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

between them and their correctors there lie a mutual charge of misnomer, it is for the literary world to determine who is right. Important names are sometimes acquired by mere accident. Those which are totally inappropriate, no reasonable design can have bestowed. Thus a fancied resemblance between the island of Aquidneck, in Narraganset Bay, and that of Rhodes, in the Ægean Sea, has at length given to a state, or republic, which lies chiefly on the main land, the absurd name of Rhode Island; so that now, to distinguish Aquidneck itself, geographers resort to the strange phrase, "the Island of Rhode Island."—Balbi. The official title of this little republic, is, "the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." But this name is not only too long for popular use, but it is doubtful in its construction and meaning. It is capable of being understood in four different ways. 1. A stranger to the fact, would not learn from this phrase, that the "Providence Plantations" are included in the "State of Rhode Island," but would naturally infer the contrary. 2. The phrase, "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," may be supposed to mean "Rhode Island [Plantations] and Providence Plantations." 3. It may be understood to mean "Rhode Island and Providence [i.e., two] Plantations." 4. It may be taken for "Rhode Island" [i.e., as an island,] and the "Providence Plantations." Which, now, of all these did Charles the Second mean, when he gave the colony this name, with his charter, in 1663? It happened that he meant the last; but I doubt whether any man in the state, except perhaps some learned lawyer, can parse the phrase, with any certainty of its true construction and meaning. This old title can never be used, except in law. To write the popular name "Rhodeisland," as Dr. Webster has it in his American Spelling-Book, p. 121, would be some improvement upon it; but to make it Rhodeland, or simply Rhode, would be much more appropriate. As for Rhode Island, it ought to mean nothing but the island; and it is, in fact, an abuse of language to apply it otherwise. In one of his parsing lessons, Sanborn gives us for good English the following tautology: "Rhode Island derived its name from the island of Rhode Island."—Analytical Gram., p. 37. Think of that sentence!

OBS. 11.—On Rules 7th and 8th, concerning Two Capitals for Compounds, I would observe, with a general reference to those compound terms which designate particular places or things, that it is often no easy matter to determine, either from custom or from analogy, whether such common words as may happen to be embraced in them, are to be accounted parts of compound proper names and written with capitals, or to be regarded as appellatives, requiring small letters according to Rule 9th. Again the question may be, whether they ought not to be joined to the foregoing word, according to Rule 6th. Let the numerous examples under these four rules be duly considered: for usage, in respect to each of them, is diverse; so much so, that we not unfrequently find it contradictory, in the very same page, paragraph, or even sentence. Perhaps we may reach some principles of uniformity and consistency, by observing the several different kinds of phrases thus used. 1. We often add an adjective to an old proper name to make a new one, or to serve the purpose of distinction: as, Now York, New Orleans, New England, New Bedford; North America, South America; Upper Canada, Lower Canada; Great Pedee, Little Pedee; East Cambridge, West Cambridge; Troy, West Troy. All names of this class require two capitals: except a few which are joined together; as Northampton, which is sometimes more analogically written North Hampton. 2. We often use the possessive case with some common noun after it; as, Behring's Straits, Baffin's Bay, Cook's Inlet, Van Diemen's Land, Martha's Vineyard, Sacket's Harbour, Glenn's Falls. Names of this class generally have more than one capital; and perhaps all of them should be written so, except such as coalesce; as, Gravesend, Moorestown, the Crowsnest. 3. We sometimes use two common nouns with of between them; as, the Cape of Good Hope, the Isle of Man, the Isles of Shoals, the Lake of the Woods, the Mountains of the Moon. Such nouns are usually written with more than one capital. I would therefore write "the Mount of Olives" in this manner, though it is not commonly found so in the Bible. 4. We often use an adjective and a common noun; as, the Yellow sea, the Indian ocean, the White hills, Crooked lake, the Red river; or, with two capitals, the Yellow Sea, the Indian Ocean, the White Hills, Crooked Lake, the Red River. In this class of names the adjective is the distinctive word, and always has a capital; respecting the other term, usage is divided, but seems rather to favour two capitals. 5. We frequently put an appellative, or common noun, before or after a proper name; as, New York city, Washington street, Plymouth county, Greenwich village. "The Carondelet canal extends from the city of New Orleans to the bayou St. John, connecting lake Pontchartrain with the Mississippi river."—Balbi's Geog. This is apposition. In phrases of this kind, the common noun often has a capital, but it seldom absolutely requires it; and in general a small letter is more correct, except in some few instances in which the common noun is regarded as a permanent part of the name; as in Washington City, Jersey City. The words Mount, Cape, Lake, and Bay, are now generally written with capitals when connected with their proper names; as, Mount Hope, Cape Cod, Lake Erie, Casco Bay. But they are not always so written, even in modern books; and in the Bible we read of "mount Horeb, mount Sinai, mount Zion, mount Olivet," and many others, always with a single capital.

OBS. 12.—In modern compound names, the hyphen is now less frequently used than it was a few years ago. They seldom, if ever, need it, unless they are employed as adjectives; and then there is a manifest propriety in inserting it. Thus the phrase, "the New London Bridge," can be understood only of a new bridge in London; and if we intend by it a bridge in New London, we must say, "the New-London Bridge." So "the New York Directory" is not properly a directory for New York, but a new directory for York. I have seen several books with titles which, for this reason, were evidently erroneous. With respect to the ancient Scripture names, of this class, we find, in different editions of the Bible, as well as in other books, many discrepancies. The reader may see a very fair specimen of them, by comparing together the last two vocabularies of Walker's Key. He will there meet with an abundance of examples like these: "Uz'zen Shérah, Uzzen-shérah; Talitha Cúmi, Talithacúmi; Náthan Mélech, Nathan'-melech; A'bel Mehólath, Abel-mehólah; Házel Elpóni, Hazelepóni; Az'noth Tábor, Asnoth-tábor; Báal Ham'on, Baal-hámon; Hámon Gog, Ham'ongog; Báal Zébub, Bäal'zebub; Shéthar Boz'näi, Shether-boz'näi; Meródach Bal'adan, Merodach-bal'adan." All these glaring inconsistencies, and many more, has Dr. Webster restereotyped from Walker, in his octavo Dictionary! I see no more need of the hyphen in such names, than in those of modern times. They ought, in some instances, to be joined together without it; and, in others, to be written separately, with double capitals. But special regard should be had to the ancient text. The phrase, "Talitha, cumi,"—i. e., "Damsel, arise,"—is found in some Bibles, "Talitha-cumi;" but this form of it is no more correct than either of those quoted above. See Mark, v, 41st, in Griesbach's Greek Testament, where a comma divides this expression.

OBS. 13.—On Rule 10th, concerning Personifications, it may be well to observe, that not every noun which is the name of an object personified, must begin with a capital, but only such as have a resemblance to proper nouns; for the word person itself, or persons, or any other common noun denoting persons or a person, demands no such distinction. And proper names of persons are so marked, not with any reference to personality, but because they are proper nouns—or names of individuals, and not names of sorts. Thus, Æsop's viper and file are both personified, where it is recorded, "'What ails thee, fool?' says the file to the viper;" but the fable gives to these names no capitals, except in the title of the story. It may here be added, that, according to their definitions of personification, our grammarians and the teachers of rhetoric have hitherto formed no very accurate idea of what constitutes the figure. Lindley Murray says, "PERSONIFICATION [,] or PROSOPOPOEIA, is that figure by which we attribute life and action to inanimate objects."—Octavo Gram., p. 346; Duodecimo, p. 211. Now this is all wrong, doubly wrong,—wrong in relation to what personification is, and wrong too in its specification of the objects which may be personified. For "life and action" not being peculiar to persons, there must be something else than these ascribed, to form the figure; and, surely, the objects which Fancy thinks it right to personify, are not always "inanimate." I have elsewhere defined the thing as follows: "Personification is a figure by which, in imagination, we ascribe intelligence and personality to unintelligent beings or abstract qualities."—Inst., p. 234.

OBS. 14.—On Rule 11th, concerning Derivatives, I would observe, that not only the proper adjectives, to which this rule more particularly refers, but also nouns, and even verbs, derived from such adjectives, are frequently, if not generally, written with an initial capital. Thus, from Greece, we have Greek, Greeks, Greekish, Greekling, Grecise, Grecism, Grecian, Grecians, Grecianize. So Murray, copying Blair, speaks of "Latinised English;" and, again, of style strictly "English, without Scotticisms or Gallicisms."—Mur. Gram., 8vo, p. 295; Blair's Lect., pp. 93 and 94. But it is questionable, how far this principle respecting capitals ought to be carried. The examples in Dr. Johnson's quarto Dictionary exhibit the words, gallicisms, anglicisms, hebrician, latinize, latinized, judaized, and christianized, without capitals; and the words Latinisms, Grecisms, Hebraisms, and Frenchified, under like circumstances, with them. Dr. Webster also defines Romanize, "To Latinize; to conform to Romish opinions." In the examples of Johnson, there is a manifest inconsistency. Now, with respect to adjectives from proper names, and also to the nouns formed immediately from such adjectives, it is clear that they ought to have capitals: no one will contend that the words American and Americans should be written with a small a. With respect to Americanism, Gallicism, and other similar words, there may be some room to doubt. But I prefer a capital for these. And, that we may have a uniform rule to go by, I would not stop here, but would write Americanize and Americanized with a capital also; for it appears that custom is in favour of thus distinguishing nearly all verbs and participles of this kind, so long as they retain an obvious reference to their particular origin. But when any such word ceases to be understood as referring directly to the proper name, it may properly be written without a capital. Thus we write jalap from Jalapa, hermetical from Hermes, hymeneal from Hymen, simony, from Simon, philippic from Philip; the verbs, to hector, to romance, to japan, to christen, to philippize, to galvanize; and the adverbs hermetically and jesuitically, all without a capital: and perhaps judaize, christianize, and their derivatives, may join this class. Dr. Webster's octavo Dictionary mentions "the prussic acid" and "prussian blue," without a capital; and so does Worcester's.

OBS. 15.—On Rule 12th, concerning I and O, it may be observed, that although many who occasionally write, are ignorant enough to violate this, as well as every other rule of grammar, yet no printer ever commits blunders of this sort. Consequently, the few erroneous examples which will be exhibited for correction under it, will not be undesigned mistakes. Among the errors of books, we do not find the printing of the words I and O in small characters; but the confounding of O with the other interjection oh, is not uncommon even among grammarians. The latter has no concern with this rule, nor is it equivalent to the former, as a sign: O is a note of wishing, earnestness, and vocative address; but oh is, properly, a sign of sorrow, pain, or surprise. In the following example, therefore, a line from Milton is perverted:—

"Oh thou! that with surpassing glory crowned!" —Bucke's Gram., p. 88.

OBS. 16.—On Rule 13th, concerning Poetry, it may be observed, that the principle applies only to regular versification, which is the common form, if not the distinguishing mark, of poetical composition. And, in this, the practice of beginning every line with a capital is almost universal; but I have seen some books in which it was whimsically disregarded. Such poetry as that of Macpherson's Ossian, or such as the common translation of the Psalms,