanborn's Gram_, p 271 The word _what_ seems to have been used adverbially in several different senses; in none of which is it h I forbear, _what_ aeth it ree? how much?_ or _wherein?_ ”For _what_ knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?”--_1 Cor_, vii, 16 Here _hoould have been better ”The ene his country wasted, _what_ by himself and _what_ by the soldiers, findeth succour in no place”--_Spenser_ Here _what_ means _partly_;--”wasted _partly_ by himself and _partly_ by the soldiers” This use of _what_ was formerly very common, but is now, I think, obsolete _What_ before an adjective seeree of the quality; and is called, by soes are our love and hate!”--_Dryden_ But here I take _what_ to be an _adjective_; as e say, _such_ partial judges, _soes, &c ”_What_ need I be forith Death, that calls not on me?”--_Shakspeare_ Here _what_ seems to be improperly put in place of _why_
[174] Dr Blair, in his Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres, often uses the phrase ”_this much_;” but it is, I think, more common to say ”_thus much_,” even when the terood reason for joining _an_ and _other_: on the contrary, the phrase _an other_ is always as properly tords, as the phrase _the other_, and arly contracted into _t'other_, probably gave rise to the apparent contraction _another_; which , and -Book_, p 71; and _”a-noth-er”_ in _Emerson's_, p 76 _An_ here excludes any other article; and both analogy and consistency require that the words be separated Their union, like that of the words _the_ and _other_, has led sometimes to an improper repetition of the article: as, ”_Another_ such _a_ man,” for, ”An other such man”--”Bind my hair up An 'twas yesterday? No, nor _the t'other_ day”--BEN JONSON: _in Joh Dict_ ”He can not tell when he should take _the tone_, and when _the tother_”--SIR T MOORE: Tooke's D P, Vol
15, p 448 That is--”when he should take _the one_ and when _the other_”
Besides, the word _other_ is declined, like a noun, and has the plural _others_; but the corammarians to say, that this word ”has no plural” All these difficulties will be re _an other_ as tords The printers chiefly rule this matter
To them, therefore, I refer it; with directions, not to unite these words for me, except where it has been done in the manuscript, for the sake of exactness in quotation--G BROWN
[176] This is a misapplication of the word _between_, which cannot have reference to s or parties: the ter_--G BROWN
[177] I suppose that, in a corees e is, to construe the positive with _as_, the comparative with _than_, and the superlative with _of_ But here custom allows us also to use the comparative with _of_, after the manner of the superlative; as, ”This is _the better of_ the two” It was but an odd whi it ungrarammar, I find the former construction _condemned_, and the latter approved, thus: ”This is the better book of the two Not correct, because the comparative state of the adjective, (_better_,) can not correspond with the preposition, _of_ The definite article, _the_, is likewise improperly applied to the comparative state; the sentence should stand thus, This is the _best_ book of the two”--_Chandler's Gram_, Ed of 1821, p 130; Ed
of 1847, p 151
[178] This example appears to have been borrowed from Campbell; who, however, teaches a different doctrine frorees are in such cases used _indiscrihtly_, either 'This is the weaker of the two,' or--'the weakest of the two'”--_Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p 202 How positively do so _two_ persons or things, by means of an adjective, care must be taken, that the superlative state be not employed: We properly say, 'John is the _taller_ of the two;' but we _should not say_, 'John is the _tallest_ of the two' The reason is plain: we compare but _two_ persons, and ht's Philosophical Gram_, p 143 Rev Matt Harrison, too, insists on it, that the superlative must ”have reference to more than two,”
and censures _Dr Johnson_ for not observing the rule See _Harrison's English Language_, p 255
[179] L Murray copied this passage literally, (though anonymously,) as far as the colon; and of course his book teaches us to account ”_the terree of comparison_”--_Octavo Gram_, p 47 But what isthis, or any other suffix, ”_a degree of coe is a sufficient proof of the haste hich Johnson adopted this notion, and of the blindness hich he has been followed The passage is now found in rammars Sanborn expresses the doctrine thus: ”Adjectives terree of comparison less than the positive; as, _saltish, whitish, blackish_”--_analytical Gram_, p
87 But who does not know, thatare derived from _nouns_, and are compared only by adverbs, as _childish, foolish_, and so forth? Wilcox says, ”Words ending in _ish_, generally express a slight degree; as, _reddish, bookish_”--_Practical Gram_, p 17 But ill suppose that _foolish_ denotes but a slight degree of folly, or _bookish_ but a slight fondness for books? And, with such an interpretation, whatof _more bookish_ or _most foolish_?
[180] ”'A rodde shall come _furth_ of the stocke of Jesse' _Primer, Hen