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

qualified by sufficient; sufficient is the prior term of to; to governs preserve; preserve governs it, and is the prior term of from; and from governs putrefaction.

2. "There is one Being to whom we can look with a perfect conviction of finding that security, which nothing about us can give, and which nothing about us can take away."—GREENWOOD; Wells's School Gram., p. 192.[331]

ANALYSIS.—What is the general structure of this passage? and what, the chain of connexion "between the words away and is?" The period is a complex sentence, having four clauses, all connected together by relatives; the second, by whom, to the first and chief clause, "There is one Being;" the third and the fourth, to the second, by which and which; but the last two, having the same antecedent, security, and being coördinate, are also connected one to the other by and. As to "the chain of connexion," Away relates to can take; can take agrees with its nominative nothing, and governs which; which represents security; security is governed by finding; finding is governed by of; of refers back to conviction; conviction is governed by with; with refers back to can look; can look agrees with we, and is, in sense, the antecedent of to; to governs whom; whom represents Being; and Being is the subject of is.

FIFTH METHOD OF ANALYSIS.

The best and most thorough method of analysis is that of COMPLETE SYNTACTICAL PARSING; a method which, for the sake of order and brevity, should ever be kept free from all mixture of etymological definitions or reasons, but which may be preceded or followed by any of the foregoing schemes of resolution, if the teacher choose to require any such preliminary or subsidiary exposition. This method is fully illustrated in the Twelfth Praxis below.

OBSERVATIONS ON METHODS OF ANALYSIS.

OBS. 1.—The almost infinite variety in the forms of sentences, will sometimes throw difficulty in the way of the analyzer, be his scheme or his skill what it may. The last four or five observations of the preceding series have shown, that the distinction of sentences as simple or compound, which constitutes the chief point of the First Method of Analysis above, is not always plain, even to the learned. The definitions and examples which I have given, will make it generally so; and, where it is otherwise, the question or puzzle, it is presumed, cannot often be of much practical importance. If the difference be not obvious, it can hardly be a momentous error, to mistake a phrase for an elliptical clause, or to call such a clause a phrase.

OBS. 2.—The Second Method above is, I think, easier of application than any of the rest; and, if other analysis than the regular method of parsing seem desirable, this will probably be found as useful as any. There is, in many of our popular grammars, some recognition of the principles of this analysis—some mention of "the principal parts of a sentence," in accordance with what are so called above,—and also, in a few, some succinct account of the parts called "adjuncts;" but there seems to have been no prevalent practice of applying these principles, in any stated or well-digested manner. Lowth, Murray, Alger, W. Allen, Hart, Hiley, Ingersoll, Wells, and others, tell of these "PRINCIPAL PARTS;"—Lowth calling them, "the agent, the attribute, and the object;" (Gram., p. 72;)—Murray, and his copyists, Alger, Ingersoll, and others, calling them, "the subject, the attribute, and the object;"—Hiley and Hart calling them, "the subject or nominative, the attribute or verb, and the object;"—Allen calling them, "the nominative, the verb, and (if the verb is active,) the accusative governed by the verb;" and also saying, "The nominative is sometimes called the subject; the verb, the attribute; and the accusative, the object;"—Wells calling them, "the subject or nominative, the verb, and the object;" and also recognizing the "adjuncts," as a species which "embraces all the words of a simple sentence [,] except the principal parts;"—yet not more than two of them all appearing to have taken any thought, and they but little, about the formal application of their common doctrine. In Allen's English Grammar, which is one of the best, and likewise in Wells's, which is equally prized, this reduction of all connected words, or parts of speech, into "the principal parts" and "the adjuncts," is fully recognized; the adjuncts, too, are discriminated by Allen, as "either primary or secondary," nor are their more particular species or relations overlooked; but I find no method prescribed for the analysis intended, except what Wells adopted in his early editions but has since changed to an other or abandoned, and no other allusion to it by, Allen, than this Note, which, with some appearance of intrusion, is appended to his "Method of Parsing the Infinitive Mood:"—"The pupil may now begin to analyse [analyze] the sentences, by distinguishing the principal words and their adjuncts."—W. Allen's E. Gram., p. 258.

OBS. 3.—These authors in general, and many more, tell us, with some variation of words, that the agent, subject, or nominative, is that of which something is said, affirmed, or denied; that the attribute, verb, or predicate, is that which is said, affirmed, or denied, of the subject; and that the object, accusative, or case sequent, is that which is introduced by the finite verb, or affected by the action affirmed. Lowth says, "In English the nominative case, denoting the agent, usually goes before the verb, or attribution; and the objective case, denoting the object, follows the verb active."—Short Introd., p. 72. Murray copies, but not literally, thus: "The nominative denotes the subject, and usually goes before the verb [,] or attribute; and the word or phrase, denoting the object, follows the verb: as, 'A wise man governs his passions.' Here, a wise man is the subject; governs, the attribute, or thing affirmed; and his passions, the object."—Murray's Octavo, p. 142; Duodecimo, 116. To include thus the adjuncts with their principals, as the logicians do, is here manifestly improper; because it unites what the grammatical analyzer is chiefly concerned to separate, and tends to defeat the main purpose for which "THE PRINCIPAL PARTS" are so named and distinguished.

OBS. 4.—The Third Method of Analysis, described above, is an attempt very briefly to epitomize the chief elements of a great scheme,—to give, in a nutshell, the substance of what our grammarians have borrowed from the logicians, then mixed with something of their own, next amplified with small details, and, in some instances, branched out and extended to enormous bulk and length. Of course, they have not failed to set forth the comparative merits of this scheme in a sufficiently favourable light. The two ingenious gentlemen who seem to have been chiefly instrumental in making it popular, say in their preface, "The rules of syntax contained in this work result directly from the analysis of propositions, and of compound sentences; and for this reason the student should make himself perfectly familiar with the sections relating to subject and predicate, and should be able readily to analyze sentences, whether simple or compound, and to explain their structure and connection. * * * This exercise should always precede the more minute and subsidiary labor of parsing. If the latter be conducted, as it often is, independently of previous analysis, the principal advantage to be derived from the study of language, as an intellectual exercise, will inevitably be lost."—Latin Grammar of Andrews and Stoddard, p. vi. N. Butler, who bestows upon this subject about a dozen duodecimo pages, says in his preface, "The rules for the analysis of sentences, which is a very useful and interesting exercise, have been taken from Andrews' and Stoddard's Latin Grammar, some changes and additions being made."—Butler's Practical Gram., p. iv.[332]

OBS. 5.—Wells, in the early copies of his School Grammar, as has been hinted, adopted a method of analysis similar to the Second one prescribed above; yet referred, even from the first, to "Andrews and Stoddard's Latin Grammar," and to "De Sacy's General Grammar," as if these were authorities for what he then inculcated. Subsequently, he changed his scheme, from that of Parts Principal and Adjuncts, to one of Subjects and Predicates, "either grammatical or logical," also "either simple or compound;"—to one resembling Andrews and Stoddard's, yet differing from it, often, as to what constitutes a "grammatical predicate;"—to one resenbling [sic—KTH] the Third Method above, yet differing from it, (as does Andrews and Stoddard's,) in taking the logical subject and predicate before the grammatical. "The chapter on Analysis," said he then, "has been Revised and enlarged with great care, and will be found to embody all the most important principles on this subject [.] which are contained in the works of De Sacy, Andrews and Stoddard, Kühner, Crosby, and Crane. It is gratifying to observe that the attention of teachers is now so generally directed to this important mode of investigating the structure of our language, in connection with the ordinary exercises of etymological and syntactical parsing."—Wells's School Gram., New Ed., 1850, p. iv.

OBS. 6.—In view of the fact, that Wells's chief mode of sentential analysis had just undergone an almost total metamorphosis, a change plausible perhaps, but of doubtful utility,—that, up to the date of the words just cited, and afterwards, so far and so long as any copies of his early "Thousands" remain in use, the author himself has earnestly directed attention to a method which he now means henceforth to abandon,—in this view, the praise and gratulation expressed above seem singular. If it has been found practicable, to slide "the attention of teachers," and their approbation too, adroitly over from one "important mode of investigating the structure of our language," to an other;—if "it is gratifying to observe," that the direction thus given to public opinion sustains itself so well, and "is so generally" acquiesced in;—if it is proved, that the stereotyped praise of one system of analysis may, without alteration, be so transferred to an other, as to answer the double purpose of commending and superseding;—it is not improbable that the author's next new plates will bear the stamp of yet other "most important principles" of analysis. This process is here recommended to be used "in connection with the ordinary exercises of etymological and syntactical parsing,"—exercises, which, in Wells's Grammar, are generally, and very improperly, commingled; and if, to these, may be profitably conjoined either his present or his former scheme of analysis, it were well, had he somewhere put them together and shown how.

OBS. 7.—But there are other passages of the School Grammar, so little suited to this notion of "connection" that one can hardly believe the word ought to be taken in what seems its only sense. "Advanced classes should attend less to the common Order of Parsing, and more to the Analysis of language."—Wells's Grammar, "3d Thousand," p. 125; "113th Thousand," p. 132. This implies, what is probably true of the etymological exercise, that parsing is more rudimental than the other forms of analysis. It also intimates, what is not so clear, that pupils rightly instructed must advance from the former to the latter, as to something more worthy of their intellectual powers. The passage is used with reference to either form of analysis adopted by the author. So the following comparison, in which Parsing is plainly disparaged, stands permanently at the head of "the chapter on Analysis," to commend first one mode, and then an other: "It is particularly desirable that pupils should pass as early as practicable from the formalities of common PARSING, to the more important exercise of ANALYZING critically the structure of language. The mechanical routine of technical parsing is peculiarly liable to become monotonous and dull, while the practice of explaining the various relations and offices of words in a sentence, is adapted to call the mind of the learner into constant and vigorous action, and can hardly fail of exciting the deepest interest,"—Wells's Gram., 3d Th., p. 181; 113th Th., p. 184.

OBS. 8.—An ill scheme of parsing, or an ill use of a good one, is almost as unlucky in grammar, as an ill method of ciphering, or an ill use of a good one, would be in arithmetic. From the strong contrast cited above, one might suspect that, in selecting, devising, or using, a technical process for the exercising of learners in the principles of etymology and syntax, this author had been less fortunate than the generality of his fellows. Not only is it implied, that parsing is no critical analysis, but even what is set in opposition to the "mechanical routine," may very well serve for a definition of Syntactical Parsing—"the practice of explaining the various relations and offices of words in a sentence!" If this "practice," well ordered, can be at once interesting and profitable to the learner, so may parsing. Nor, after all, is even this author's mode of parsing, defective though it is in several respects, less "important" to the users of his book, or less valued by teachers,