[166] A critic's accuracy is sometimes liable to be brought into doubt, by subsequent alterations of the texts which, he quotes. Many an error cited in this volume of criticism, may possibly not be found in some future edition of the book referred to; as several of those which were pointed out by Lowth, have disappeared from the places named for them. Churchill also cites this line as above; (New Gram., p. 214;) but, in my edition of the Odyssey, by Pope, the reading is this: "By lov'd Telemachus's blooming years!"—Book xi, L 84.

[167] Corpse forms the plural regularly, corpses; as in 2 Kings, xix, 35: "In the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses."

[168] Murray says, "An adjective put without a substantive, with the definite article before it, becomes a substantive in sense and meaning, and is written as a substantive: as, 'Providence rewards the good, and punishes the bad.'" If I understand this, it is very erroneous, and plainly contrary to the fact. I suppose the author to speak of good persons and bad persons; and, if he does, is there not an ellipsis in his language? How can it be said, that good and bad are here substantives, since they have a plural meaning and refuse the plural form? A word "written as a substantive," unquestionably is a substantive; but neither of these is here entitled to that name. Yet Smith, and other satellites of Murray, endorse his doctrine; and say, that good and bad in this example, and all adjectives similarly circumstanced, "may be considered nouns in parsing."—Smith's New Gram., p. 52. "An adjective with the definite article before it, becomes a noun, (of the third person, plural number,) and must be parsed as such."—R. G. Greene's Grammatical Text-Book, p. 55.

[169] Here the word English appears to be used substantively, not by reason of the article, but rather because it has no article; for, when the definite article is used before such a word taken in the singular number, it seems to show that the noun language is understood. And it is remarkable, that before the names or epithets by which we distinguish the languages, this article may, in many instances, be either used or not used, repeated or not repeated, without any apparent impropriety: as, "This is the case with the Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish."—Murray's Gram., i, p. 38. Better, perhaps: "This is the case with the Hebrew, the French, the Italian, and the Spanish." But we may say: "This is the case with Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish." In the first of these forms, there appears to be an ellipsis of the plural noun languages, at the end of the sentence; in the second, an ellipsis of the singular noun language, after each of the national epithets; in the last, no ellipsis, but rather a substantive use of the words in question.

[170] The Doctor may, for aught I know, have taken his notion of this "noun," from the language "of Dugald Dalgetty, boasting of his '5000 Irishes' in the prison of Argyle." See Letter of Wendell Phillips, in the Liberator, Vol. xi, p. 211.

[171] Lindley Murray, or some ignorant printer of his octavo Grammar, has omitted this s; and thereby spoiled the prosody, if not the sense, of the line:

"Of Sericana, where Chinese drive," &c. —Fourth American Ed., p. 345.

If there was a design to correct the error of Milton's word, something should have been inserted. The common phrase, "the Chinese," would give the sense, and the right number of syllables, but not the right accent. It would be sufficiently analogous with our mode of forming the words, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Scotchmen, Dutchmen, and Irishmen, and perhaps not unpoetical, to say:

"Of Sericana, where Chinese-men drive, With sails and wind, their cany wagons light."

[172] The last six words are perhaps more frequently pronouns; and some writers will have well-nigh all the rest to be pronouns also. "In like manner, in the English, there have been rescued from the adjectives, and classed with the pronouns, any, aught, each, every, many, none, one, other, some, such, that, those, this, these; and by other writers, all, another, both, either, few, first, last, neither, and several."—Wilson's Essay on Gram., p. 106. Had the author said wrested, in stead of "rescued," he would have taught a much better doctrine. These words are what Dr. Lowth correctly called "Pronominal Adjectives."—Lowth's Gram., p. 24. This class of adjectives includes most of the words which Murray, Lennie, Bullions, Kirkham, and others, so absurdly denominate "Adjective Pronouns." Their "Distributive Adjective Pronouns, each, every, either, neither;" their "Demonstrative Adjective Pronouns, this, that, these, those;" and their "Indefinite Adjective Pronouns, some, other, any, one, all, such, &c.," are every one of them here; for they all are Adjectives, and not Pronouns. And it is obvious, that the corresponding words in Latin, Greek, or French, are adjectives likewise, and are, for the most part, so called; so that, from General Grammar, or "the usages of other languages," arises an argument for ranking them as adjectives, rather than as pronouns. But the learned Dr. Bullions, after improperly assuming that every adjective must "express the quality of a noun," and thence arguing that no such definitives can rightly be called adjectives, most absurdly suggests, that "other languages," or "the usages of other languages," generally assign to these English words the place of substitutes! But so remarkable for self-contradiction, as well as other errors, is this gentleman's short note upon the classification of these words, that I shall present the whole of it for the reader's consideration.

"NOTE. The distributives, demonstratives, and indefinites, cannot strictly be called pronouns; since they never stand instead of nouns, but always agree with a noun expressed or understood: Neither can they be properly called adjectives, since they never express the quality of a noun. They are here classed with pronouns, in accordance with the usages of other languages, which generally assign them this place. All these, together with the possessives, in parsing, may with sufficient propriety be termed adjectives, being uniformly regarded as such in syntax."—Bullions's Principles of English Gram., p. 27. (See also his Appendix III, E. Gram., p. 199.)

What a sample of grammatical instruction is here! The pronominal adjectives "cannot properly be called adjectives," but "they may with sufficient propriety be termed adjectives!" And so may "the possessives," or the personal pronouns in the possessive case! "Here," i.e., in Etymology, they are all "classed with pronouns;" but, "in Syntax," they are "uniformly regarded as adjectives!" Precious MODEL for the "Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek, all on THE SAME PLAN!"

[173] Some, for somewhat, or in some degree, appears to me a vulgarism; as, "This pause is generally some longer than that of a period."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 271. The word what seems to have been used adverbially in several different senses; in none of which is it much to be commended: as, "Though I forbear, what am I eased?"—Job, xvi, 6. "What advantageth it me?"—1 Cor., xv, 32. Here what, means in what degree? how much? or wherein? "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?"—1 Cor., vii, 16. Here how would have been better. "The enemy, having his country wasted, what by himself and what by the soldiers, findeth succour in no place."—Spenser. Here what means partly;—"wasted partly by himself and partly by the soldiers." This use of what was formerly very common, but is now, I think, obsolete. What before an adjective seems sometimes to denote with admiration the degree of the quality; and is called, by some, an adverb; as, "What partial judges are our love and hate!"—Dryden. But here I take what to be an adjective; as when we say, such partial judges, some partial judges, &c. "What need I be forward with Death, that calls not on me?"—Shakspeare. Here what seems to be improperly put in place of why.

[174] Dr. Blair, in his Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres, often uses the phrase "this much;" but it is, I think, more common to say "thus much," even when the term is used substantively.

[175] There seems to be no good reason for joining an and other: on the contrary, the phrase an other is always as properly two words, as the phrase the other, and more so. The latter, being long ago vulgarly contracted into t'other, probably gave rise to the apparent contraction another; which many people nowadays are ignorant enough to divide wrong, and mispronounce. See "a-no-ther" in Murray's Spelling-Book, p. 71; and "a-noth-er" in Emerson's, p. 76. An here excludes any other article; and both analogy and consistency require that the words be separated. Their union, like that of the words the and other, has led sometimes to an improper repetition of the article: as, "Another such a man," for, "An other such man."—"Bind my hair up. An 'twas yesterday? No, nor the t'other day."—BEN JONSON: in Joh. Dict. "He can not tell when he should take the tone, and when the tother."—SIR T. MOORE: Tooke's D. P., Vol. 15, p. 448. That is—"when he should take the one and when the other." Besides, the word other is declined, like a noun, and has the plural others; but the compounding of another constrains our grammarians to say, that this word "has no plural." All these difficulties will be removed by writing an other as two words. The printers chiefly rule this matter. To them, therefore, I refer it; with directions, not to unite these words for me, except where it has been done in the manuscript, for the sake of exactness in quotation.—G. BROWN.

[176] This is a misapplication of the word between, which cannot have reference to more than two things or parties: the term should have been among.—G. BROWN.

[177] I suppose that, in a comparison of two, any of the degrees may be accurately employed. The common usage is, to construe the positive with as, the comparative with than, and the superlative with of. But here custom allows us also to use the comparative with of, after the manner of the superlative; as, "This is the better of the two." It was but an odd whim of some old pedant, to find in this a reason for declaring it ungrammatical to say "This is the best of the two." In one grammar, I find the former construction condemned, and the latter approved, thus: "This is the better book of the two. Not correct, because the comparative state of the adjective, (better,) can not correspond with the preposition, of. The definite article, the, is likewise improperly applied to the comparative state; the sentence should stand thus, This is the best book of the two."—Chandler's Gram., Ed. of 1821, p. 130; Ed. of 1847, p. 151.

[178] This example appears to have been borrowed from Campbell; who, however, teaches a different doctrine from Murray, and clearly sustains my position; "Both degrees are in such cases used indiscriminately. We say rightly, either 'This is the weaker of the two,' or—'the weakest of the two.'"—Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 202. How positively do some other men contradict this! "In comparing two persons or things, by means of an adjective, care must be taken, that the superlative state be not employed: We properly say, 'John is the taller of the two;' but we should not say, 'John is the tallest of the two.' The reason is plain: we compare but two persons, and must therefore use the comparative state."—Wright's Philosophical Gram., p. 143. Rev. Matt. Harrison, too, insists on it, that the superlative must "have reference to more than two," and censures Dr. Johnson for not observing the rule. See Harrison's English Language, p. 255.

[179] L. Murray copied this passage literally, (though anonymously,) as far as the colon; and of course his book teaches us to account "the termination ish, in some sort, a degree of comparison."—Octavo Gram., p. 47. But what is more absurd, than to think of accounting this, or any other suffix, "a degree of comparison?" The inaccuracy of the language is a sufficient proof of the haste with which Johnson adopted this notion, and of the blindness with which he has been followed. The passage is now found in most of our English grammars. Sanborn expresses the doctrine thus: "Adjectives terminating with ish, denote a degree of comparison less than the positive; as, saltish, whitish, blackish."—Analytical Gram., p. 87. But who does not know, that most adjectives of this ending are derived from nouns, and are compared only by adverbs, as childish, foolish, and so forth? Wilcox says, "Words ending in ish, generally express a slight degree; as, reddish, bookish."—Practical Gram., p. 17. But who will suppose that foolish denotes but a slight degree of folly, or bookish but a slight fondness for books? And, with such an interpretation, what must be the meaning of more bookish or most foolish?

[180] "'A rodde shall come furth of the stocke of Jesse.' Primer, Hen. VIII."—Craven Glossary.

[181] Midst is a contraction of the regular superlative middest, used by Spenser, but now obsolete. Midst, also, seems to be obsolete as an adjective, though still frequently used as a noun; as, "In the midst."—Webster. It is often a poetic contraction for the preposition amidst. In some cases it appears to be an adverb. In the following example it is equivalent to middlemost, and therefore an adjective: "Still greatest he the midst, Now dragon grown."—Paradise Lost, B. x, l. 528.

[182] What I here say, accords with the teaching of all our lexicographers and grammarians, except one dauntless critic, who has taken particular pains to put me, and some three or four others, on the defensive. This gentleman not only supposes less and fewer, least and fewest, to be sometimes equivalent in meaning, but actually exhibits them as being also etymologically of the same stock. Less and least, however, he refers to three different positives, and more and most, to four. And since, in once instance, he traces less and more, least and most, to the same primitive word, it follows of course, if he is right, that more is there equivalent to less and most is equivalent to least! The following is a copy of this remarkable "DECLENSION ON INDEFINITE SPECIFYING ADNAMES," and just one half of the table is wrong: "Some, more, most; Some, less, least; Little, less, least; Few, fewer or less, fewest or least; Several, more, most; Much, more, most; Many, more most."—Oliver B Peirce's Gram., p. 144.

[183] Murray himself had the same false notion concerning six of these adjectives, and perhaps all the rest; for his indefinite andsoforths may embrace just what the reader pleases to imagine. Let the following paragraph be compared with the observations and proofs which I shall offer: "Adjectives that have in themselves a superlative signification, do not properly admit of the superlative or [the] comparative form superadded: such as, 'Chief, extreme, perfect, right, universal, supreme,' &c.; which are sometimes improperly written, 'Chiefest, extremest, perfectest, rightest, most universal, most supreme,' &c. The following expressions are therefore improper. 'He sometimes claims admission to the chiefest offices;' 'The quarrel became so universal and national;' 'A method of attaining the rightest and greatest happiness.' The phrases, so perfect, so right, so extreme, so universal, &c., are incorrect; because they imply that one thing is less perfect, less extreme, &c. than another, which is not possible."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, Vol. i, p. 167. For himself, a man may do as he pleases about comparing these adjectives; but whoever corrects others, on such principles as the foregoing, will have work enough on his hands. But the writer who seems to exceed all others, in error on this point, is Joseph W. Wright. In his "Philosophical Grammar," p. 51st, this author gives a list of seventy-two adjectives, which, he says, "admit of no variation of state;" i. e., are not compared. Among them are round, flat, wet, dry, clear, pure, odd, free, plain, fair, chaste, blind, and more than forty others, which are compared about as often as any words in the language. Dr. Blair is hypercritically censured by him, for saying "most excellent," "more false," "the chastest kind," "more perfect" "fuller, more full, fullest, most full, truest and most true;" Murray, for using "quite wrong;" and Cobbett, for the phrase, "perfect correctness." "Correctness," says the critic, "does not admit of degrees of perfection."—Ib., pp. 143 and 151. But what does such a thinker know about correctness? If this excellent quality cannot be perfect, surely nothing can. The words which Dr. Bullions thinks it "improper to compare," because he judges them to have "an absolute or superlative signification," are "true, perfect, universal, chief, extreme, supreme, &c."—no body knows how many. See Principles of E. Gram., p. 19 and p. 115.

[184] The regular comparison of this word, (like, liker, likest,) seems to be obsolete, or nearly so. It is seldom met with, except in old books: yet we say, more like, or most like, less like, or least like. "To say the flock with whom he is, is likest to Christ."—Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 180. "Of Godlike pow'r? for likest Gods they seem'd."—Milton, P. L. B. vi, l. 301.

[185] This example, and several others that follow it, are no ordinary solecisms; they are downright Irish bulls, making actions or relations reciprocal, where reciprocity is utterly unimaginable. Two words can no more be "derived from each other," than two living creatures can have received their existence from each other. So, two things can never "succeed each other," except they alternate or move in a circle; and a greater number in train can "follow one an other" only in some imperfect sense, not at all reciprocal. In some instances, therefore, the best form of correction will be, to reject the reciprocal terms altogether—G. BROWN.

[186] This doctrine of punctuation, if not absolutely false in itself, is here very badly taught. When only two words, of any sort, occur in the same construction, they seldom require the comma; and never can they need more than one, whereas these grammarians, by their plural word "commas," suggest a constant demand for two or more.—G. BROWN.

[187] Some grammarians exclude the word it from the list of personal pronouns, because it does not convey the idea of that personality which consists in individual intelligence. On the other hand, they will have who to be a personal pronoun, because it is literally applied to persons only, or intelligent beings. But I judge them to be wrong in respect to both; and, had they given definitions of their several classes of pronouns, they might perhaps have found out that the word it is always personal, in a grammatical sense, and who, either relative or interrogative.

[188] "Whoso and whatso are found in old authors, but are now out of use."—Churchill's Gram., p. 76. These antiquated words are equivalent in import to whosoever and whatsoever. The former, whoso, being used many times in the Bible, and occasionally also by the poets, as by Cowper, Whittier, and others, can hardly be said to be obsolete; though Wells, like Churchill, pronounced it so, in his first edition.

[189] "'The man is prudent which speaks little.' This sentence is incorrect, because which is a pronoun of the neuter gender."—Murray's Exercises, p. 18. "Which is also a relative, but it is of [the] neuter gender. It is also interrogative."—Webster's Improved Gram., p. 26. For oversights like these, I cannot account. The relative which is of all the genders, as every body ought to know, who has ever heard of the horse which Alexander rode, of the ass which spoke to Balaam, or of any of the animals and things which Noah had with him in the ark.

[190] The word which also, when taken in its discriminative sense (i.e. to distinguish some persons or things from others) may have a construction of this sort; and, by ellipsis of the noun after it, it may likewise bear a resemblance to the double relative what: as, "I shall now give you two passages; and request you to point out which words are mono-syllables, which dis-syllables, which tris-syllables, and which poly-syllables."—Bucke's Gram., p. 16. Here, indeed, the word what might be substituted for which; because that also has a discriminative sense. Either would be right; but the author might have presented the same words and thoughts rather more accurately, thus: "I shall now give you two passages; and request you to point out which words are monosyllables; which, dissyllables; which, trissyllables; and which, polysyllables."

[191] The relative what, being equivalent to that which, sometimes has the demonstrative word that set after it, by way of pleonasm; as, "What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light, and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops."—Matt., x, 27. In Covell's Digest, this text is presented as "false syntax," under the new and needless rule, "Double relatives always supply two cases."—Digest of E. Gram., p. 143. In my opinion, to strike out the word that, would greatly weaken the expression: and so thought our translators; for no equivalent term is used in the original.

[192] As for Butler's method of parsing these words by always recognizing a noun as being "UNDERSTOOD" before them,—a method by which, according to his publishers notice, "The ordinary unphilosophical explanation of this class of words is discarded, and a simple, intelligible, common-sense view of the matter now for the first time substituted,"—I know not what novelty there is in it, that is not also just so much error. "Compare," says he, "these two sentences: 'I saw whom I wanted to see;' 'I saw what I wanted to see. If what in the latter is equivalent to that which or the thing which, whom, in the former is equivalent to him whom, or the person whom."—Butler's Practical Gram., p. 51. The former example being simply elliptical of the antecedent, he judges the latter to be so too; and infers, "that what is nothing more than a relative pronoun, and includes nothing else."—Ib. This conclusion is not well drawn, because the two examples are not analogous; and whoever thus finds "that what is nothing more than a relative," ought also to find it is something less,—a mere adjective. "I saw the person whom I wanted to see," is a sentence that can scarcely spare the antecedent and retain the sense; "I saw what I wanted to see," is one which cannot receive an antecedent, without changing both the sense and the construction. One may say, "I saw what things I wanted to see;" but this, in stead of giving what an antecedent, makes it an adjective, while it retains the force of a relative. Or he may insert a noun before what, agreeably to the solution of Butler; as, "I saw the things, what I wanted to see:" or, if he please, both before and after; as, "I saw the things, what things I wanted to see." But still, in either case, what is no "simple relative;" for it here seems equivalent to the phrase, so many as. Or, again, he may omit the comma, and say, "I saw the thing what I wanted to see;" but this, if it be not a vulgarism, will only mean, "I saw the thing to be what I wanted to see." So that this method of parsing the pronoun what, is manifestly no improvement, but rather a perversion and misinterpretation.

But, for further proof of his position, Butler adduces instances of what he calls "the relative THAT with the antecedent omitted. A few examples of this," he says, "will help us to ascertain the nature of what. 'We speak that we do know,' Bible. [John, iii, 11.] 'I am that I am.' Bible. [Exod., iii, 14.] 'Eschewe that wicked is.' Gower. 'Is it possible he should know what he is, and be that he is?' Shakespeare. 'Gather the sequel by that went before.' Id. In these examples," continues he, "that is a relative; and is exactly synonymous with what. No one would contend that that stands for itself and its antecedent at the same time. The antecedent is omitted, because it is indefinite, OR EASILY SUPPLIED."—Butler's Practical Gram., p. 52; Bullions's Analytical and Practical Gram., p. 233. Converted at his wisest age, by these false arguments, so as to renounce and gainsay the doctrine taught almost universally, and hitherto spread industriously by himself, in the words of Lennie, that, "What is a compound relative, including both the relative and the antecedent," Dr. Bullions now most absurdly urges, that, "The truth is, what is a simple relative, having, wherever used, like all other relatives, BUT ONE CASE; but * * * that it always refers to a general antecedent, omitted, BUT EASILY SUPPLIED by the mind," though "not UNDERSTOOD, in the ordinary sense of that expression."—Analyt. and Pract. Gram. of 1849, p. 51. Accordingly, though he differs from Butler about this matter of "the ordinary sense," he cites the foregoing suggestions of this author, with the following compliment: "These remarks appear to me just, and conclusive on this point."—Ib., p. 233. But there must, I think, be many to whon they will appear far otherwise. These elliptical uses of that are all of them bad or questionable English; because, the ellipsis being such as may be supplied in two or three different ways, the true construction is doubtful, the true meaning not exactly determined by the words. It is quite as easy and natural to take "that" to be here a demonstrative term, having the relative which understood after it, as to suppose it "a relative," with an antecedent to be supplied before it. Since there would not be the same uncertainty, if what were in these cases substituted for that, it is evident that the terms are not "exactly synonymous;" but, even if they were so, exact synonymy would not evince a sameness of construction.

[193] See this erroneous doctrine in Kirkham's Grammar, p. 112; in Wells's, p. 74; in Sanborn's, p. 71, p. 96, and p. 177; in Cooper's, p. 38; in O. B. Peirce's, p. 70. These writers show a great fondness for this complex mode of parsing. But, in fact, no pronoun, not even the word what, has any double construction of cases from a real or absolute necessity; but merely because, the noun being suppressed, yet having a representative, we choose rather to understand and parse its representative doubly, than to supply the ellipsis. No pronoun includes "both the antecedent and the relative," by virtue of its own composition, or of its own derivation, as a word. No pronoun can properly be called "compound" merely because it has a double construction, and is equivalent to two other words. These positions, if true, as I am sure they are, will refute sundry assertions that are contained in the above-named grammars.

[194] Here the demonstrative word that, as well as the phrase that matter, which I form to explain its construction, unquestionably refers back to Judas's confession, that he had sinned; but still, as the word has not the connecting power of a relative pronoun, its true character is that of an adjective, and not that of a pronoun. This pronominal adjective is very often mixed with some such ellipsis, and that to repeat the import of various kinds of words and phrases: as, "God shall help her, and that right early."—Psal., xlvi, 5. "Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren."—l Cor., vi, 8. "I'll know your business, that I will."—Shakespeare.

[195] Dr. Bullions has undertaken to prove, "That the word AS should not be considered a relative in any circumstances." The force of his five great arguments to this end, the reader may well conceive of, when he has compared the following one with what is shown in the 22d and 23d observations above: "3. As can never be used as a substitute for another relative pronoun, nor another relative pronoun as a substitute for it. If, then, it is a relative pronoun, it is, to say the least, a very unaccommodating one."—Bullions's Analytical and Practical Gram. of 1849, p. 233.

[196] The latter part of this awkward and complex rule was copied from Lowth's Grammar, p. 101. Dr. Ash's rule is, "Pronouns must always agree with the nouns for which they stand, or to which they refer, in Number, person, and gender."—Grammatical Institutes, p. 54. I quote this exactly as it stands in the book: the Italics are his, not mine. Roswell C. Smith appears to be ignorant of the change which Murray made in his fifth rule: for he still publishes as Murray's a principle of concord which the latter rejected as early as 1806: "RULE V. Corresponding with Murray's Grammar, RULE V. Pronouns must agree with the nouns for which they stand, in gender, number, AND PERSON."—Smith's New Gram., p. 130. So Allen Fisk, in his "Murray's English Grammar Simplified," p. 111; Aaron M. Merchant, in his "Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar, Revised, Enlarged and Improved," p. 79; and the Rev. J. G. Cooper, in his "Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar," p. 113; where, from the titles, every reader would expect to find the latest doctrines of Murray, and not what he had so long ago renounced or changed.

[197] L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 51; 12mo, 51; 18mo, 22; D. Adams's, 37; Alger's, 21; Bacon's, 19; Fisk's, 20; Kirkham's, 17; Merchant's Murray, 35; Merchant's American Gram., 40; F. H. Miller's Gram., 26; Pond's, 28; S. Putnam's, 22; Russell's, 16; Rev. T. Smith's, 22.

[198] Dr. Crombie, and some others, represent I and thou, with their inflections, as being "masculine and feminine." Lennie, M'Culloch, and others, represent them as being "masculine or feminine." But, if either of them can have an antecedent that is neuter, neither of these views is strictly correct. (See Obs. 5th, above.) Mackintosh says, "We use our, your, their, in speaking of a thing or things belonging to plural nouns of any gender."—Essay on English Gram., p. 149. So William Barnes says, "I, thou, we, ye or you, and they, are of all genders,"— Philosophical Gram., p. 196.

[199] "It is perfectly plain, then, that my and mine are but different forms of the same word, as are a and an. Mine, for the sake of euphony, or from custom, stands for the possessive case without a noun; but must be changed for my when the noun is expressed: and my, for a similar reason, stands before a noun, but must be changed for mine when the noun is dropped. * * * Mine and my, thine and thy, will, therefore, be considered in this book, as different forms of the possessive case from I and Thou. And the same rule will be extended to her and hers, our and ours, your and yours, their and theirs."—Barnard's Analytic Grammar, p. 142.

[200] It has long been fashionable, in the ordinary intercourse of the world, to substitute the plural form of this pronoun for the singular through all the cases. Thus, by the figure ENALLAGE, "you are," for instance, is commonly put for "thou art." See Observations 20th and 21st, below; also Figures of Syntax, in Part IV.

[201] The original nominative was ye, which is still the only nominative of the solemn style; and the original objective was you, which is still the only objective that our grammarians in general acknowledge. But, whether grammatical or not, ye is now very often used, in a familiar way, for the objective case. (See Observations 22d and 23d, upon the declensions of pronouns.) T. Dilworth gave both cases alike: "Nom. Ye or you;" "Acc. [or Obj.] Ye or you."—His New Guide, p. 98. Latham gives these forms: "Nom. ye or you; Obj. you or ye."—Elementary Gram., p. 90. Dr. Campbell says, "I am inclined to prefer that use which makes ye invariably the nominative plural of the personal pronoun thou, and you the accusative, when applied to an actual plurality."—Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 174. Professor Fowler touches the case, rather blindly, thus: "Instead of the true nominative YE, we use, with few exceptions, the objective case; as, 'YOU speak;' 'YOU two are speaking.' In this we substitute one case for another."—Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, Sec.478. No other grammarian, however, discards you as a nominative of "actual plurality;" and the present casual practice of putting ye in the objective, has prevailed to some extent for at least two centuries: as,

"Your change approaches, when all these delights Will vanish and deliver ye to woe." —Milton, P. L., B. iv, l. 367.

[202] Dr. Young has, in one instance, and with very doubtful propriety, converted this pronoun into the second person, by addressing himself thus:—

"O thou, myself I abroad our counsels roam And, like ill husbands, take no care at home." —Love of Fame, Sat. II, l. 271.

[203] The fashion of using the plural number for the singular, or you for thou, has also substituted yourself for thyself, in common discourse. In poetry, in prayer, in Scripture, and in the familiar language of the Friends, the original compound is still retained; but the poets use either term, according to the gravity or the lightness of their style. But yourself, like the regal compound ourself, though apparently of the singular number, and always applied to one person only, is, in its very nature, an anomalous and ungrammatical word; for it can neither mean more than one, nor agree with a pronoun or a verb that is singular. Swift indeed wrote: "Conversation is but carving; carve for all, yourself is starving." But he wrote erroneously, and his meaning is doubtful: probably he meant, "To carve for all, is, to starve yourself." The compound personals, when they are nominatives before the verb, are commonly associated with the simple; as, "I myself also am a man."—Acts, x, 16. "That thou thyself art a guide."—Rom., ii, 19. "If it stand, as you yourself still do"—Shakspeare. "That you yourself are much condemned."—Id. And, if the simple pronoun be omitted, the compound still requires the same form of the verb; as, "Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell."—Milton. The following example is different: "I love mankind; and in a monarchy myself is all that I can love."—Life of Schiller, Follen's Pref., p. x. Dr. Follen objects to the British version, "Myself were all that I could love;" and, if his own is good English, the verb is agrees with all, and not with myself. Is is of the third person: hence, "myself is" or, "yourself is," cannot be good syntax; nor does any one say, "yourself art," or, "ourself am," but rather, "yourself are:" as, "Captain, yourself are the fittest."—Dryden. But to call this a "concord," is to turn a third part of the language upsidedown; because, by analogy, it confounds, to such extent at least, the plural number with the singular through all our verbs; that is, if ourself and yourself are singulars, and not rather plurals put for singulars by a figure of syntax. But the words are, in some few instances, written separately; and then both the meaning and the construction are different; as, "Your self is sacred, profane it not."—The Dial, Vol. i, p. 86. Perhaps the word myself above ought rather to have been two words; thus, "And, in a monarchy, my self is all that I can love." The two words here differ in person and case, perhaps also in gender; and, in the preceding instance, they differ in person, number, gender, and case. But the compound always follows the person, number, and gender of its first part, and only the case of its last. The notion of some grammarians, (to wit, of Wells, and the sixty-eight others whom he cites for it,) that you and your are actually made singular by usage, is demonstrably untrue. Do we, our, and us, become actually singular, as often as a king or a critic applies them to himself? No: for nothing can be worse syntax than, we am, we was, or you was, though some contend for this last construction.

[204] Whose is sometimes used as the possessive case of which; as, "A religion whose origin is divine."—Blair. See Observations 4th and 5th, on the Classes of Pronouns.

[205] After but, as in the following sentence, the double relative what is sometimes applied to persons; and it is here equivalent to the friend who:—

"Lorenzo, pride repress; nor hope to find A friend, but what has found a friend in thee."—Young.

[206] Of all these compounds. L. Murray very improperly says, "They are seldom used, in modern style."—Octavo Gram., p. 54; also Fisk's, p. 65. None of them are yet obsolete, though the shorter forms seem to be now generally preferred. The following suggestion of Cobbett's is erroneous; because it implies that the shorter forms are innovations and faults; and because the author carelessly speaks of them as one thing only: "We sometimes omit the so, and say, whoever, whomever, whatever, and even whosever. It is a mere abbreviation. The so is understood: and, it is best not to omit to write it."—Eng. Gram., 209. R. C. Smith dismisses the compound relatives with three lines; and these he closes with the following notion: "They are not often used!"—New Gram., p. 61.

[207] Sanborn, with strange ignorance of the history of those words, teaches thus: "Mine and thine appear to have been formed from my and thy by changing y into i and adding n, and then subjoining e to retain the long sound of the vowel."—Analytical Gram., p. 92. This false notion, as we learn from his guillemets and a remark in his preface, he borrowed from "Parkhurst's Systematic Introduction." Dr. Lowth says, "The Saxon Ic hath the possessive case Min; Thu, possessive Thin; He, possessive His: From which our possessive cases of the same pronouns are taken without alteration."—Lowth's Gram., p. 23.

[208] Latham, with a singularity quite remarkable, reverses this doctrine in respect to the two classes, and says, "My, thy, our, your, her, and their signify possession, because they are possessive cases. * * * Mine, thine, ours, yours, hers, theirs, signify possession for a different reason. They partake of the nature of adjectives, and in all the allied languages are declined as such."—Latham's Elementary E. Gram., p. 94. Weld, like Wells, with a few more whose doctrine will be criticised by-and-by, adopting here an other odd opinion, takes the former class only for forms of the possessive case; the latter he disposes of thus: "Ours, yours, theirs, hers, and generally mine and thine, are POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS, used in either the nominative or objective case,"—Weld's Gram., Improved Ed., p. 68. Not only denying the possessives with ellipsis to be instances of the possessive case, but stupidly mistaking at once two dissimilar things for a third which is totally unlike to either,—i. e., assuming together for substitution both an ellipsis of one word and an equivalence to two—(as some others more learned have very strangely done—) he supposes all this class of pronouns to have forsaken every property of their legitimate roots,—their person, their number, their gender, their case,—and to have assumed other properties, such as belong to "the thing possessed!" In the example, "Your house is on the plain, ours is on the hill," he supposes ours to be of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case; and not, as it plainly is, of the first person, plural number, masculine gender, and possessive case. Such parsing should condemn forever any book that teaches it.

[209] This word should have been numerals, for two or three reasons. The author speaks of the numeral adjectives; and to say "the numbers must agree in number with their substantives," is tautological—G. Brown.

[210] Cardell assails the common doctrine of the grammarians on this point, with similar assertions, and still more earnestness. See his Essay on Language, p. 80. The notion that "these pretended possessives [are] uniformly used as nominatives or objectives"—though demonstrably absurd, and confessedly repugnant to what is "usually considered" to be their true explanation—was adopted by Jaudon, in 1812; and has recently found several new advocates; among whom are Davis, Felch, Goodenow, Hazen, Smart, Weld, and Wells. There is, however, much diversity, as well as much inaccuracy, in their several expositions of the matter. Smart inserts in his declensions, as the only forms of the possessive case, the words of which he afterwards speaks thus: "The following possessive cases of the personal pronouns, (See page vii,) must be called PERSONAL PRONOUNS POSSESSIVE: mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, theirs. For these words are always used substantively, so as to include the meaning of some noun in the third person singular or plural, in the nominative or the objective ease. Thus, if we are speaking of books, and say [,] 'Mine are here,' mine means my books, [Fist] and it must be deemed a personal pronoun possessive in the third person plural, and nominative to the verb are."—Smart's Accidence, p. xxii. If to say, these "possessive cases must be called a class of pronouns, used substantively, and deemed nominatives or objectives," is not absurd, then nothing can be. Nor is any thing in grammar more certain, than that the pronoun "mine" can only be used by the speaker or writer, to denote himself or herself as the owner of something. It is therefore of the first person, singular number, masculine (or feminine) gender, and possessive case; being governed by the name of the thing or things possessed. This name is, of course, always known; and, if known and not expressed, it is "understood." For sometimes a word is repeated to the mind, and clearly understood, where "it cannot properly be" expressed; as, "And he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none."—Luke, xiii, 6. Wells opposes this doctrine, citing a passage from Webster, as above, and also imitating his argument. This author acknowledges three classes of pronouns—"personal, relative, and interrogative;" and then, excluding these words from their true place among personals of the possessive case, absurdly makes them a supernumerary class of possessive nominatives or objectives! "Mine, thine, his, ours, yours, and theirs, are POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS, used in construction either as nominatives or objectives; as, 'Your pleasures are past, mine are to come.' Here the word mine, which is used as a substitute for my pleasures, is the subject of the verb are."—Wells's School Gram., p. 71; 113 Ed., p. 78. Now the question to find the subject of the verb are, is, "My what are to come?" Ans. "pleasures." But the author proceeds to argue in a note thus: "Mine, thine, etc. are often parsed as pronouns in the possessive case, and governed by nouns understood. Thus, in the sentence, 'This book is mine,' the word mine is said to possess book. That the word book is not here understood, is obvious from the fact, that, when it is supplied, the phrase becomes not 'mine book,' but 'my book,' the pronoun being changed from mine to my; so that we are made, by this practice, to parse mine as possessing a word understood, before which it cannot properly be used. The word mine is here evidently employed as a substitute for the two words, my and book."—Wells, ibid. This note appears to me to be, in many respects, faulty. In the first place, its whole design was, to disprove what is true. For, bating the mere difference of person, the author's example above is equal to this: "Your pleasures are past, W. H. Wells's are to come." The ellipsis of "pleasures", is evident in both. But ellipsis is not substitution; no, nor is equivalence. Mine, when it suggests an ellipsis of the governing noun, is equivalent to my and that noun; but certainly, not "a substitute for the two words." It is a substitute, or pronoun, for the name of the speaker or writer; and so is my; both forms representing, and always agreeing with, that name or person only. No possessive agrees with what governs it; but every pronoun ought to agree with that for which it stands. Secondly, if the note above cited does not aver, in its first sentence, that the pronouns in question are "governed by nouns understood," it comes much nearer to saying this, than a writer should who meant to deny it. In the third place, the example, "This book is mine," is not a good one for its purpose. The word "mine" may be regularly parsed as a possessive, without supposing any ellipsis; for "book," the name of the thing possessed, is given, and in obvious connexion with it. And further, the matter affirmed is ownership, requiring different cases; and not the identity of something under different names, which must be put in the same case. In the fourth place, to mistake regimen for possession, and thence speak of one word "as possessing" an other, a mode of expression occurring twice in the foregoing note, is not only unscholarlike, but positively absurd. But, possibly, the author may have meant by it, to ridicule the choice phraseology of the following Rule: "A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the noun it possesses."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 181; Frazee's, 1844, p. 25.

[211] In respect to the numbers, the following text is an uncouth exception: "Pass ye away, thou inhabitant of Saphir."—Micah, i, 11. The singular and the plural are here strangely confounded. Perhaps the reading should be, "Pass thou away, O inhabitant of Saphir." Nor is the Bible free from abrupt transitions from one number to the other, or from one person to an other, which are neither agreeable nor strictly grammatical; as, "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which [who] are spiritual, restore such an [a] one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."—Gal., vi, 1. "Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near; that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches," &c—Amos, vi, 9.

[212] "The solemn style is used, chiefly, in the Bible and in prayer. The Society of Friends retain it in common parlance. It consists in using thou in the singular number, and ye in the plural, instead of using you in both numbers as in the familiar style. * * * The third person singular [of verbs] ends with th or eth, which affects only the present indicative, and hath of the perfect. The second person, singular, ends with st, est, or t only."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 58. "In [the] solemn and poetic styles, mine, thine, and thy, are used; and THIS is the style adopted by the Friends' society. In common discourse it appears very stiff and affected."—Bartlett's C. S. Man'l, Part II, p. 72.

[213] "And of the History of his being tost in a Blanket, he saith, 'Here, Scriblerus, thou lessest in what thou assertest concerning the blanket: it was not a blanket, but a rug.—Curlliad, p. 25."—Notes to Pope's Dunciad, B. ii, verse 3. A vulgar idea solemnly expressed, is ludicrous. Uttered in familiar terms, it is simply vulgar: as, "You lie, Scriblerus, in what you say about the blanket."

[214] "Notwithstanding these verbal mistakes, the Bible, for the size of it, is the most accurate grammatical composition that we have in the English language. The authority of several eminent grammarians might be adduced in support of this assertion, but it may be sufficient to mention only that of Dr. Lowth, who says, 'The present translation of the Bible, is the best standard of the English language.'"—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 166. I revere the Bible vastly too much to be pleased with an imitation of its peculiar style, in any man's ordinary speech or writing.—G. BROWN.

[215] "Ye, except in the solemn style, is obsolete; but it is used in the language of tragedy, to express contempt: as, 'When ye shall know what Margaret knows, ye may not be so thankful.' Franklin."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 57. "The second person plural had formerly YE both in the nominative and the objective. This form is now obsolete in the objective, and nearly obsolete in the nominative."—Hart's Gram., p. 55.

[216] So has Milton:—

"To waste it all myself, and leave ye none! So disinherited how would you bless me!"—Par. Lost, B. x, l. 820.

[217] "The word what is a compound of two specifying adjectives, each, of course, referring to a noun, expressed or understood. It is equivalent to the which; that which; which that; or that that; used also in the plural. At different periods, and in different authors, it appears in the varying forms, tha qua, qua tha, qu'tha, quthat, quhat, hwat, and what. This word is found in other forms; but it is needless to multiply them."—Cardell's Essay on Language, p. 86.

[218] This author's distribution of the pronouns, of which I have taken some notice in Obs. 10th above, is remarkable for its inconsistencies and absurdities. First he avers, "Pronouns are generally divided into three kinds, the Personal, the Adjective, and the Relative pronouns. They are all known by the lists."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 96. These short sentences are far from being accurate, clear, or true. He should have made the several kinds known, by a good definition of each. But this was work to which he did not find himself adequate. And if we look to his lists for the particular words of each kind, we shall get little satisfaction. Of the Personal pronouns, he says, "There are five of them; I, thou, he, she, it."—Ib., p. 97. These are simple words, and in their declension they are properly multiplied to forty. (See Ib., p. 99.) Next he seems to double the number, thus: "When self is added to the personal pronouns, as himself, myself, itself, themselves, &c. they are called Compound Personal Pronouns."—Ib., p. 99. Then he asserts that mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, and theirs, are compounds of ne or s with mi, thi, hi, &c.: that their application invariably "gives them a compound character:" and that, "They may, therefore, be properly denominated Compound Personal Pronouns."—Ib., p. 101. Next he comes to his Adjective pronouns; and, after proving that he has grossly misplaced and misnamed every one of them, he gives his lists of the three kinds of these. His Relative pronouns are who, which, and that. "What is generally a compound relative."—Ib., p. 111. The compounds of who, which, and what, with ever or soever, he calls "compound pronouns, but not compound relatives."—Ib., pp. 110 and 112. Lastly he discovers, that, "Truth and simplicity" have been shamefully neglected in this his third section of pronouns; that, "Of the words called 'relatives,' who only is a pronoun, and this is strictly personal;" that, "It ought to be classed with the personal pronouns;" and that, "Which, that, and what, are always adjectives. They never stand for, but always belong to nouns, either expressed or implied."—Ib., p. 114. What admirable teachings are these!

[219] "It is now proper to give some examples of the manner in which the learners should be exercised, in order to improve their knowledge, and to render it familiar to them. This is called parsing. The nature of the subject, as well as the adaptation of it to learners, requires that it should be divided into two parts: viz. parsing, as it respects etymology alone; and parsing, as it respects both etymology and syntax."—Murray's Gram., Octavo, Vol. 1, p. 225. How very little real respect for the opinions of Murray, has been entertained by these self-seeking magnifiers and modifiers of his work!

What Murray calls "Syntactical Parsing" is sometimes called "Construing," especially by those who will have Parsing to be nothing more than an etymological exercise. A late author says, "The practice of Construing differs from that of parsing, in the extension of its objects. Parsing merely indicates the parts of speech and their accidents, but construing searches for and points out their syntactical relations."—D. Blair's Gram., p. 49.

Here the distinction which Murray judged to be necessary, is still more strongly marked and insisted on. And though I see no utility in restricting the word Parsing to a mere description of the parts of speech with their accidents, and no impropriety in calling the latter branch of the exercise "Syntactical Parsing;" I cannot but think there is such a necessity for the division, as forms a very grave argument against those tangled schemes of grammar which do not admit of it. Blair is grossly inconsistent with himself. For, after drawing his distinction between Parsing and Construing, as above, he takes no further notice of the latter; but, having filled up seven pages with his most wretched mode of "PARSING," adds, in an emphatic note: "The Teacher should direct the Pupil to CONSTRUE, IN THE SAME MANNER, any passage from MY CLASS-BOOK, or other Work, at the rate of three or four lines per day."—D. Blair's Gram., p. 56.

[220] This is a comment upon the following quotation from Milton, where Hers for His would be a gross barbarism:—

"Should intermitted vengeance arm again His red right hand to plague us."—Par. Lost, B. ii, l. 174.

[221] The Imperfect Participle, when simple, or when taken as one of the four principal terms constituting the verb or springing from it, ends always in ing. But, in a subsequent chapter, I include under this name the first participle of the passive verb; and this, in our language, is always a compound, and the latter term of it does not end in ing: as, "In all languages, indeed, examples are to be found of adjectives being compared whose signification admits neither intension nor remission."—CROMBIE, on Etym. and Syntax, p. 106. According to most of our writers on English grammar, the Present or Imperfect Participle Passive is always a compound of being and the form of the perfect participle: as, being loved, being seen. But some represent it to have two forms, one of which is always simple; as, "PERFECT PASSIVE, obeyed or being obeyed."—Sanborn's Analytical Gram., p. 55. "Loved or being loved."—Parkhurst's Grammar for Beginners, p. 11; Greene's Analysis, p. 225. "Loved, or, being loved."—Clark's Practical Gram., p. 83. I here concur with the majority, who in no instance take the participle in ed or en, alone, for the Present or Imperfect.

[222] In the following example, "he" and "she" are converted into verbs; as "thou" sometimes is, in the writings of Shakspeare, and others: "Is it not an impulse of selfishness or of a depraved nature to he and she inanimate objects?"—Cutler's English Gram., p. 16. Dr. Bullions, who has heretofore published several of the worst definitions of the verb anywhere extant, has now perhaps one of the best: "A VERB is a word used to express the act, being, or state of its subject. "—Analyt. & Pract. Gram., p. 59. Yet it is not very obvious, that "he" and "she" are here verbs under this definition. Dr. Mandeville, perceiving that "the usual definitions of the verb are extremely defective," not long ago helped the schools to the following: "A verb is a word which describes the state or condition of a noun or pronoun in relation to time,"—Course of Reading, p. 24. Now it is plain, that under this definition too, Cutler's infinitives, "to he and she" cannot be verbs; and, in my opinion, very small is the number of words that can be. No verb "describes the state or condition of a noun or pronoun," except in some form of parsing; nor, even in this sort of exercise, do I find any verb "which describes the state or condition" of such a word "in relation to time." Hence, I can make of this definition nothing but nonsense. Against my definition of a verb, this author urges, that it "excludes neuter verbs, expresses no relation to subject or time, and uses terms in a vague or contradictory sense."—Ib., p. 25. The first and the last of these three allegations do not appear to be well founded; and the second, if infinitives are verbs, indicates an excellence rather than a fault. The definition assumes that the mind as well as the body may "act" or "be acted upon." For this cause, Dr. Mandeville, who cannot conceive that "to be loved" is in any wise "to be acted upon," pronounces it "fatally defective!" His argument is a little web of sophistry, not worth unweaving here. One of the best scholars cited in the reverend Doctor's book says, "Of mental powers we have no conception, but as certain capacities of intellectual action." And again, he asks, "Who can be conscious of judgment, memory, and reflection, and doubt that man was made to act!"—EVERETT: Course of Reading, p. 320.

[223] Dr. Johnson says, "English verbs are active, as I love; or neuter, as I languish. The neuters are formed like the actives. The passive voice is formed by joining the participle preterit to the substantive verb, as I am loved." He also observes, "Most verbs signifying action may likewise signify condition or habit, and become neuters; as, I love, I am in love; I strike, I am now striking."—Gram. with his Quarto Dict., p. 7.

[224] The doctrine here referred to, appears in both works in the very same words: to wit, "English Verbs are either Active, Passive, or Neuter. There are two sorts of Active Verbs, viz. active-transitive and active-intransitive Verbs."—British Gram., p. 153; Buchanan's, 56. Buchanan was in this case the copyist.

[225] "The distinction between verbs absolutely neuter, as to sleep, and verbs active intransitive, as to walk, though founded in NATURE and TRUTH, is of little use in grammar. Indeed it would rather perplex than assist the learner; for the difference between verbs active and [verbs] neuter, as transitive and intransitive, is easy and obvious; but the difference between verbs absolutely neuter and [those which are] intransitively active is not always clear. But however these latter may differ in nature, the construction of them both is the same; and grammar is not so much concerned with their real, as with their grammatical properties."—Lowth's Gram; p. 30. But are not "TRUTH, NATURE, and REALITY," worthy to be preferred to any instructions that contradict them? If they are, the good doctor and his worthy copyist have here made an ill choice. It is not only for the sake of these properties, that I retain a distinction which these grammarians, and others above named, reject; but for the sake of avoiding the untruth, confusion, and absurdity, into which one must fall by calling all active-intransitive verbs neuter. The distinction of active verbs, as being either transitive or intransitive, is also necessarily retained. But the suggestion, that this distinction is more "easy and obvious" than the other, is altogether an error. The really neuter verbs, being very few, occasion little or no difficulty. But very many active verbs, perhaps a large majority, are sometimes used intransitively; and of those which our lexicographers record as being always transitive, not a few are occasionally found without any object, either expressed or clearly suggested: as, "He convinces, but he does not elevate nor animate,"—Blair's Rhet., p. 242. "The child imitates, and commits to memory; whilst the riper age digests, and thinks independently."—Dr. Lieber, Lit. Conv., p. 313. Of examples like these, three different views maybe taken; and it is very questionable which is the right one: First, that these verbs are here intransitive, though they are not commonly so; Second, that they are transitive, and have objects understood; Third, that they are used improperly, because no determinate objects are given them. If we assume the second opinion or the last, the full or the correct expressions may be these: "He convinces the judgement, but he does not elevate the imagination, or animate the feelings."—"The child imitates others, and commits words to memory; whilst the riper age digests facts or truths, and thinks independently." These verbs are here transitive, but are they so above? Those grammarians who, supposing no other distinction important, make of verbs but two classes, transitive and intransitive, are still as much at variance, and as much at fault, as others, (and often more so,) when they come to draw the line of this distinction. To "require" an objective, to "govern" an objective, to "admit" an objective, and to "have" an objective, are criterions considerably different. Then it is questionable, whether infinitives, participles, or sentences, must or can have the effect of objectives. One author says, "If a verb has any objective case expressed, it is transitive: if it has none, it is intransitive. Verbs which appear transitive in their nature, may frequently be used intransitively."— Chandler's Old Gram., p. 32; his Common School Gram., p. 48. An other says, "A transitive verb asserts action which does or can, terminate on some object."—Frazee's Gram., p. 29. An other avers, "There are two classes of verbs perfectly distinct from each other, viz: Those which do, and those which do not, govern an objective case." And his definition is, "A Transitive Verb is one which requires an objective case after it."—Hart's E. Gram., p. 63. Both Frazee and Hart reckon the passive verb transitive! And the latter teaches, that, "Transitive verbs in English, are sometimes used without an objective case; as, The apple tastes sweet!"—Hart's Gram., p, 73.

[226] In the hands of some gentlemen, "the Principles of Latin Grammar," and "the Principles of English Grammar,"—are equally pliable, or changeable; and, what is very remarkable, a comparison of different editions will show, that the fundamental doctrines of a whole "Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek," may so change in a single lustrum, as to rest upon authorities altogether different. Dr. Bullions's grammars, a few years ago, like those of his great oracles, Adam, Murray, and Lennie, divided verbs into "three kinds, Active, Passive, and Neuter." Now they divide them into two only, "Transitive and Intransitive;" and absurdly aver, that "Verbs in the passive form are really transitive as in the active form."—Prin. of E. Gram., 1843, p. 200. Now, as if no verb could be plural, and no transitive act could be future, conditional, in progress, or left undone, they define thus: "A Transitive verb expresses an act done by one person or thing to another."—Ib., p. 29; Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 60; Latin Gram., 77. Now, the division which so lately as 1842 was pronounced by the Doctor to be "more useful than any other," and advantageously accordant with "most dictionaries of the English language," (see his Fourth Edition, p. 30,) is wholly rejected from this notable "Series." Now, the "vexed question" about "the classification of verbs," which, at some revision still later, drew from this author whole pages of weak arguments for his faulty changes, is complacently supposed to have been well settled in his favour! Of this matter, now, in 1849, he speaks thus: "The division of verbs into transitive and intransitive has been so generally adopted and approved by the best grammarians, that any discussion of the subject is now unnecessary."—Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 59.

[227] This late writer seems to have published his doctrine on this point as a novelty; and several teachers ignorantly received and admired it as such: I have briefly shown, in the Introduction to this work, how easily they were deceived. "By this, that Question may be resolv'd, whether every Verb not Passive governs always an Accusative, at least understood: 'Tis the Opinion of some very able GRAMMARIANS, but for our Parts we don't think it."—Grammar published by John Brightland, 7th Ed., London, 1746, p. 115.

[228] Upon this point, Richard Johnson cites and criticises Lily's system thus: "'A Verb Neuter endeth in o or m, and cannot take r to make him a Passive; as, Curro, I run; Sum, I am.'—Grammar, Eng. p. 13. This Definition, is founded upon the Notion abovementioned, viz. That none but Transitives are Verbs Active, which is contrary to the reason of Things, and the common sense of Mankind. And what can shock a Child more, of any Ingenuity, than to be told, That Ambuto and Curro are Verbs Neuter; that is, to speak according to the common Apprehensions of Mankind, that they signifie neither to do, nor suffer."—Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries, 8vo, London, 1706, p. 273.

[229] Murray says, "Mood or Mode is a particular form of the verb, showing the manner in which the being, action, or passion is represented."—Octavo Gram., p. 63. By many grammarians, the term Mode is preferred to Mood; but the latter is, for this use, the more distinctive, and by far the more common word. In some treatises on grammar, as well as in books of logic, certain parts of speech, as adjectives and adverbs, are called Modes, because they qualify or modify other terms. E.g., "Thus all the parts of speech are reducible to four; viz., Names, Verbs, Modes, Connectives."—Enclytica, or Universal Gram., p. 8. "Modes are naturally divided, by their attribution to names or verbs, into adnames and adverbs."—Ibid., p. 24. After making this application of the name modes, was it not improper for the learned author to call the moods also "modes?"

[230] "We have, in English, no genuine subjunctive mood, except the preterimperfect, if I were, if thou wert, &c. of the verb to be. [See Notes and Observations on the Third Example of Conjugation, in this chapter.] The phrase termed the subjunctive mood, is elliptical; shall, may, &c. being understood: as, 'Though hand (shall) join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished.' 'If it (may) be possible, live peaceably with all.' Scriptures."—Rev. W. Allen's Gram., p. 61. Such expressions as, "If thou do love, If he do love," appear to disprove this doctrine. [See Notes and Remarks on the Subjunctive of the First Example conjugated below.]

[231] "Mr. Murray has changed his opinion, as often as Laban changed Jacob's wages. In the edition we print from, we find shall and will used in each person of the first and second future tenses of the subjunctive, but he now states that in the second future tense, shalt, shall, should be used instead of wilt, will. Perhaps this is the only improvement he has made in his Grammar since 1796."—Rev. T. Smith's Edition of Lindley Murray's English Grammar, p. 67.

[232] Notwithstanding this expression, Murray did not teach, as do many modern grammarians, that inflected forms of the present tense, such as, "If he thinks so," "Unless he deceives me," "If thou lov'st me," are of the subjunctive mood; though, when he rejected his changeless forms of the other tenses of this mood, he improperly put as many indicatives in their places. With him, and his numerous followers, the ending determines the mood in one tense, while the conjunction controls it in the other five! In his syntax, he argues, "that in cases wherein contingency and futurity do not occur, it is not proper to turn the verb from its signification of present time, nor to vary [he means, or to forbear to change] its form or termination. [Fist] The verb would then be in the indicative mood, whatever conjunctions might attend it."—L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 208: 12mo, p. 167.

[233] Some grammarians—(among whom are Lowth, Dalton, Cobbett, and Cardell—) recognize only three tenses, or "times," of English verbs; namely, the present, the past, and the future. A few, like Latham and Child, denying all the compound tenses to be tenses, acknowledge only the first two, the present and the past; and these they will have to consist only of the simple or radical verb and the simple preterit. Some others, who acknowledge six tenses, such as are above described, have endeavoured of late to change the names of a majority of them; though with too little agreement among themselves, as may be seen by the following citations: (1.) "We have six tenses; three, the Present, Past, and Future, to represent time in a general way; and three, the Present Perfect, Past Perfect, and Future Perfect, to represent the precise time of finishing the action."—Perley's Gram., 1834, p. 25. (2.) "There are six tenses; the present, the past, the present-perfect, the past-perfect, the future, and the future-perfect."—Hiley's Gram., 1840, p. 28. (3.) "There are six tenses; the Present and Present Perfect, the Past and Past Perfect, and the Future and Future Perfect."—Farnum's Gram., 1842, p. 34. (4.) "The names of the tenses will then be, Present, Present Perfect; Past, Past Perfect; Future, Future Perfect. They are usually named as follows: Present, Perfect, Imperfect, Pluperfect, Future, Second Future."—N. Butler's Gram, 1845, p. 69. (5.) "We have six tenses;—the present, the past, the future, the present perfect, the past perfect, and the future perfect."—Wells's School Gram., 1846. p. 82. (6.) "The tenses in English are six—the Present, the Present-perfect, the Past, the Past-perfect, the Future, and the Future-perfect."—Bullions's Gram., 1849. p. 71. (7.) "Verbs have Six Tenses, called the Present, the Perfect-Present, the Past, the Perfect-Past, the Future, and the Perfect-Future."—Spencer's Gram., 1852, p. 53. (8.) "There are six tenses: the present, past, future, present perfect, past perfect, and future perfect."—Covell's Gram., 1853, p. 62. (9.) "The tenses are—the present, the present perfect; the past, the past perfect; the future, the future perfect."—S. S. Greene's Gram., 1853, p. 65. (10.) "There are six tenses; one present, and but one, three past, and two future." They are named thus: "The Present, the First Past, the Second Past, the Third Past, the First Future, the Second Future."—"For the sake of symmetry, to call two of them present, and two only past, while one only is present, and three are past tenses, is to sacrifice truth to beauty."—Pinneo's Gram., 1853, pp. 69 and 70. "The old names, imperfect, perfect, and pluperfect," which, in 1845, Butler justly admitted to be the usual names of the three past tenses. Dr. Pinneo, who dates his copy-right from 1850, most unwarrantably declares to be "now generally discarded!"—Analytical Gram., p. 76; Same Revised, p. 81. These terms, still predominant in use, he strangely supposes to have been suddenly superseded by others which are no better, if so good: imagining that the scheme which Perley or Hiley introduced, of "two present, two past, and two future tenses,"—a scheme which, he says, "has no foundation in truth, and is therefore to be rejected,"—had prepared the way for the above-cited innovation of his own, which merely presents the old ideas under new terms, or terms partly new, and wholly unlikely to prevail. William Ward, one of the ablest of our old grammarians, rejecting in 1765 the two terms imperfect and perfect, adopted others which resemble Pinneo's; but few, if any, have since named the tenses as he did, thus: "The Present, the First Preterite, the Second Preterite, the Pluperfect, the First Future, the Second Future."—Ward's Gram., p. 47.

[234] "The infinitive mood, as 'to shine,' may be called the name of the verb; it carries neither time nor affirmation; but simply expresses that attribute, action, or state of things, which is to be the subject of the other moods and tenses."—Blair's Lectures, p. 81. By the word "subject" the Doctor does not here mean the nominative to the other moods and tenses, but the material of them, or that which is formed into them.

[235] Some grammarians absurdly deny that persons and numbers are properties of verbs at all: not indeed because our verbs have so few inflections, or because these authors wish to discard the little distinction that remains; but because they have some fanciful conception, that these properties cannot pertain to a verb. Yet, when they come to their syntax, they all forget, that if a verb has no person and number, it cannot agree with a nominative in these respects. Thus KIRKHAM: "Person, strictly speaking, is a quality that belongs not to verbs, but to nouns and pronouns. We say, however, that the verb must agree with its nominative in person, as well as in number."—Gram. in Familiar Lect., p. 46. So J. W. WRIGHT: "In truth, number and person are not properties of verbs. Mr. Murray grants that, 'in philosophical strictness, both number and person might (say, may) be excluded from every verb, as they are, in fact, the properties of substantives, not a part of the essence of the verb.'"—Philosophical Gram., p. 68. This author's rule of syntax for verbs, makes them agree with their nominatives, not in person and number, but in termination, or else in nobody knows what: "A verb must vary its terminations, so as to agree with the nominative to which it is connected."—Ib., p. 168. But Murray's rule is, "A verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person:" and this doctrine is directly repugnant to that interpretation of his words above, by which these gentlemen have so egregiously misled themselves and others. Undoubtedly, both the numbers and the persons of all English verbs might be abolished, and the language would still be intelligible. But while any such distinctions remain, and the verb is actually modified to form them, they belong as properly to this part of speech as they can to any other. De Sacy says, "The distinction of number occurs in the verb;" and then adds, "yet this distinction does not properly belong to the verb, as it signifies nothing which can be numbered."—Fosdick's Version, p. 64. This deceptive reason is only a new form of the blunder which I have once exposed, of confounding the numbers in grammar with numbers in arithmetic. J. M. Putnam, after repeating what is above cited from Murray, adds: "The terms number and person, as applied to the verb are figurative. The properties which belong to one thing, for convenience' sake are ascribed to another."—Gram., p. 49. Kirkham imagines, if ten men build a house, or navigate a ship round the world, they perform just "ten actions," and no more. "Common sense teaches you," says he, "that there must be as many actions as there are actors; and that the verb when it has no form or ending to show it, is as strictly plural, as when it has. So, in the phrase, 'We walk,' the verb walk is [of the] first person, because it expresses the actions performed by the speakers. The verb, then, when correctly written, always agrees, in sense, with its nominative in number and person."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 47. It seems to me, that these authors do not very well know what persons or numbers, in grammar, are.

[236] John Despauter, whose ample Grammar of the Latin language appeared in its third edition in 1517, represents this practice as a corruption originating in false pride, and maintained by the wickedness of hungry flatterers. On the twentieth leaf of his Syntax, he says, "Videntur hodie Christiani superbiores, quam olim ethnici imperatores, qui dii haberi voluerunt; nam hi nunquam inviti audierunt pronomina tu, tibi, tuus. Quae si hodie alicui monachorum antistiti, aut decano, aut pontifici dicantur aut scribantur, videbitur ita loquens aut scribens blasphemasse, et anathemate dignus: nec tamen Abbas, aut pontifex, tam aegre feret, quam Malchi, aut famelici gnathones, his assistentes, et vociferantes, Sic loqueris, aut scribis, pontifici? Quintilianus et Donatus dicunt barbarismum, aut soloecismum esse, siquis uni dicat. Salvete." The learned Erasmus also ridiculed this practice, calling those who adopted it, "voscitatores," or youyouers.

[237] "By a perversion of language the pronoun you is almost invariably used for the second person singular, as well as plural; always, however, retaining the plural verb; as, 'My friend, you write a good hand.' Thou is confined to a solemn style, or [to] poetical compositions."—Chandler's Grammar, Edition of 1821, p. 41; Ed. of 1847, p. 66.

[238] In regard to the inflection of our verbs, William B. Fowle, who is something of an antiquarian in grammar, and who professes now to be "conservative" of the popular system, makes a threefold distinction of style, thus: "English verbs have three Styles[,] or Modes,[;] called [the] Familiar, [the] Solemn[,] and [the] Ancient. The familiar style, or mode, is that used in common conversation; as, you see, he fears. The solemn style, or mode, is that used in the Bible, and in prayer; as, Thou seest, he feareth. The ancient style, or mode, now little used, allows no change in the second and third person, [persons,] singular, of the verb, and generally follows the word if, though, lest, or whether; as, if thou see; though he fear; lest he be angry; whether he go or stay."—Fowle's Common School Grammar, Part Second, p. 44. Among his subsequent examples of the Solemn style, he gives the following: "Thou lovest, Thou lovedst, Thou art, Thou wast, Thou hast, Thou hadst, Thou doest or dost, Thou didst." And, as corresponding examples of the Ancient style, he has these forms: "Thou love, Thou loved, Thou or you be, Thou wert, Thou have, Thou had, Thou do, Thou did."—Ib., pp. 44-50. This distinction and this arrangement do not appear to me to be altogether warranted by facts. The necessary distinction of moods, this author rejects; confounding the Subjunctive with the Indicative, in order to furnish out this useless and fanciful contrast of his Solemn and Ancient styles.

[239] In that monstrous jumble and perversion of Murray's doctrines, entitled, "English Grammar on the Productive System, by Roswell C. Smith," you is everywhere preferred to thou, and the verbs are conjugated without the latter pronoun. At the close of his paradigms, however, the author inserts a few lines respecting "these obsolete conjugations," with the pronoun thou; for a further account of which, he refers the learner, with a sneer, to the common grammars in the schools. See the work, p. 79. He must needs be a remarkable grammarian, with whom Scripture, poetry, and prayer, are all "obsolete!" Again: "Thou in the singular is obsolete, except among the Society of Friends; and ye is an obsolete plural!"—Guy's School Gram., p. 25. In an other late grammar, professedly "constructed upon the basis of Murray's, by the Rev. Charles Adams, A. M., Principal of Newbury Seminary," the second person singular is everywhere superseded by the plural; the former being silently dropped from all his twenty pages of conjugations, without so much as a hint, or a saving clause, respecting it; and the latter, which is put in its stead, is falsely called singular. By his pupils, all forms of the verb that agree only with thou, will of course be conceived to be either obsolete or barbarous, and consequently ungrammatical. Whether or not the reverend gentleman makes any account of the Bible or of prayer, does not appear; he cites some poetry, in which there are examples that cannot be reconciled with his "System of English Grammar." Parkhurst, in his late "Grammar for Beginners," tells us that, "Such words as are used in the Bible, and not used in common books, are called obsolete!"—P. 146. Among these, he reckons all the distinctive forms of the second person singular, and all the "peculiarities" which "constitute what is commonly called the Solemn Style."—Ib., p. 148. Yet, with no great consistency, he adds: "This style is always used in prayer, and is frequently used in poetry."—Ibid. Joab Brace, Jnr., may be supposed to have the same notion of what is obsolete: for he too has perverted all Lennie's examples of the verb, as Smith and Adams did Murray's.

[240] Coar gives durst in the "Indicative mood," thus: "I durst, thou durst, he durst;" &c.—Coar's E. Gram., p. 115. But when he comes to wist, he does not know what the second person singular should be, and so he leaves it out: "I wist, ———, he wist; we wist, ye wist, they wist."—Coar's E. Gram., p. 116.

[241] Dr. Latham, who, oftener perhaps than any other modern writer, corrupts the grammar of our language by efforts to revive in it things really and deservedly obsolete, most strangely avers that "The words thou and thee are, except in the mouths of Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms, ye and you, have replaced them."—Hand-Book, p. 284. Ignoring also any current or "vital" process of forming English verbs in the second person singular, he gravely tells us that the old form, as "callest" (which is still the true form for the solemn style,) "is becoming obsolete."—Ib., p. 210. "In phrases like you are speaking, &c.," says he rightlier, "even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, the courtesy consists in treating one person as more than one, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered, you=thou is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural."—Ib., p. 163. If these things be so, the English Language owes much to the scrupulous conservatism of the Quakers; for, had their courtesy consented to the grammar of the fashionables, the singular number would now have had but two persons!

[242] For the substitution of you for thou, our grammarians assign various causes. That which is most commonly given in modern books, is certainly not the original one, because it concerns no other language than ours: "In order to avoid the unpleasant formality which accompanies the use of thou with a correspondent verb, its plural you, is usually adopted to familiar conversation; as, Charles, will you walk? instead of—wilt thou walk? You read too fast, instead of—thou readest too fast."—Jaudon's Gram., p. 33.

[243] This position, as may be seen above, I do not suppose it competent for any critic to maintain. The use of you for thou is no more "contrary to grammar," than the use of we for I; which, it seems, is grammatical enough for all editors, compilers, and crowned heads, if not for others. But both are figures of syntax; and, as such, they stand upon the same footing. Their only contrariety to grammar consists in this, that the words are not the literal representatives of the number for which they are put. But in what a posture does the grammarian place himself, who condemns, as bad English, that phraseology which he constantly and purposely uses? The author of the following remark, as well as all who have praised his work, ought immediately to adopt the style of the Friends, or Quakers: "The word thou, in grammatical construction, is preferable to you, in the second person singular: however, custom has familiarized the latter, and consequently made it more general, though BAD GRAMMAR. To say, 'You are a man.' is NOT GRAMMATICAL LANGUAGE; the word you having reference to a plural noun only. It should be, 'Thou art a man.'"—Wright's Philosoph. Gram., p. 55. This author, like Lindley Murray and many others, continually calls himself WE; and it is probable, that neither he, nor any one of his sixty reverend commenders, dares address any man otherwise than by the above-mentioned "BAD GRAMMAR!"

[244] "We are always given to cut our words short; and, with very few exceptions, you find people writing lov'd, mov'd, walk'd; instead of loved, moved, walked. They wish to make the pen correspond with the tongue. From lov'd, mov'd, walk'd, it is very easy to slide into lovt, movt, walkt. And this has been the case with regard to curst, dealt, dwelt, leapt, helpt, and many others in the last inserted list. It is just as proper to say jumpt, as it is to say leapt; and just as proper to say walkt as either; and thus we might go on till the orthography of the whole language were changed. When the love of contraction came to operate on such verbs as to burst and to light, it found such a clump of consonants already at the end of the words, that, it could add none. It could not enable the organs even of English speech to pronounce burstedst, lightedst. It, therefore, made really short work of it, and dropping the last syllable altogether, wrote, burst, light, [rather, lit] in the past time and passive participle."—Cobbett's English Gram., 169. How could the man who saw all this, insist on adding st for the second person, where not even the d of the past tense could he articulated? Am I to be called an innovator, because I do not like in conversation such new and unauthorized words as littest, leaptest, curstest; or a corrupter of the language, because I do not admire in poetry such unutterable monstrosities as, light'dst, leap'dst, curs'dst? The novelism, with the corruption too, is wholly theirs who stickle for these awkward forms.

[245] "You were, not you was, for you was seems to be as ungrammatical, as you hast would be. For the pronoun you being confessedly plural, its correspondent verb ought to be plural."—John Burn's Gram., 10th Ed., P. 72.

[246] Among grammarians, as well as among other writers, there is some diversity of usage concerning the personal inflections of verbs; while nearly all, nowadays, remove the chief occasion for any such diversity, by denying with a fashionable bigotry the possibility of any grammatical use of the pronoun thou in a familiar style. To illustrate this, I will cite Cooper and Wells—two modern authors who earnestly agree to account you and its verb literally singular, and thou altogether erroneous, in common discourse: except that Wells allows the phrase, "If thou art," for "Common style."—School Gram., p. 100.

1. Cooper, improperly referring all inflection of the verb to the grave or solemn style, says: "In the colloquial or familiar style, we observe no change. The same is the case in the plural number." He then proceeds thus: "In the second person of the present of the indicative, in the solemn style, the verb takes st or est; and in the third person th or eth, as: thou hast, thou lovest, thou teachest; he hath, he loveth, he goeth. In the colloquial or familiar style, the verb does not vary in the second person; and in the third person, it ends in s or es, as: he loves, he teaches, he does. The indefinite, [i. e. the preterit,] in the second person singular of the indicative, in the grave style, ends in est, as: thou taughtest, thou wentest. [Fist] But, in those verbs, where the sound of st will unite with the last syllable of the verb, the vowel is omitted, as: thou lovedst, thou heardst, thou didst."—Cooper's Murray, p. 60; Plain and Practical Gram., p. 59. This, the reader will see, is somewhat contradictory; for the colloquial style varies the verb by "s or es," and taught'st may be uttered without the e. As for "lovedst," I deny that any vowel "is omitted" from it; but possibly one may be, as lov'dst.

2. Wells's account of the same thing is this: "In the simple form of the present and past indicative, the second person singular of the solemn style ends regularly in st or est, as, thou seest, thou hearest, thou sawest, thou heardest; and the third person singular of the present, in s or es, as, he hears, he wishes, and also in th or eth, as, he saith, he loveth. In the simple form of the present indicative, the third person singular of the common or familiar style, ends in s or es; as, he sleeps; he rises. The first person singular of the solemn style, and the first and second persons singular of the common style, have the same form as the three persons plural."—Wells's School Grammar, 1st Ed. p. 83; 3d Ed. p. 86. This, too, is both defective and inconsistent. It does not tell when to add est, and when, st only. It does not show what the regular preterit, as freed or loved, should make with thou: whether freedest and lovedest, by assuming the syllable est; fre-edst and lov-edst, by increasing syllabically from assuming st only; or freedst and lov'dst, or lovedst, still to be uttered as monosyllables. It absurdly makes "s or es" a sign of two opposite styles. (See OBS. 9th, above.) And it does not except "I am, I was, If I am, If I was, If thou art, I am loved," and so forth, from requiring "the same form, [are or were,] as the three persons plural." This author prefers "heardest;" the other, "heardst," which I think better warranted:

"And heardst thou why he drew his blade? Heardst thou that shameful word and blow Brought Roderick's vengeance on his foe?"—Scott, L. L., C. v, st. 6.

[247] Better, as Wickliffe has it, "the day in which;" though, after nouns of time, the relative that is often used, like the Latin ablative quo or qua, as being equivalent to in which or on which.

[248] It is not a little strange, that some men, who never have seen or heard such words as their own rules would produce for the second person singular of many hundreds of our most common verbs, will nevertheless pertinaciously insist, that it is wrong to countenance in this matter any departure from the style of King James's Bible. One of the very rashest and wildest of modern innovators,—a critic who, but for the sake of those who still speak in this person and number, would gladly consign the pronoun thou, and all its attendant verbal forms, to utter oblivion,—thus treats this subject and me: "The Quakers, or Friends, however, use thou, and its attendant form of the asserter, in conversation. FOR THEIR BENEFIT, thou is given, in this work, in all the varieties of inflection; (in some of which it could not properly be used in an address to the Deity;) for THEY ERR MOST EGREGIOUSLY in the use of thou, with the form of the asserter which follows he or they, and are countenanced in their errors by G. Brown, who, instead of 'disburdening the language of 144,000 useless distinctions, increases their number just 144,000."—Oliver B. Peirce's Gram., p. 85 Among people of sense, converts are made by teaching, and reasoning, and proving; but this man's disciples must yield to the balderdash of a false speller, false quoter, and false assertor! This author says, that "dropt" is the past tense of "drop;" (p. 118;) let him prove, for example, that droptest is not a clumsy innovation, and that droppedst is not a formal archaism, and then tell of the egregious error of adopting neither of these forms in common conversation. The following, with its many common contractions, is the language of POPE; and I ask this, or any other opponent of my doctrine, TO SHOW HOW SUCH VERBS ARE RIGHTLY FORMED, either for poetry or for conversation, in the second person singular.

"It fled, I follow'd; now in hope, now pain; It stopt, I stopt; it mov'd, I mov'd again. At last it fix't,'twas on what plant it pleas'd, And where it fix'd, the beauteous bird I seiz'd." —Dunciad, B. IV, l. 427.

[249] The Rev. W. Allen, in his English Grammar, p. 132, says: "Yth and eth (from the Saxon laeth [sic—KTH]) were formerly, plural terminations; as, 'Manners makyth man.' William of Wykeham's motto. 'After long advisement, they taketh upon them to try the matter.' Stapleton's Translation of Bede. 'Doctrine and discourse maketh nature less importune.' Bacon." The use of eth as a plural termination of verbs, was evidently earlier than the use of en for the same purpose. Even the latter is utterly obsolete, and the former can scarcely have been English. The Anglo-Saxon verb lufian, or lufigean, to love, appears to have been inflected with the several pronouns thus: Ic lufige, Thu lufast, He lufath, We lufiath, Ge lufiath, Hi lufiath. The form in Old English was this: I love, Thou lovest, He loveth, We loven, Ye loven, They loven. Dr. Priestley remarks, (though in my opinion unadvisedly,) that, "Nouns of a plural form, but of a singular signification, require a singular construction; as, mathematicks is a useful study. This observation will likewise," says he, "in some measure, vindicate the grammatical propriety of the famous saying of William of Wykeham, Manners maketh man."—Priestley's Gram., p. 189. I know not what half-way vindication there can be, for any such construction. Manners and mathematics are not nouns of the singular number, and therefore both is and maketh are wrong. I judge it better English to say, "Mathematics are a useful study."—"Manners make the man." But perhaps both ideas may be still better expressed by a change of the nominative, thus: "The study of mathematics is useful."—"Behaviour makes the man."