« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
always in the first form or nominative case, except first, when it is the object of a verb active or transitive: as, you love him, whom I hate; he dreads us, but despises them; we, as well as they, disregard him, but respect her, &c. In these instances the pronouns him, whom, them, us, are, in the language of grammarians, governed by the active verbs (love, hate, dreads, &c.), in the accusative or objective case. Every reader, however little acquainted with the subject before, must now, it is presumed, understand what is meant by the position, Every pronoun is in the first form or nominative case, except first, when the object of a verb active. But there is a second exception, viz. when a pronoun is preceded by any of those words talled prepositions; or (to adopt the common grammatic phraseology), when the pronoun is governed by a preposition. The words called prepositions are, of, to, from, over, through, above, for, by, in, below, beneath, under, into, at, with, before, after, behind, within, without, up, beyond, about, near, down, on, upon, off, against, among, between, &c. When these words come immediately before any pronoun, it is to be put in the second form, called objective case, or accusative case: as, I went with them, from him to her, &c., &c.: not, I went with they, from he to she, &c. The most usual grammatical improprieties, as to the pronouns, consist in putting me for I, him for he, her for she, them for they, &c., in the following manner: Who is there? Me, instead of I. May William and me go to London It should be William and I. Them and us went out together; they and we went out together. Him and her are well matched; he and she are well matched. When he or she is applied to objects devoid of sex, respect must be paid to established usage. The sun must be spoken of as he, the moon as she, &c. It is absurd to attempt to assign any rational principle for this custom, which varies among i. nations; for, with the AngloSaxons, the sun was spoken of as she and the moon as he. We, in this matter, follow the Latins, who followed the Greeks, who probably followed the Egyptians, who perhaps imitated the Babylonians; for much of the general agreement, or common consent, of nations and languages, is referrible, not to reason, but to custom founded on imitation. Illiterate persons very frequently employ them instead of these or those : thus, them men were very noisy; it should be those men were very noisy: hand me them books,—those books, or these books. There is often a departure from propriety in changing from one person and number to another: thus, every man knows their own affairs best; it ought to be, every man knows his own affairs best. Can any one be certain, at their first entrance on life, that they shall be always successful; it should be his and he. The grammatists have succeeded in establishing a distinction between who and which : the former is to be employed only when speaking of persons: as, the man who came, the woman who came, the men who are, the buds which are, the
trees which grow, &c.; not the man which was, &c., the birds who are, &c. Fortunately that is equally free from change to denote nominative and accusative, and from any particular manner of application. We can say, the man that was here, the bird that sings, &c.
Some of the grammatists have endeavoured to interdict the use of whose (i. e. properly who's), except in connexion with a person, like who and whom ; but they have not succeeded. We can say, the bird whose leg was hurt, as well as the man whose leg was hurt.
Persons are apt, without care, to blunder in applying this and these, that and those : as this twelvemonth, instead of these twelvemonths: those or these kind of people, instead of that or this kind of people.
There is o; any difference between the application of this with its plural these, and that with its plural those. If two objects, or sets of objects, be referred to, this and these are applied to the nearer, in time, place, or reference; that and those are applied to the more distant: thus, this is a more irksome part of the author's task than that which led him to treat of more intellectual topics: these are the petty, unmeaning, and useless distinctions of arbitrary grammar now under consideration; but those enquiries, to which, in a former part of this work, he directed the attention of the reader, are of a loftier character.
SECT. II.-The custom ARY GRAMMAR of VERBs. We must exhibit the combinations, or what are called the conjugations of verbs, beginning with that jumble of anomalous incoherence, or of dissimilar parts, commonly designated the substantive or neuter verb to be.
I am. We
. The above is denominated the present tense, indicative mood.
&c. Birds, Thou wast. &c.
The above is called, by some, the imperfect tense; by others, the past tense. The other parts of what is called the substantive verb, are, be, being, been; as, to be ; I shall be; I being; I have been. It is hardly possible for any mistake to happen in these parts, except, perhaps, that children and foreigners would be naturally induced by analogy (unless prevented by the force of custom) to say, I have beed, having beed, &c., instead of, I have been, having been. We have noticed how simple the substantive verb would be, if rendered regular, by discarding all such dissimilar parts as, am, is, are, was, were: thus, I be, &c., I beed, &c., I have beed, being, having beed. But established usage prohibits such reasonable simplicity and utility.
When directly preceded by let, may, might, can, could, will, would, shall, should, be is unchanged; thus, let me be, let him be; I may be, he may be; I might be, he might be; I can be, I could be; I will, shall, would, or should be, &c.
The grammatists have conferred on such combinations a number of high-sounding, but insignificant or, absurd designations; as, imperative mood, potential mood, &c. &c.
When the substantive verb is immediately preceded by if (! gif, i.e. give), though, suppose, grant, and other similar terms, which usually indicate uncertainty or contingency, established usage is so various as to set rules at defiance: thus,
&c. If I was, or if I were; If thou wast, or if thou wert; If he was, or if he were, &c. Present grammatic usage leans more to if I were than if I was, and to if he were than if he was; but, concerning the distinction between indicative and subjunctive, grammatists are as much divided as custom: and according to the old doggrel couplet, When doctors disagree, Disciples are free. The following words, called auxiliary verbs, have no change of termination, except in connexion with thou: thus, I may, thou mayest, he may, we may, you may, they may. I might, thou mightest, he might, we might,&c. I can, thou canst, he can, we can, &c. I will, thou wilt, he will, we will, &c. I shall, thou shalt, he shall, we shall, &c. Wilt and shalt are contractions of willest, shallest; as would, should, are of willed, shalled, &c. - ...” “” ‘’’’ * . . . .” . In all the combinations of may, can, &c. (with the exception of what is called the second person singular), there is as much grammatic simplicity as can be wished; for there are no useless and embarrassing inflections or changes: thus,
s may ~
He shall .
we will > be.
U. might J
I . Y
We shall l
You could - love.
To have is called the infinitive mood; having is called the present participle; had is called, by some, the past participle; by others, the perfect participle. Do is also frequently employed in connexion with other verbs; and in what is called the past tense, I doed, is now contracted into did: I do, thou dost, he doth, or does; we, &c., do. I did, thou didst, he did, we did, &c. What is denominated a regular verb is combined with nouns and pronouns in the following Inannet : I We You or ye They These Men &c. Thou trainest, or dost train. He She It trains, or does train.
had (contraction of haved), thou hadst; he had; we, you, or they had.
have had: thou hast had.
train, or do train
&c. This is commonly called present tense, indicative mood.
To train is called infinitive mood. Training is called present, participle. Trained is called past participle, or passive participle. But these designations are as useless, for any practical purpose, as they are unmeaning or absurd. By connecting the past participle of an active or transitive verb, with the substantive verb, what grammatists term the passive voice is formed: thus, I am trained, &c. I was trained, &c. I have been trained, &c. I had been trained, &c. I will or shall be trained, &c. &c. &c. If I am or be trained, &c. I may be trained, &c. &c. &c. It is wholly unnecessary to exhibit the verbs more fully. The reader will clearly perceive how the various combinations are formed. All those verbs which do not admit of being combined with the substantive verb are called intransitive or neuter: such as, sit, stand, lie, sleep, &c. We can say, I am trained, loved, watched, &c.; but we do not say, I am sat, stood, slept, &c. One grammatic distinction of verbs, therefore, is into active and neuter, or transitive and intransitive: the former, as already noticed, when acting upon the pronouns, put them in what is called the objective case: thus, I love him, not I love he, he loves me, not he loves I. A certain number of verbs are called irregular, because they do not assume ed, for what are called the past tense and perfect o: like, I love, I loved, I have loved. Thus, according to custom, we must not say, I beginned, I have beginned; but, I began, I have begun. e following is a list of the irregular verbs:— 1. Those which admit of no change (as I put, I have put): put, cost, beat (sometimes beaten is employed as the participle; as, he is beaten), burst, cast, cut, hit, hurt, let, rid, set, shed, shut, split, sweat, read. 2. Such as have one anomalous termination: as, abide, abode; sell, sold (corruption of selled); beseech, besought; bind, bound; bleed, bled; breed, bred; bring, brought; buy, bought; catch, caught; cling, clung; creep, crept; dig, dug; feed, fed ; feel, felt; fight, § find, found ; flee, fled; fling, flung; get, got; gild, gilt (also regular); gird, girt (regular); grind, ground; have, had (contraction of haved); hang, hung; also hanged, or regular; hear, heard (contraction of heared); held, hold; keep, kept (contraction of keeped); lay, laid (contraction of layed); lead, led; leave, left; lend, lent; lose, lost; make, made; meet, met; pay, paid (contraction of payed); say, said (contraction of sayed); seek, sought; send, sent; shoe, shod; shoot, shot; shrink, shrunk; sing, sung; sink, sunk; sit, sat; sleep, slept; sling, slung; slink, slunk; speed, sped; spend, spent; spill, spilt, also spilled; spin, spun ; stand, stood; stick, stuck; sting, stung; stink, stunk; string, strung; swing, swung teach, taught; tell, told (contraction of telled); think, thought; weep, wept. 3. Those which have two or more anomalous terminations: as, I begin, I began, I have begun: begin, began, begun; know, knew, known; rise, rose, risen ; arise, arose, arisen; blow, blew, blown; awake, awoke (also awaked), awaken; oear (to bring forth), bare, born; bear (to carry),
bore, borne; begin, began, begun; bid, bade, also bad and bid, bidden, also bid; break, broke, broken; choose, chose, chosen; cleave, clove or cleft, cloven or cleft; come, came, come; dare, durst, dared; do, did, done; draw, drew, drawn; drive, drove, driven; drink, drank, drunk; eat, ate, eaten; fall, fell, fallen; fly, flew, flown; forsake, forsook, forsaken; freeze, froze, frozen; give, gave, given; go, went, gone; grow, grew, grown; knew, know, known; ring, rang, or rung; run, ran, run; see, saw, seen; shake, shook, shaken; slay, slew, slain; slide, slid, slidden; smite, smote, smitten; speak, spoke, spoken ; spit, spat, spit or spitten; spring, sprang, sprung; steal, stole, stolen; stride, strode or strid, stridden; strive, strove, striven; swear, swore, sworn; swim, swam, swum; take, took, taken; tear, tore, torn; throw, threw, thrown; tread, trod, trodden; wear, wore, worn; weave, wove, woven; write, wrote, written.
The reader may compare these irregular verbs with the exhibition of them in a former part of the work, where it is proposed to render them regular.
Pronouns and nouns, when combined with verbs, are commonly distinguished into number and person: thus,
Ungrammatic people are apt to say, I be, thou be, he be, we be, you be, they be ; instead of, I am, thou art, he is, we are, you are, they are.
There is seldom any mistake made by persons who are at all accustomed to grammatic language except in the third person; in which the greatest grammatic proficients are apt to blunder, particularly in extemporaneous speaking, when their sentences are long and intricate; employing is for are and are for is, and was for were, or were for was.
Grammatic propriety admits of this plain rule.
When one object is spoken of, is for the present, and was for the past, must be employed: when two or more objects are spoken of, are for the present, and were for the past, must be em ployed. Thus,
Man is a rational creature: he is the natural lord of the lower animals, which are commonly called irrational; but he is mortal as well as they are, and some of them are longer lived than he is. Plato and Aristotle are two of the most ancient philosophers whose writings are extant; but neither the one nor the other is to be compared with some modern philosophers. Some persons blunder by using were instead of was: thus, I were at London yesterday, he were in the country last-week, for, I was in London yesterday, he was in the country last week. But the most common grammatic error is in employing was instead of were: as, we was there, you was there, they was there, for we were, you were, they were. The following are instances of grammatic inaccuracy: the improper words are put in Italics. Was we wrong? Was you there? Was they here? Was the ancients well acquainted with science? Was Plato and Aristotle truly great philosophers? There is many authors in the present time. There are some kind of writings which is wholly destitute of merit when tried by the test of utility; which are the true standard of excellence. The mechanism of clocks and watches were wholly unknown a few centuries ago. Folly and vice is often united. There was more equivocators than one. The substantive verb being of frequent recurrence, the grammatic learner should practise much upon it to acquire a correct habit; keeping this obvious principle steadily in view as to the third person, viz., When one object is spoken of, is or was, not are or were, must be used: when two or more objects are spoken of, are or were, not is or was, must be used; i.e. when the nominative to the verb is singular, is and was must be employed; but when the nominative is plural, are and were must be employed. ' The following are examples of false gramInar :The smiles of counterfeit friendship is to be suspected; it should be, are to be suspected. The number of the inhabitants of Great Britain are greatly increased of late years; is greatly increased. Nothing but vain and foolish pursuits are agreeable to some persons—is agreeable. There is many occasions in life in which silence and reserve is true wisdom; it should be are. There are many an occasion in life in which silence or reserve are true wisdom; it should be is; because many an occasion is one entity or a singular nominative; as, also, silence or reserve; for every disconnective word (neither, nor, either, or, &c.) has just the opposite effect of a connective word, such as and. The business that related to ecclesiastical meetings, matters, and persons, were to be ordered according to the king's direction,-was. The affairs belonging to the church, was to be ordered by the king, were. In him was happily blended true dignity and affability,+were. In him were happily blended true dignity with affability,+was. The conjunction and connects two or more singular nouns or pronouns into a plural nominative; but with, besides, as well as, and such words, do not connect two or more singular nouns and
pronouns into a plural nominative. The support of so many of his relations were a heavy tax upon his industry, was. The support of his mother and the expense of his sister was a heavy tax upon his industry, were. The support of his mother, with the expense of his sister, were a heavy tax on his industry,<-was. What is wisdom and virtue to the sons of folly? Reconciliation was offered on terms as moderate as was consistent with a permanent union. Not one of all these sons of folly are happy. And the fame of his person and of his wonderful actions were diffused abroad. The variety of the productions of genius, like those of art, are without limit. To live soberly, righteously, and piously, are required of all men : here, to live (not soberly, righteously, and piously) is the nominative to the verb. To be of a pure and humble mind, to exercise benevolence, to cultivate piety, is the sure means of becoming peaceful and happy. Here there are three distinct entities spoken of or enumerated in the nominative to the verb, and, therefore, not is but are should be used.
Sect. IV. — DIRECTIons ConcerNING THE WoRDs called Auxiliaries or HELPING VERBs.
These are, may, might, can, could, will, would, shall, should; and, fortunately, they have no change of termination except that they assume st in connexion with thou : thus, I may, thou mayst, he may, &c.: will and shall, have, instead of willest, shallest, wilt and shalt. All, therefore, that the grammatic learner has to remember in using these words is to put st with thou: thus, thou mayst train, thou mightst train, thou canst train, thou couldst train, thou wilt train, thou shalt train, thou shouldst train. Do is frequently employed as an auxiliary, and changes thus: I do, thou doest or dost, he doeth, or doth or does, we, you, they, &c., do; I did, thou didst, he did, we did,. &c.; I have done, thou hast done, &c. Here all you have to remember, is to put est or st with thou, and eth or es with he, she, it, or any one object in the third person present: in the past tense did remains unchanged, except that st is added after thou. Children and foreigners, following analogy, naturally say, I do, we do, &c.; I doed, he deed, we doed, &c., I, have doed, &c.; instead of which they must learn to say and write, I do, thou dost, he doth or does, &c.; we did, thou didst, &c.; I have done, &c. Have is also, with another verb, considered auxiliary, and is similarly contracted: thus, I have, we have, you have, they have, thou hast, he hath or has; I had, thou hadst, he had, we had, &c. Here, again, you have only to remember to say or write, thou hast, he hath or has, thou hadst; in all the other combinations have and had undergo no change. The termination eth or this now almost obsolete; es or s being commonly used: thus, he trains, she loves, it rains; not he traineth, sile loveth, it raineth.
Sect. W.-DIRECTIons concea NING REGULAR VERBs. These are, fortunately, very simple; for they have no useless and troublesome changes or terminations, except est or st in connexion with thou, and eth, th; es, or s, in connexion with he, she, it, or any one object or singular nominative in the third person, and what is called present tense. The only mistake, therefore, which persons are apt to commit, who are at all accustomed to grammatic usage, is in not putting est in connexion with thou, and es, or s in connexion with he, she, it, or any singular noun, in the present tense. The second person singular, i.e. thou, is (as already intimated), never used except in prayer, and by the Quakers, and in jocular or contemptuous discourse. The chief attention, therefore, of the grammatic learner should be directed to the third person singular, present tense; and he has only to keep this explicit rule steadily in view. When the nominative is singular, i.e. when one object is connected with the word called a regular verb, es or s must be affixed; but when the nominative is plural, i.e. when two or more objects are indicated, es or s must not be affixed. Thus, John trains the pointers: John and James train the pointers: John or James trains the }. William possesses good sense, and es instruction; he diligently applies to useful learning; and his brothers posscss much affection for him: they, too, love instruction, and apply diligently to learning. The following are instances of grammatic impropriety: the improper words (i.e. in having, or in not having es or s affixed) are put in Italics. All joy and tranquillity dwells there: much joy, or at least tranquillity, dwell there. Thoughtless and intemperate pleasure usually deteriorate both mind and character: intemperate pleasures usually deteriorates both mind and character. Ignorance and negligence has produced the effect: ignorance or negligence have produced the effect: ignorance with negligence produce bad consequences: negligence as well as ignorance produce bad consequences. Not only his fortune, but his reputation suffer by his misconduct. The king ańd his courtiers has passed by: the king with his courtiers have passed by: the king as well as his courtiers have passed by. Nothing delight me so much as the works of nature. Public and private happiness, national dignity, and all that is most interesting to human beings in this world, depends greatly on the character of the government. In all the above instances, the attentive learner will perceive that the words put in Italics are wrong, because es or s is affixed when the nominative is plural, or omitted when the nominative is singular. There is some difficulty at first, in ascertaining the nominative, or promptly discovering whether it be plural or singular. To this point, therefore, the grammatic student o apply particular attention, until it becomes quite familiar to him. The following remarks are intended for his assistance:— 1. All nouns and pronouns that are evidently plural, i.e. which indicate two or more objects, must not have es or s affixed to the verb with
which they are connected: as they, these, those, men, women, children, houses, &c.; thus, they love us—not they loves us. These are the friends of the poor—not these is the friends of the poor. Men naturally love their children—not loves. People do not consider how much they are improved by adversity—not people does not consider how much it is improved by adversity, &c. 2. When two or more singular nouns and po are enumerated or added together, they orm a plural nominative to the verb: thus, John and James and William love play: John, James, William, equally love play. Robert and his sister Mary often walk together in the fields: both he and she prefer the country to the city: they are fond of botany, and seldom return from their walks without some botanic specimens. In all such cases the pronouns must be in the plural number. 3. Two or more circumstances form a plural nominative: thus, to see the beauties of nature, and to listen to the music of the groves, produce agreeable sensations—not produces. The flashing lightning and the reverberating thunder, naturally produce strong emotions, especially in the minds of timid persons. To speak truth, to be diligent in business, punctual to engagements, and honorable in transactions, are important rules of prudential wisdom; and they seldom fail to give respectability to the character of every one who diligently observes them. The conjunctive and is the only word that connects two or more nouns, pronouns, or members of a sentence into a plural nominative: thus, the sun that shines, the rain that descends, and the wind that blows, produce good to mankind. The conjunction is sometimes omitted: the sun, the rain, the wind, produce good to mankind. Such words as with, as well as, &c., though they seem connective, do not form a plural nominative: thus, the king with his body guard has just passed—not have. The king as well as his attendants has passed by. All disconnective words, such as neither, nor, either, or, have the opposite effect of and. There is in many people, neither knowledge nor virtue— not are. It is either John or James that delights in music. Beauty, wealth, or fame, is a very precarious possession. Except when the noun or pronoun coming after the disjunctive is plural, the nominative is always singular: thus, neither adversity nor enemies disturb his equanimity—not disturbs. Neither enemies nor adversity disturbs—not disturb. It is better in such cases, if possible, to put the plural word last; but, in all such forms of expression, the inconvenience of arbitrary grammar is strikingly obvious. Concerning nouns which indicate plurality when considered in one view, and unity or individuality when considered in another—there is no uniform grammatic usage. Some authors would write, ‘My people do not consider; they have not known me:’ others, my people does not consider: it has not known me. The multitude eagerly pursue pleasure as their chief good. The multitude eagerly pursues pleasure as its chief good. The council were divided in their sentiments. The council was divided in its senti