The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

choice!"—The Gram., p. 22. In parsing, he finds a world of "accommodatives;" as, "John is more than five years older than William."—Ib. p. 202. Here he calls the whole phrase "more than five years" "a secondary adname" i. e., adjective. But, in the phrase, "more than five years afterwards," he would call the same words "a secondary modifier;" i. e., adverb.—Ib., p. 203. And, in the phrase, "more than five years before the war," he would call them "a secondary relative;" i. e., preposition.—Ib., p. 204. And so of other phrases innumerable. His cases are five, two of which are new, "the Independent" and "the Twofold case." His "independent case" is sometimes the nominative in form, as "thou" and "she;" (p. 62;) sometimes the objective, as, "me" and "him;" (p. 62 and p. 199;) sometimes erroneously supposed to be the subject of a finite verb; while his nominative is sometimes as erroneously said to have no verb. His code of syntax has two sorts of rules, Analytical and Synthetical. The former are professedly seventeen in number; but, many of them consisting of two, three, or four distinct parts, their real number is more properly thirty-four. The latter are reckoned forty-five; but if we count their separate parts, they are fifty-six: and these with the others make ninety. I shall not particularize their faults. All of them are whimsically conceived and badly written. In short, had the author artfully designed to turn English grammar into a subject of contempt and ridicule, by as ugly a caricature of it as he could possibly invent, he could never have hit the mark more exactly than he has done in this "new theory"—this rash production, on which he so sincerely prides himself. Alone as he is, in well-nigh all his opinions, behold how prettily he talks of "COMMON SENSE, the only sure foundation of any theory!" and says, "On this imperishable foundation—this rock of eternal endurance—I rear my superstructure, the edifice of scientific truth, the temple of Grammatical consistency!"—Peirce's Preface, p. 7.

OBS. 13.—For the teaching of different languages, it has been thought very desirable to have "a Series of grammars, Greek, Latin, English, &c., all, so far as general principles are concerned, upon the same plan, and as nearly in the same words as the genius of the languages would permit."—See Bullions's Principles of E. Gram., 2d Ed., pp. iv and vi. This scheme necessarily demands a minute comparison not only of the several languages themselves, but also of the various grammars in which their principles, whether general or particular, are developed. For by no other means can it be ascertained to what extent uniformity of this kind will be either profitable to the learner, or consistent with truth. Some books have been published, which, it is pretended, are thus accommodated to one an other, and to the languages of which they treat. But, in view of the fact, that the Latin or the Greek grammars now extant, (to say nothing of the French, Spanish, and others,) are almost as various and as faulty as the English, I am apprehensive that this is a desideratum not soon to be realized,—a design more plausible in the prospectus, than feasible in the attempt. At any rate, the grammars of different languages must needs differ as much as do the languages themselves, otherwise some of their principles will of course be false; and we have already seen that the nonobservance of this has been a fruitful source of error in respect to English syntax. The achievement, however, is not altogether impossible, if a man of competent learning will devote to it a sufficient degree of labour. But the mere revising or altering of some one grammar in each language, can scarcely amount to any thing more than a pretence of improvement. Waiving the pettiness of compiling upon the basis of an other man's compilation, the foundation of a good grammar for any language, must be both deeper and broader than all the works which Professor Bullions has selected to build upon: for the Greek, than Dr. Moor's "Elementa Linguæ, Græcæ;" for the Latin, than Dr. Adam's "Rudiments of Latin and English Grammar;" for the English, than Murray's "English Grammar," or Lennie's "Principles of English Grammar;" which last work, in fact, the learned gentleman preferred, though he pretends to have mended the code of Murray. But, certainly, Lennie never supposed himself a copyist of Murray; nor was he to much extent an imitator of him, either in method or in style.

OBS. 14.—We have, then, in this new American form of "The Principles of English Grammar," Lennie's very compact little book, altered, enlarged, and bearing on its title-page (which is otherwise in the very words of Lennie) an other author's name, and, in its early editions, the false and self-accusing inscription, "(ON THE PLAN OF MURRAY'S GRAMMAR.)" And this work, claiming to have been approved "by the most competent judges," now challenges the praise not only of being "better adapted to the use of academies and schools than any yet published" but of so presenting "the rules and principles of general grammar, as that they may apply to, and be in perfect harmony with, the grammars of the dead languages"— Recommendations, p. iv. These are admirable professions for a critical author to publish; especially, as every rule or principle of General Grammar, condemning as it must whoever violates it, cannot but "be in perfect harmony with" every thing that is true. In this model for all grammars, Latin, Greek, &c., the doctrines of punctuation, of abbreviations, and of capital letters, and also sections on the rhetorical divisions of a discourse, the different kinds of composition, the different kinds of prose composition, and the different kinds of poetry, are made parts of the Syntax; while his hints for correct and elegant writing, and his section on the composition of letters and themes, which other writers suppose to belong rather to syntax, are here subjoined as parts of Prosody. In the exercises for parsing appended to his Etymology, the Doctor furnishes twenty-five Rules of Syntax, which, he says, "are not intended to be committed to memory, but to be used as directions to the beginner in parsing the exercises under them."—E. Gram., p. 75. Then, for his syntax proper, he copies from Lennie, with some alterations, thirty-four other rules, nine of which are double, and all are jumbled together by both authors, without any regard to the distinction of concord and government, so common in the grammars of the dead languages, and even, so far as I can discover, without any principle of arrangement whatever. They profess indeed to have placed those rules first, which are eaisest [sic—KTH] to learn, and oftenest to be applied; but the syntax of articles, which even on this principle should have formed the first of the series, is placed by Lennie as the thirty-fourth rule, and by his amender as the thirty-second. To all this complexity the latter adds twenty-two Special Rules, with an abundance of "Notes" "Observations" and "Remarks" distinguished by these titles, on some principle which no one but the author can understand. Lastly, his method of syntactical parsing is not only mixed up with etymological questions and answers, but his directions for it, with their exemplification, are perplexingly at variance with his own specimen of the performance. See his book, pages 131 and 133. So much for this grand scheme.

OBS. 15.—Strictures like the foregoing, did they not involve the defence of grammar itself, so as to bear upon interests more important than the success or failure of an elementary book, might well be withheld through motives of charity, economy, and peace. There is many a grammar now extant, concerning which a truly critical reader may know more at first sight, than ever did he that made it. What such a reader will be inclined to rate beneath criticism, an other perhaps will confidently pronounce above it. If my remarks are just, let the one approve them for the other's sake. For what becomes of the teaching of grammar, when that which is received as the most excellent method, must be exempted from censure by reason of its utter worthlessness? And what becomes of Universal Syntax, when the imperfect systems of the Latin and Greek grammars, in stead of being amended, are modelled to the grossest faults of what is worthless in our own?[329]

OBS. 16.—What arrangement of Latin or Greek syntax may be best in itself, I am not now concerned to show. Lily did not divide his, as others have divided the subject since; but first stated briefly his three concords, and then proceeded to what he called the construction of the several parts of speech, taking them in their order. The three concords of Lily are the following: (1.) Of the Nominative and Verb; to which the accusative before an infinitive, and the collective noun with a plural verb, are reckoned exceptions; while the agreement of a verb or pronoun with two or more nouns, is referred to the figure syllepsis. (2.) Of the Substantive and Adjective; under which the agreement of participles, and of some pronouns, is placed in the form of a note. (3.) Of the Relative and Antecedent; after which the two special rules for the cases of relatives are given as underparts. Dr. Adam divided his syntax into two parts; of Simple Sentences, and of Compound Sentences. His three concords are the following: (1.) Of one Substantive with an Other; which construction is placed by Lily and many others among the figures of syntax, and is called apposition. (2.) Of an Adjective with a Substantive; under which principle, we are told to take adjective pronouns and participles. (3.) Of a Verb with a Nominative; under which, the collective noun with a verb of either number, is noticed in an observation. The construction of relatives, of conjunctions, of comparatives, and of words put absolute, this author reserves for the second part of his syntax; and the agreement of plural verbs or pronouns with joint nominatives or antecedents, which Ruddiman places in an observation on his four concords, is here absurdly reckoned a part of the construction of conjunctions. Various divisions and subdivisions of the Latin syntax, with special dispositions of some particular principles of it, may be seen in the elaborate grammars of Despauter, Prat, Ruddiman, Grant, and other writers. And here it may be proper to observe, that, the mixing of syntax with etymology, after the manner of Ingersoll, Kirkham, R. W. Green, R. C. Smith, Sanborn, Felton, Hazen, Parkhurst, Parker and Fox, Weld, and others, is a modern innovation, pernicious to both; either topic being sufficiently comprehensive, and sufficiently difficult, when they are treated separately; and each having, in some instances, employed the pens of able writers almost to the exclusion of the other.

OBS. 17.—The syntax of any language must needs conform to the peculiarities of its etymology, and also be consistent with itself; for all will expect better things of a scholar, than to lay down positions in one part of his grammar, that are irreconcilable with what he has stated in an other. The English language, having few inflections, has also few concords or agreements, and still fewer governments. Articles, adjectives, and participles, which in many other languages agree with their nouns in gender, number, and case, have usually, in English, no modifications in which they can agree with their nouns. Yet Lowth says, "The adjective in English, having no variation of gender and number, cannot but agree with the substantive in these respects."—Short Introd. to Gram., p. 86. What then is the agreement of words? Can it be anything else than their similarity in some common property or modification? And is it not obvious, that no two things in nature can at all agree, or be alike, except in some quality or accident which belongs to each of them? Yet how often have Murray and others, as well as Lowth, forgotten this! To give one instance out of many: "Gender has respect only to the third person singular of the pronouns, he, she, it."—Murray, J. Peirce, Flint, Lyon, Bacon, Russell, Fisk, Maltby, Alger, Miller, Merchant, Kirkham, and other careless copyists. Yet, according to these same gentlemen, "Gender is the distinction of nouns, with regard to sex;" and, "Pronouns must always agree with their antecedents, and the nouns for which they stand, in gender." Now, not one of these three careless assertions can possibly be reconciled with either of the others!

OBS. 18.—Government has respect only to nouns, pronouns, verbs, participles, and prepositions; the other five parts of speech neither govern nor are governed. The governing words may be either nouns, or verbs, or participles, or prepositions; the words governed are either nouns, or pronouns, or verbs, or participles. In parsing, the learner must remember that the rules of government are not to be applied to the governing words, but to those which are governed; and which, for the sake of brevity, are often technically named after the