Page images
PDF
EPUB

Poets." Do not kill Aies. I have bought a pen-knife. The two armies met at day-break. In passing through the valley, I saw a monkey. The environs of London are very beautiful. How can I make amends for the harm I have done you? Paley is too highly esteemed as a teacher of ethics, Locke's metaphysics are despised by the scholars of Kant. The prime minister of England is the servant and the organ of the queen. Organs were introduced into

hristian churches about the ninth century. Lord Brougham was the most ready but not the most learned of all our Lord Chancellors. old Thomas Parr, who lived a hundred and fifty-two years, had eight sons-in-law and four daughters-in-law.

EXERCISES.--INCOMPLETE. The tree is full of She is a lovely—. That child has the hooping-cough, it must not play with the other-, Yesterday I saw one black mouse and two white. Our cook has bought a fat goose; are-cheap in this place ? Have you a penny? Yes, here are six-which make six-. In London there are more than six hundred (church). In the United States of America the-are stili slaves. Two-make a whole. London is the largest of all the-in the world, The French and English -like fools have often fought bloody- All good-must go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. Nelson's fleet at the Nile consisted of eighteen-; that of the French was seven-stronger, and had besides much heavier-, Give me a--of bread; you may have as many—as you want. ,

PARSING. Cherubim and Seraphim bow and worship around the throne of God, adoring his perfections in their inmost souls. Cherubim, a common noun, of Hebrew origin, in the plural number,

from cherub, forming together with seraphim the subject

of the verb bow. And, a conjunction, coupling the nouns seraphim and cherubim. Seraphim, a noun common, in the plural number, from the Hebrew

noun seraph; seraphim is part of the compound subject to

the verbs bow and worship. Bow, an intransitive verb, present tense, third person plural num

ber, agreeing with the subject cherubim and seraphim. And, a conjunction uniting bow and worship. Worship, an intransitive (sometimes transitive, as in they worship

God) verb, present time third person plural, agreeing with

the subject cherubim and seraphim. Around, a preposition governing throne. The, the definite article. Throne, a common noun, singular number, forming its plural by

the addition of s, and dependent on the preposition around of, a preposition governing the noun God. God, a proper noun, singular number, having, from its signification,

no plural, though gods is used when false divinities or

idols are meant. Adoring, a present participle from the transitive verb to adore,

agreeing with cherubim and seraphim, and governing per

fections. 7 possessive pronoun, from the personal pronoun he, of the third

person singular number, plural their, agreeing with perfections.

Perfections, a common noun from the Latin per, through, and facio,

I make (E. R. perfect), in the plural number, singular per

fection, the object to the participle adoring. In, a preposition governing souls. Their, a possessive pronoun, third person plural, singular his,

agreeing with souls. Inmost, an adjective in the superlative degree, made up of the Saxon

elements in and most, and agreeing with souls. Souls, a noun common, of Saxon origin, plural number, singular

soul, dependent on the preposition in. Words with their proper Prepositions to be formed into Sentenccs.

F. R.
Disappointed of, dis, not, ad, to, punctum, a point
Disapprove of,

dis, not, probo, I approve Discourage from, dis, not, cæur, heart Disgusted at,

dis, not, gustus, taste Dislike to,

dis. not. licean (Sax.), to like
Dismission from, dis, not, mitto, I send
Disparagement to, . dis, not, par, equal
Dispense with,

dis, not, pendo, I pay Dispose of,

dis, in different ways, pono, I plac? Dispossess of,

dis, not, possideo, I possess Dispute with,

dis, differently, puto, I think

CASE. Our grammatical terms are derived from the Latin. In Latin grammar, case denotes the change or changes which nouns and pronouns undergo in their terminations corresponding with certain changes in signification. Thus nubes iš a cloud; but nubi is to a cloud; where the termination or what is called the case-ending es, is changed into the case-ending i. The case-endings of the plural vary from the case-endings of the singular. I present this Latin noun in full, togeth-r with the English meanings ;*

SINGULAR.

PLURAL.
Cases. Latin. English. | Latin, English.
NOMINATIVE. nubes a cloud ? nubes clouds
GENITIVE. nubis of a cloud nubium of clouds
DATIVE, nubi to a cloud | nubibus to clouds
ACCUSATIVE. nubom a cloud | nubes clouds
VOCATIVE. nubcso ! cloud | nubes 0! cl uds
ABLATIVE. nube by a cloud nubibus by clouds

Now here you see what is expressed by the English of is in the Latin expressed by the letter s (the i belongs to the stem or root of the word); so our to is represented by i, and our by is represented by e. In general, then, we may say that the changes of meaning which the Romans represented by variations in the endings of nouns, · we express by prepositions. These variations in the endings of nouns are in Latin grammar termed case-endings, or cases. Instead

• For the sake of distinct comparison, the case-endings of the noun, and the corresponding meaning in English, are marked in Italics.

of case-endings we employ prepositions. In the Latin sense of the term, then, cases do not exist in English nouns. For the student will observe that cloud in the singular, and clouds in the plural, remain through all the six Latin cases unchanged.

The Anglo-Saxon, however, the parent of the English, had cases, and a relic of its cases still remains in what may be called the Saxon genitive. Thus the Saxon cynges dohtor is our “ king's daughter," where the c is pronounced like k); cynges is in the genitive case. This genitive has been continued in the English, the e being dropped and represented by an apostrophe, thus we have king's for cynges.

This is the true origin of our form in 's, as for example in king's, queen's, boy's, girl's. It has, however, been conceived that the s in this genitive arose from an abbreviation of his, and so we read in the Book of Common Prayer " for Christ his sake,” which should be “ for Christ's sake.” If, after the exbibition of the real origin of our form in 's as a matter of fact, it was necessary to confute the theory just mentioned, we should do so by remarking that it does not account for the given phenomena, inasmuch as we say “the Queen's majesty," which cannot be expanded into “the queen his majesty," the sense requiring “the queen her majesty ;" but if her is here necessary, whence comes the s of the genitive?

This Saxon genitive is also represented in English by the preposition of. The words of the New Testament (John i. 29), “ This is the lamb of God," stand in Luther's German translation, Das ist Gottes lam, literally, “ This is God's lamb." Here the German es is represented by the English of.

It appears, then, that in English we have two ways of expressing what the Latins expressed by the termination s or is; for this purpose, we may use 's, or of.

The's is of German or rather Saxon (say Teutonic, which includes both) origin. Whence comes the of? The preposition of is of French (Norman-French) origin, being the translation of the French de which means of. The words stand in the French Bible thus “ Voila l'agneau de Dieu,' i.e. behold the lamb of God. I put the several forms together, beginning with the Greek (in English characters) and the Latin, thus :GREEK

amnos

Theou
LATIN

agnus

Dei
ANGLO-SAXON

Godes lamb
GERMAN

Gottes lam
SAXON GENITIVE God's lamb
FRENCH

agneau

de Dieu FRENCH GENITIVE lamb

of God In the case of the Latin noun nubes, s (is) has the characteristic of the genitive. In the Greek noun Theou (of God), and in the Latin noun Dei (of God), the terminations ou and i, are respectively the characteristics of the genitive in these languages. If, however, you bear in mind that s is one form of the genitive in Latin (as it is of the genitive of many nouns in Greek also), you will then learn that the relation indicated by our preposition of, that is, a relation of origin or possession, is in English, in German, in Anglo-Saxon, in Latin and in Greek, signified by the letter s. Now, as in Greek, Latin, Saxon, and German, this relation is denominated flue, wc seem justified in so calling it in English. We are thus taught that in English we have one case, namely, the genitive or possessire. We also learn that what the Greeks and others express by means of a case-ending alone, we express by means of a case-ending and the preposition of. These two modes cannot, however, be employed, the one or the other, indifferently; but of that I shall speak byand-by.

Something of a similar nature is found in the classical languages, for instance, to a cloud in Latin may be rendered by nubi or ad nubem, that is, simply by a case-ending, or by a case-ending aided by a preposition. The meaning produced by these two forms is not in both instances the same. But what I wish you to observe is, that in Latin, prepositions are employed to express the relations of nouns with verbs, no less than in English. With the genitive, how. ever, no preposition (strictly so called) is employed. You must observe that in Latin case-endings are used as well as and together with prepositions. The opposite is the fact in English, for if you refer to the form or declension of nubes, cloud, before given, you will see that our word cloud remains unchanged through all the different cases. Hence it appears as a general fact, that what the Latins expressed by case-endings alone, or by case-endings and prepositions, we, dropping the case-endings, express exclusively by prepositions. The only exception to this statement is in the instance of the genitive case, for there we have one form with a case-ending and without a preposition, and another form with a preposition and without a case-ending.

In English, then, there is one case, the possessive;—are there more cases than one? If we follow the analogy of the Latin grammar, we may admit that in English there is also a nominative case, for in Latin as in English the nominative is the original and uninflected (unchanged at the end) form of the word. Thus as cloud's is the possessive, so cloud is the nominative.

We have then been led to admit two cases, the nominative and the genitive, as cloud, cloud's. Can we go farther? according to classical analogy certainly not, for cloud, as is seen above, undergoes no other modification. Thus, for example, the word cloud remains the same in the nominative, the dative, the accusative, and the ablative cases, as appears in these instances to which for the sake of illustration I have prefixed Latin denominations). NOMINATIVE

The cloud is dense
DATIVE

He gave brightness to the cloud
ACCUSATIVE

He dispersed the cloud
VOCATIVE

O cloud, be gone!
ABLATIVE

He was conducted by a cloud Here are several varieties of meaning. How are these varieties sig. nified ? Clearly not by cloud, for that remains the same throughout; but by the prepositions to and by and the form O, the form of

direct address or invocation. But in Latin, changes at the ends of nouns are essential to the cases. If then such changes do not (generally) esist in English, why should we en ploy the Latin term case? At any rate why should it be applied in English to instances in which there are no case-endings: We seen then justified in declaring that in English there is no dative case, no aceusative or oljectire case, no vocative case, no ablative case. To feign cases in these instances is to lessen the simplicity of our language, and to augment the learner's difficulties. Nor are cases in these instances required by the exigencies of parsing, that is, a systematic and orderly explanation of the facts and the laws of a language. Logic will supply us with the needful terms. Instead of the nominative case we may with advantage speak of the subject, and instead of the objectire or accusative case, we may speak of the object. On the whole, therefore I think it more accordant with fact and good sense, as well as more conducive to intelligibility, to discard the term case altogether, except in the sole instance in which a specific form exists, and to which I have already given the game of the Saxon genitive,

Nor is this conclusion impeached by the fact that in the pro. nouns we have remnants of an accusative case, properly so called; as for example in me (nominative I), thee (nominative thou), us (nominative we). Updoubtledly the English if viewed in its mother tongue, the Anglo-Saxon, had what may rightly be termed cases. But we are studying not Anglo-Saxon, but English, and conse. quently it is the facts and the laws of the English, as it now is, with which we have to do; nor are we justified in referring to any other tongue, except for the express purpose of throwing light on the English-its facts, its usages, its laws. And we are not compelled to adopt the term case in regard to the forms me, thee, &c., for the term object is applicable to pronouns no less than to nouns.

Adhering, then, to established usage, I define case to be the chang, which nouns take in their terminations as expressive of correspond ing changes of meaning, and I add, that in English, there are only two cases, the nominative, or the original form of the noun, and the possessive, or what, for the sake of distinction, I have called the Sason genitive,

The term genitive arose from the idea that the case so named denoted generation, origin, birth, source, as a man's son. From the idea of generation, or giving life, comes the idea of possession; as William's son, e.g., “this boy is William's son, not Richard's; -“this is Henry's dog ;” “this is Charlotte's doll.”

I have already intimated that the real or Saxon genitive differs in its application from the false genitive or the form derived from the Norman-French. Thus we can say the man's end, but we cannot say the ball's end. Why can we say the one, and not the other? The real genitive, as we have seen, denotes origin or possession. Not so the false genitive. When I say “the back of the chair" I express a relation much more vague than when I say " the man's back.” Possession denotes a possessor, but the chair is not a possessor. Consequently the former, which denotes posses

« PreviousContinue »