"There is great variety in the same plant, by the different appearances of its stem, branches, leaves, blossoms, fruit, size, and colour; and yet, when we trace that variety through different plants, especially of the same kind, there is discovered a surprising uniformity."—Ib., i, 273.

"Attitude, action, air, pause, start, sigh, groan, He borrow'd, and made use of as his own."—Churchill.

"I dread thee, fate, relentless and severe, With all a poet's, husband's, father's fear!"—Burns.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

ERRORS OF NOUNS.

LESSON I.—NUMBERS.

"All the ablest of the Jewish Rabbis acknowledge it."—Wilson's Heb. Gram., p. 7.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the word Rabbi is here made plural by the addition of s only. But, according to Observation 12th on the Numbers, nouns in i ought rather to form the plural in ies. The capital R, too, is not necessary. Therefore, Rabbis should be rabbies, with ies and a small r.]

"Who has thoroughly imbibed the system of one or other of our Christian rabbis."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 378. "The seeming singularitys of reason soon wear off."—Collier's Antoninus, p. 47. "The chiefs and arikis or priests have the power of declaring a place or object taboo."—Balbi's Geog., p. 460. "Among the various tribes of this family, are the Pottawatomies, the Sacs and Foxes, or Saukis and Ottogamis."—Ib., p. 178. "The Shawnees, Kickapoos, Menomonies, Miamis and Delawares, are of the same region."—Ib., p. 178. "The Mohegans and Abenaquis belonged also to this family."—Ib., p. 178. "One tribe of this family, the Winnebagos, formerly resided near lake Michigan."—Ib., p. 179. "The other tribes are the Ioways, the Otoes, the Missouris, the Quapaws."—Ib., p. 179. "The great Mexican family comprises the Aztecs, Toltecs, and Tarascos."—Ib., p. 179. "The Mulattoes are born of negro and white parents; the Zambos, of Indians and negroes."—Ib., p. 165. "To have a place among the Alexanders, the Caesars, the Lewis', or the Charles', the scourges and butchers of their fellow-creatures."—Burgh's Dignity, i, 132. "Which was the notion of the Platonic Philosophers and Jewish rabbii."—Ib., p. 248. "That they should relate to the whole body of virtuosos."—Gobbett's E. Gram., 212. "What thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them."—Luke, vi, 32. "There are five ranks of nobility; dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, and barons."—Balbi's Geog., p. 228. "Acts, which were so well known to the two Charles's."—Payne's Geog., ii, 511. "Court Martials are held in all parts, for the trial of the blacks."—Observer, No. 458. "It becomes a common noun, and may have a plural number; as, the two Davids; the two Scipios, the two Pompies."—Staniford's Gram., p. 8. "The food of the rattlesnake is birds, squirrels, hare, rats, and reptiles."—Balbi's Geog., p. 177. "And let fowl multiply in the earth."—Genesis, i, 22. "Then we reached the hill-side where eight buffalo were grazing."—Martineau's Amer., i, 202. "Corset, n. a pair of bodice for a woman."—Worcester's Dict., 12mo. "As the be's; the ce's, the doubleyu's."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 40. "Simplicity is the means between ostentation and rusticity."—Pope's Pref. to Homer. "You have disguised yourselves like tipstaves."—Gil Blas, i, 111. "But who, that hath any taste, can endure the incessant quick returns of the also's, and the likewise's, and the moreover's, and the however's, and the notwithstanding's?"—Campbell's Rhet., p. 439.

"Sometimes, in mutual sly disguise, Let Aye's seem No's, and No's seem Aye's."—Gay, p. 431.

LESSON II.—CASES.

"For whose name sake, I have been made willing."—Wm. Penn.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the noun name, which is here meant for the possessive case singular, has not the true form of that case. But, according to a principle on page 258th, "The possessive case of nouns is formed, in the singular number, by adding to the nominative s preceded by an apostrophe; and, in the plural, when the nominative ends in s, by adding an apostrophe only." Therefore, name should be name's; thus, "For whose name's sake, I have been made willing."]

"Be governed by your conscience, and never ask anybodies leave to be honest."—Collier's Antoninus, p. 105. "To overlook nobodies merit or misbehaviour."—Ib., p. 9. "And Hector at last fights his way to the stern of Ajax' ship."—Coleridge's Introd., p. 91. "Nothing is lazier, than to keep ones eye upon words without heeding their meaning."— Philological Museum, i, 645. "Sir William Joneses division of the day."—Ib., Contents. "I need only refer here to Vosses excellent account of it."—Ib., i, 465. "The beginning of Stesichoruses palinode has been preserved."—Ib., i, 442. "Though we have Tibulluses elegies, there is not a word in them about Glycera."—Ib., p. 446. "That Horace was at Thaliarchuses country-house."—Ib., i, 451. "That Sisyphuses foot-tub should have been still in existence."—Ib., i, 468. "How every thing went on in Horace's closet, and in Mecenases antechamber."—Ib., i, 458. "Who, for elegant brevities sake, put a participle for a verb."—Walker's Particles, p. 42. "The countries liberty being oppressed, we have no more to hope."—Ib., p. 73. "A brief but true account of this peoples' principles."—Barclay's Pref. "As, the Churche's Peace, or the Peace of the Church; Virgil's Eneid, or the Eneid of Virgil"—British Gram., p. 93. "As, Virgil's AEneid, for the AEneid of Virgil; the Church'es Peace, for the Peace of the Church."—Buchanan's Syntax, p. 18. "Which, with Hubner's Compend, and Wells' Geographia Classica, will be sufficient."— Burgh's Dignity, i, 155. "Witness Homer's speaking horses, scolding goddesses, and Jupiter enchanted with Venus' girdle."—Ib., i, 184. "Dr. Watts' Logic may with success be read and commented on to them."—Ib., p. 156. "Potter's Greek, and Kennet's Roman Antiquities, Strauchius' and Helvicus' Chronology."—Ib., p. 161. "Sing. Alice' friends, Felix' property; Plur. The Alices' friends, The Felixes' property."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 46. "Such as Bacchus'es company,"—"at Bacchus'es festivals."—Ainsworth's Dict., w. Thyrsus. "Burn's inimitable Tam o'Shanter turns entirely upon such a circumstance."—Scott's Lay, Notes, p. 201. "Nominative, Men. Genitive, Mens. Objective, Men."—Cutler's Gram., p. 20. "Mens Happiness or Misery is most part of their own making."—Locke, on Education, p. 1. "That your Sons Cloths be never made strait, especially about the Breast."—Ib., p. 15. "Childrens Minds are narrow and weak."—Ib., p. 297. "I would not have little Children much tormented about Punctilio's, or Niceties of Breeding."—Ib., p. 90. "To fill his Head with suitable Idea's."—Ib., p. 113. "The Burgusdiscius's and the Scheiblers did not swarm in those Days, as they do now."—Ib., p. 163. "To see the various ways of dressing—a calve's head!"—Shenstone, Brit. Poets, Vol. vii, p. 143.

"He puts it on, and for decorum sake Can wear it e'en as gracefully as she."—Cowper's Task.

LESSON III.—MIXED.

"Simon the witch was of this religion too."—Bunyan's P. P., p. 123.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the feminine name witch is here applied to a man. But, according to the doctrine of genders, on page 254th, "Names of males are masculine; names of females, feminine;" &c. Therefore, witch should be wizard; thus, "Simon the wizard," &c.]

"Mammodis, n. Coarse, plain India muslins."—Webster's Dict. "Go on from single persons to families, that of the Pompeyes for instance."—Collier's Antoninus, p. 142. "By which the ancients were not able to account for phaenomenas."—Bailey's Ovid, p. vi. "After this I married a wife who had lived at Crete, but a Jew by birth."—Josephus's Life, p. 194. "The very heathen are inexcusable for not worshipping him."—Student's Manual, p. 328. "Such poems as Camoen's Lusiad, Voltaire's Henriade, &c."—Blair's Rhet., p. 422. "My learned correspondent writes a word in defence of large scarves."—SPECT.: in Joh. Dict. "The forerunners of an apoplexy are dulness, vertigos, tremblings."—ARBUTHNOT: ib. "Vertigo changes the o into ~in=es, making the plural vertig~in=es."—Churchill's Gram., p. 59. "Noctambulo changes the o into =on=es, making the plural noctambul=on=es."—Ib., p. 59. "What shall we say of noctambulos?"—ARBUTHNOT: in Joh. Dict. "In the curious fretwork of rocks and grottos."—Blair's Rhet., p. 220. "Wharf makes the plural wharves."—Smith's Gram., p. 45; Merchant's, 29; Picket's, 21; Frost's, 8. "A few cent's worth of maccaroni supplies all their wants."—Balbi's Geog., p. 275. "C sounds hard, like k, at the end of a word or syllables."—Blair's Gram., p. 4. "By which the virtuosi try The magnitude of every lie."—Hudibras. "Quartos, octavos, shape the lessening pyre."—Pope's Dunciad, B. i, l. 162. "Perching within square royal rooves."—SIDNEY: in Joh. Dict. "Similies should, even in poetry, be used with moderation."—Blair's Rhet., p. 166. "Similies should never be taken from low or mean objects."—Ib., p. 167. "It were certainly better to say, 'The house of lords,' than 'the Lord's house.'"—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 177. "Read your answers. Unit figure? 'Five.' Ten's? 'Six.' Hundreds? 'Seven.'"—Abbott's Teacher, p. 79. "Alexander conquered Darius' army."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 58. "Three days time was requisite, to prepare matters."—Brown's Estimate, ii, 156. "So we say that Ciceros stile and Sallusts, were not one, nor Cesars and Livies, nor Homers and Hesiodus, nor Herodotus and Theucidides, nor Euripides and Aristophanes, nor Erasmus and Budeus stiles."—Puttenham's Arte of English Poesie, iii, 5. "Lex (i.e. legs) is no other than our ancestors past participle laeg, laid down."—Tooke's Diversions, ii, 7. "Achaia's sons at Ilium slain for the Atridae' sake."—Cowper's Iliad. "The corpse[167] of half her senate manure the fields of Thessaly."—Addison's Cato.

"Poisoning, without regard of fame or fear: And spotted corpse are frequent on the bier."—Dryden.



CHAPTER IV.—ADJECTIVES.

An Adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality: as, A wise man; a new book. You two are diligent.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—Adjectives have been otherwise called attributes, attributives, qualities, adnouns; but none of these names is any better than the common one. Some writers have classed adjectives with verbs; because, with a neuter verb for the copula, they often form logical predicates: as, "Vices are contagious." The Latin grammarians usually class them with nouns; consequently their nouns are divided into nouns substantive and nouns adjective. With us, substantives are nouns; and adjectives form a part of speech by themselves. This is generally acknowledged to be a much better distribution. Adjectives cannot with propriety be called nouns, in any language; because they are not the names of the qualities which they signify. They must be added to nouns or pronouns in order to make sense. But if, in a just distribution of words, the term "adjective nouns" is needless and improper, the term "adjective pronouns" is, certainly, not less so: most of the words which Murray and others call by this name, are not pronouns, but adjectives.

OBS. 2.—The noun, or substantive, is a name, which makes sense of itself. The adjective is an adjunct to the noun or pronoun. It is a word added to denote quality, situation, quantity, number, form, tendency, or whatever else may characterize and distinguish the thing or things spoken of. Adjectives, therefore, are distinguished from nouns by their relation to them; a relation corresponding to that which qualities bear to things: so that no part of speech is more easily discriminated than the adjective. Again: English adjectives, as such, are all indeclinable. When, therefore, any words usually belonging to this class, are found to take either the plural or the possessive form, like substantive nouns, they are to be parsed as nouns. To abbreviate expression, we not unfrequently, in this manner, convert adjectives into nouns. Thus, in grammar, we often speak of nominatives, possessives, or objectives, meaning nouns or pronouns of the nominative, the possessive, or the objective case; of positives, comparatives, or superlatives, meaning adjectives of the positive, the comparative, or the superlative degree; of infinitives, subjunctives, or imperatives, meaning verbs of the infinitive, the subjunctive, or the imperative mood; and of singulars, plurals, and many other such things, in the same way. So a man's superiors or inferiors are persons superior or inferior to himself. His betters are persons better than he. Others are any persons or things distinguished from some that are named or referred to; as, "If you want enemies, excel others; if you want friends, let others excel you."—Lacon. All adjectives thus taken substantively, become nouns, and ought to be parsed as such, unless this word others is to be made an exception, and called a "pronoun."

"Th' event is fear'd; should we again provoke Our stronger, some worse way his wrath may find." —Milton, P. L., B. ii, l. 82.

OBS. 3.—Murray says, "Perhaps the words former and latter may be properly ranked amongst the demonstrative pronouns, especially in many of their applications. The following sentence may serve as an example: 'It was happy for the state, that Fabius continued in the command with Minutius: the former's phlegm was a check upon the latter's vivacity.'"—Gram., 8vo, p. 57. This I take to be bad English. Former and latter ought to be adjectives only; except when former means maker. And, if not so, it is too easy a way of multiplying pronouns, to manufacture two out of one single anonymous sentence. If it were said, "The deliberation of the former was a seasonable chock upon the fiery temper of the latter" the words former and latter would seem to me not to be pronouns, but adjectives, each relating to the noun commander understood after it.

OBS. 4.—The sense and relation of words in sentences, as well as their particular form and meaning, must be considered in parsing, before the learner can say, with certainty, to what class they belong. Other parts of speech, and especially nouns and participles, by a change in their construction, may become adjectives. Thus, to denote the material of which a thing is formed, we very commonly make the name of the substantive an adjective to that of the thing: as, A gold chain, a silver spoon, a glass pitcher, a tin basin, an oak plank, a basswood slab, a whalebone rod. This construction is in general correct, whenever the former word may be predicated of the latter; as, "The chain is gold."—"The spoon is silver." But we do not write gold beater for goldbeater, or silver smith for silversmith; because the beater is not gold, nor is the smith silver. This principle, however, is not universally observed; for we write snowball, whitewash, and many similar compounds, though the ball is snow and the wash is white; and linseed oil, or Newark cider, may be a good phrase, though the former word cannot well be predicated of the latter. So in the following examples: "Let these conversation tones be the foundation of public pronunciation."—Blair's Rhet., p. 334. "A muslin flounce, made very full, would give a very agreeable flirtation air."—POPE: Priestley's Gram., p. 79.

"Come, calm Content, serene and sweet, O gently guide my pilgrim feet To find thy hermit cell."—Barbauld.

OBS. 5.—Murray says, "Various nouns placed before other nouns assume the nature of adjectives: as, sea fish, wine vessel, corn field, meadow ground, &c."—Octavo Gram., p. 48. This is, certainly, very lame instruction. If there is not palpable error in all his examples, the propriety of them all is at least questionable; and, to adopt and follow out their principle, would be, to tear apart some thousands of our most familiar compounds. "Meadow ground" may perhaps be a correct phrase, since the ground is meadow; it seems therefore preferable to the compound word meadow-ground. What he meant by "wine vessel" is doubtful: that is, whether a ship or a cask, a flagon or a decanter. If we turn to our dictionaries, Webster has sea-fish and wine-cask with a hyphen, and cornfield without; while Johnson and others have corn-field with a hyphen, and seafish without. According to the rules for the figure of words, we ought to write them seafish, winecask, cornfield. What then becomes of the thousands of "adjectives" embraced in the "&c." quoted above?

OBS. 6.—The pronouns he and she, when placed before or prefixed to nouns merely to denote their gender, appear to be used adjectively; as, "The male or he animals offered in sacrifice."—Wood's Dict., w. Males. "The most usual term is he or she, male or female, employed as an adjective: as, a he bear, a she bear; a male elephant, a female elephant."—Churchill's Gram., p. 69. Most writers, however, think proper to insert a hyphen in the terms here referred to: as, he-bear, she-bear, the plurals of which are he-bears and she-bears. And, judging by the foregoing rule of predication, we must assume that this practice only is right. In the first example, the word he is useless; for the term "male animals" is sufficiently clear without it. It has been shown in the third chapter, that he and she are sometimes used as nouns; and that, as such, they may take the regular declension of nouns, making the plurals hes and shes. But whenever these words are used adjectively to denote gender, whether we choose to insert the hyphen or not, they are, without question, indeclinable, like other adjectives. In the following example, Sanborn will have he to be a noun in the objective case; but I consider it rather, to be an adjective, signifying masculine:

"(Philosophy, I say, and call it He; For, whatsoe'er the painter's fancy be, It a male-virtue seems to me.")—Cowley, Brit. Poets, Vol. ii, p. 54.

OBS. 7.—Though verbs give rise to many adjectives, they seldom, if ever, become such by a mere change of construction. It is mostly by assuming an additional termination, that any verb is formed into an adjective: as in teachable, moveable, oppressive, diffusive, prohibitory. There are, however, about forty words ending in ate, which, without difference of form, are either verbs or adjectives; as, aggregate, animate, appropriate, articulate, aspirate, associate, complicate, confederate, consummate, deliberate, desolate, effeminate, elate, incarnate, intimate, legitimate, moderate, ordinate, precipitate, prostrate, regenerate, reprobate, separate, sophisticate, subordinate. This class of adjectives seems to be lessening. The participials in ed, are superseding some of them, at least in popular practice: as, contaminated, for contaminate, defiled; reiterated, for reiterate, repeated; situated, for situate, placed; attenuated, for attenuate, made thin or slender. Devote, exhaust, and some other verbal forms, are occasionally used by the poets, in lieu of the participial forms, devoted, exhausted, &c.

OBS. 8.—Participles, which have naturally much resemblance to this part of speech, often drop their distinctive character, and become adjectives. This is usually the case whenever they stand immediately before the nouns to which they relate; as, A pleasing countenance, a piercing eye, an accomplished scholar, an exalted station. Many participial adjectives are derivatives formed from participles by the negative prefix un, which reverses the meaning of the primitive word; as, undisturbed, undivided, unenlightened. Most words of this kind differ of course from participles, because there are no such verbs as to undisturb, to undivide, &c. Yet they may be called participial adjectives, because they have the termination, and embrace the form, of participles. Nor should any participial adjective be needlessly varied from the true orthography of the participle: a distinction is, however, observed by some writers, between past and passed, staid and stayed; and some old words, as drunken, stricken, shotten, rotten, now obsolete as participles, are still retained as adjectives. This sort of words will be further noticed in the chapter on participles.

OBS. 9.—Adverbs are generally distinguished from adjectives, by the form, as well as by the construction, of the words. Yet, in instances not a few, the same word is capable of being used both adjectively and adverbially. In these cases, the scholar must determine the part of speech, by the construction alone; remembering that adjectives belong to nouns or pronouns only; and adverbs, to verbs, participles, adjectives, or other adverbs, only. The following examples from Scripture, will partially illustrate this point, which will be noticed again under the head of syntax: "Is your father well?"—Gen., xliii, 27. "Thou hast well said."—John, iv, 17. "He separateth very friends."—Prov., xvii, 9. "Esaias is very bold."—Rom., x, 20. "For a pretence, ye make long prayer."—Matt., xxiii, 14. "They that tarry long at the wine."—Prov., xxiii, 30. "It had not much earth."—Mark, iv, 5. "For she loved much."—Luke, vii, 47.

OBS. 10.—Prepositions, in regard to their construction, differ from adjectives, almost exactly as active-transitive participles differ syntactically from adjectives: that is, in stead of being mere adjuncts to the words which follow them, they govern those words, and refer back to some other term; which, in the usual order of speech, stands before them. Thus, if I say, "A spreading oak," spreading is an adjective relating to oak; if, "A boy spreading hay," spreading is a participle, governing hay, and relating to boy, because the boy is the agent of the action. So, when Dr. Webster says, "The off horse in a team," off is an adjective, relating to the noun horse; but, in the phrase, "A man off his guard," off is a preposition, showing the relation between man and guard, and governing the latter. The following are other examples: "From the above speculations."—Harris's Hermes, p. 194. "An after period of life."—MARSHALL: in Web. Dict. "With some other of the after Judaical rites."—Right of Tythes, p. 86. "Whom this beneath world doth embrace and hug."—Shak. "Especially is over exertion made."—Journal of Lit. Conv., p. 119. "To both the under worlds."—Hudibras. "Please to pay to A. B. the amount of the within bill." Whether properly used or not, the words above, after, beneath, over, under, and within, are here unquestionably made adjectives; yet every scholar knows, that they are generally prepositions, though sometimes adverbs.

CLASSES.

Adjectives may be divided into six classes; namely, common, proper, numeral, pronominal, participial, and compound.

I. A common adjective is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation; as, Good, bad, peaceful, warlike—eastern, western, outer, inner.

II. A proper adjective is an adjective formed from a proper name; as, American, English, Platonic, Genoese.

III. A numeral adjective is an adjective that expresses a definite number; as, One, two, three, four, five, six, &c.

IV. A pronominal adjective is a definitive word which may either accompany its noun, or represent it understood; as, "All join to guard what each desires to gain."—Pope. That is, "All men join to guard what each man desires to gain."

V. A participial adjective is one that has the form of a participle, but differs from it by rejecting the idea of time; as, "An amusing story,"—"A lying divination."

VI. A compound adjective is one that consists of two or more words joined together, either by the hyphen or solidly: as, Nut-brown, laughter-loving, four-footed; threefold, lordlike, lovesick.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—This distribution of the adjectives is no less easy to be applied, than necessary to a proper explanation in parsing. How many adjectives there are in the language, it is difficult to say; none of our dictionaries profess to exhibit all that are embraced in some of the foregoing classes. Of the Common Adjectives, there are probably not fewer than six thousand, exclusive of the common nouns which we refer to this class when they are used adjectively. Walker's Rhyming Dictionary contains five thousand or more, the greater part of which may be readily distinguished by their peculiar endings. Of those which end in ous, as generous, there are about 850. Of those in y or ly, as shaggy, homely, there are about 550. Of those in ive, as deceptive, there are about 400. Of those in al, as autumnal, there are about 550. Of those in ical, as mechanical, there are about 350. Of those in able, as valuable, there are about 600. Of those in ible, as credible, there are about 200. Of those in ent, as different, there are about 300. Of those in ant, as abundant, there are about 170. Of those in less, as ceaseless, there are about 220. Of those in ful, as useful, there are about 130. Of those in ory, as explanatory, there are about 200. Of those in ish, as childish, there are about 100. Of those in ine, as masculine, there are about 70. Of those in en, as wooden, there are about 50. Of those in some, as quarrelsome, there are about 30. These sixteen numbers added together, make 4770.

OBS. 2.—The Proper Adjectives are, in many instances, capable of being converted into declinable nouns: as, European, a European, the Europeans; Greek, a Greek, the Greeks; Asiatic, an Asiatic, the Asiatics. But with the words English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish, and in general all such as would acquire an additional syllable in their declension, the case is otherwise. The gentile noun has frequently fewer syllables than the adjective, but seldom more, unless derived from some different root. Examples: Arabic, an Arab, the Arabs; Gallic, a Gaul, the Gauls; Danish, a Dane, the Danes; Moorish, a Moor, the Moors; Polish, a Pole, or Polander, the Poles; Swedish, a Swede, the Swedes; Turkish, a Turk, the Turks. When we say, the English, the French, the Dutch, the Scotch, the Welsh, the Irish,—meaning, the English people, the French people, &c., many grammarians conceive that English, French, &c., are indeclinable nouns. But in my opinion, it is better to reckon them adjectives, relating to the noun men or people understood. For if these words are nouns, so are a thousand others, after which there is the same ellipsis; as when we say, the good, the great, the wise, the learned.[168] The principle would involve the inconvenience of multiplying our nouns of the singular form and a plural meaning, indefinitely. If they are nouns, they are, in this sense, plural only; and, in an other, they are singular only. For we can no more say, an English, an Irish, or a French, for an Englishman, an Irishman, or a Frenchman; than we can say, an old, a selfish, or a rich, for an old man, a selfish man, or a rich man. Yet, in distinguishing the languages, we call them English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish; using the words, certainly, in no plural sense; and preferring always the line of adjectives, where the gentile noun is different: as, Arabic, and not Arab; Danish, and not Dane; Swedish, and not Swede. In this sense, as well as in the former, Webster, Chalmers, and other modern lexicographers, call the words nouns; and the reader will perceive, that the objections offered before do not apply here. But Johnson, in his two quarto volumes, gives only two words of this sort, English and Latin; and both of these he calls adjectives: "ENGLISH, adj. Belonging to England; hence English[169] is the language of England." The word Latin, however, he makes a noun, when it means a schoolboy's exercise; for which usage he quotes, the following inaccurate example from Ascham: "He shall not use the common order in schools for making of Latins."

OBS. 3.—Dr. Webster gives us explanations like these: "CHINESE, n. sing. and plu. A native of China; also the language of China."—"JAPANESE, n. A native of Japan; or the language of the inhabitants."—"GENOESE, n. pl. the people of Genoa in Italy. Addison."—"DANISH, n. The language of the Danes."—"IRISH, n. 1. A native of Ireland. 2. The language of the Irish; the Hiberno-Celtic." According to him, then, it is proper to say, a Chinese, a Japanese, or an Irish; but not, a Genoese, because he will have this word to be plural only! Again, if with him we call a native of Ireland an Irish, will not more than one be Irishes?[170] If a native of Japan be a Japanese, will not more than one be Japaneses? In short, is it not plain, that the words, Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Maltese, Genoese, Milanese, and all others of like formation, should follow one and the same rule? And if so, what is that rule? Is it not this;—that, like English, French, &c., they are always adjectives; except, perhaps, when they denote languages? There may possibly be some real authority from usage, for calling a native of China a Chinese,—of Japan a Japanese,—&c.; as there is also for the regular plurals, Chineses, Japaneses, &c.; but is it, in either case, good and sufficient authority? The like forms, it is acknowledged, are, on some occasions, mere adjectives; and, in modern usage, we do not find these words inflected, as they were formerly. Examples: "The Chinese are by no means a cleanly people, either in person or dress."—Balbi's Geog., p. 415. "The Japanese excel in working in copper, iron, and steel."—Ib., p. 419. "The Portuguese are of the same origin with the Spaniards."—Ib., p. 272. "By whom the undaunted Tyrolese are led."—Wordsworth's Poems, p. 122. Again: "Amongst the Portugueses, 'tis so much a Fashion, and Emulation, amongst their Children, to learn to Read, and Write, that they cannot hinder them from it."—Locke, on Education, p. 271. "The Malteses do so, who harden the Bodies of their Children, and reconcile them to the Heat, by making them go stark Naked."—Idem, Edition of 1669, p. 5. "CHINESE, n. s. Used elliptically for the language and people of China: plural, Chineses. Sir T. Herbert."—Abridgement of Todd's Johnson. This is certainly absurd. For if Chinese is used elliptically for the people of China, it is an adjective, and does not form the plural, Chineses: which is precisely what I urge concerning the whole class. These plural forms ought not to be imitated. Horne Tooke quotes some friend of his, as saying, "No, I will never descend with him beneath even a Japanese: and I remember what Voltaire remarks of that country."—Diversions of Purley, i, 187. In this case, he ought, unquestionably, to have said—"beneath even a native of Japan;" because, whether Japanese be a noun or not, it is absurd to call a Japanese, "that country." Butler, in his Hudibras, somewhere uses the word Chineses; and it was, perhaps, in his day, common; but still, I say, it is contrary to analogy, and therefore wrong. Milton, too, has it:

"But in his way lights on the barren plains Of Sericana, where Chineses[171] drive With sails and wind their cany waggons light." —Paradise Lost, B. iii, l. 437.

OBS. 4.—The Numeral Adjectives are of three kinds, namely, cardinal, ordinal, and multiplicative: each kind running on in a series indefinitely. Thus:—

1. Cardinal; One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, &c.

2. Ordinal; First, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, &c.

3. Multiplicative; Single or alone, double or twofold, triple or threefold, quadruple or fourfold, quintuple or fivefold, sextuple or sixfold, septuple or sevenfold, octuple or eightfold, &c. But high terms of this series are seldom used. All that occur above decuple or tenfold, are written with a hyphen, and are usually of round numbers only; as, thirty-fold, sixty-fold, hundred-fold.

OBS. 5.—A cardinal numeral denotes the whole number, but the corresponding ordinal denotes only the last one of that number, or, at the beginning of a series, the first of several or many. Thus: "One denotes simply the number one, without any regard to more; but first has respect to more, and so denotes only the first one of a greater number; and two means the number two completely; but second, the last one of two: and so of all the rest."—Burn's Gram., p. 54. A cardinal number answers to the question, "How many?" An ordinal number answers to the question, "Which one?" or, "What one?" All the ordinal numbers, except first, second, third, and the compounds of these, as twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, are formed directly from the cardinal numbers by means of the termination th. And as the primitives, in this case, are many of them either compound words, or phrases consisting of several words, it is to be observed, that the addition is made to the last term only. That is, of every compound ordinal number, the last term only is ordinal in form. Thus we say, forty-ninth, and not fortieth-ninth; nor could the meaning of the phrase, four hundred and fiftieth, be expressed by saying, fourth hundredth and fiftieth; for this, if it means any thing, speaks of three different numbers.

OBS. 6.—Some of the numerals are often used as nouns; and, as such, are regularly declined: as, Ones, twoes, threes, fours, fives, &c. So, Fifths, sixths, sevenths, eighths, ninths, tenths, &c. "The seventy's translation."—Wilson's Hebrew Gram., p. 32. "I will not do it for forty's sake."—Gen., xviii, 29. "I will not destroy it for twenty's sake."—Ib., ver. 31. "For ten's sake."—Ib., ver. 32. "They sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties."—Mark, vi, 40. "There are millions of truths that a man is not concerned to know."—Locke. With the compound numerals, such a construction is less common; yet the denominator of a fraction may be a number of this sort: as, seven twenty-fifths. And here it may be observed, that, in stead of the ancient phraseology, as in 1 Chron., xxiv, 17th, "The one and twentieth to Jachin, the two and twentieth to Gamul, the three and twentieth to Delaiah, the four and twentieth to Maaziah," we now generally say, the twenty-first, the twenty-second, &c.; using the hyphen in all compounds till we arrive at one hundred, or one hundredth, and then first introducing the word and; as, one hundred and one, or one hundred and first, &c.

OBS. 7.—The Pronominal Adjectives are comparatively very few; but frequency of use gives them great importance in grammar. The following words are perhaps all that properly belong to this class, and several of these are much oftener something else: All, any, both, certain, divers, each, either, else, enough, every, few, fewer, fewest, former, first, latter, last, little, less, least, many, more, most, much, neither, no or none, one, other, own, only, same, several, some, such, sundry, that, this, these, those, what, whatever, whatsoever, which, whichever, whichsoever.[172] Of these forty-six words, seven are always singular, if the word one is not an exception; namely, each, either, every, neither, one, that, this: and nine or ten others are always plural, if the word many is not an exception; namely, both, divers, few, fewer, fewest, many, several, sundry, these, those. All the rest, like our common adjectives, are applicable to nouns of either number. Else, every, only, no, and none, are definitive words, which I have thought proper to call pronominal adjectives, though only the last can now with propriety be made to represent its noun understood. "Nor has Vossius, or any else that I know of, observed it."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 279. Say, "or any one else." Dr. Webster explains this word else thus: "ELSE, a. or pron. [Sax. elles] Other; one or something beside; as, Who else is coming?"—Octavo Dict. "Each and every of them," is an old phrase in which every is used pronominally, or with ellipsis of the word to which it refers; but, in common discourse, we now say, every one, every man, &c., never using the word every alone to suggest its noun. Only is perhaps most commonly an adverb; but it is still in frequent use as an adjective; and in old books we sometimes find an ellipsis of the noun to which it belongs; as, "Neither are they the only [verbs] in which it is read."—Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries, p. 373. "But I think he is the only [one] of these Authors."—Ib., p. 193. No and none seem to be only different forms of the same adjective; the former being used before a noun expressed, and the latter when the noun is understood, or not placed after the adjective; as, "For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself."—Romans, xiv, 7. None was anciently used for no before all words beginning with a vowel sound; as, "They are sottish children; and they have none understanding."—Jeremiah, iv, 22. This practice is now obsolete. None is still used, when its noun precedes it; as,

"Fools! who from hence into the notion fall, That vice or virtue there is none at all."—Pope.

OBS. 8.—Of the words given in the foregoing list as pronominal adjectives, about one third are sometimes used adverbially. They are the following: All, when it means totally; any, for in any degree; else, meaning otherwise; enough, signifying sufficiently; first, for in the first place; last, for in the last place; little, for in a small degree; less, for in a smaller degree; least, for in the smallest degree; much, for in a great degree; more, for in a greater degree; most, for in the greatest degree; no, or none, for in no degree; only, for singly, merely, barely; what, for in what degree, or in how great a degree.[173] To these may perhaps be added the word other, when used as an alternative to somehow; as, "Somehow or other he will be favoured."—Butler's Analogy, p. 89. Here other seems to be put for otherwise; and yet the latter word would not be agreeable in such a sentence. "Somewhere or other," is a kindred phrase equally common, and equally good; or, rather, equally irregular and puzzling. Would it not be better, always to avoid both, by saying, in their stead, "In some way or other,"—"In someplace or other?" In the following examples, however, other seems to be used for otherwise, without such a connection: "How is THAT used, other than as a Conjunction?"—Ainsworth's Gram., p. 88.

"Will it not be receiv'd that they have done 't? —Who dares receive it other?"—SHAK.: Joh. Dict., w. Other.

OBS. 9.—All and enough, little and much, more and less, sometimes suggest the idea of quantity so abstractly, that we can hardly consider them as adjuncts to any other words; for which reason, they are, in this absolute sense, put down in our dictionaries as nouns. If nouns, however, they are never inflected by cases or numbers; nor do they in general admit the usual adjuncts or definitives of nouns.[174] Thus, we can neither say, the all, for the whole, nor an enough, for a sufficiency. And though a little, the more, and the less, are common phrases, the article does not here prove the following word to be a noun; because the expression may either be elliptical, or have the construction of an adverb: as, "Though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved."—2 Cor., xii, 15. Dr. Johnson seems to suppose that the partitive use of these words makes them nouns; as, "They have much of the poetry of Mecaenas, but little of his liberality."—DRYDEN: in Joh. Dict. Upon this principle, however, adjectives innumerable would be made nouns; for we can just as well say, "Some of the poetry,"—"Any of the poetry,"—"The best of Poetry," &c. In all such expressions, the name of the thing divided, is understood in the partitive word; for a part of any thing must needs be of the same species as the whole. Nor was this great grammarian sufficiently attentive to adjuncts, in determining the parts of speech. Nearly all, quite enough, so little, too much, vastly more, rather less, and an abundance of similar phrases, are familiar to every body; in none of which, can any of these words of quantity, however abstract, be very properly reckoned nouns; because the preceding word is an adverb, and adverbs do not relate to any words that are literally nouns. All these may also be used partitively; as, "Nearly all of us."

OBS. 10.—The following are some of Dr. Johnson's "nouns;" which, in connexion with the foregoing remarks, I would submit to the judgement of the reader: "'Then shall we be news-crammed.'—'All the better; we shall be the more remarkable.'"—SHAK.: in Joh. Dict. "All the fitter, Lentulus; our coming is not for salutation; we have business."—BEN JONSON: ib. "'Tis enough for me to have endeavoured the union of my country."—TEMPLE: ib. "Ye take too much upon you."—NUMBERS: ib. "The fate of love is such, that still it sees too little or too much."—DRYDEN: ib. "He thought not much to clothe his enemies."—MILTON: ib. "There remained not so much as one of them."—Ib., Exod., xiv, 28. "We will cut wood out of Lebanon, as much as thou shalt need."—Ib., 2 Chronicles. "The matter of the universe was created before the flood; if any more was created, then there must be as much annihilated to make room for it."—BURNET: ib. "The Lord do so, and much more, to Jonathan."—1 SAMUEL: ib. "They that would have more and more, can never have enough; no, not if a miracle should interpose to gratify their avarice."—L'ESTRANGE: ib. "They gathered some more, some less."—EXODUS: ib. "Thy servant knew nothing of this, less or more."—1 SAMUEL: ib. The first two examples above, Johnson explains thus: "That is, 'Every thing is the better.'—Every thing is the fitter."—Quarto Dict. The propriety of this solution may well be doubted; because the similar phrases, "So much the better,"—"None the fitter," would certainly be perverted, if resolved in the same way: much and none are here, very clearly, adverbs.

OBS. 11.—Whatever disposition may be made of the terms cited above, there are instances in which some of the same words can hardly be any thing else than nouns. Thus all, when it signifies the whole, or every thing, may be reckoned a noun; as, "Our all is at stake, and irretrievably lost, if we fail of success."—Addison. "A torch, snuff and all, goes out in a moment, when dipped in the vapour."—Id. "The first blast of wind laid it flat on the ground; nest, eagles, and all."—L'Estrange.

"Finding, the wretched all they here can have, But present food, and but a future grave."—Prior.

"And will she yet debase her eyes on me; On me, whose all not equals Edward's moiety?"—Shak.

"Thou shalt be all in all, and I in thee, Forever; and in me all whom thou lov'st."—Milton.

OBS. 12.—There are yet some other words, which, by their construction alone, are to be distinguished from the pronominal adjectives. Both, when it stands as a correspondent to and, is reckoned a conjunction; as, "For both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one."—Heb., ii, 11. But, in sentences like the following, it seems to be an adjective, referring to the nouns which precede: "Language and manners are both established by the usage of people of fashion."—Amer. Chesterfield, p. 83. So either, corresponding to or, and neither, referring to nor, are conjunctions, and not adjectives. Which and what, with their compounds, whichever or whichsoever, whatever or whatsoever, though sometimes put before nouns as adjectives, are, for the most part, relative or interrogative pronouns. When the noun is used after them, they are adjectives; when it is omitted, they are pronouns: as, "There is a witness of God, which witness gives true judgement."—I. Penington. Here the word witness might be omitted, and which would become a relative pronoun. Dr. Lowth says, "Thy, my, her, our, your, their, are pronominal adjectives."—Gram., p. 23. This I deny; and the reader may see my reasons, in the observations upon the declension of pronouns.

OBS. 13.—The words one and other, besides their primitive uses as adjectives, in which they still remain without inflection, are frequently employed as nouns, or as substitutes for nouns; and, in this substantive or pronominal character, they commonly have the regular declension of nouns, and are reckoned such by some grammarians; though others call them indefinite pronouns, and some, (among whom are Lowth and Comly,) leave them with the pronominal adjectives, even when they are declined in both numbers. Each of them may be preceded by either of the articles; and so general is the signification of the former, that almost any adjective may likewise come before it: as, Any one, some one, such a one, many a one, a new one, an old one, an other one, the same one, the young ones, the little ones, the mighty ones, the wicked one, the Holy One, the Everlasting One. So, like the French on, or l'on, the word one, without any adjective, is now very frequently used as a general or indefinite term for any man, or any person. In this sense, it is sometimes, unquestionably, to be preferred to a personal pronoun applied indefinitely: as, "Pure religion, and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself [better, one's self] unspotted from the world."—James, i, 27. But, as its generality of meaning seems to afford a sort of covering for egotism, some writers are tempted to make too frequent a use of it. Churchill ridicules this practice, by framing, or anonymously citing, the following sentence: "If one did but dare to abide by one's own judgement, one's language would be much more refined; but one fancies one's self obliged to follow, whereever the many choose to lead one."—See Churchill's Gram., p. 229. Here every scholar will concur with the critic in thinking, it would be better to say: "If we did but dare to abide by our own judgement, our language would be much more refined; but we fancy ourselves obliged to follow wherever the many choose to lead us."—See ib.

OBS. 14.—Of the pronominal adjectives the following distribution has been made: "Each, every, and either, are called distributives; because, though they imply all the persons or things that make up a number, they consider them, not as one whole, but as taken separately. This, that, former, latter, both, neither, are termed demonstratives; because they point out precisely the subjects to which they relate. This has these for its plural; that has those. This and that are frequently put in opposition to each other; this, to express what is nearer in place or time; that, what is more remote. All, any, one, other, some, such, are termed indefinite. Another is merely other in the singular, with the indefinite article not kept separate from it.[175] Other, when not joined with a noun, is occasionally used both in the possessive case, and in the plural number: as,

'Teach me to feel an other's wo, to hide the fault I see; That mercy I to others show, that mercy show to me.'—Pope.

Each other and one another, when used in conjunction, may be termed reciprocals; as they are employed to express a reciprocal action; the former, between two persons or things; the latter, between[176] more than two. The possessive cases of the personal pronouns have been also ranked under the head of pronominal adjectives, and styled possessives; but for this I see no good reason."—Churchill's Gram., p. 76.

OBS. 15.—The reciprocal terms each other and one an other divide, according to some mutual act or interchangeable relation, the persons or things spoken of, and are commonly of the singular number only. Each other, if rightly used, supposes two, and only two, to be acting and acted upon reciprocally; one an other, if not misapplied, supposes more than two, under like circumstances, and has an indefinite reference to all taken distributively: as, "Brutus and Aruns killed each other." That is, Each combatant killed the other. "The disciples were commanded to love one an other, and to be willing to wash one an other's feet." That is, All the disciples were commanded to love mutually; for both terms, one and other, or one disciple and an other disciple, must be here understood as taken indefinitely. The reader will observe, that the two terms thus brought together, if taken substantively or pronominally in parsing, must be represented as being of different cases; or, if we take them adjectively the noun, which is twice to be supplied, will necessarily be so.

OBS. 16.—Misapplications of the foregoing reciprocal terms are very frequent in books, though it is strange that phrases so very common should not be rightly understood. Dr. Webster, among his explanations of the word other, has the following: "Correlative to each, and applicable to any number of individuals."—Octavo Dict. "Other is used as a substitute for a noun, and in this use has the plural number and the sign of the possessive case."—Ib. Now it is plain, that the word other, as a "correlative to each," may be so far "a substitute for a noun" as to take the form of the possessive case singular, and perhaps also the plural; as, "Lock'd in each other's arms they lay." But, that the objective other, in any such relation, can convey a plural idea, or be so loosely applicable—"to any number of individuals," I must here deny. If it were so, there would be occasion, by the foregoing rule, to make it plural in form; as, "The ambitious strive to excel each others." But this is not English. Nor can it be correct to say of more than two, "They all strive to excel each other." Because the explanation must be, "Each strives to excel other;" and such a construction of the word other is not agreeable to modern usage. Each other is therefore not equivalent to one an other, but nearer perhaps to the one the other: as, "The two generals are independent the one of the other."—Voltaire's Charles XII, p. 67. "And these are contrary the one to the other."—Gal., v, 17. "The necessary connexion of the one with the other."—Blair's Rhet., p. 304. The latter phraseology, being definite and formal, is now seldom used, except the terms be separated by a verb or a preposition. It is a literal version of the French l'un l'autre, and in some instances to be preferred to each other; as,

"So fellest foes, whose plots have broke their sleep, To take the one the other, by some chance."—Shak.

OBS. 17.—The Greek term for the reciprocals each other and one an other, is a certain plural derivative from [Greek: allos], other; and is used in three cases, the genitive, [Greek: allaelon], the dative, [Greek: allaelois], the accusative, [Greek: allaelous]: these being all the cases which the nature of the expression admits; and for all these we commonly use the objective;—that is, we put each or one before the objective other. Now these English terms, taken in a reciprocal sense, seldom, if ever, have any plural form; because the article in one an other admits of none; and each other, when applied to two persons or things, (as it almost always is,) does not require any. I have indeed seen, in some narrative, such an example as this: "The two men were ready to cut each others' throats." But the meaning could not be, that each was ready to cut "others' throats;" and since, between the two, there was but one throat for each to cut, it would doubtless be more correct to say, "each other's throat." So Burns, in touching a gentler passion, has an inaccurate elliptical expression:

"'Tis when a youthful, loving, modest pair, In others' arms, breathe out the tender tale." —Cotter's Sat. Night.

He meant, "In each other's arms;" the apostrophe being misplaced, and the metre improperly allowed to exclude a word which the sense requires. Now, as to the plural of each other, although we do not use the objective, and say of many, "They love each others," there appear to be some instances in which the possessive plural, each others', would not be improper; as, "Sixteen ministers, who meet weekly at each other's houses."—Johnson's Life of Swift. Here the singular is wrong, because the governing noun implies a plurality of owners. "The citizens of different states should know each others characters."—Webster's Essays, p. 35. This also is wrong, because no possessive sign is used. Either write, "each others' characters," or say, "one an other's character."

OBS. 18.—One and other are, in many instances, terms relative and partitive, rather than reciprocal; and, in this use, there seems to be an occasional demand for the plural form. In French, two parties are contrasted by les uns—les autres; a mode of expression seldom, if ever imitated in English. Thus: "Il les separera les uns d'avec les autres." That is, "He shall separate them some from others;"—or, literally, "the ones from the others." Our version is: "He shall separate them one from an other."—Matt., xxv, 32. Beza has it: "Separabit eos alteros ab alteris." The Vulgate: "Separabit eos ab invicem." The Greek: "[Greek: Aphoriei autous ap allaelon]." To separate many "one from an other," seems, literally, to leave none of them together; and this is not, "as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." To express such an idea with perfect propriety, in our language, therefore, we must resort to some other phraseology. In Campbell's version, we read: "And out of them he will separate the good from the bad, as a shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats." Better, perhaps, thus: "And he shall separate them, the righteous from the wicked, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats."

OBS. 19.—Dr. Bullions says, "One and other refer to the singular only."—Eng. Gram., p. 98. Of ones and others he takes no notice; nor is he sufficiently attentive to usage in respect to the roots. If there is any absurdity in giving a plural meaning to the singulars one and other, the following sentences need amendment: "The one preach Christ of contention; but the other, of love."—Philippians, i, 16. Here "the one" is put for "the one class," and "the other" for "the other class;" the ellipsis in the first instance not being a very proper one. "The confusion arises, when the one will put their sickle into the other's harvest."—LESLEY: in Joh. Dict. This may be corrected by saying, "the one party," or, "the one nation," in stead of "the one." "It is clear from Scripture, that Antichrist shall be permitted to work false miracles, and that they shall so counterfeit the true, that it will be hard to discern the one from the other."—Barclay's Works, iii, 93. If in any ease we may adopt the French construction above, "the ones from the others," it will be proper here. Again: "I have seen children at a table, who, whatever was there, never asked for any thing, but contentedly took what was given them: and, at an other place, I have seen others cry for every thing they saw; they must be served out of every dish, and that first too. What made this vast difference, but this: That one was accustomed to have what they called or cried for; the other to go without it?"—Locke, on Education, p. 55. Here, (with were for was,) the terms of contrast ought rather to have been, the ones—the others; the latter—the former; or, the importunate—the modest. "Those nice shades, by which virtues and vices approach each one another."—Murray's Gram., i, p. 350. This expression should be any thing, rather than what it is. Say, "By which virtue and vice approach each other." Or: "By which certain virtues and vices approximate— blend—become difficult of distinction."

OBS. 20.—"Most authors have given the name of pronoun adjectives, ['pronouns adjective,' or 'pronominal adjectives,'] to my, mine; our, ours; thy, thine; your, yours; his, her, hers; their, theirs: perhaps because they are followed by, or refer to, some substantive [expressed or understood after them]. But, were they adjectives, they must either express the quality of their substantive, or limit its extent: adjectives properly so called, do the first; definitive pronouns do the last. All adjectives [that are either singular or plural,] agree with their substantives in number; but I can say, 'They are my books:' my is singular, and books plural; therefore my is not an adjective. Besides, my does not express the quality of the books, but only ascertains the possessor, the same as the genitive or substantive does, to which it is similar. Examples: 'They are my books;'—'They are John's books;' &c."—Alex. Murray's Gram., p. 108.

OBS. 21.—To the class of Participial Adjectives, should be referred all such words as the following: (1.) The simple participles made adjectives by position; as. "A roaring lion,"—"A raging bear,"—"A brawling woman,"—"A flattering mouth,"—"An understanding heart,"—"Burning coals,"—"The hearing ear, and the seeing eye."—Bible. "A troubled fountain,"—"A wounded spirit,"—"An appointed time."—Ib. (2.) Words of a participial appearance, formed from nouns by adding ed; as, "The eve thy sainted mother died."—W. Scott. "What you write of me, would make me more conceited, than what I scribble myself."—Pope. (3.) Participles, or participial adjectives, reversed in sense by the prefix un; as, unaspiring, unavailing, unbelieving, unbattered, uninjured, unbefriended. (4.) Words of a participial form construed elliptically, as if they were nouns; as, "Among the dying and the dead."—"The called of Jesus Christ."—Rom., i, 6. "Dearly beloved, I beseech you."—1 Pet., ii, 11. "The redeemed of the Lord shall return."—Isaiah, li, 11. "They talk, to the grief of thy wounded."—Psalms, lxix, 26: Margin.

OBS. 22.—In the text, Prov., vii, 26, "She hath cast down many wounded," wounded is a participle; because the meaning is, "many men wounded," and not, "many wounded men." Our Participial Adjectives are exceedingly numerous. It is not easy to ascertain how many there are of them; because almost any simple participle may be set before a noun, and thus become an adjective: as,

"Where smiling spring its earliest visit paid, And parting summer's ling'ring blooms delay'd."—Goldsmith.

OBS. 23.—Compound Adjectives, being formed at pleasure, are both numerous and various. In their formation, however, certain analogies may be traced: (1.) Many of them are formed by joining an adjective to its noun, and giving to the latter the participial termination ed; as, able-bodied, sharp-sighted, left-handed, full-faced, flat-nosed, thick-lipped, cloven-footed, high-heeled. (2.) In some, two nouns are joined, the latter assuming ed, as above; as, bell-shaped, hawk-nosed, eagle-sighted, lion-hearted, web-footed. (3.) In some, the object of an active participle is placed before it; as, money-getting, time-serving, self-consuming, cloud-compelling, fortune-hunting, sleep-disturbing. (4.) Some, embracing numerals, form a series, though it is seldom carried far; as, one-legged, two-legged, three-legged, four-legged. So, one-leaved, two-leaved, three-leaved, four-leaved: or, perhaps better as Webster will have them, one-leafed, two-leafed, &c. But, upon the same principle, short-lived, should be short-lifed, and long-lived, long-lifed. (5.) In some, there is a combination of an adjective and a participle; as, noble-looking, high-sounding, slow-moving, thorough-going, hard-finished, free-born, heavy-laden, only-begotten. (6.) In some, we find an adverb and a participle united; as, ever-living, ill-judging, well-pleasing, far-shooting, forth-issuing, back-sliding, ill-trained, down-trodden, above-mentioned. (7.) Some consist of a noun and a participle which might be reversed with a preposition between them; as, church-going, care-crazed, travel-soiled, blood-bespotted, dew-sprinkled. (8.) A few, and those inelegant, terminate with a preposition; as, unlooked-for, long-looked-for, unthought-of, unheard-of. (9.) Some are phrases of many words, converted into one part of speech by the hyphen; as, "Where is the ever-to-be-honoured Chaucer?"—Wordsworth.

"And, with God-only-knows-how-gotten light, Informs the nation what is wrong or right." —Snelling's Gift for Scribblers, p. 49.

OBS. 24.—Nouns derived from compound adjectives, are generally disapproved by good writers; yet we sometimes meet with them: as, hard-heartedness, for hardness of heart, or cruelty; quick-sightedness, for quickness of sight, or perspicacity; worldly-mindedness, for devotion to the world, or love of gain; heavenly-mindedness, for the love of God, or true piety. In speaking of ancestors or descendants, we take the noun, father, mother, son, daughter, or child; prefix the adjective grand; for the second generation; great, for the, third; and then, sometimes, repeat the same, for degrees more remote: as, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather. "What would my great-grandmother say, thought I, could she know that thou art to be chopped up for fuel to warm the frigid fingers of her great-great-great-granddaughters!"—T. H. Bayley.

MODIFICATIONS.

Adjectives have, commonly, no modifications but the forms of comparison. Comparison is a variation of the adjective, to express quality in different degrees: as, hard, harder, hardest; soft, softer, softest.

There are three degrees of comparison; the positive, the comparative, and the superlative.

The positive degree is that which is expressed by the adjective in its simple form: as, "An elephant is large; a mouse, small; a lion, fierce, active, bold, and strong."

The comparative degree is that which is more or less than something contrasted with it: as, "A whale is larger than an elephant; a mouse is a much smaller animal than a rat."

The superlative degree is that which is most or least of all included with it: as, "The whale is the largest of the animals that inhabit this globe; the mouse is the smallest of all beasts."—Dr. Johnson.

Those adjectives whose signification does not admit of different degrees, cannot be compared; as, two, second, all, every, immortal, infinite.

Those adjectives which may be varied in sense, but not in form, are compared by means of adverbs; as, fruitful, more fruitful, most fruitful—fruitful, less fruitful, least fruitful.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—"Some scruple to call the positive a degree of comparison; on the ground, that it does not imply either comparison, or degree. But no quality can exist, without existing in some degree: and, though the positive is very frequently used without reference to any other degree; as it is the standard, with which other degrees of the quality are compared, it is certainly an essential object of the comparison. While these critics allow only two degrees, we might in fact with more propriety say, that there are five: 1, the quality in its standard state, or positive degree; as wise: 2, in a higher state, or the comparative ascending; more wise: 3, in a lower, or the comparative descending; less wise: 4, in the highest state, or superlative ascending; most wise: 5, in the lowest state, or superlative descending; least wise. All grammarians, however, agree about the things themselves, and the forms used to express them; though they differ about the names, by which these forms should be called: and as those names are practically best, which tend least to perplex the learner, I see no good reason here for deviating from what has been established by long custom."—Churchill's Gram., p. 231.

OBS. 2.—Churchill here writes plausibly enough, but it will be seen, both from his explanation, and from the foregoing definitions of the degrees of comparison, that there are but three. The comparative and the superlative may each be distinguishable into the ascending and the descending, as often as we prefer the adverbial form to the regular variation of the adjective itself; but this imposes no necessity of classing and defining them otherwise than simply as the comparative and the superlative. The assumption of two comparatives and two superlatives, is not only contrary to the universal practice of the teachers of grammar; but there is this conclusive argument against it—that the regular method of comparison has no degrees of diminution, and the form which has such degrees, is no inflection of the adjective. If there is any exception, it is in the words, small, smaller, smallest, and little, less, least. But of the smallness or littleness, considered abstractly, these, like all others, are degrees of increase, and not of diminution. Smaller is as completely opposite to less small, as wiser is to less wise. Less itself is a comparative descending, only when it diminishes some other quality: less little, if the phrase were proper, must needs be nearly equivalent to greater or more. Churchill, however, may be quite right in the following remark: "The comparative ascending of an adjective, and the comparative descending of an adjective expressing the opposite quality, are often considered synonymous, by those who do not discriminate nicely between ideas. But less imprudent does not imply precisely the same thing as more prudent; or more brave, the same as less cowardly."—New Gram., p. 231.

OBS. 3.—The definitions which I have given of the three degrees of comparison, are new. In short, I know not whether any other grammarian has ever given what may justly be called a definition, of any one of them. Here, as in most other parts of grammar, loose remarks, ill-written and untrue assertions, have sufficed. The explanations found in many English grammars are the following: "The positive state expresses the quality of an object, without any increase or diminution; as, good, wise, great. The comparative degree increases or lessens the positive in signification; as, wiser, greater, less wise. The superlative degree increases or lessens the positive to the highest or [the] lowest degree; as, wisest, greatest, least wise. The simple word, or positive, becomes [the] comparative by adding r or er; and the superlative by adding st or est, to the end of it. And the adverbs more and most, placed before the adjective, have the same effect; as, wise, more wise, most wise."—Murray's Grammar, 2d Ed., 1796, p. 47. If a man wished to select some striking example of bad writing—of thoughts ill conceived, and not well expressed—he could not do better than take the foregoing: provided his auditors knew enough of grammar to answer the four simple questions here involved; namely, What is the positive degree? What is the comparative degree? What is the superlative degree? How are adjectives regularly compared? To these questions I shall furnish direct answers, which the reader may compare with such as he can derive from the foregoing citation: the last two sentences of which Murray ought to have credited to Dr. Lowth; for he copied them literally, except that he says, "the adverbs more AND most," for the Doctor's phrase, "the adverbs more OR most." See the whole also in Kirkham's Grammar, p. 72; in Ingersoll's, p. 35; in Alger's, p. 21; in Bacon's, p. 18; in Russell's, p. 14; in Hamlin's, p. 22; in J. M. Putnam's, p. 33; in S. Putnam's, p. 20; in R. C. Smith's, p. 51; in Rev. T. Smith's, p. 20.

OBS. 4.—In the five short sentences quoted above, there are more errors, than can possibly be enumerated in ten times the space. For example: (1.) If one should say of a piece of iron, "It grows cold or hot very rapidly," cold and hot could not be in the "positive state," as they define it: because, either the "quality" or the "object," (I know not which,) is represented by them as "without any increase or diminution;" and this would not, in the present case, be true of either; for iron changes in bulk, by a change of temperature. (2.) What, in the first sentence, is erroneously called "the positive state," in the second and the third, is called, "the positive degree;" and this again, in the fourth, is falsely identified with "the simple word." Now, if we suppose the meaning to be, that "the positive state," "the positive degree," or "the simple word," is "without any increase or diminution;" this is expressly contradicted by three sentences out of the five, and implicitly, by one of the others. (3.) Not one of these sentences is true, in the most obvious sense of the words, if in any other; and yet the doctrines they were designed to teach, may have been, in general, correctly gathered from the examples. (4.) The phrase, "positive in signification," is not intelligible in the sense intended, without a comma after positive; and yet, in an armful of different English grammars which contain the passage, I find not one that has a point in that place. (5.) It is not more correct to say, that the comparative or the superlative degree, "increases or lessens the positive," than it would be to aver, that the plural number increases or lessens the singular, or the feminine gender, the masculine. Nor does the superlative mean, what a certain learned Doctor understands by it—namely, "the greatest or least possible degree." If it did, "the thickest parts of his skull," for example, would imply small room for brains; "the thinnest," protect them ill, if there were any. (6.) It is improper to say, "The simple word becomes [the] comparative by adding r or er; and the superlative by adding st or est." The thought is wrong; and nearly all the words are misapplied; as, simple for primitive, adding for assuming, &c. (7.) Nor is it very wise to say, "the adverbs more and most, placed before the adjective, have the same effect:" because it ought to be known, that the effect of the one is very different from that of the other! "The same effect," cannot here be taken for any effect previously described; unless we will have it to be, that these words, more and most, "become comparative by adding r or er; and the superlative by adding st or est, to the end of them:" all of which is grossly absurd. (8.) The repetition of the word degree, in saying, "The superlative degree increases or lessens the positive to the highest or lowest degree," is a disagreeable tautology. Besides, unless it involves the additional error of presenting the same word in different senses, it makes one degree swell or diminish an other to itself; whereas, in the very next sentence, this singular agency is forgotten, and a second equally strange takes its place: "The positive becomes the superlative by adding st or est, to the end of it;" i. e., to the end of itself. Nothing can be more ungrammatical, than is much of the language by which grammar itself is now professedly taught!

OBS. 5.—It has been almost universally assumed by grammarians, that the positive degree is the only standard to which the other degrees can refer; though many seem to think, that the superlative always implies or includes the comparative, and is consequently inapplicable when only two things are spoken of. Neither of these positions is involved in any of the definitions which I have given above. The reader may think what he will about these points, after observing the several ways in which each form may be used. In the phrases, "greater than Solomon,"—"more than a bushel,"—"later than one o'clock," it is not immediately obvious that the positives great, much, and late, are the real terms of contrast. And how is it in the Latin phrases, "Dulcior melle, sweeter than honey,"—"Praestantior auro, better than gold?" These authors will resolve all such phrases thus: "greater, than Solomon was great,"—"more, than a bushel is much," &c. As the conjunction than never governs the objective case, it seems necessary to suppose an ellipsis of some verb after the noun which follows it as above; and possibly the foregoing solution, uncouth as it seems, may, for the English idiom, be the true one: as, "My Father is greater than I."—John, xiv, 28. That is, "My Father is greater than I am;"—or, perhaps, "than I am great." But if it appear that some degree of the same quality must always be contrasted with the comparative, there is still room to question whether this degree must always be that which we call the positive. Cicero, in exile, wrote to his wife: "Ego autem hoc miserior sum, quam tu, quae es miserrima, quod ipsa calamitas communis est utriusque nostrum, sed culpa mea propria est."—Epist. ad Fam., xiv, 3. "But in this I am more wretched, than thou, who art most wretched, that the calamity itself is common to us both, but the fault is all my own."

OBS. 6.—In my Institutes and First Lines of English Grammar, I used the following brief definitions: "The comparative degree is that which exceeds the positive; as, harder, softer, better." "The superlative degree is that which is not exceeded; as, hardest, softest, best." And it is rather for the sake of suggesting to the learner the peculiar application of each of these degrees, than from any decided dissatisfaction with these expressions, that I now present others. The first, however, proceeds upon the common supposition, that the comparative degree of a quality, ascribed to any object, must needs be contrasted with the positive in some other, or with the positive in the same at an other time. This idea may be plausibly maintained, though it is certain that the positive term referred to, is seldom, if ever, allowed to appear. Besides, the comparative or the superlative may appear, and in such a manner as to be, or seem to be, in the point of contrast. Thus: "Objects near our view are apt to be thought greater than those of a larger size, that are more remote."—Locke's Essay, p. 186. Upon the principle above, the explanation here must be, that the meaning is—"greater than those of a larger size are thought great." "The poor man that loveth Christ, is richer than the richest man in the world, that hates him."—Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, p. 86. This must be "richer than the richest man is rich." The riches contemplated here, are of different sorts; and the comparative or the superlative of one sort, may be exceeded by either of these degrees of an other sort, though the same epithet be used for both. So in the following instances: "He that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they."—Eccl., v, 8. That is, "He that is higher than the highest earthly dignitaries, regardeth; and there are higher authorities than these." "Fairer than aught imagined else fairest."—Pollok. "Sadder than saddest night."—Byron. It is evident that the superlative degree is not, in general, that which cannot be exceeded, but that which, in the actual state of the things included, "is not exceeded." Again, as soon as any given comparative or superlative is, by a further elevation or intension of the quality, surpassed and exceeded, that particular degree, whatever it was, becomes merely positive; for the positive degree of a quality, though it commonly includes the very lowest measure, and is understood to exceed nothing, may at any time equal the very highest. There is no paradox in all this, which is not also in the following simple examples: "Easier, indeed, I was, but far from easy."—Cowper's Life, p. 50.

"Who canst the wisest wiser make, And babes as wise as they."—Cowper's Poems.

OBS. 7.—The relative nature of these degrees deserves to be further illustrated. (1.) It is plain, that the greatest degree of a quality in one thing, may be less than the least in an other; and, consequently, that the least degree in one thing, may be greater than the greatest in an other. Thus, the heaviest wood is less heavy than the lightest of the metals; and the least valuable of the metals is perhaps of more value than the choicest wood. (2.) The comparative degree may increase upon itself, and be repeated to show the gradation. Thus, a man may ascend into the air with a balloon, and rise higher, and higher, and higher, and higher, till he is out of sight. This is no uncommon form of expression, and the intension is from comparative to comparative. (3.) If a ladder be set up for use, one of its rounds will be the highest, and one other will be the lowest, or least high. And as that which is highest, is higher than all the rest, so every one will be higher than all below it. The higher rounds, if spoken of generally, and without definite contrast, will be those in the upper half; the lower rounds, referred to in like manner, will be those in the lower half, or those not far from the ground. The highest rounds, or the lowest, if we indulge such latitude of speech, will be those near the top or the bottom; there being, absolutely, or in strictness of language, but one of each. (4.) If the highest round be removed, or left uncounted, the next becomes the highest, though not so high as the former. For every one is the highest of the number which it completes. All admit this, till we come to three. And, as the third is the highest of the three, I see not why the second is not properly the highest of the two. Yet nearly all our grammarians condemn this phrase, and prefer "the higher of the two." But can they give a reason for their preference? That the comparative degree is implied between the positive and the superlative, so that there must needs be three terms before the latter is applicable, is a doctrine which I deny. And if the second is the higher of the two, because it is higher than the first; is it not also the highest of the two, because it completes the number? (5.) It is to be observed, too, that as our ordinal numeral first, denoting the one which begins a series, and having reference of course to more, is an adjective of the superlative degree, equivalent to foremost, of which it is perhaps a contraction; so last likewise, though no numeral, is a superlative also. (6.) These, like other superlatives, admit of a looser application, and may possibly include more than one thing at the beginning or at the end of a series: as, "The last years of man are often helpless, like the first." (7.) With undoubted propriety, we may speak of the first two, the last two, the first three, the last three, &c.; but to say, the two first, the two last, &c., with this meaning, is obviously and needlessly inaccurate. "The two first men in the nation," may, I admit, be good English; but it can properly be meant only of the two most eminent. In specifying any part of a series, we ought rather to place the cardinal number after the ordinal. (8.) Many of the foregoing positions apply generally, to almost all adjectives that are susceptible of comparison. Thus, it is a common saying, "Take the best first, and all will be best." That is, remove that degree which is now superlative, and the epithet will descend to an other, "the next best."

OBS. 8.—It is a common assumption, maintained by almost all our grammarians, that the degrees which add to the adjective the terminations er and est, as well as those which are expressed by more and most, indicate an increase, or heightening, of the quality expressed by the positive. If such must needs be their import, it is certainly very improper, to apply them, as many do, to what can be only an approximation to the positive. Thus Dr. Blair: "Nothing that belongs to human nature, is more universal than the relish of beauty of one kind or other."—Lectures, p. 16. "In architecture, the Grecian models were long esteemed the most perfect."—Ib., p. 20. Again: In his reprehension of Capernaum, the Saviour said, "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom, in the day of judgement, than for thee."—Matt., xi, 24. Now, although [Greek: anektoteron], more tolerable, is in itself a good comparative, who would dare infer from this text, that in the day of judgement Capernaum shall fare tolerably, and Sodom, still better? There is much reason to think, that the essential nature of these grammatical degrees has not been well understood by those who have heretofore pretended to explain them. If we except those few approximations to sensible qualities, which are signified by such words as whitish, greenish, &c., there will be found no actual measure, or inherent degree of any quality, to which the simple form of the adjective is not applicable; or which, by the help of intensive adverbs of a positive character, it may not be made to express; and that, too, without becoming either comparative or superlative, in the technical sense of those terms. Thus very white, exceedingly white, perfectly white, are terms quite as significant as whiter and whitest, if not more so. Some grammarians, observing this, and knowing that the Romans often used their superlative in a sense merely intensive, as altissimus for very high, have needlessly divided our English superlative into two, "the definite, and the indefinite;" giving the latter name to that degree which we mark by the adverb very, and the former to that which alone is properly called the superlative. Churchill does this: while, (as we have seen above,) in naming the degrees, he pretends to prefer "what has been established by long custom."—New Gram., p. 231. By a strange oversight also, he failed to notice, that this doctrine interferes with his scheme of five degrees, and would clearly furnish him with six: to which if he had chosen to add the "imperfect degree" of Dr. Webster, (as whitish, greenish, &c.,) which is recognized by Johnson, Murray, and others, he might have had seven. But I hope my readers will by-and-by believe there is no need of more than three.

OBS. 9.—The true nature of the Comparative degree is this: it denotes either some excess or some relative deficiency of the quality, when one thing or party is compared with an other, in respect to what is in both: as, "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."—1 Cor., i, 25. "Few languages are, in fact, more copious than the English."—Blair's Rhet., p. 87. "Our style is less compact than that of the ancients."—Ib., p. 88. "They are counted to him less than nothing and vanity."—Isaiah, xl, 17. As the comparatives in a long series are necessarily many, and some of them higher than others, it may be asked, "How can the comparative degree, in this case, be merely 'that which exceeds the positive?'" Or, as our common grammarians prompt me here to say, "May not the comparative degree increase or lessen the comparative, in signification?" The latter form of the question they may answer for themselves; remembering that the comparative may advance from the comparative, step by step, from the second article in the series to the utmost. Thus, three is a higher or greater number than two; but four is higher than three; five, than four; and so on, ad infinitum. My own form of the question I answer thus: "The highest of the higher is not higher than the rest are higher, but simply higher than they are high."

OBS. 10.—The true nature of the Superlative degree is this: it denotes, in a quality, some extreme or unsurpassed extent. It may be used either absolutely, as being without bounds; or relatively, as being confined within any limits we choose to give it. It is equally applicable to that which is naturally unsurpassable, and to that which stands within the narrowest limits of comparison. The heaviest of three feathers would scarcely be thought a heavy thing, and yet the expression is proper; because the weight, whatever it is, is relatively the greatest. The youngest of three persons, may not be very young; nor need we suppose the oldest in a whole college to have arrived at the greatest conceivable age. What then shall be thought of the explanations which our grammarians have given of this degree of comparison? That of Murray I have already criticised. It is ascribed to him, not upon the supposition that he invented it; but because common sense continues to give place to the authority of his name in support of it. Comly, Russell, Alger, Ingersoll, Greenleaf, Fisk, Merchant, Kirkham, T. Smith, R. C. Smith, Hall, Hiley, and many others, have copied it into their grammars, as being better than any definition they could devise. Murray himself unquestionably took it from some obscure pedagogue among the old grammarians. Buchanan, who long preceded him, has nearly the same words: "The Superlative increases or diminishes the Positive in Signification, to the highest or [the] lowest Degree of all."—English Syntax, p. 28. If this is to be taken for a grammatical definition, what definition shall grammar itself bear?

OBS. 11.—Let us see whether our later authors have done better. "The superlative expresses a quality in the greatest or [the] least possible degree; as, wisest, coldest, least wise."—Webster's Old Gram., p. 13. In his later speculations, this author conceives that the termination ish forms the first degree of comparison; as, "Imperfect, dankish," Pos. dank, Comp. danker, Superl. dankest. "There are therefore four degrees of comparison."—Webster's Philosophical Gram. p. 65. "The fourth denotes the utmost or [the] least degree of a quality; as, bravest, wisest, poorest, smallest. This is called the superlative degree."—Ib.; also his Improved Gram., 1831, p. 47. "This degree is called the Superlative degree, from its raising the amount of the quality above that of all others."—Webber's Gram., 1832, p. 26. It is not easy to quote, from any source, a worse sentence than this; if, indeed, so strange a jumble of words can be called a sentence. "From its raising the amount," is in itself a vicious and untranslatable phrase, here put for "because it raises the amount;" and who can conceive of the superlative degree, as "raising the amount of the quality above that of all other qualities?" Or, if it be supposed to mean, "above the amount of all other degrees," what is this amount? Is it that of one and one, the positive and the comparative added numerically? or is it the sum of all the quantities which these may indicate? Perhaps the author meant, "above the amount of all other amounts." If none of these absurdities is here taught, nothing is taught, and the words are nonsense. Again: "The superlative degree increases or diminishes the positive to the highest or [the] lowest degree of which it is susceptible."—Bucke's Classical Gram., p. 49. "The superlative degree is generally formed by adding st or est to the positive; and denotes the greatest excess."—Nutting's Gram., p. 33. "The Superlative increases or diminishes the Signification of the Positive or Adjective, to a very high or a very low Degree."—British Gram., p. 97. What excess of skill, or what very high degree of acuteness, have the brightest and best of these grammarians exhibited? There must be some, if their definitions are true.

OBS. 12.—The common assertion of the grammarians, that the superlative degree is not applicable to two objects,[177] is not only unsupported by any reason in the nature of things, but it is contradicted in practice by almost every man who affirms it. Thus Maunder: "When only two persons or things are spoken of comparatively, to use the superlative is improper: as, 'Deborah, my dear, give those two boys a lump of sugar each; and let Dick's be the largest, because he spoke first.' This," says the critic, "should have been 'larger.'"—Maunder's Gram., p. 4. It is true, the comparative might here have been used; but the superlative is clearer, and more agreeable to custom. And how can "largest" be wrong, if "first" is right? "Let Dick's be the larger, because he spoke sooner," borders too much upon a different idea, that of proportion; as when we say, "The sooner the better,"—"The more the merrier." So Blair: "When only two things are compared, the comparative degree should be used, and not the superlative."—Practical Gram., p. 81. "A Trochee has the first syllable accented, and the last unaccented."—Ib., p. 118. "An Iambus has the first syllable unaccented, and the last accented."—Ibid. These two examples are found also in Jamieson's Rhetoric, p. 305; Murray's Gram., p. 253; Kirkham's, 219; Bullions's, 169; Guy's, 120; Merchant's, 166. So Hiley: "When two persons or things are compared, the comparative degree must be employed. When three or more persons or things are compared, the superlative must be used."—Treatise on English Gram., p. 78. Contradiction in practice: "Thomas is wiser than his brothers."—Ib., p. 79. Are not "three or more persons" here compared by "the comparative" wiser? "In an Iambus the first syllable is unaccented."—Ib., p. 123. An iambus has but two syllables; and this author expressly teaches that "first" is "superlative."—Ib., p. 21. So Sanborn: "The positive degree denotes the simple form of an adjective without any variation of meaning. The comparative degree increases or lessens the meaning of the positive, and denotes a comparison between two persons or things. The superlative degree increases or lessens the positive to the greatest extent, and denotes a comparison between more than two persons or things."—Analytical Gram., p. 30 and p. 86. These pretended definitions of the degrees of comparison embrace not only the absurdities which I have already censured in those of our common grammars, but several new ones peculiar to this author. Of the inconsistency of his doctrine and practice, take the following examples: "Which of two bodies, that move with the same velocity, will exercise the greatest power?"—Ib., p. 93; and again, p. 203, "'I was offered a dollar;'—'A dollar was offered (to) me.' The first form should always be avoided."—Ib., p. 127. "Nouns in apposition generally annex the sign of the possessive case to the last; as, 'For David my servant's sake.'—'John the Baptist's head.' Bible."—Ib., p. 197.

OBS. 13.—So Murray: "We commonly say, 'This is the weaker of the two;' or, 'The weakest of the two;'[178] but the former is the regular mode of expression, because there are only two things compared."—Octavo Gram., i, 167. What then of the following example: "Which of those two persons has most distinguished himself?"—Ib., Key, ii, 187. Again, in treating of the adjectives this and that, the same hand writes thus: "This refers to the nearest person or thing, and that to the most distant: as, 'This man is more intelligent than that.' This indicates the latter, or last mentioned; that, the former, or first mentioned: as, 'Both wealth and poverty are temptations; that tends to excite pride, this, discontent.'"—Murray's Gram., i, 56. In the former part of this example, the superlative is twice applied where only two things are spoken of; and, in the latter, it is twice made equivalent to the comparative, with a like reference. The following example shows the same equivalence: "This refers to the last mentioned or nearer thing, that to the first mentioned or more distant thing."—Webber's Gram., p. 31. So Churchill: "The superlative should not be used, when only two persons or things are compared."—New Gram., p. 80. "In the first of these two sentences."—Ib., p. 162; Lowth, p. 120. According to the rule, it should have been, "In the former of these two sentences;" but this would be here ambiguous, because former might mean maker. "When our sentence consists of two members, the longest should, generally, be the concluding one."—Blair's Rhet., p. 117: and Jamieson's, p. 99. "The shortest member being placed first, we carry it more readily in our memory as we proceed to the second."—Ib., & Ib. "Pray consider us, in this respect, as the weakest sex."—Spect., No. 533. In this last sentence, the comparative, weaker, would perhaps have been better; because, not an absolute, but merely a comparative weakness is meant. So Latham and Child: "It is better, in speaking of only two objects, to use the comparative degree rather than the superlative, even, where we use the article the. This is the better of the two, is preferable to this is the best of the two."—Elementary Gram., p. 155. Such is their rule; but very soon they forget it, and write thus: "In this case the relative refers to the last of the two."—Ib., p. 163.

OBS. 14.—Hyperboles are very commonly expressed by comparatives or superlatives; as, "My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins."—1 Kings, xii, 10. "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given."—Ephesians, iii, 8. Sometimes, in thus heightening or lowering the object of his conception, the writer falls into a catachresis, solecism, or abuse of the grammatical degrees; as, "Mustard-seed—which is less than all the seeds that be in the earth."—Mark, iv, 31. This expression is objectionable, because mustard-seed is a seed, and cannot be less than itself; though that which is here spoken of, may perhaps have been "the least of all seeds:" and it is the same Greek phrase, that is thus rendered in Matt, xiii, 32. Murray has inserted in his Exercises, among "unintelligible and inconsistent words and phrases," the following example from Milton:

"And, in the lowest deep, a lower deep Still threat'ning to devour me, opens wide."—Exercises, p. 122.

For this supposed inconsistency, ho proposes in his Key the following amendment:

"And, in the lower deep, another deep Still threat'ning to devour me, opens wide."—Key, p. 254.

But, in an other part of his book, he copies from Dr. Blair the same passage, with commendation: saying, "The following sentiments of Satan in Milton, as strongly as they are described, contain nothing but what is natural and proper:

'Me miserable! which way shall I fly Infinite wrath, and infinite despair? Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell; And in the lowest depth, a lower deep, Still threat'ning to devour me, opens wide, To which the Hell I suffer seems a Heaven.' P. Lost, B. iv, l. 73." Blair's Lectures, p. 153; Murray's Grammar, p. 352.

OBS. 15.—Milton's word, in the fourth line above, is deep, and not depth, as these authors here give it: nor was it very polite in them, to use a phraseology which comes so near to saying, the devil was in the poet. Alas for grammar! accuracy in its teachers has become the most rare of all qualifications. As for Murray's correction above, I see not how it can please any one who chooses to think Hell a place of great depth. A descent into his "lower deep" and "other deep," might be a plunge less horrible than two or three successive slides in one of our western caverns! But Milton supposes the arch-fiend might descend to the lowest imaginable depth of Hell, and there be liable to a still further fall of more tremendous extent. Fall whither? Into the horrid and inconceivable profundity of the bottomless pit! What signifies it, to object to his language as "unintelligible" if it conveys his idea better than any other could? In no human conception of what is infinite, can there be any real exaggeration. To amplify beyond the truth, is here impossible. Nor is there any superlation which can fix a limit to the idea of more and more in infinitude. Whatever literal absurdity there may be in it, the duplication seems greatly to augment what was even our greatest conception of the thing. Homer, with a like figure, though expressed in the positive degree, makes Jupiter threaten any rebel god, that he shall be thrown down from Olympus, to suffer the burning pains of the Tartarean gulf; not in the centre, but,