(3.) "The preposition TO before a verb is the sign of the Infinitive."—Weld's E. Gram., 2d Ed., p. 74. "The preposition is a part of speech used to connect words, and show their relation."—Ib., p. 42. "The perfect infinitive is formed of the perfect participle and the auxiliary HAVE preceded by the preposition TO."—Ib., p. 96. "The infinitive mode follows a verb, noun, or adjective."—Ib., pp. 75 and 166. "A verb in the Infinitive may follow: 1. Verbs or participles; 2. Nouns or pronouns; 3. Adjectives; 4. As or than; 5. Adverbs; 6. Prepositions; 7. The Infinitive is often used independently; 8. The Infinitive mode is often used in the office of a verbal noun, as the nominative case to the verb, and as the objective case after verbs and prepositions."—Ib., p. 167. These last two counts are absurdly included among what "the Infinitive may follow;" and is it not rather queer, that this mood should be found to "follow" every thing else, and not "the preposition TO," which comes "before" it, and by which it is "preceded?" This author adopts also the following absurd and needless rule: "The Infinitive mode has an objective case before it when [the word] THAT is omitted: as, I believe the sun to be the centre of the solar system; I know him to be a man of veracity."—Ib., p. 167; Abridged Ed., 124. (See Obs. 10th on Rule 2d, above.) "Sun" is here governed by "believe;" and "him," by "know;" and "be," in both instances, by "the preposition TO:" for this particle is not only "the sign of the Infinitive," but its governing word, answering well to the definition of a preposition above cited from Weld.

[411] "The infinitive is sometimes governed by a preposition; as, 'The shipmen were about to flee.'"—Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 149; 3d Ed., p. 158. Wells has altered this, and for "preposition" put "adverb."—Ed. of 1850, p. 163.

[412] Some grammatists, being predetermined that no preposition shall control the infinitive, avoid the conclusion by absurdly calling FOR, a conjunction; ABOUT, an adverb; and TO—no matter what—but generally, nothing. Thus: "The conjunction FOR, is inelegantly used before verbs in the infinitive mood; as, 'He came for to study Latin.'"—Greenleaf's Gram., p. 38. "The infinitive mood is sometimes governed by conjunctions or adverbs; as, 'An object so high as to be invisible;' 'The army is about to march.'"—Kirkham's Gram., p. 188. This is a note to that extra rule which Kirkham proposes for our use, "if we reject the idea of government, as applied to the verb in this mood!"—Ib.

[413] After the word "fare," Murray put a semicolon, which shows that he misunderstood the mood of the verb "hear." It is not always necessary to repeat the particle to, when two or more infinitives are connected; and this fact is an other good argument against calling the preposition to "a part of the verb." But in this example, and some others here exhibited, the repetition is requisite.—G. B.

[414] "The Infinitive Mood is not confined to a trunk or nominative, and is always preceded by to, expressed or implied."—S. Barrett's Gram., 1854, p. 43.

[415] Lindley Murray, and several of his pretended improvers, say, "The infinitive sometimes follows the word AS: thus, 'An object so high as to be invisible.' The infinitive occasionally follows THAN after a comparison; as, 'He desired nothing more than to know his own imperfections.'"—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 184; Fisk's, 125; Alger's, 63; Merchant's, 92. See this second example in Weld's Gram., p. 167; Abridg., 124. Merchant, not relishing the latter example, changes it thus: "I wish nothing more, than to know his fate." He puts a comma after more, and probably means, "I wish nothing else than to know his fate." So does Fisk, in the other version: and probably means, "He desired nothing else than to know his own imperfections." But Murray, Alger, and Weld, accord in punctuation, and their meaning seems rather to be, "He desired nothing more heartily than [he desired] to know his own imperfections." And so is this or a similar text interpreted by both Ingersoll and Weld, who suppose this infinitive to be "governed by another verb, understood: as, 'He desired nothing more than to see his friends;' that is, 'than he desired to see,' &c."—Ingersoll's Gram., p. 244; Weld's Abridged, 124. But obvious as is the ambiguity of this fictitious example, in all its forms, not one of these five critics perceived the fault at all. Again, in their remark above cited, Ingersoll, Fisk, and Merchant, put a comma before the preposition "after," and thus make the phrase, "after a comparison," describe the place of the infinitive. But Murray and Alger probably meant that this phrase should denote the place of the conjunction "than." The great "Compiler" seems to me to have misused the phrase "a comparison," for, "an adjective or adverb of the comparative degree;" and the rest, I suppose, have blindly copied him, without thinking or knowing what he ought to have said, or meant to say. Either this, or a worse error, is here apparent. Five learned grammarians severally represent either "than" or "the infinitive," as being AFTER "a comparison;" of which one is the copula, and the other but the beginning of the latter term! Palpable as is the absurdity, no one of the five perceives it! And, besides, no one of them says any thing about the government of this infinitive, except Ingersoll, and he supplies a verb. "Than and as," says Greenleaf, "sometimes appear to govern the infinitive mood; as, 'Nothing makes a man suspect much more, than to know little;' 'An object so high as to be invisible."—Gram. Simp., p. 38. Here is an other fictitious and ambiguous example, in which the phrase, "to know little," is the subject of makes understood. Nixon supposes the infinitive phrase after as to be always the subject of a finite verb understood after it; as, "An object so high as to be invisible is or, implies." See English Parser, p. 100.

[416] Dr. Crombie, after copying the substance of Campbell's second Canon, that, "In doubtful cases analogy should be regarded," remarks: "For the same reason, 'it needs' and 'he dares,' are better than 'he need' and 'he dare.'"—On Etym. and Synt., p. 326. Dr. Campbell's language is somewhat stronger: "In the verbs to dare and to need, many say, in the third person present singular, dare and need, as 'he need not go: he dare not do it.' Others say, dares and needs. As the first usage is exceedingly irregular, hardly any thing less than uniform practice could authorize it."—Philosophy of Rhet., p. 175. Dare for dares I suppose to be wrong; but if need is an auxiliary of the potential mood, to use it without inflection, is neither "irregular," nor at all inconsistent with the foregoing canon. But the former critic notices these verbs a second time, thus: "'He dare not,' 'he need not,' may be justly pronounced solecisms, for 'he dares,' 'he needs.'"—Crombie, on Etym. and Synt., p. 378. He also says, "The verbs bid, dare, need, make, see, hear, feel, let, are not followed by the sign of the infinitive."—Ib., p. 277. And yet he writes thus: "These are truths, of which, I am persuaded, the author, to whom I allude, needs not to be reminded."—Ib., p. 123. So Dr. Bullions declares against need in the singular, by putting down the following example as bad English: "He need not be in so much haste."—Bullions's E. Gram., p. 134. Yet he himself writes thus: "A name more appropriate than the term neuter, need not be desired."—Ib., p. 196. A school-boy may see the inconsistency of this.

[417] Some modern grammarians will have it, that a participle governed by a preposition is a "participial noun;" and yet, when they come to parse an adverb or an objective following, their "noun" becomes a "participle" again, and not a "noun." To allow words thus to dodge from one class to an other, is not only unphilosophical, but ridiculously absurd. Among those who thus treat this construction of the participle, the chief, I think, are Butler, Hurt, Weld, Wells, and S. S. Greene.

[418] Dr. Blair, to whom Murray ought to have acknowledged himself indebted for this sentence, introduced a noun, to which, in his work, this infinitive and these participles refer: thus, "It is disagreeable for the mind to be left pausing on a word which does not, by itself, produce any idea."—Blair's Rhetoric, p. 118. See Obs. 10th and 11th on Rule 14th.

[419] The perfect contrast between from and to, when the former governs the participle and the latter the infinitive, is an other proof that this to is the common preposition to. For example, "These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth."—Zech., vi, 5. Now if this were rendered "which go forth to stand," &c., it is plain that these prepositions would express quite opposite relations. Yet, probably from some obscurity in the original, the Greek version has been made to mean, "going forth to stand;" and the Latin, "which go forth, that they may stand;" while the French text conveys nearly the same sense as ours,—"which go forth from the place where they stood."

[420] Cannot, with a verb of avoiding, or with the negative but, is equivalent to must. Such examples may therefore be varied thus: "I cannot but mention:" i.e., "I must mention."—"I cannot help exhorting him to assume courage."—Knox. That is, "I cannot but exhort him."

[421] See the same thing in Kirkham's Gram. p. 189; in Ingersoll's, p. 200; in Smith's New Grammar, p. 162; and in other modifications and mutilations of Murray's work. Kirkham, in an other place, adopts the doctrine, that, "Participles frequently govern nouns and pronouns in the possessive case; as, 'In case of his majesty's dying without issue, &c.; Upon God's having ended all his works, &c.; I remember its being reckoned a great exploit; At my coming in he said, &c."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 181. None of these examples are written according to my notion of elegance, or of accuracy. Better: "In case his Majesty die without issue."—"God having ended all his works."—"I remember it was reckoned a great exploit."—"At my entrance, he said," &c.

[422] We have seen that Priestley's doctrine, as well as Lowth's, is, that when a participle is taken substantively, "it ought not to govern another word;" and, for the same reason, it ought not to have an adverb relating to it. But many of our modern grammarians disregard these principles, and do not restrict their "participial nouns" to the construction of nouns, in either of these respects. For example: Because one may say, "To read superficially, is useless," Barnard supposes it right to say, "Reading superficially is useless." "But the participle," says he, "will also take the adjective; as, 'Superficial reading is useless.'"—Analytic Gram., p. 212. In my opinion, this last construction ought to be preferred; and the second, which is both irregular and unnecessary, rejected. Again, this author says: "We have laid it down as a rule, that the possessive case belongs, like an adjective, to a noun. What shall be said of the following? 'Since the days of Samson, there has been no instance of a man's accomplishing a task so stupendous.' The entire clause following man's, is taken as a noun. 'Of a man's success in a task so stupendous.' would present no difficulty. A part of a sentence, or even a single participle, thus often stands for a noun. 'My going will depend on my father's giving his consent,' or 'on my father's consenting.' A participle thus used as a noun, may be called a PARTICIPIAL NOUN."—Ib., p. 131. I dislike this doctrine also. In the first example, man may well be made the leading word in sense; and, as such, it must be in the objective case; thus: "There has been no instance of a man accomplishing a task so stupendous." It is also proper to say. "My going will depend on my father's consenting," or, "on my father's consent." But an action possessed by the agent, ought not to be transitive. If, therefore, you make this the leading idea, insert of: thus, "There has been no instance of a man's accomplishing of a task so stupendous." "My going will depend on my father's giving of his consent."—"My brother's acquiring [of] the French language will be a useful preparation for his travels."—Barnard's Gram., p. 227. If participial nouns retain the power of participles, why is it wrong to say, "A superficial reading books is useless?" Again, Barnard approves of the question, "What do you think of my horse's running to-day?" and adds, "Between this form of expression and the following, 'What do you think of my horse running to-day?' it is sometimes said, that we should make a distinction; because the former implies that the horse had actually run, and the latter, that it is in contemplation to have him do so. The difference of meaning certainly exists; but it would seem more judicious to treat the latter as an improper mode of speaking. What can be more uncouth than to say, 'What do you think of me going to Niagara?' We should say my going, notwithstanding the ambiguity. We ought, therefore, to introduce something explanatory; as, 'What do you think of the propriety of my going to Niagara?"—Analytic Gram., p. 227. The propriety of a past action is as proper a subject of remark as that of a future one; the explanatory phrase here introduced has therefore nothing to do with Priestley's distinction, or with the alleged ambiguity. Nor does the uncouthness of an objective pronoun with the leading word in sense improperly taken as an adjunct, prove that a participle may properly take to itself a possessive adjunct, and still retain the active nature of a participle.

[423] The following is an example, but it is not very intelligible, nor would it be at all amended, if the pronoun were put in the possessive case: "I sympathize with my sable brethren, when I hear of them being spared even one lash of the cart-whip."—REV. DR. THOMPSON: Garrison, on Colonization, p. 80. And this is an other, in which the possessive pronoun would not be better: "But, if the slaves wish, to return to slavery, let them do so; not an abolitionist will turn out to stop them going back."—Antislavery Reporter, Vol. IV, p. 223. Yet it might be more accurate to say—"to stop them from going back." In the following example from the pen of Priestley, the objective is correctly used with as, where some would be apt to adopt the possessive: "It gives us an idea of him, as being the only person to whom it can be applied."—Priestley's Gram., p. 151. Is not this better English than to say, "of his being the only person?" The following is from the pen of a good scholar: "This made me remember the discourse we had together, at my house, about me drawing constitutions, not as proposals, but as if fixed to the hand."—WILLIAM PENN: Letter to Algernon Sidney, Oct. 13th, 1681. Here, if me is objectionable, my without of would be no less so. It might be better grammar to say, "about my drawing of constitutions."

[424] Sometimes the passive form is adopted, when there is no real need of it, and when perhaps the active would be better, because it is simpler; as, "Those portions of the grammar are worth the trouble of being committed to memory."—Dr. Barrow's Essays, p. 109. Better, perhaps:—"worth the trouble of committing to memory:" or,—"worth the trouble committing them to memory." Again: "What is worth being uttered at all, is worth being spoken in a proper manner."—Kirkham's Elocution, p. 68. Better, perhaps: "What is worth uttering at all, is worth uttering in a proper manner."—G. Brown.

[425] "RULE.—When the participle expresses something of which the noun following is the DOER, it should have the article and preposition; as, 'It was said in the hearing of the witness.' When it expresses something of which the noun following is not the doer, but the OBJECT, both should be omitted; as, 'The court spent some time in hearing the witness.'"—BULLIONS, Prin. of E. Gram., p. 108; Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 181.

[426] This doctrine is far from being true. See Obs. 12th, in this series, above.—G. B.

[427] "Dr. Webster considers the use of then and above as ADNOUNS, [i. e., adjectives,] to be 'well authorized and very convenient;' as, the then ministry; the above remarks."—Felch's Comp. Gram., p. 108. Dr. Webster's remark is in the following words: "Then and above are often used as ATTRIBUTES: [i. e., adjectives; as,] the then ministry; the above remarks; nor would I prescribe this use. It is well authorized and very convenient."—Philos. Gram., p. 245; Improved Gram., p. 176. Of this use of then, Dr. Crombie has expressed a very different opinion: "Here then," says he, "the adverb equivalent to at that time, is solecistically employed as an adjective, agreeing with ministry. This error seems to gain ground; it should therefore be vigilantly opposed, and carefully avoided."—On Etym. and Synt., p. 405.

[428] W. Allen supposes, "An adverb sometimes qualifies a whole sentence: as, Unfortunately for the lovers of antiquity, no remains of Grecian paintings have been preserved."—Elements of Eng. Gram., p. 173. But this example may be resolved thus: "It happens unfortunately for the lovers of antiquity, that no remains of Grecian paintings have been preserved."

[429] This assertion of Churchill's is very far from the truth. I am confident that the latter construction occurs, even among reputable authors, ten times as often as the former can be found in any English books.—G. BROWN.

[430] Should not the Doctor have said, "are there more," since "more than one" must needs be plural? See Obs. 10th on Rule 17th.

[431] This degree of truth is impossible, and therefore not justly supposable. We have also a late American grammarian who gives a similar interpretation: "'Though never so justly deserving of it.' Comber. Never is here an emphatic adverb; as if it were said, so justly as was never. Though well authorized, it is disapproved by most grammarians of the present day; and the word ever is used instead of never."—Felch's Comp. Gram., p. 107. The text here cited is not necessarily bad English as it stands; but, if the commenter has not mistaken its meaning, as well as its construction, it ought certainly to be, "Though everso justly deserving of it."—"So justly as was never," is a positive degree that is not imaginable; and what is this but an absurdity?

[432] Since this remark was written, I have read an other grammar, (that of the "Rev. Charles Adams,") in which the author sets down among "the more frequent improprieties committed, in conversation, 'Ary one' for either, and 'nary one' for neither."—Adams's System of Gram., p. 116. Eli Gilbert too betrays the same ignorance. Among his "Improper Pronunciations" he puts down "Nary" and "Ary" and for "Corrections" of them, gives "neither" and "either."—Gilbert's Catechetical Gram., p. 128. But these latter terms, either and neither, are applicable only to one of two things, and cannot be used where many are spoken of; as,

"Stealing her soul with many vows of faith, And ne'er a true one."—Shakspeare.

What sense would there be in expounding this to mean, "And neither a true one?" So some men both write and interpret their mother tongue erroneously through ignorance. But these authors condemn the errors which they here falsely suppose to be common. What is yet more strange, no less a critic than Prof. William C. Fowler, has lately exhibited, without disapprobation, one of these literary blunders, with sundry localisms, (often descending to slang,) which, he says, are mentioned by "Mr. Bartlett, in his valuable dictionary [Dictionary] of Americanisms." The brief example, which may doubtless be understood to speak for both phrases and both authors, is this: "ARY = either."—Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, N. Y., 1850, p. 92.

[433] The conjunction that, at the head of a sentence or clause, enables us to assume the whole preposition as one thing; as, "All arguments whatever are directed to prove one or other of these three things: that something is true; that it is morally right or fit; or that it is profitable and good."—Blair's Rhet., p. 318. Here each that may be parsed as connecting its own clause to the first clause in the sentence; or, to the word things with which the three clauses are in a sort of apposition. If we conceive it to have no such connecting power, we must make this too an exception.

[434] "Note. Then and than are distinct Particles, but use hath made the using of then for than after a Comparative Degree at least passable. See Butler's Eng. Gram. Index."—Walker's Eng. Particles, Tenth Ed., 1691, p. 333.

[435] "When the relative who follows the preposition than, it must be used as in the accusative case."—Bucke's Gram., p. 93. Dr. Priestley seems to have imagined the word than to be always a preposition; for he contends against the common doctrine and practice respecting the case after it: "It is, likewise, said, that the nominative case ought to follow the preposition than; because the verb to be is understood after it; As, You are taller than he, and not taller than him; because at full length, it would be, You are taller than he is; but since it is allowed, that the oblique case should follow prepositions; and since the comparative degree of an adjective, and the particle than have, certainly, between them, the force of a preposition, expressing the relation of one word to another, they ought to require the oblique case of the pronoun following."—Priestley's Gram., p. 105. If than were a preposition, this reasoning would certainly be right; but the Doctor begs the question, by assuming that it is a preposition. William Ward, an other noted grammarian of the same age, supposes that, "ME sapientior es, may be translated, Thou art wiser THAN ME." He also, in the same place, avers, that, "The best English Writers have considered than as a Sign of an oblique Case; as, 'She suffers more THAN ME.' Swift, i.e. more than I suffer.

'Thou art a Girl as much brighter THAN HER, As he was a Poet sublimer THAN ME.' Prior.

i.e. Thou art a Girl as much brighter than she was, as he was a Poet sublimer than I am."—Ward's Practical Gram., p. 112. These examples of the objective case after than, were justly regarded by Lowth as bad English. The construction, however, has a modern advocate in S. W. Clark, who will have the conjunctions as, but, save, saving, and than, as well as the adjectives like, unlike, near, next, nigh, and opposite, to be prepositions. "After a Comparative the Preposition than is commonly used. Example—Grammar is more interesting than all my other studies."—Clark's Practical Gram., p. 178. "As, like, than, &c., indicate a relation of comparison. Example 'Thou hast been wiser all the while than me.' Southey's Letters."—Ib., p. 96. Here correct usage undoubtedly requires I, and not me. Such at least is my opinion.

[436] In respect to the case, the phrase than who is similar to than he, than they, &c., as has been observed by many grammarians; but, since than is a conjunction, and who or whom is a relative, it is doubtful whether it can be strictly proper to set two such connectives together, be the case of the latter which it may. See Note 5th, in the present chapter, below.

[437] After else or other, the preposition besides is sometimes used; and, when it recalls an idea previously suggested, it appears to be as good as than, or better: as, "Other words, besides the preceding, may begin with capitals."—Murray's Gram., Vol. i. p. 285. Or perhaps this preposition may be proper, whenever else or other denotes what is additional to the object of contrast, and not exclusive of it; as, "When we speak of any other quantity besides bare numbers."—Tooke's Diversions, Vol. i, p. 215. "Because he had no other father besides God."—Milton, on Christianity, p. 109. Though we sometimes express an addition by more than, the following example appears to me to be bad English, and its interpretation still worse: "'The secret was communicated to more men than him.' That is, (when the ellipsis is duly supplied,) 'The secret was communicated to more persons than to him.'"—Murray's Key, 12mo, p. 61; his Octavo Gram., p. 215; Ingersoll's Gram., 252. Say rather,—"to other men besides him." Nor, again, does the following construction appear to be right: "Now shew me another Popish rhymester but he."—DENNIS: Notes to the Dunciad, B. ii, l. 268. Say rather, "Now show me an other popish rhymester besides him." Or thus: "Now show me any popish rhymester except him." This too is questionable: "Now pain must here be intended to signify something else besides warning."—Wayland's Moral Science, p. 121. If "warning" was here intended to be included with "something else," the expression is right; if not, besides should be than. Again: "There is seldom any other cardinal in Poland but him."—Life of Charles XII. Here "but him" should be either "besides him," or "than he;" for but never rightly governs the objective case, nor is it proper after other. "Many more examples, besides the foregoing, might have been adduced."—Nesbit's English Parsing, p. xv. Here, in fact, no comparison is expressed; and therefore it is questionable, whether the word "more" is allowably used. Like else and other, when construed with besides, it signifies additional; and, as this idea is implied in besides, any one of these adjectives going before is really pleonastic. In the sense above noticed, the word beside is sometimes written in stead of besides, though not very often; as, "There are other things which pass in the mind of man, beside ideas."—Sheridan's Elocution, p. 136.

[438] A few of the examples under this head might be corrected equally well by some preceding note of a more specific character; for a general note against the improper omission of prepositions, of course includes those principles of grammar by which any particular prepositions are to be inserted. So the examples of error which were given in the tenth chapter of Etymology, might nearly all of them have been placed under the first note in this tenth chapter of Syntax. But it was thought best to illustrate every part of this volume, by some examples of false grammar, out of the infinite number and variety with which our literature abounds.

[439] "The Rev. Joab Goldsmith Cooper, A. M.," was the author of two English grammars, as well as of what he called "A New and Improved Latin Grammar," with "An Edition of the Works of Virgil, &c.," all published in Philadelphia. His first grammar, dated 1828, is entitled, "An Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar, and Exercises." But it is no more an abridgement of Murray's work, than of mine; he having chosen to steal from the text of my Institutes, or supply matter of his own, about as often as to copy Murray. His second is the Latin Grammar. His third, which is entitled, "A Plain and Practical English Grammar," and dated 1831, is a book very different from the first, but equally inaccurate and worthless. In this book, the syntax of interjections stands thus: "RULE 21. The interjections O, oh and ah are followed by the objective case of a noun or pronoun, as: 'O me! ah me! oh me!' In the second person, they are a mark or sign of an address, made to a person or thing, as: O thou persecutor! Oh, ye hypocrites! O virtue, how amiable thou art!"—Page 157. The inaccuracy of all this can scarcely be exceeded.

[440] "Oh is used to express the emotion of pain, sorrow, or surprise. O is used to express wishing, exclamation, or a direct address to a person."—Lennie's Gram., 12th Ed., p. 110. Of this distinction our grammarians in general seem to have no conception; and, in fact, it is so often disregarded by other authors, that the propriety of it may be disputed. Since O and oh are pronounced alike, or very nearly so, if there is no difference in their application, they are only different modes of writing the same word, and one or the other of them is useless. If there is a real difference, as I suppose there is, it ought to be better observed; and O me! and oh ye! which I believe are found only in grammars, should be regarded as bad English. Both O and oh, as well as ah, were used in Latin by Terence, who was reckoned an elegant writer; and his manner of applying them favours this distinction: and so do our own dictionaries, though Johnson and Walker do not draw it clearly, for oh is as much an "exclamation" as O. In the works of Virgil, Ovid, and Horace, we find O or o used frequently, but nowhere oh. Yet this is no evidence of their sameness, or of the uselessness of the latter; but rather of their difference, and of the impropriety of confounding them. O, oh, ho, and ah, are French words as well as English. Boyer, in his Quarto Dictionary, confounds them all; translating "O!" only by "Oh!" "OH! ou HO!" by "Ho! Oh!" and "AH!" by "Oh! alas! well-a-day! ough! A! ah! hah! ho!" He would have done better to have made each one explain itself; and especially, not to have set down "ough!" and "A!" as English words which correspond to the French ah!

[441] This silence is sufficiently accounted for by Murray's; of whose work, most of the authors who have any such rule, are either piddling modifiers or servile copyists. And Murray's silence on these matters, is in part attributable to the fact, that when he wrote his remark, his system of grammar denied that nouns have any first person, or any objective case. Of course he supposed that all nouns that were uttered after interjections, whether they were of the second person or of the third, were in the nominative case; for he gave to nouns two cases only, the nominative and the possessive. And when he afterwards admitted the objective case of nouns, he did not alter his remark, but left all his pupils ignorant of the case of any noun that is used in exclamation or invocation. In his doctrine of two cases, he followed Dr. Ash: from whom also he copied the rule which I am criticising: "The Interjections, O, Oh, and Ah, require the accusative case of a pronoun in the first Person: as, O me, Oh me, Ah me: But the Nominative in the second: as, O thou, O ye."—Ash's Gram., p. 60. Or perhaps he had Bicknell's book, which was later: "The interjections O, oh, and ah, require the accusative case of a pronoun in the first person after them; as, O, me! Oh, me! Ah, me! But the nominative case in the second person; as, O, thou that rulest! O, ye rulers of this land!"—The Grammatical Wreath, Part I, p. 105.

[442] See 2 Sam., xix, 4; also xviii, 33. Peirce has many times misquoted this text, or some part of it; and, what is remarkable, he nowhere agrees either with himself or with the Bible! "O! Absalom! my son!"—Gram., p. 283. "O Absalom! my son, my son! would to God I had died for thee."—Ib., p. 304. Pinneo also misquotes and perverts a part of it, thus: "Oh, Absalom! my son"—Primary Gram., Revised Ed., p. 57.

[443] Of this example, Professor Bullions says, "This will be allowed to be a correct English sentence, complete in itself, and requiring nothing to be supplied. The phrase, 'being an expert dancer,' is the subject of the verb 'does entitle;' but the word 'dancer' in that phrase is neither the subject of any verb, nor is governed by any word in the sentence."—Eng. Gram., p. 52. It is because this word cannot have any regular construction after the participle when the possessive case precedes, that I deny his first proposition, and declare the sentence not "to be correct English." But the Professor at length reasons himself into the notion, that this indeterminate "predicate," as he erroneously calls it, "is properly in the objective case, and in parsing, may correctly be called the objective indefinite;" of which case, he says, "The following are also examples: 'He had the honour of being a director for life.' 'By being a diligent student, he soon acquired eminence in his profession.'"—Ib., p. 83. But "director" and "student" are here manifestly in the nominative case: each agreeing with the pronoun he, which denotes the same person. In the latter sentence, there is a very obvious transposition of the first five words.

[444] Faulty as this example is, Dr. Blair says of it: "Nothing can be more elegant, or more finely turned, than this sentence. It is neat, clear, and musical. We could hardly alter one word, or disarrange one member, without spoiling it. Few sentences are to be found, more finished, or more happy."—Lecture XX, p. 201. See the six corrections suggested in my Key, and judge whether or not they spoil the sentence.—G. B.

[445] This Note, as well as all the others, will by-and-by be amply illustrated by citations from authors of sufficient repute to give it some value as a grammatical principle: but one cannot hope such language as is, in reality, incorrigibly bad, will always appear so to the generality of readers. Tastes, habits, principles, judgements, differ; and, where confidence is gained, many utterances are well received, that are neither well considered nor well understood. When a professed critic utters what is incorrect beyond amendment, the fault is the more noteworthy, as his professions are louder, or his standing is more eminent. In a recent preface, deliberately composed for a very comprehensive work on "English Grammar," and designed to allure both young and old to "a thorough and extensive acquaintance with their mother tongue,"—in the studied preface of a learned writer, who has aimed "to furnish not only a text-book for the higher institutions, but also a reference-book for teachers, which may give breadth and exactness to their views,"—I find a paragraph of which the following is a part: "Unless men, at least occasionally, bestow their attention upon the science and the laws of the language, they are in some danger, amid the excitements of professional life, of losing the delicacy of their taste and giving sanction to vulgarisms, or to what is worse. On this point, listen to the recent declarations of two leading men in the Senate of the United States, both of whom understand the use of the English language in its power: 'In truth, I must say that, in my opinion, the vernacular tongue of the country has become greatly vitiated, depraved, and corrupted by the style of our Congressional debates.' And the other, in courteous response remarked, 'There is such a thing as an English and a parliamentary vocabulary, and I have never heard a worse, when circumstances called it out, on this side [of] Billingsgate!'"—Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo. 1850, Pref., p. iv.

Now of these "two leading men," the former was Daniel Webster, who, in a senatorial speech, in the spring of 1850, made such a remark concerning the style of oratory used in Congress. But who replied, or what idea the "courteous response," as here given, can be said to convey, I do not know. The language seems to me both unintelligible and solecistical; and, therefore, but a fair sample of the Incorrigible. Some intelligent persons, whom I have asked to interpret it, think, as Webster had accused our Congress of corrupting the English language, the respondent meant to accuse the British Parliament of doing the same thing in a greater degree,—of descending yet lower into the vileness of slang. But this is hardly a probable conjecture. Webster might be right in acknowledging a very depraving abuse of the tongue in the two Houses of Congress; but could it be "courteous," or proper, for the answerer to jump the Atlantic, and pounce upon the English Lords and Commons, as a set of worse corrupters?

The gentleman begins with saying, "There is such a thing"—as if he meant to describe some one thing; and proceeds with saying, "as an English and a parliamentary vocabulary," in which phrase, by repeating the article, he speaks of two "things"—two vocabularies; then goes on, "and I have never heard a worse!" A worse what? Does he mean "a worse vocabulary?" If so, what sense has "vocabulary?" And, again, "a worse" than what? Where and what is this "thing" which is so bad that the leading Senator has "never heard a worse?" Is it some "vocabulary" both "English and parliamentary?" If so, whose? If not, what else is it? Lest the wisdom of this oraculous "declaration" be lost to the public through the defects of its syntax,—and lest more than one rhetorical critic seem hereby "in some danger" of "giving sanction to" nonsense,—it may be well for Professor Fowler, in his next edition, to present some elucidation of this short but remarkable passage, which he values so highly!

An other example, in several respects still more remarkable,—a shorter one, into which an equally successful professor of grammar has condensed a much greater number and variety of faults,—is seen in the following citation: "The verb is so called, because it means word; and as there can be no sentence without it, it is called, emphatically, the word."—Pinneo's Analytical Gram., p. 14. This sentence, in which, perhaps, most readers will discover no error, has in fact faults of so many different kinds, that a critic must pause to determine under which of more than half a dozen different heads of false syntax it might most fitly be presented for correction or criticism. (1.) It might be set down under my Note 5th to Rule 10th; for, in one or two instances out of the three, if not in all, the pronoun "it" gives not the same idea as its antecedent. The faults coming under this head might be obviated by three changes, made thus: "The verb is so called, because verb means word; and, as there can be no sentence without a verb, this part of speech is called, emphatically, the word." Cobbett wisely says, "Never put an it upon paper without thinking well of what you are about."—E. Gram., 196. But (2.) the erroneous text, and this partial correction of it too, might be put under my Critical Note 5th, among Falsities; for, in either form, each member affirms what is manifestly untrue. The term "word" has many meanings; but no usage ever makes it, "emphatically" or otherwise, a name for one of the classes called "parts of speech;" nor is there nowadays any current usage in which "verb means word." (3.) This text might be put under Critical Note 6th, among Absurdities; for whoever will read it, as in fairness he should, taking the pronoun "it" in the exact sense of its antecedent "the verb," will see that the import of each part is absurd—the whole, a two-fold absurdity. (4.) It might be put under Critical Note 7th, among Self-Contradictions; for, to teach at once that "the verb is so called," and "is called, emphatically," otherwise,—namely, "the word,"—is, to contradict one's self. (5.) It might be set down under Critical Note 9th, among examples of Words Needless; for the author's question is, "Why is the verb so called?" and this may be much better answered in fewer words, thus: "THE VERB is so called, because in French it is called le verbe and in Latin, verbum, which means word." (6.) It might be put under Critical Note 10th, as an example of Improper Omissions; for it may be greatly bettered by the addition of some words, thus: "The verb is so called, because [in French] it [is called le verbe, and in Latin, verbum, which] means word: as there can be no sentence without a verb, this [most important part of speech] is called, emphatically, [the verb,—q.d.,] the word." (7.) It might be put under Critical Note 11th, among Literary Blunders; for there is at least one blunder in each of its members. (8.) It might be set down under Critical Note 13th, as an example of Awkwardness; for it is but clumsy work, to teach grammar after this sort. (9.) It might be given under Critical Note 16th, as a sample of the Incorrigible; for it is scarcely possible to eliminate all its defects and retain its essentials.

These instances may suffice to show, that even gross errors of grammar may lurk where they are least to be expected, in the didactic phraseology of professed masters of style or oratory, and may abound where common readers or the generality of hearers will discover nothing amiss.

[446] As a mere assertion, this example is here sufficiently corrected; but, as a definition, (for which the author probably intended it,) it is deficient; and consequently, in that sense, is still inaccurate. I would also observe that most of the subsequent examples under the present head, contain other errors than that for which they are here introduced; and, of some of them, the faults are, in my opinion, very many: for example, the several definitions of an adverb, cited below. Lindley Murray's definition of this part of speech is not inserted among these, because I had elsewhere criticised that. So too of his faulty definition of a conjunction. See the Introduction, Chap. X. paragraphs 26 and 28. See also Corrections in the Key, under Note 10th to Rule 1st.

[447] In his explanation of Ellipsis, Lindley Murray continually calls it "the ellipsis," and speaks of it as something that is "used,"—"made use of,"—"applied,"—"contained in" the examples; which expressions, referring, as they there do, to the mere absence of something, appear to me solecistical. The notion too, which this author and others have entertained of the figure itself, is in many respects erroneous; and nearly all their examples for its illustration are either questionable as to such an application, or obviously inappropriate. The absence of what is needless or unsuggested, is no ellipsis, though some grave men have not discerned this obvious fact. The nine solecisms here quoted concerning "the ellipsis," are all found in many other grammars. See Fisk's E. Gram., p. 144; Guy's, 91; Ingersoll's, 153; J. M. Putnam's, 137; R. C. Smith's, 180; Weld's, 190.

[448] Some of these examples do, in fact, contain more than two errors; for mistakes in punctuation, or in the use of capitals, are not here reckoned. This remark may also he applicable to some of the other lessons. The reader may likewise perceive, that where two, three, or more improprieties occur in one sentence, some one or more of them may happen to be such, as he can, if he choose, correct by some rule or note belonging to a previous chapter. Great labour has been bestowed on the selection and arrangement of these syntactical exercises; but to give to so great a variety of literary faults, a distribution perfectly distinct, and perfectly adapted to all the heads assumed in this digest, is a work not only of great labour, but of great difficulty. I have come as near to these two points of perfection in the arrangement, as I well could.—G. BROWN.

[449] In Murray's sixth chapter of Punctuation, from which this example, and eleven others that follow it, are taken, there is scarcely a single sentence that does not contain many errors; and yet the whole is literally copied in Ingersoll's Grammar, p. 293; in Fisk's, p. 159; in Abel Flint's, 116; and probably in some others. I have not always been careful to subjoin the great number of references which might be given for blunders selected from this hackneyed literature of the schools. For corrections, or improvements, see the Key.

[450] This example, or L. Murray's miserable modification of it, traced through the grammars of Alden, Alger, Bullions, Comly, Cooper, Flint, Hiley, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Merchant, Russell, Smith, and others, will be found to have a dozen different forms—all of them no less faulty than the original—all of them obscure, untrue, inconsistent, and almost incorrigible. It is plain, that "a comma," or one comma, cannot divide more than two "simple members;" and these, surely, cannot be connected by more than one relative, or by more than one "comparative;" if it be allowable to call than, as, or so, by this questionable name. Of the multitude of errors into which these pretended critics have so blindly fallen, I shall have space and time to point out only a very small part: this text, too justly, may be taken as a pretty fair sample of their scholarship!

[451] The "idea" which is here spoken of, Dr. Blair discovers in a passage of Addison's Spectator. It is, in fact, as here "brought out" by the critic, a bald and downright absurdity. Dr. Campbell has criticised, under the name of marvellous nonsense, a different display of the same "idea," cited from De Piles's Principles of Painting. The passage ends thus: "In this sense it may be asserted, that in Rubens' pieces, Art is above Nature, and Nature only a copy of that great master's works." Of this the critic says: "When the expression is stript of the absurd meaning, there remains nothing but balderdash."—Philosophy of Rhet., p, 278.

[452] All his rules for the comma, Fisk appears to have taken unjustly from Greenleaf. It is a double shame, for a grammarian to steal what is so badly written!—G. BROWN.

[453] Bad definitions may have other faults than to include or exclude what they should not, but this is their great and peculiar vice. For example: "Person is that property of nouns and pronouns which distinguishes the speaker, the person or thing addressed, and the person or thing spoken of."—Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 51; 113th Ed., p. 57. See nearly the same words, in Weld's English Gram., p. 67; and in his Abridgement, p. 49. The three persons of verbs are all improperly excluded from this definition; which absurdly takes "person" to be one property that has all the effect of all the persons; so that each person, in its turn, since each cannot have all this effect, is seen to be excluded also: that is, it is not such a property as is described! Again: "An intransitive verb is a verb which does not have a noun or pronoun for its object."—Wells, 1st Ed., p. 76. According to Dr. Johnson, "does not have," is not a scholarly phrase; but the adoption of a puerile expression is a trifling fault, compared with that of including here all passive verbs, and some transitives, which the author meant to exclude; to say nothing of the inconsistency of excluding here the two classes of verbs which he absurdly calls "intransitive," though he finds them "followed by objectives depending upon them!"—Id., p. 145. Weld imitates these errors too, on pp. 70 and 153.

[454] S. R. Hall thinks it necessary to recognize "four distinctions" of "the distinction occasioned by sex." In general, the other authors here quoted, suppose that we have only "three distinctions" of "the distinction of sex." And, as no philosopher has yet discovered more than two sexes, some have thence stoutly argued, that it is absurd to speak of more than two genders. Lily makes it out, that in Latin there are seven: yet, with no great consistency, he will have a gender to be a or the distinction of sex. "GENUS est sexus discretio. Et sunt genera numero septem."—Lilii Gram., p. 10. That is, "GENDER is the distinction of sex. And the genders are seven in number." Ruddiman says, "GENUS est, discrimen nominis secundum sexum, vel ejus in structura grammatica imitatio. Genera nominum sunt tria."—Ruddimanni Gram., p. 4. That is, "GENDER is the diversity of the noun according to sex, or [it is] the imitation of it in grammatical structure. The genders of nouns are three." These old definitions are no better than the newer ones cited above. All of them are miserable failures, full of faults and absurdities. Both the nature and the cause of their defects are in some degree explained near the close of the tenth chapter of my Introduction. Their most prominent errors are these: 1. They all assume, that gender, taken as one thing, is in fact two, three, or more, genders, 2. Nearly all of them seem to say or imply, that words differ from one an other in sex, like animals. 3. Many of them expressly confine gender, or the genders, to nouns only. 4. Many of them confessedly exclude the neuter gender, though their authors afterwards admit this gender. 5. That of Dr. Webster supposes, that words differing in gender never have the same "termination." The absurdity of this may be shown by a multitude of examples: as, man and woman, male and female, father and mother, brother and sister. This is better, but still not free from some other faults which I have mentioned. For the correction of all this great batch of errors, I shall simply substitute in the Key one short definition, which appears to me to be exempt from each of these inaccuracies.

[455] Walker states this differently, and even repeats his remark, thus: "But y preceded by a vowel is never changed: as coy, coyly, gay, gayly."—Walker's Rhyming Dict., p.x. "Y preceded by a vowel is never changed, as boy, boys, I cloy, he cloys, etc."—Ib., p viii. Walker's twelve "Orthographical Aphorisms," which Murray and others republish as their "Rules for Spelling," and which in stead of amending they merely corrupt, happened through some carelessness to contain two which should have been condensed into one. For "words ending with y preceded by a consonant," he has not only the absurd rule or assertion above recited, but an other which is better, with an exception or remark under each, respecting "y preceded by a vowel." The grammarians follow him in his errors, and add to their number: hence the repetition, or similarity, in the absurdities here quoted. By the term "verbal nouns," Walker meant nouns denoting agents, as carrier from carry; but Kirkham understood him to mean "participial nouns," as the carrying. Or rather, he so mistook "that able philologist" Murray; for he probably knew nothing of Walker in the matter; and accordingly changed the word "verbal" to "participial;" thus teaching, through all his hundred editions, except a few of the first, that participial nouns from verbs ending in y preceded by a consonant, are formed by merely "changing the y into i." But he seems to have known, that this is not the way to form the participle; though he did not know, that "coyless" is not a proper English word.

[456] The idea of plurality is not "plurality of idea," any more than the idea of wickedness, or the idea of absurdity, is absurdity or wickedness of idea; yet, behold, how our grammarians copy the blunder, which Lowth (perhaps) first fell into, of putting the one phrase for the other! Even Professor Fowler, (as well as Murray, Kirkham, and others,) talks of having regard "to unity or plurality of idea!"—Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo. 1850, Sec.513,—G. BROWN.

[457] In the Doctor's "New Edition, Revised and Corrected," the text stands thus: "The Present participle of THE ACTIVE VOICE has an active signification; as, James is building the house. In many of these, however, it has," &c. Here the first sentence is but an idle truism; and the phrase, "In many of these," for lack of an antecedent to these, is utter nonsense. What is in "the active voice," ought of course to be active in "signification;" but, in this author's present scheme of the verb, we find "the active voice," in direct violation of his own definition of it, ascribed not only to verbs and participles either neuter or intransitive, but also, as it would seem by this passage, to "many" that are passive!—G. BROWN.

[458] One objection to these passage is, that they are examples of the very construction which they describe as a fault. The first and second sentences ought to have been separated only by a semicolon. This would have made them "members" of one and the same sentence. Can it be supported that one "thought" is sufficient for two periods, or for what one chooses to point as such, but not for two members of the same period?—G. BROWN.

[459] (1.) "Accent is the tone with which one speaks. For, in speaking, the voice of every man is sometimes more grave in the sound, and at other times more acute or shrill."—Beattie's Moral Science, p. 25. "Accent is the tone of the voice with which a syllable is pronounced."—Dr. Adam's Latin and English Gram., p. 266.

(2.) "Accent in a peculiar stress of the voice on some syllable in a word to distinguish it from the others."—Gould's Adam's Lat. Gram., p. 243.

(3.) "The tone by which one syllable is distinguished from another is the accent; which is a greater stress and elevation of voice on that particular syllable."—Bicknell's Eng. Gram., Part II, p. 111.

(4.) "Quantity is the Length or Shortness of Syllables; and the Proportion, generally speaking, betwixt a long and [a] short Syllable, is two to one; as in Music, two Quavers to one Crotchet.—Accent is the rising and falling of the Voice, above or under its usual Tone, but an Art of which we have little Use, and know less, in the English Tongue; nor are we like to improve our Knowledge in this Particular, unless the Art of Delivery or Utterance were a little more study'd."—Brightland's Gram., p. 156.

(5.) "ACCENT, s. m. (inflexion de la voix.) Accent, tone, pronunciation."—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, 4to, Tome Premier, sous le mot Accent.

"ACCENT, subst. (tone or inflection of the voice.) Accent, ton ou inflexion de voix."—Same Work, Garner's New Universal Dictionary, 4to, under the word Accent.

(6.) "The word accent is derived from the Latin language and signifies the tone of the voice."—Parker and Fox's English Gram., Part III, p. 32.

(7.) "The unity of the word consists in the tone or accent, which binds together the two parts of the composition."—Fowler's E. Gram., Sec.360.

(8.) "The accent of the ancients is the opprobrium of modern criticism. Nothing can show more evidently the fallibility of the human faculties, than the total ignorance we are in at present of the nature of the Latin and Greek accent."—Walker's Principles, No. 486; Dict., p. 53.

(9.) "It is not surprising, that the accent and quantity of the ancients should be so obscure and mysterious, when two such learned men of our own nation as Mr. Foster and Dr. Gaily, differ about the very existence of quantity in our own language."—Walker's Observations on Accent, &c.; Key, p. 311.

(10.) "What these accents are has puzzled the learned so much that they seem neither to understand each other nor themselves."—Walker's Octavo Dict., w. Barytone.

(11.) "The ancients designated the pitch of vocal sounds by the term accent; making three kinds of accents, the acute (e), the grave (e), and the circumflex (e), which signified severally the rise, the fall, and the turn of the voice, or union of acute and grave on the same syllable."—Sargent's Standard Speaker, p. 18.

[460] "Interrogatio, Graece Erotema, Accentum quoque transfert; ut, Ter. Siccine ais Parmeno? Voss. Susenbr."—Prat's Latin Grammar, 8vo, Part II, p. 190.

[461] In regard to the admission of a comma before the verb, by the foregoing exception, neither the practice of authors nor the doctrine of punctuators is entirely uniform; but, where a considerable pause is, and must be, made in the reading, I judge it not only allowable, but necessary, to mark it in writing. In W. Day's "Punctuation Reduced to a System," a work of no inconsiderable merit, this principle is disallowed; and even when the adjunct of the nominative is a relative clause, which, by Rule 2d below and its first exception, requires a comma after it but none before it, this author excludes both, putting no comma before the principal verb. The following is an example: "But it frequently happens, that punctuation is not made a prominent exercise in schools; and the brief manner in which the subject is there dismissed has proved insufficient to impress upon the minds of youth a due sense of its importance."—Day's Punctuation, p. 32. A pupil of mine would here have put a comma after the word dismissed. So, in the following examples, after sake, and after dispenses: "The vanity that would accept power for its own sake is the pettiest of human passions."—Ib., p. 75. "The generous delight of beholding the happiness he dispenses is the highest enjoyment of man."—Ib., p, 100.

[462] When several nominatives are connected, some authors and printers put the comma only where the conjunction is omitted. W. Day separates them all, one from an other; but after the last, when this is singular before a plural verb, he inserts no point. Example: "Imagination is one of the principal ingredients which enter into the complex idea of genius; but judgment, memory, understanding, enthusiasm, and sensibility are also included."—Day's Punctuation, p. 52. If the points are to be put where the pauses naturally occur, here should be a comma after sensibility; and, if I mistake not, it would be more consonant with current usage to set one there. John Wilson, however, in a later work, which is for the most part a very good one, prefers the doctrine of Day, as in the following instance: "Reputation, virtue, and happiness depend greatly on the choice of companions."—Wilson's Treatise on Punctuation, p. 30.

[463] Some printers, and likewise some authors, suppose a series of words to require the comma, only where the conjunction is suppressed. This is certainly a great error. It gives us such punctuation as comports neither with the sense of three or more words in the same construction, nor with the pauses which they require in reading. "John, James and Thomas are here," is a sentence which plainly tells John that James and Thomas are here; and which, if read according to this pointing, cannot possibly have any other meaning. Yet this is the way in which the rules of Cooper, Felton, Frost, Webster, and perhaps others, teach us to point it, when we mean to tell somebody else that all three are here! In his pretended "Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar," (a work abounding in small thefts from Brown's Institutes,) Cooper has the following example: "John, James or Joseph intends to accompany me."—Page 120. Here, John being addressed, the punctuation is right; but, to make this noun a nominative to the verb, a comma must be put after each of the others. In Cooper's "Plain and Practical Grammar," the passage is found in this form: "John, James, or Joseph intends to accompany us."—Page 132. This pointing is doubly wrong; because it is adapted to neither sense. If the three nouns have the same construction, the principal pause will be immediately before the verb; and surely a comma is as much required by that pause, as by the second. See the Note on Rule 3d, above.

[464] In punctuation, the grammar here cited is unaccountably defective. This is the more strange, because many of its errors are mere perversions of what was accurately pointed by an other hand. On the page above referred to, Dr. Bullions, in copying from Lennie's syntactical exercises a dozen consecutive lines, has omitted nine needful commas, which Lennie had been careful to insert!

[465] Needless abbreviations, like most that occur in this example, are in bad taste, and ought to be avoided. The great faultiness of this text as a model for learners, compels me to vary the words considerably in suggesting the correction. See the Key.—G. B.

[466] "To be, or not to be?—that's the question."—Hallock's Gram., p. 220. "To be, or not to be, that is the question."—Singer's Shak., ii. 488. "To be, or not to be; that is the Question."—Ward's Gram., p 160. "To be, or not to be, that is the Question."—Brightland's Gram., p 209. "To be, or not to be?"—Mandeville's Course of Reading, p. 141. "To be or not to be! That is the question."—Pinneo's Gram., p. 176. "To be—or not to be—that is the question—"—Burgh's Speaker, p. 179.

[467] In the works of some of our older poets, the apostrophe is sometimes irregularly inserted, and perhaps needlessly, to mark a prosodial synsaeresis, or synalepha, where no letter is cut off or left out; as,

"Retire, or taste thy folly', and learn by proof, Hell-born, not to contend with spir'its of Heaven." —Milton, P. L., ii, 686.

In the following example, it seems to denote nothing more than the open or long sound of the preceding vowel e:

"That sleep and feeding may prorogue his honour, Even till a lethe'd dulness." —Singer's Shakspeare, Vol. ii, p. 280.

[468] The breve is properly a mark of short quantity, only when it is set over an unaccented syllable or an unemphatic monosyllable, as it often is in the scanning of verses. In the examples above, it marks the close or short power of the vowels; but, under the accent, even this power may become part of a long syllable; as it does in the word raven, where the syllable rav, having twice the length of that which follows, must be reckoned long. In poetry, r=av-en and r=a-ven are both trochees, the former syllable in each being long, and the latter short.

[469] 1. The signs of long and short sounds, and especially of the former, have been singularly slow in acquiring appropriate names—or any appellatives suited to their nature, or such as could obtain the sanction of general use. The name breve, from the French breve, (which latter word came, doubtless, originally from the neuter of the Latin adjective brevis, short,) is now pretty generally applied to the one; and the Greek term macron, long, (also originally a neuter adjective,) is perhaps as common as any name for the other. But these are not quite so well adapted to each other, and to the things named, as are the substitutes added above.

2. These signs are explained in our grammars under various names, and often very unfit ones, to say the least; and, in many instances, their use is, in some way, awkwardly stated, without any attempt to name them, or more than one, if either. The Rev. T. Smith names them "Long (=), and Short (~)."—Smith's Murray, p. 72. Churchill calls them "The long = and the short ~."—New Gram., p. 170. Gould calls them "a horizontal line" and "a curved line."—Gould's Adam's Gram., p. 3. Coar says, "Quantity is distinguished by the characters of - long, and ~ short."—Eng. Gram., p. 197. But, in speaking of the signs, he calls them, "A long syllable =," and "A short syllable ~."—Gram., pp. 222 and 228. S. S. Greene calls them "the long sound," and "the breve or short sound."—Gram., p. 257. W. Allen says, "The long-syllable mark, (=) and the breve, or short-syllable mark, (~) denote the quantity of words poetically employed."—Gram., p. 215. Some call them "the Long Accent," and "the Short Accent;" as does Guy's Gram., p. 95. This naming seems to confound accent with quantity. By some, the Macron is improperly called "a Dash;" as by Lennie, p. 137; by Bullions, p. 157; by Hiley, p. 123; by Butler, p. 215. Some call it "a small dash;" as does Well's, p. 183; so Hiley, p. 117. By some it is absurdly named "Hyphen;" as by Buchanan, p. 162; by Alden, p. 165; by Chandler, 183; by Parker and Fox, iii, 36; by Jaudon, 193. Sanborn calls it "the hyphen, or macron."—Analyt. Gr., p. 279. Many, who name it not, introduce it to their readers by a "this =," or "thus ~;" as do Alger, Blair, Dr. Adam, Comly, Cooper, Ingersoll, L. Murray, Sanders, Wright, and others!

[470] "As soon as language proceeds, from mere articulation, to coherency, and connection, accent becomes the guide of the voice. It is founded upon an obscure perception of symmetry, and proportion, between the different sounds that are uttered."—Noehden's Grammar of the German Language, p. 66.

[471] According to Johnson, Walker, Webster, Worcester, and perhaps all other lexicographers, Quantity, in grammar, is—"The measure of time in pronouncing a syllable." And, to this main idea, are conformed, so far as I know, all the different definitions ever given of it by grammarians and critics, except that which appeared in Asa Humphrey's English Prosody, published in 1847. In this work—the most elaborate and the most comprehensive, though not the most accurate or consistent treatise we have on the subject—Time and Quantity are explained separately, as being "two distinct things;" and the latter is supposed not to have regard to duration, but solely to the amount of sound given to each syllable.

This is not only a fanciful distinction, but a radical innovation—and one which, in any view, has little to recommend it. The author's explanations of both time and quantity—of their characteristics, differences, and subdivisions—of their relations to each other, to poetic numbers, to emphasis and cadence, or to accent and non-accent—as well as his derivation and history of "these technical terms, time and quantity"—are hardly just or clear enough to be satisfactory. According to his theory, "Poetic numbers are composed of long and short syllables alternately;" (page 5;) but the difference or proportion between the times of these classes of syllables he holds to be indeterminable, "because their lengths are various." He began with destroying the proper distinction of quantity, or time, as being either long or short, by the useless recognition of an indefinite number of "intermediate lengths;" saying of our syllables at large, "some are LONG, some SHORT, and some are of INTERMEDIATE LENGTHS; as, mat, not, con, &c. are short sounds; mate, note, cone, and grave are long. Some of our diphthongal sounds are LONGER STILL; as, voice, noise, sound, bound, &c. OTHERS are seen to be of INTERMEDIATE lengths."—Humphrey's Prosody, p. 4.

On a scheme like this, it must evidently be impossible to determine, with any certainty, either what syllables are long and what short, or what is the difference or ratio between any two of the innumerable "lengths" of that time, or quantity, which is long, short, variously intermediate, or longer still, and again variously intermediate! No marvel then that the ingenious author scans some lines in a manner peculiar to himself.

[472] It was the doctrine of Sheridan, and perhaps of our old lexicographers in general, that no English word can have more than one full accent; but, in some modern dictionaries, as Bolles's, and Worcester's, many words are marked as if they had two; and a few are given by Bolles's as having three. Sheridan erroneously affirmed, that "every word has an accent," even "all monosyllables, the particles alone excepted."—Lecture on Elocution, pp. 61 and 71. And again, yet more erroneously: "The essence of English words consisting in accent, as that of syllables in articulation; we know that there are as many syllables as we hear articulate sounds, and as many words as we hear accents."— Ib., p. 70. Yet he had said before, in the same lecture: "The longer polysyllables, have frequently two accents, but one is so much stronger than the other, as to shew that it is but one word; and the inferior accent is always less forcible, than any accent that is the single one in a word."—Ib., p. 31. Wells defines accent as if it might lie on many syllables of a word; but, in his examples, he places it on no more than one: "Accent is the stress which is laid on one or more syllables of a word, in pronunciation; as, reverberate, undertake."—Wells's School Gram., p. 185. According to this loose definition, he might as well have accented at least one other syllable in each of these examples; for there seems, certainly, to be some little stress on ate and un. For sundry other definitions of accent, see Chap. IV, Section 2d, of Versification; and the marginal note referring to Obs. 1st on Prosody.

[473] According to Dr. Rush, Emphasis is—"a stress of voice on one or more words of a sentence, distinguishing them by intensity or peculiarity of meaning."—Philosophy of the Voice, p. 282. Again, he defines thus: "Accent is the fixed but inexpressive distinction of syllables by quantity and stress: alike both in place and nature, whether the words are pronounced singly from the columns of a vocabulary, or connectedly in the series of discourse. Emphasis may be defined to be the expressive but occasional distinction of a syllable, and consequently of the whole word, by one or more of the specific modes of time, quality, force, or pitch."—Ibid.

[474] 1. This doctrine, though true in its main intent, and especially applicable to the poetic quantity of monosyllables, (the class of words most frequently used in English poetry,) is, perhaps, rather too strongly stated by Murray; because it agrees not with other statements of his, concerning the power of accent over quantity; and because the effect of accent, as a "regulator of quantity," may, on the whole, be as great as that of emphasis. Sheridan contradicts himself yet more pointedly on this subject; and his discrepancies may have been the efficients of Murray's. "The quantity of our syllables is perpetually varying with the sense, and is for the most part regulated by EMPHASIS."—Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram., p. 65. Again: "It is by the ACCENT chiefly that the quantity of our syllables is regulated."—Sheridan's Lectures on Elocution, p. 57. See Chap. IV, Sec. 2d, Obs. 1; and marginal note on Obs. 8.

2. Some writers erroneously confound emphasis with accent; especially those who make accent, and not quantity, the foundation of verse. Contrary to common usage, and to his own definition of accent, Wells takes it upon him to say, "The term accent is also applied, in poetry, to the stress laid on monosyllabic words; as,

'Content is wealth, the riches of the mind.'—Dryden." —Wells's School Grammar, p. 185.

It does not appear that stress laid on monosyllables is any more fitly termed accent, when it occurs in the reading of poetry, than when in the utterance of prose. Churchill, who makes no such distinction, thinks accent essential alike to emphasis and to the quantity of a long vowel, and yet, as regards monosyllables, dependent on them both! His words are these: "Monosyllables are sometimes accented, sometimes not. This depends chiefly on their being more or less emphatic; and on the vowel sound being long or short. We cannot give emphasis to any word, or it's [its] proper duration to a long vowel, without accenting it."—Churchill's New Gram., p. 182.

[475] Not only are these inflections denoted occasionally by the accentual marks, but they are sometimes expressly identified with accents, being called by that name. This practice, however, is plainly objectionable. It confounds things known to be different,—mere stress with elevation or depression,—and may lead to the supposition, that to accent a syllable, is to inflect the voice upon it. Such indeed has been the guess of many concerning the nature of Greek and Latin accents, but of the English accent, the common idea is, that it is only a greater force distinguishing some one syllable of a word from the rest. Walker, however, in the strange account he gives in his Key, of "what we mean by the accent and quantity of our own language," charges this current opinion with error, dissenting from Sheridan and Nares, who held it; and, having asserted, that, "in speaking, the voice is continually sliding upwards or downwards," proceeds to contradict himself thus: "As high and low, loud and soft, forcible and feeble, are comparative terms, words of one syllable pronounced alone, and without relation to other words or syllables, cannot be said to have any ACCENT. The only distinction to which such words are liable, is an elevation or depression of voice, when we compare the beginning with the end of the word or syllable. Thus a monosyllable, considered singly, rises from a lower to a higher tone in the question No? which may therefore be called the acute ACCENT: and falls from a higher to a lower tone upon the same word in the answer No, which may therefore be called the grave [ACCENT]."—Walker's Key, p. 316. Thus he tells of different accents on "a monosyllable," which, by his own showing, "cannot be said to have any accent"! and others read and copy the text with as little suspicion of its inconsistency! See Worcester's Universal and Critical Dictionary, p. 934.

[476] In Humphrey's English Prosody, cadence is taken for the reverse of accent, and is obviously identified or confounded with short quantity, or what the author inclines to call "small quantity." He defines it as follows: "Cadence is the reverse or counterpart to accent; a falling or depression of voice on syllables unaccented: and by which the sound is shortened and depressed."—P. 3. This is not exactly what is generally understood by the word cadence. Lord Kames also contrasts cadence with accent; but, by the latter term, he seems to have meant something different from our ordinary accent. "Sometimes to humour the sense," says he, "and sometimes the melody, a particular syllable is sounded in a higher tone; and this is termed accenting a syllable, or gracing it with an accent. Opposed to the accent, is the cadence, which I have not mentioned as one of the requisites of verse, because it is entirely regulated by the sense, and hath no peculiar relation to verse."—Elements of Criticism, Vol. ii, p. 78.

[477] The Latin term, (made plural to agree with verba, words,) is subaudita, underheard—the perfect participle of subaudio, to underhear. Hence the noun, subauditio, subaudition, the recognition of ellipses.

[478] "Thus, in the Proverbs of all Languages, many Words are usually left to be supplied from the trite obvious Nature of what they express; as, out of Sight out of Mind; the more the merrier, &c."—W. Ward's Pract. Gram., p. 147.

[479] Lindley Murray and some others say, "As the ellipsis occurs in almost every sentence in the English language, numerous examples of it might be given."—Murray's Gram., p. 220; Weld's, 292; Fisk's, 147. They could, without doubt, have exhibited many true specimens of Ellipsis; but most of those which they have given, are only fanciful and false ones; and their notion of the frequency of the figure, is monstrously hyperbolical.

[480] Who besides Webster has called syllepsis "substitution," I do not know. Substitution and conception are terms of quite different import, and many authors have explained syllepsis by the latter word. Dr. Webster gives to "SUBSTITUTION" two meanings, thus: "1. The act of putting one person or thing in the place of another to supply [his or] its place.—2. In grammar, syllepsis, or the use of one word for another."—American Dict., 8vo. This explanation seems to me inaccurate; because it confounds both substitution and syllepsis with enallage. It has signs of carelessness throughout; the former sentence being both tautological and ungrammatical.—G. B.

[481] Between Tropes and Figures, some writers attempt a full distinction; but this, if practicable, is of little use. According to Holmes, "TROPES affect only single Words; but FIGURES, whole Sentences."—Rhetoric, B. i, p. 28. "The CHIEF TROPES in Language," says this author, "are seven; a Metaphor, an Allegory, a Metonymy, a Synecdoche, an Irony, an Hyperbole, and a Catachresis."—Ib., p. 30. The term Figure or Figures is more comprehensive than Trope or Tropes; I have therefore not thought it expedient to make much use of the latter, in either the singular or the plural form. Holmes's seven tropes are all of them defined in the main text of this section, except Catachresis, which is commonly explained to be "an abuse of a trope." According to this sense, it seems in general to differ but little from impropriety. At best, a Catachresis is a forced expression, though sometimes, perhaps, to be indulged where there is great excitement. It is a sort of figure by which a word is used in a sense different from, yet connected with, or analogous to, its own; as,

"And pity, like a naked new-born babe, Striding the blast, as heaven's cherubim Hors'd upon the sightless couriers of the air, Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye, That tears shall drown the wind."—Shak., Macbeth, Act i, Sc. 7.

[482] Holmes, in his Art of Rhetoric, writes this word "Paraleipsis" retaining the Greek orthography. So does Fowler in his recent "English Grammar," Sec.646. Webster, Adam, and some others, write it "Paralepsis." I write it as above on the authority of Littleton, Ainsworth, and some others; and this is according to the analogy of the kindred word ellipsis, which we never write either ellepsis, or, as the Greek, elleipsis.

[483] To this principle there seems to be now and then an exception, as when a weak dissyllable begins a foot in an anapestic line, as in the following examples:—

"I think—let me see—yes, it is, I declare, As long ago now as that Buckingham there."—Leigh Hunt.

"And Thomson, though best in his indolent fits, Either slept himself weary, or blasted his wits."—Id.

Here, if we reckon the feet in question to be anapests, we have dissyllables with both parts short. But some, accenting "ago" on the latter syllable, and "Either" on the former, will call "ago now" a bacchy, and "Either slept" an amphimac: because they make them such by their manner of reading.—G. B.

[484] "Edgar A. Poe, the author, died at Baltimore on Sunday" [the 7th].—Daily Evening Traveller, Boston Oct. 9, 1849. This was eight or ten months after the writing of these observations.—G. B.

[485] "Versification is the art of arranging words into lines of correspondent length, so as to produce harmony by the regular alternation of syllables differing in quantity"—Brown's Institutes of E. Gram., p. 235.

[486] This appears to be an error; for, according to Dilworth, and other arithmeticians, "a unit is a number;" and so is it expounded by Johnson, Walker, Webster, and Worcester. See, in the Introduction, a note at the foot of p. 117. Mulligan, however, contends still, that one is no number; and that, "to talk of the singular number is absurd—a contradiction in terms;"—because, "in common discourse," a "number" is "always a plurality, except"—when it is "number one!"—See Grammatical Structure of the E. Language, Sec.33. Some prosodists have taught the absurdity, that two feet are necessary to constitute a metre, and have accordingly applied the terms, monometer, dimeter, trimeter, tetrameter, pentameter, and hexameter,—or so many of them as they could so misapply,—in a sense very different from the usual acceptation. The proper principle is, that, "One foot constitutes a metre."—Dr. P. Wilson's Greek Prosody, p. 53. And verses are to be denominated Monometer, Dimeter, Trimeter, &c., according to "THE NUMBER OF FEET."—See ib. p. 6. But Worcester's Universal and Critical Dictionary has the following not very consistent explanations: "MONOMETER, n. One metre. Beck. DIMETER, n. A poetic measure of four feet; a series of two meters. Beck. TRIMETER, a. Consisting of three poetical measures, forming an iambic of six feet. Tyrwhitt. TETRAMETER, n. A Latin or Greek verse consisting of four feet; a series of four metres. TETRAMETER, a. Having four metrical feet. Tyrwhitt. PENTAMETER, n. A Greek or Latin verse of five feet; a series of five metres. PENTAMETER, a. Having five metrical feet. Warton. HEXAMETER, n. A verse or line of poetry, having six feet, either dactyls or spondees; the heroic, and most important, verse among the Greeks and Romans;—a rhythmical series of six metres. HEXAMETER, a. Having six metrical feet. Dr. Warton." According to these definitions, Dimeter has as many feet as Tetrameter; and Trimeter has as many as Hexameter!

[487] It is common, at any rate, for prosodists to speak of "the movement of the voice," as do Sheridan, Murray, Humphrey, and Everett; but Kames, in treating of the Beauty of Language from Resemblance, says "There is no resemblance of sound to motion, nor of sound to sentiment."—Elements of Criticism, Vol. ii, p. 63. This usage, however, is admitted by the critic, had cited to show how, "causes that have no resemblance may produce resembling effects."—Ib. 64. "By a number of syllables in succession, an emotion is sometimes raised extremely similar to that raised by successive motion: which may be evident even to those who are defective in taste, from the following fact, that the term movement in all languages is equally applied to both."—Ib. ii. 66.

[488] "From what has been said of accent and quantity in our own language, we may conclude them to be essentially distinct and perfectly separable: nor is it to be doubted that they were equally separable in the learned languages."—Walkers's Observations on Gr. and Lat. Accent and Quantity, Sec.20; Key, p. 326. In the speculative essay here cited, Walker meant by accent the rising or the falling inflection,—an upward or a downward slide of the voice: and by quantity, nothing but the open or close sound of some vowel; as of "the a in scatter" and in "skater," the initial syllables of which words be supposed to differ in quantity as much as any two syllables can!—Ib., Sec.24; Key, p. 331. With these views of the things, it is perhaps the less to be wondered at, that Walker, who appears to have been a candid and courteous writer, charges "that excellent scholar Mr. Forster—with a total ignorance of the accent and quantity of his own language," (Ib., Note on Sec.8; Key, p. 317;) and, in regard to accent, ancient or modern, elsewhere confesses his own ignorance, and that of every body else, to be as "total." See marginal note on Obs. 4th below.

[489] (1.) "We shall now take a view of sounds when united into syllables. Here a beautiful variation of quantity presents itself as the next object of our attention. The knowledge of long and short syllables, is the most excellent and most neglected quality in the whole art of pronunciation.

The disputes of our modern writers on this subject, have arisen chiefly from an absurd notion that has long prevailed; viz. that there is no difference between the accent and the quantity, in the English language; that the accented syllables are always long, and the unaccented always short.

An absurdity so glaring, does not need refutation. Pronounce any one line from Milton, and the ear will determine whether or not the accent and quantity always coincide. Very seldom they do."—HERRIES: Bicknell's Gram., Part ii, p. 108.

(2.) "Some of our Moderns (especially Mr. Bishe, in his Art of Poetry) and lately Mr. Mattaire, in what he calls, The English Grammar, erroneously use Accent for Quantity, one signifying the Length or Shortness of a Syllable, the other the raising or falling of the Voice in Discourse."—Brightland's Gram., London, 1746, p. 156.

(3.) "Tempus cum accentu a nonnullis male confunditur; quasi idem sit acui et produci. Cum brevis autem syllaba acuitur, elevatur quidem vox in ea proferenda, sed tempus non augetur. Sic in voce hominibus acuitur mi; at ni quae sequitur, aequam in efferendo moram postulat."—Lily's Gram., p. 125. Version: "By some persons, time is improperly confounded with accent; as if to acute and to lengthen were the same. But when a short syllable is acuted, the voice indeed is raised in pronouncing it, but the time is not increased. Thus, in the word hominibus, mi as the acute accent; but ni, which follows, demands equal slowness in the pronunciation." To English ears, this can hardly seem a correct representation; for, in pronouncing hominibus, it is not mi, but min, that we accent; and this syllable is manifestly as much longer than the rest, as it is louder.

[490] (1.) "Syllables, with respect to their quantity, are either long, short, or common."—Gould's Adam's Lat. Gram., p. 243. "Some syllables are common; that is, sometimes long, and sometimes short."—Adam's Lat. and Eng. Gram., p. 252. Common is here put for variable, or not permanently settled in respect to quantity: in this sense, from which no third species ought to be inferred, our language is, perhaps, more extensively "common" than any other.

(2.) "Most of our Monosyllables either take this Stress or not, according as they are more or less emphatical; and therefore English Words of one Syllable may be considered as common; i.e. either as long or short in certain Situations. These Situations are chiefly determined by the Pause, or Cesure, of the Verse, and this Pause by the Sense. And as the English abounds in Monosyllables, there is probably no Language in which the Quantity of Syllables is more regulated by the Sense than in English."—W. Ward's Gram., Ed. of 1765, p. 156.

(3.) Bicknell's theory of quantity, for which he refers to Herries, is this: "The English quantity is divided into long, short, and common. The longest species of syllables are those that end in a vowel, and are under the accent; as, mo in harmonious, sole in console, &c. When a monosyllable, which is unemphatic, ends in a vowel, it is always short; but when the emphasis is placed upon it, it is always long. Short syllables are such as end in any of the six mutes; as cut, stop, rapid, rugged, lock. In all such syllables the sound cannot be lengthened: they are necessarily and invariably short. If another consonant intervenes between the vowel and mute, as rend, soft, flask, the syllable is rendered somewhat longer. The other species of syllables called common, are such as terminate in a half-vowel or aspirate. For instance, in the words run, swim, crush, purl, the concluding sound can be continued or shortened, as we please. This scheme of quantity," it is added, "is founded on fact and experience."—Bicknell's Gram., Part ii, p. 109. But is it not a fact, that such words as cuttest, stopping, rapid, rugged, are trochees, in verse? and is not unlock an iambus? And what becomes of syllables that end with vowels or liquids and are not accented?

[491] I do not say the mere absence of stress is never called accent; for it is, plainly, the doctrine of some authors that the English accent differs not at all in its nature from the accent of the ancient Greeks or Romans, which was distinguished as being of three sorts, acute, grave, inflex; that "the stronger breathing, or higher sound," which distinguishes one syllable of a word from or above the rest, is the acute accent only; that "the softer breathing, or lower sound," which belongs to an unacuted (or unaccented) syllable, is the grave accent; and that a combination of these two sounds, or "breathings," upon one syllable, constitutes the inflex or circumflex accent. Such, I think, is the teaching of Rev. William Barnes; who further says, "English verse is constructed upon sundry orders of acute and grave accents and matchings of rhymes, while the poetic language of the Romans and Greeks is formed upon rules of the sundry clusterings of long and short syllables."—Philological Grammar, p. 263. This scheme is not wholly consistent, because the author explains accent or accents as being applicable only to "words of two or more syllables;" and it is plain, that the accent which includes the three sorts above, must needs be "some other thing than what we call accent," if this includes only the acute.