Part 300 (1/2)
[447] In his explanation of _Ellipsis_, Lindley Murray continually calls it ”_the_ ellipsis,” and speaks of it as so that is ”_used_,”--”_made use of_,”--”_applied_,”--”_contained in_” the exa, as they there do, to the , appear to me solecistical The notion too, which this author and others have entertained of the figure itself, is in many respects erroneous; and nearly all their examples for its illustration are either questionable as to such an application, or obviously inappropriate The absence of what is _needless_ or _unsuggested_, is _no ellipsis_, though sorave men have not discerned this obvious fact The nine solecis ”_the ellipsis_,” are all found in raersoll's_, 153; _J M Putnam's_, 137; _R
C Smith's_, 180; _Weld's_, 190
[448] Some of these examples do, _in fact_, contain _more_ than two errors; for mistakes in _punctuation_, or in the use of _capitals_, are not here reckoned This remark may also he applicable to some of the other lessons
The reader may likewise perceive, that where two, three, or more improprieties occur in one sentence, some one or more of them may happen to be such, as he can, if he choose, correct by so to a previous chapter Great labour has been bestowed on the selection and arrangereat a variety of literary faults, a distribution perfectly distinct, and perfectly adapted to all the heads assureat labour, but of great difficulty I have coement, as I well could--G BROWN
[449] In Murray's sixth chapter of Punctuation, from which this example, and eleven others that follow it, are taken, there is scarcely a single sentence that does not contain _ersoll's Grammar_, p 293; in _Fisk's_, p 159; in _Abel Flint's_, 116; and probably in soreat nuiven for blunders selected from this hackneyed literature of the schools For corrections, or improvements, see the Key
[450] This example, or L Murray's raer, Bullions, Coersoll, Jaudon, Merchant, Russell, Smith, and others, will be found to have a dozen different forinal--all of theible It is plain, that ”_a_ comma,” or _one_ comma, cannot divide more than _two_ ”simple members;” and these, surely, cannot be connected by more than _one relative_, or by more than _one_ ”comparative;” if it be allowable to call _than, as_, or _so_, by this questionable name Of the multitude of errors into which these pretended critics have so blindly fallen, I shall have space and time to point out only a _very small part_: this text, too justly, may be taken as a pretty fair sample of their scholarshi+p!
[451] The ”_idea_” which is here spoken of, Dr Blair discovers in a passage of Addison's Spectator It is, in fact, as here ”_brought out_” by the critic, a bald and downright absurdity Dr Campbell has criticised, under the name of _marvellous nonsense_, a different display of the sa The passage ends thus: ”In this sense it may be asserted, that in Rubens' pieces, Art is above Nature, and Nature only a copy of that great master's works” Of this the critic says: ”When the expression is _stript_ of the _absurdbut balderdash”--_Philosophy of Rhet_, p, 278
[452] All his rules for the comma, Fisk appears to have taken unjustly frorammarian to _steal_ what is so _badly written_!--G BROWN
[453] Bad definitions may have other faults than to include or exclude what they should not, but this is their great and peculiar vice For example: ”_Person_ is _that property_ of _nouns_ and _pronouns_ which distinguishes the speaker, the person or thing addressed, and the person or thing spoken of”--_Wells's School Gram_, 1st Ed, p 51; 113th Ed, p 57 See nearly the saement_, p 49 The three persons of _verbs_ are all improperly excluded from this definition; which absurdly takes ”_person_” to be _one property that has all the effect of all the persons_; so that each person, in its turn, since each cannot have all this effect, is seen to be excluded also: that is, it is not such a property as is described! Again: ”An _intransitive verb_ is a verb which _does not have_ a noun or pronoun for its object”--_Wells_, 1st Ed, p 76 According to Dr Johnson, ”_does not have_,” is not a scholarly phrase; but the adoption of a puerile expression is a trifling fault, co here all passive verbs, and some transitives, which the authorof the inconsistency of excluding here the two classes of verbs which he absurdly calls ”intransitive,” though he finds the upon them!”--_Id_, p 145 Weld imitates these errors too, on pp 70 and 153
[454] S R Hall thinks it necessary to recognize ”_four distinctions_” of ”_the distinction_ occasioned by sex” In general, the other authors here quoted, suppose that we have only ”_three distinctions_” of ”_the distinction_ of sex” And, as no philosopher has yet discovered ued, that it is absurd to speak of enders Lily reat consistency, he will have _a gender_ to be _a_ or _the_ distinction of _sex_ ”GENUS est sexus discretio Et sunt genera numero septem”--_Lilii Gram_, p 10 That is, ”GENDER is the distinction of _sex_ And _the genders_ are _seven_ in number” Ruddiman says, ”GENUS est, discrirammatica imitatio Genera nominum sunt _tria_”--_Ruddimanni Gram_, p 4 That is, ”GENDER is the diversity of the _noun_ according to sex, or [it is] the ienders of nouns are _three_” These old definitions are no better than the newer ones cited above All of them are miserable failures, full of faults and absurdities
Both the nature and the cause of their defects are in soree explained near the close of the tenth chapter of my Introduction Their ender_, taken as one thing, is in fact two, three, or enders_, 2 Nearly all of them seem to say or imply, that _words_ differ from one an other _in sex_, like anienders_, to _nouns_ only 4 Many of theh their authors afterwards adender 5 That of Dr Webster supposes, that words differing in gender never have the same ”_termination_” The absurdity of this may be shown by a multitude of examples: as, _man_ and _woman, male_ and _female, father_ and _mother, brother_ and _sister_ This is better, but still not free from some other faults which I have reat batch of errors, I shall simply substitute in the Key one short definition, which appears to me to be exempt from each of these inaccuracies
[455] Walker states this differently, and even repeats his reed: as coy, coyly, gay, gayly”--_Walker's Rhyed, as boy, boys, I cloy, he cloys, etc”--_Ib_, p viii Walker's twelve ”Orthographical Aphorisms,” which Murray and others republish as their ”Rules for Spelling,” and which in stead of ah some carelessness to contain _thich should have been condensed into _one_ For ”words ending with y preceded by a consonant,” he has not only the absurd rule or assertion above recited, but an other which is better, with an exception or rerammarians follow him in his errors, and add to their number: hence the repetition, or similarity, in the absurdities here quoted By the terents, as _carrier_ from carry; but Kirkham understood hi_ Or rather, he so ist” Murray; for he probably knew nothing of Walker in the ed the word ”_verbal_” to ”_participial_;”
thus teaching, through all his hundred editions, except a few of the first, that participial nouns fro in _y_ preceded by a consonant, are for the _y_ into _i_” But he seems to have known, that this is not the way to forh he did not know, that ”_coyless_” is not a proper English word
[456] The _idea of plurality_ is not ”_plurality of idea_,” any more than the _idea of wickedness_, or the _idea of absurdity_, is absurdity or wickedness of idea; yet, behold, how our grammarians copy the blunder, which Lowth (perhaps) first fell into, of putting the one phrase for the other! Even Professor Fowler, (as well as Murray, Kirkhaard ”_to unity or plurality of idea_!”--_Fowler's E
Gram_, 8vo 1850, --513,--G BROWN
[457] In the Doctor's ”New Edition, Revised and Corrected,” the text stands thus: ”The _Present participle_ of THE ACTIVE VOICE has an active signification; as, Ja_ the house _In many of these_, however, _it_ has,” &c Here the first sentence is but an idle truism; and the phrase, ”_In many of these_,” for lack of an antecedent to _these_, is utter nonsense What is in ”the active voice,” ought of course to be _active_ in ”signification;” but, in this author's present scheme of the verb, we find ”the active voice,” in direct violation of his own definition of it, ascribed not only to verbs and participles either neuter or intransitive, but also, as it would seee, to ”many” that are _passive!_--G BROWN
[458] One objection to these passage is, that they are _examples_ of the very construction which they describe as a _fault_ The first and second sentences ought to have been separated only by a semicolon This would have made them _”members”_ of one and the saht”_ is sufficient for two periods, or for what one chooses to point as such, but not for two members of the same period?--G BROWN
[459] (1) ”_Accent_ is the _tone_ hich one speaks For, in speaking, the voice of every rave_ in the sound, and at other times _more acute_ or shrill”--_Beattie's Moral Science_, p 25 ”_Accent_ is _the tone_ of the voice hich a syllable is pronounced”--_Dr
Adalish Gram_, p 266
(2) ”_Accent_ in a peculiar _stress_ of the voice on souish it from the others”--_Gould's Adam's Lat Gram_, p
243
(3) ”The _tone_ by which one syllable is distinguished froreater _stress and elevation_ of voice on that particular syllable”--_Bicknell's Eng Grath or Shortness of Syllables; and the Proportion, generally speaking, betwixt a long and [a] short Syllable, is two to one; as in _Music_, two _Quavers_ to one _Crotchet_--_Accent_ is the _rising_ and _falling_ of the Voice, above or under its usual Tone, but an Art of which we have little Use, and know less, in the _English_ Tongue; nor are we like to ie in this Particular, unless the Art of _Delivery_ or _Utterance_ were a little htland's Gram_, p 156
(5) ”ACCENT, s m (_inflexion_ de la voix) Accent, _tone_, pronunciation”--_Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel_, 4to, Tome Premier, sous le mot _Accent_
”ACCENT, _subst_ (_tone_ or _inflection_ of the voice) Accent, _ton_ ou _inflexion_ de voix”--_Same Work, Garner's New Universal Dictionary_, 4to, under the word _Accent_
(6) ”The word _accent_ is derived fronifies _the tone of the voice_”--_Parker and Fox's English Gram_, Part III, p
32
(7) ”The unity of the word consists in the _tone or accent_, which binds together the two parts of the composition”--_Fowler's E Gram_, --360