The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (read books for money TXT) 📖

Dict., w. Own. O. B. Peirce, with obvious untruth, says, "Own is used in combination with a name or substitute, and as a part of it, to constitute it emphatic."—Gram., p. 63. He writes it separately, but parses it as a part of the possessive noun or pronoun which precedes it!

OBS. 29.—The word self was originally an adjective, signifying same, very, or particular; but, when used alone, it is now generally a noun. This may have occasioned the diversity which appears in the formation of the compound personal pronouns. Dr. Johnson, in his great Dictionary, calls self a pronoun; but he explains it as being both adjective and substantive, admitting that, "Its primary signification seems to be that of an adjective."—Again he observes, "Myself, himself, themselves, and the rest, may, contrary to the analogy of my, him, them, be used as nominatives." Hisself, itsself, and theirselves, would be more analogical than himself, itself, themselves; but custom has rejected the former, and established the latter. When an adjective qualifies the term self, the pronouns are written separately in the possessive case; as, My single self,—My own self,—His own self,—Their own selves. So, anciently, without an adjective: as, "A man shall have diffused his life, his self, and his whole concernments so far, that he can weep his sorrows with an other's eyes."—South. "Something valuable for its self without view to anything farther."—Harris's Hermes, p. 293. "That they would willingly, and of their selves endeavour to keep a perpetual chastity."—Stat. Ed. VI. in Lowth's Gram., p. 26. "Why I should either imploy my self in that study or put others upon it."—Walker's English Particles, p. xiv. "It is no matter whether you do it by your proctor, or by your self."—Ib., p. 96. The compound oneself is sometimes written in stead of the phrase one's self; but the latter is preferable, and more common. Even his self, when written as two words, may possibly be right in some instances; as,

   "Scorn'd be the wretch that quits his genial bowl,
     His loves, his friendships, ev'n his self, resigns;
    Perverts the sacred instinct of his soul,
     And to a ducat's dirty sphere confines."
        —SHENSTONE: Brit. Poets, Vol. vii, p. 107.

OBS. 30.—In poetry, and even in some compositions not woven into regular numbers, the simple personal pronouns are not unfrequently used, for brevity's sake, in a reciprocal sense; that is, in stead of the compound personal pronouns, which are the proper reciprocals: as, "Wash you, make you clean."—Isaiah, i, 16. "I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards; I made me gardens and orchards."—Ecclesiastes, ii, 4. "Thou shalt surely clothe thee with them all as with an ornament, and bind them on thee as a bride doeth."—Isaiah, xlix, 18. Compare with these the more regular expression: "As a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with jewels."—Isaiah, lxi, 10. This phraseology is almost always preferable in prose; the other is a poetical license, or peculiarity: as,

"I turn me from the martial roar."—Scott's L. L., p. 97.

"Hush thee, poor maiden, and be still."—Ib., p. 110.

"Firmer he roots him the ruder it blow."—Ib., p. 49.

OBS. 31.—To accommodate the writers of verse, the word ever is frequently contracted into e'er, pronounced like the monosyllable air. An easy extension of this license, gives us similar contractions of all the compound relative pronouns; as, whoe'er or whosoe'er, whose'er or whosesoe'er, whome'er or whomsoe'er, whiche'er or whichsoe'er, whate'er or whatsoe'er. The character and properties of these compounds are explained, perhaps sufficiently, in the observations upon the classes of pronouns. Some of them are commonly parsed as representing two cases at once; there being, in fact, an ellipsis of the noun, before or after them: as,

"Each art he prompts, each charm he can create, Whate'er he gives, are given for you to hate."—Pope's Dunciad.

OBS. 32.—For a form of parsing the double relative what, or its compound whatever or whatsoever, it is the custom of some teachers, to suggest equivalent words, and then proceed to explain these, in lieu of the word in question. This is the method of Russell's Gram., p. 99; of Merchants, p. 110; of Kirkham's, p. 111; of Gilbert's, p. 92. But it should be remembered that equivalence of meaning is not sameness of grammatical construction; and, even if the construction be the same, to parse other equivalent words, is not really to parse the text that is given. A good parser, with the liberty to supply obvious ellipses, should know how to explain all good English as it stands; and for a teacher to pervert good English into false doctrine, must needs seem the very worst kind of ignorance. What can be more fantastical than the following etymology, or more absurd than the following directions for parsing? "What is compounded of which that. These words have been contracted and made to coalesce, a part of the orthography of both being still retained: what—wh[ich—t]hat; (which-that.) Anciently it appeared in the varying forms, tha qua, qua tha, qu'tha, quthat, quhat, hwat, and finally what."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 111. This bald pedantry of "tha qua, qua tha," was secretly borrowed from the grammatical speculations of William S. Cardell:[217] the "which-that" notion contradicts it, and is partly of the borrower's own invention. If what is a compound, it was compounded more than a thousand years ago; and, of course, long before any part of the English language existed as such. King Alfred used it, as he found it, in the Saxon form of hwæt. The Scotch afterwards spelled it quhat. Our English grammarians have improperly called it a compound; and Kirkham, still more absurdly, calls the word others a compound, and mine, thine, ours, yours, &e. compounds.[218]

OBS. 33.—According to this gentleman's notion of things, there is, within the little circle of the word what, a very curious play of antecedent parts and parts relative—a dodging contra-dance of which that and that which, with things which, and so forth. Thus: "When what is a compound relative you must always parse it as two words; that is, you must parse the antecedent part as a noun, and give it case; the relative part you may analyze like any other relative, giving it a case likewise. Example: 'I will try what (that which) can be found in female delicacy.' Here that, the antecedent part of what, is in the obj. case, governed by the verb 'will try;' which, the relative part, is in the nom. case to 'can be found.' 'I have heard what (i.e. that which, or the thing which) has been alleged.' "—Kirkham's Gram., p. 111. Here, we sec, the author's "which-that" becomes that which, or something else. But this is not a full view of his method. The following vile rigmarole is a further sample of that "New Systematick Order of Parsing," by virtue of which he so very complacently and successfully sets himself above all other grammarians: "'From what is recorded, he appears, &c.' What is a comp. rel. pron. including both the antecedent and the relative, and is equivalent to that which, or the thing which.—Thing, the antecedent part of what, is a noun, the name of a thing—com. the name of a species—neuter gender, it has no sex—third person, spoken of—sing. number, it implies but one—and in the obj. case, it is the object of the relation expressed by the prep. 'from,' and gov. by it: RULE 31. (Repeat the Rule, and every other Rule to which I refer.) Which, the relative part of what, is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun—relative, it relates to 'thing' for its antecedent—neut. gender, third person, sing, number, because the antecedent is with which it agrees, according to RULE 14. Rel. pron. &c. Which is in the nom. case to the verb 'is recorded,' agreeably to RULE 15. The relative is the nominative case to the verb, when no nominative comes between it and the verb."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 113.

OBS. 34.—The distinction which has been made by Murray and others, between etymological parsing and syntactical—or, between that exercise which simply classifies and describes the words of a sentence, and that which adds to this the principles of their construction—is rejected by Kirkham, and also by Ingersoll, Fuller, Smith, Sanborn, Mack, and some others, it being altogether irreconcilable with their several modes of confounding the two main parts of grammar. If such a distinction is serviceable, the want of it is one of the inherent faults of the schemes which they have adopted. But, since "grammar is the art of speaking and writing with propriety" who that really values clearness and accuracy of expression, can think the want of them excusable in models prescribed for the exercise of parsing? And is it not better to maintain the distinction above named, than to interlace our syntactical parsing with broken allusions to the definitions which pertain to etymology? If it is, this new mode of parsing, which Kirkham claims to have invented, and Smith pretends to have got from Germany, whatever boast may be made of it, is essentially defective and very immethodical.[219] This remark applies not merely to the forms above cited, respecting the pronoun what, but to the whole method of parsing adopted by the author of "English Grammar in Familiar Lectures."

OBS. 35.—The forms of etymological parsing which I have adopted, being designed to train the pupil, in the first place, by a succession of easy steps, to a rapid and accurate description of the several species of words, and a ready habit of fully defining the technical terms employed in such descriptions, will be found to differ more from the forms of syntactical parsing, than do those of perhaps any other grammarian. The definitions, which constitute so large a portion of the former, being omitted as soon as they are thoroughly learned, give place in the latter, to the facts and principles of syntax. Thus have we fullness in the one part, conciseness in the other, order and distinctness in both. The separation of etymology from syntax, however, though judiciously adopted by almost all grammarians, is in itself a mere matter of convenience. No one will pretend that these two parts of grammar are in their nature totally distinct and independent. Hence, though a due regard to method demands the maintenance of this ancient and still usual division of the subject, we not unfrequently, in treating of the classes and modifications of words, exhibit contingently some of the principles of their construction. This, however, is very different from a purposed blending of the two parts, than which nothing can be more unwise.

OBS. 36.—The great peculiarity of the pronoun what, or of its compound whatever or whatsoever, is a peculiarity of construction, rather than of etymology. Hence, in etymological parsing, it may be sufficient to notice it only as a relative, though the construction be double. It is in fact a relative; but it is one that reverses the order of the antecedent, whenever the noun is inserted with it. But as the noun is usually suppressed, and as the supplying of it is attended with an obvious difficulty, arising from the transposition, we cut the matter short, by declaring the word to have, as it appears to have, a double syntactical relation. Of the foregoing example, therefore—viz., "From what is recorded," &c.,—a pupil of mine, in parsing etymologically, would say thus: "What is a relative pronoun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which denotes the subject of a verb." In parsing syntactically, he would say thus: "What is a double relative, including both antecedent and relative, being equivalent to that which. As antecedent, it is of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case; being governed by from; according to the rule which says, 'A Noun or a Pronoun made the object of a preposition, is goverved [sic—KTH] by it in the objective case.' Because the meaning is—from what. As relative, it is of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case; being the subject of is recorded; according to the rule which says, 'A Noun or a Pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.' Because the meaning is—what is recorded."

OBS. 37.—The word what, when uttered independently as a