Contents:
Just here, the idea of a total separation of the colonies from the crown was born! It was a startling idea, much more so, than we, at this distance of time, regard it. The timid and the prudent as has been intimated of that day, were, of course, shocked and alarmed by it. Such people lived then, had lived before, and will, probably, ever have a place on this planet; and their course, in respect to any great change, no matter how great the good to be attained, or the wrong to be redressed by it , may be calculated with as much precision as can be the course of the stars.
They hate all changes, but silver, gold and copper change! Of this sort of change they are always strongly in favor. These people were called Tories in the days of your fathers; and the appellation, probably, conveyed the same idea that is meant by a more modern, though a somewhat less euphonious term, which we often find in our papers, applied to some of our old politicians. Their opposition to the then dangerous thought was earnest and powerful; but, amid all their terror and affrighted vociferations against it, the alarming and revolutionary idea moved on, and the country with it.
On the 2d of July, , the old Continental Congress, to the dismay of the lovers of ease, and the worshipers of property, clothed that dreadful idea with all the authority of national sanction. They did so in the form of a resolution; and as we seldom hit upon resolutions, drawn up in our day whose transparency is at all equal to this, it may refresh your minds and help my story if I read it.
Citizens, your fathers made good that resolution. They succeeded; and to-day you reap the fruits of their success. The freedom gained is yours; and you, therefore, may properly celebrate this anniversary. Pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. From the round top of your ship of state, dark and threatening clouds may be seen.
Heavy billows, like mountains in the distance, disclose to the leeward huge forms of flinty rocks! That bolt drawn, that chain broken, and all is lost. Cling to this day — cling to it, and to its principles, with the grasp of a storm-tossed mariner to a spar at midnight. The coming into being of a nation, in any circumstances, is an interesting event.
But, besides general considerations, there were peculiar circumstances which make the advent of this republic an event of special attractiveness. The population of the country, at the time, stood at the insignificant number of three millions.
The country was poor in the munitions of war. The population was weak and scattered, and the country a wilderness unsubdued. There were then no means of concert and combination, such as exist now. Neither steam nor lightning had then been reduced to order and discipline. From the Potomac to the Delaware was a journey of many days.
Under these, and innumerable other disadvantages, your fathers declared for liberty and independence and triumphed. Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too — great enough to give fame to a great age.
It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.
They loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this is not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect. He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. Your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the cause of their country.
In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests. They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times. How circumspect, exact and proportionate were all their movements!
How unlike the politicians of an hour! Their statesmanship looked beyond the passing moment, and stretched away in strength into the distant future. They seized upon eternal principles, and set a glorious example in their defense. Fully appreciating the hardship to be encountered, firmly believing in the right of their cause, honorably inviting the scrutiny of an on-looking world, reverently appealing to heaven to attest their sincerity, soundly comprehending the solemn responsibility they were about to assume, wisely measuring the terrible odds against them, your fathers, the fathers of this republic, did, most deliberately, under the inspiration of a glorious patriotism, and with a sublime faith in the great principles of justice and freedom, lay deep the corner-stone of the national superstructure, which has risen and still rises in grandeur around you.
Of this fundamental work, this day is the anniversary. Our eyes are met with demonstrations of joyous enthusiasm. Banners and pennants wave exultingly on the breeze.
The din of business, too, is hushed. Even Mammon seems to have quitted his grasp on this day. The ear-piercing fife and the stirring drum unite their accents with the ascending peal of a thousand church bells. Friends and citizens, I need not enter further into the causes which led to this anniversary.
Many of you understand them better than I do. You could instruct me in regard to them. That is a branch of knowledge in which you feel, perhaps, a much deeper interest than your speaker. The causes which led to the separation of the colonies from the British crown have never lacked for a tongue. They have all been taught in your common schools, narrated at your firesides, unfolded from your pulpits, and thundered from your legislative halls, and are as familiar to you as household words.
They form the staple of your national poetry and eloquence. I remember, also, that, as a people, Americans are remarkably familiar with all facts which make in their own favor. This is esteemed by some as a national trait — perhaps a national weakness. It is a fact, that whatever makes for the wealth or for the reputation of Americans, and can be had cheap! I shall not be charged with slandering Americans, if I say I think the American side of any question may be safely left in American hands. I leave, therefore, the great deeds of your fathers to other gentlemen whose claim to have been regularly descended will be less likely to be disputed than mine!
My business, if I have any here to-day, is with the present. The accepted time with God and his cause is the ever-living now. Trust no future, however pleasant, Let the dead past bury its dead; Act, act in the living present, Heart within, and God overhead. We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and to the future. To all inspiring motives, to noble deeds which can be gained from the past, we are welcome. But now is the time, the important time. Your fathers have lived, died, and have done their work, and have done much of it well.
You live and must die, and you must do your work. You have no right to wear out and waste the hard-earned fame of your fathers to cover your indolence. Sydney Smith tells us that men seldom eulogize the wisdom and virtues of their fathers, but to excuse some folly or wickedness of their own. This truth is not a doubtful one. There are illustrations of it near and remote, ancient and modern. Need I remind you that a similar thing is being done all over this country to-day? Need I tell you that the Jews are not the only people who built the tombs of the prophets, and garnished the sepulchres of the righteous?
Washington could not die till he had broken the chains of his slaves. Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful.
Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? I am not that man. But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me.
To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, lowering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin!
I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!
The Monster's Breeding Slave (Contract of Eternal Submission Part 2) - Kindle edition by Bree Bellucci. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, . The Monster's Concubine (Contract of Eternal Submission, #1), The Monster's Breeding Slave (Contract of Eternal Submission, #2), and The Monster's Defil.
We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth. Fellow-citizens; above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! Standing, there, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July!
Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery — the great sin and shame of America!
But I fancy I hear some one of my audience say, it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more, and denounce less, would you persuade more, and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed.
But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. The slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man, no matter how ignorant he be , subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment.
What is this but the acknowledgement that the slave is a moral, intellectual and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write. When you can point to any such laws, in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave.
For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for Republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood? How should I look to-day, in the presence of Americans, dividing, and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom?
To do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters?
I have better employments for my time and strength than such arguments would imply. What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman, cannot be divine! Who can reason on such a proposition?
They that can, may; I cannot. The time for such argument is passed. At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake.
The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced. What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.
There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.
Take the American slave-trade, which, we are told by the papers, is especially prosperous just now. Ex-Senator Benton tells us that the price of men was never higher than now. He mentions the fact to show that slavery is in no danger. This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one-half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic.
In several states, this trade is a chief source of wealth. That trade has long since been denounced by this government, as piracy. It has been denounced with burning words, from the high places of the nation, as an execrable traffic. To arrest it, to put an end to it, this nation keeps a squadron, at immense cost, on the coast of Africa. Everywhere, in this country, it is safe to speak of this foreign slave-trade, as a most inhuman traffic, opposed alike to the laws of God and of man.
In order to put an end to it, some of these last have consented that their colored brethren nominally free should leave this country, and establish themselves on the western coast of Africa! It is, however, a notable fact that, while so much execration is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave-trade, the men engaged in the slave-trade between the states pass without condemnation, and their business is deemed honorable. Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, the American slave-trade, sustained by American politics and America religion.
Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market. You know what is a swine-drover? I will show you a man-drover.
They inhabit all our Southern States. They perambulate the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock. You will see one of these human flesh-jobbers, armed with pistol, whip and bowie-knife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them. Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives!
There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! The drove moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the center of your soul!
The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! Follow the drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers.
See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States. I was born amid such sights and scenes. To me the American slave-trade is a terrible reality. When a child, my soul was often pierced with a sense of its horrors. There was, at that time, a grand slave mart kept at the head of Pratt Street, by Austin Woldfolk. These men were generally well dressed men, and very captivating in their manners.
Ever ready to drink, to treat, and to gamble. The fate of many a slave has depended upon the turn of a single card; and many a child has been snatched from the arms of its mother by bargains arranged in a state of brutal drunkenness. The flesh-mongers gather up their victims by dozens, and drive them, chained, to the general depot at Baltimore.
When a sufficient number have been collected here, a ship is chartered, for the purpose of conveying the forlorn crew to Mobile, or to New Orleans. From the slave prison to the ship, they are usually driven in the darkness of night; for since the antislavery agitation, a certain caution is observed. In the deep still darkness of midnight, I have been often aroused by the dead heavy footsteps, and the piteous cries of the chained gangs that passed our door. The anguish of my boyish heart was intense; and I was often consoled, when speaking to my mistress in the morning, to hear her say that the custom was very wicked; that she hated to hear the rattle of the chains, and the heart-rending cries.
I was glad to find one who sympathized with me in my horror. Fellow-citizens, this murderous traffic is, to-day, in active operation in this boasted republic. There I see the tenderest ties ruthlessly broken, to gratify the lust, caprice and rapacity of the buyers and sellers of men. My soul sickens at the sight.
Is this the land your Fathers loved, The freedom which they toiled to win? By means of the article before it, if there is one; as, the house, an apple, a book ; or, by adding it to the phrase, " I mentioned ;" as, "I mentioned peace ;"--"I mentioned war ;"--"I mentioned slumber.
Of English nouns, there are said to be as many as twenty-five or thirty thousand. By putting a noun after it, to see if the phrase will be sense. The noun thing , or its plural things , will suit almost any adjective; as, A good thing--A bad thing--A little thing--A great thing-- Few things-- Many things-- Some things-- Fifty things. Of adjectives, there are perhaps nine or ten thousand. By observing that its noun repeated makes the same sense. Thus, the example of the pronoun above, "The boy loves his book; he has long lessons, and he learns them well,"--very clearly means, "The boy loves the boy's book; the boy has long lessons, and the boy learns those lessons well.
The different pronouns in English are twenty-four; and their variations in declension are thirty-two: How can we distinguish a VERB? By observing that it is usually the principal word in the sentence, and that without it there would be no assertion. It is the word which expresses what is affirmed or said of the person or thing mentioned; as, "Jesus wept.
Of English verbs, some recent grammarians compute the number at eight thousand; others formerly reckoned them to be no more than four thousand three hundred. By observing its derivation from the verb, and then placing it after to be or having ; as, To be writing , Having written --To be walking , Having walked --To be weeping , Having wept --To be studying , Having studied. Of simple participles, there are twice as many as there are of simple or radical verbs; and the possible compounds are not less numerous than the simples, but they are much less frequently used.
By observing that it answers to the question, When? This word fluently is therefore an adverb: Of adverbs, there are about two thousand six hundred; and four fifths of them end in ly.
By observing what words or terms it joins together, or to what other conjunction it corresponds; as, " Neither wealth nor honor can heal a wounded conscience. Or, it may be well to learn the whole list at once: And, as, both, because, even, for, if, that, then, since, seeing, so: Or, nor, either, neither, than, though, although, yet, but, except, whether, lest, unless, save, provided, notwithstanding, whereas. Of conjunctions, there are these twenty-nine in common use, and a few others now obsolete.
Of the prepositions, there are about sixty now in common use. By observing that it is an independent word or sound, uttered earnestly, and very often written with the note of exclamation; as Lo! Of interjections, there are sixty or seventy in common use, some of which are seldom found in books. Etymology, therefore, should be taught before syntax; but it should be chiefly taught by a direct analysis of entire sentences, and those so plainly written that the particular effect of every word may be clearly distinguished, and the meaning, whether intrinsic or relative, be discovered with precision.
The parts of speech are usually named and defined with reference to the use of words in sentences ; and, as the same word not unfrequently stands for several different parts of speech, the learner should be early taught to make for himself the proper application of the foregoing distribution, without recurrence to a dictionary, and without aid from his teacher. He who is endeavouring to acquaint himself with the grammar of a language which he can already read and understand, is placed in circumstances very different from those which attend the school-boy who is just beginning to construe some sentences of a foreign tongue.
A frequent use of the dictionary may facilitate the progress of the one, while it delays that of the other. English grammar, it is hoped, may be learned directly from this book alone, with better success than can be expected when the attention of the learner is divided among several or many different works. Wilson, in speaking of the classification of words, observes, "The names of the distributive parts should either express, distinctly, the influence, which each class produces on sentences; or some other characteristic trait, by which the respective species of words may be distinguished, without danger of confusion.
It is at least probable, that no distribution, sufficiently minute, can ever be made, of the parts of speech, which shall be wholly free from all objection. Hasty innovations, therefore, and crude conjectures, should not be permitted to disturb that course of grammatical instruction, which has been advancing in melioration, by the unremitting labours of thousands, through a series of ages. The best grammarians find it difficult, in practice, to distinguish, in some instances, adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions; yet their effects are generally distinct.
This inconvenience should be submitted to, since a less comprehensive distribution would be very unfavourable to a rational investigation of the meaning of English sentences. But if all abbreviations are to be restored to their primitive parts of speech, there will be a general revolution in the present systems of grammar; and the various improvements, which have sprung from convenience, or necessity, and been sanctioned by the usage of ancient times, must be retrenched, and anarchy in letters universally prevail. Articles are used with appellative nouns, sometimes to denote emphatically the species, but generally to designate individuals.
Nouns stand in discourse for persons, things, or abstract qualities. Adjectives commonly express the concrete qualities of persons or things; but sometimes, their situation or number. Pronouns are substitutes for names, or nouns; but they sometimes represent sentences.
But if all abbreviations are to be restored to their primitive parts of speech, there will be a general revolution in the present systems of grammar; and the various improvements, which have sprung from convenience, or necessity, and been sanctioned by the usage of ancient times, must be retrenched, and anarchy in letters universally prevail. It is, however, a notable fact that, while so much execration is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave-trade, the men engaged in the slave-trade between the states pass without condemnation, and their business is deemed honorable. They have all been taught in your common schools, narrated at your firesides, unfolded from your pulpits, and thundered from your legislative halls, and are as familiar to you as household words. It serves not merely to show the extent of signification, in which nouns are to be taken, but is often the principal, and sometimes the only mark, by which a word is known to have the sense and construction of a noun. And yet his case after to or for is not " dative ," but " accusative! Ex-Vice-President Dallas tells us that the Constitution is an object to which no American mind can be too attentive, and no American heart too devoted.
Verbs assert, ask, or say something; and, for the most part, express action or motion. Participles contain the essential meaning of their verbs, and commonly denote action, and imply time; but, apart from auxiliaries, they express that meaning either adjectively or substantively, and not with assertion. Adverbs express the circumstances of time, of place, of degree, and of manner; the when , the where , the how much , and the how.
Conjunctions connect, sometimes words, and sometimes sentences, rarely phrases; and always show, either the manner in which one sentence or one phrase depends upon an other, or what connexion there is between two words that refer to a third. Prepositions express the correspondent relations of things to things, of thoughts to thoughts, or of words to words; for these, if we speak truly, must be all the same in expression.
Interjections are either natural sounds or exclamatory words, used independently, and serving briefly to indicate the wishes or feelings of the speaker. In this sentence, which has been adopted by Murray, Churchill, and others, we have the following parts of speech: The words the, a , and an , are articles. The words power, speech, faculty, man, faculty, Creator, uses , and purposes , are nouns.
The words peculiar, beneficent, greatest, excellent , and worst , are adjectives. The words him, his, we , and it , are pronouns.
The words is, do , and pervert , are verbs. The word bestowed is a participle. The words most, how , and often , are adverbs. The words and and but are conjunctions. The words of, on, to, by, for, to , and of , are prepositions. Though a sentence of ordinary length usually embraces more than one half of them, it is not often that we find them all in so small a compass. Sentences sometimes abound in words of a particular kind, and are quite destitute of those of some other sort. The following examples will illustrate these remarks. Nothing can be explained to him who will not understand , nor will any thing appear right to the unreasonable.
Clamour and violence often hinder, but never further, the work of God. Oh , my lost guineas! Oh , poor, ruined, beggared old man! Burgh's Art of Speaking , p. Parsing is the resolving or explaining of a sentence, or of some related word or words, according to the definitions and rules of grammar. Parsing is to grammar what ciphering is to arithmetic. A Praxis is a method of exercise, or a form of grammatical resolution, showing the learner how to proceed.
The word is Greek, and literally signifies action, doing, practice, or formal use. In the first Praxis, it is required of the pupil--merely to distinguish and define the different parts of speech. The definitions to be given in the First Praxis, are one, and only one, for each word, or part of speech. The is an article. Patient is an adjective. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. Ox is a noun. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned.
Submits is a verb. A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act , or to be acted upon. To is a preposition.
A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun. An article is the word the, an , or a , which we put before nouns to limit their signification. Yoke is a noun. And is a conjunction. A conjunction is a word used to connect words or sentences in construction, and to show the dependence of the terms so connected. Meekly is an adverb. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place, degree, or manner.
Performs is a verb. Labour is a noun. Required is a participle. A participle is a word derived from a verb, participating the properties of a verb, and of an adjective or a noun; and is generally formed by adding ing, d , or ed , to the verb. Of is a preposition. The rule of the tongue is a great attainment. The language of truth is direct and plain. Truth is never evasive. Flattery is the food of vanity. A virtuous mind loathes flattery. Vain persons are an easy prey to parasites. Vanity easily mistakes sneers for smiles. The smiles of the world are deceitful.
True friendship hath eternal views. A faithful friend is invaluable. Constancy in friendship denotes a generous mind. Adversity is the criterion of friendship. Love and fidelity are inseparable. Few know the value of a friend till they lose him. Justice is the first of all moral virtues. Let justice hold, and mercy turn, the scale.
A judge is guilty who connives at guilt. Justice delayed is little better than justice denied. Vice is the deformity of man. Virtue is a source of constant cheerfulness. One vice is more expensive than many virtues. Wisdom, though serious, is never sullen. Youth is the season of improvement. In a solitary state, no creature is more timid than man; in society, none more bold. The number of offenders lessens the disgrace of the crime; for a common reproach is no reproach.
A man is more unhappy in reproaching himself when guilty, than in being reproached by others when innocent. The pains of the mind are harder to bear than those of the body. Hope, in this mixed state of good and ill, is a blessing from heaven: The first step towards vice, is to make a mystery of what is innocent: A man who gives his children a habit of industry, provides for them better than by giving them a stock of money.
Our good and evil proceed from ourselves: We may expect a calm after a storm. To prevent passion is easier than to calm it. A little attention will rectify some errors. Unthinking persons care little for the future. He laboured to still the tumult. Though he is out of danger, he is still afraid. Guilt often casts a damp over our sprightliest hours. Soft bodies damp the sound much more than hard ones.
We hail you as friends. Think much, and speak little. He has seen much of the world. We must make a like space between the lines. We are apt to like pernicious company. An and a , being equivalent in meaning, are commonly reckoned one and the same article. An is used in preference to a , whenever the following word begins with a vowel sound; as, An art, an end, an heir, an inch, an ounce, an hour, an urn. A is used in preference to an , whenever the following word begins with a consonant sound; as, A man, a house, a wonder, a one, a yew, a use, a ewer.
Thus the consonant sounds of w and y , even when expressed by other letters, require a and not an before them. A common noun, when taken in its widest sense , usually admits no article: In English, nouns without any article, or other definitive, are often used in a sense indefinitely partitive: That is, " some bread.
That is, " some food. That is, " some fishes. An or a before the genus, may refer to a whole species ; and the before the species, may denote that whole species emphatically: But an or a is commonly used to denote individuals as unknown , or as not specially distinguished from others: And the is commonly used to denote individuals as known , or as specially distinguished from others: The article the is applied to nouns of cither number: The is commonly required before adjectives that are used by ellipsis as nouns: The article an or a implies unity , or one , and of course belongs to nouns of the singular number only; as, A man,-- An old man,-- A good boy.
An or a , like one , sometimes gives a collective meaning to an adjective of number, when the noun following is plural; as, A few days,--A hundred men,--One hundred pounds sterling. Articles should be inserted as often as the sense requires them; as, "Repeat the preterit and [ the ] perfect participle of the verb to abide. Needless articles should be omitted; they seldom fail to pervert the sense: The articles can seldom be put one for the other , without gross impropriety; and of course either is to be preferred to the other, as it better suits the sense: Say, " A violation of this rule never fails to displease the reader.
The definite article is the , which denotes some particular thing or things; as, The boy, the oranges. The indefinite article is an or a , which denotes one thing of a kind, but not any particular one; as, A boy, an orange. The English articles have no modifications, except that an is shortened into a before the sound of a consonant; as, "In an epic poem, or a poem upon an elevated subject, a writer ought to avoid raising a simile on a low image.
And, by reason of the various and very frequent occasions on which these definitives are required, no words are oftener misapplied; none, oftener omitted or inserted erroneously. I shall therefore copiously illustrate both their uses and their abuses ; with the hope that every reader of this volume will think it worth his while to gain that knowledge which is requisite to the true use of these small but important words.
Some parts of the explanation, however, must be deferred till we come to Syntax. Greene, and other writers, to degrade the article from its ancient rank among the parts of speech, no judicious reader, duly acquainted with the subject, can, I think, be well pleased. An article is not properly an " adjective ," as they would have it to be; but it is a word of a peculiar sort--a customary index to the sense of nouns.
It serves not merely to show the extent of signification, in which nouns are to be taken, but is often the principal, and sometimes the only mark, by which a word is known to have the sense and construction of a noun. There is just as much reason to deny and degrade the Greek or French article, or that of any other language, as the English; and, if those who are so zealous to reform our the, an , and a into adjectives , cared at all to appear consistent in the view of Comparative or General Grammar, they would either set about a wider reformation or back out soon from the pettiness of this.
On some occasions, these adjectives may well be substituted for the articles; but not generally. If the articles were generally equivalent to adjectives, or even if they were generally like them, they would be adjectives; but, that adjectives may occasionally supply their places, is no argument at all for confounding the two parts of speech. Distinctions must be made, where differences exist; and, that a, an , and the , do differ considerably from the other words which they most resemble, is shown even by some who judge "the distinctive name of article to be useless.
The articles therefore must be distinguished, not only from adjectives, but from each other. For, though both are articles , each is an index sui generis ; the one definite, the other indefinite. And as the words that and one cannot often be interchanged without a difference of meaning, so the definite article and the indefinite are seldom, if ever, interchangeable.
To put one for the other, is therefore, in general, to put one meaning for an other: This difference between the two articles may be further illustrated by the following example: Proper nouns in their ordinary application, are, for the most part, names of particular individuals; and as there is no plurality to a particular idea, or to an individual person or thing as distinguished from all others, so there is in general none to this class of nouns; and no room for further restriction by articles.
But we sometimes divert such nouns from their usual signification, and consequently employ them with articles or in the plural form; as, "I endeavoured to retain it nakedly in my mind, without regarding whether I had it from an Aristotle or a Zoilus, a Newton or a Descartes. Hence its effect upon a particular name, or proper noun, is directly the reverse of that which it has upon a common noun.
It varies and fixes the meaning of both; but while it restricts that of the latter, it enlarges that of the former. It reduces the general idea of the common noun to any one individual of the class: This article is demonstrative. It marks either the particular individual, or the particular species,--or, if the noun be plural, some particular individuals of the species,--as being distinguished from all others.
It sometimes refers to a thing as having been previously mentioned; sometimes presumes upon the hearer's familiarity with the thing; and sometimes indicates a limitation which is made by subsequent words connected with the noun. Such is the import of this article, that with it the singular number of the noun is often more comprehensive, and at the same time more specific, than the plural. Thus, if I say, " The horse is a noble animal," without otherwise intimating that I speak of some particular horse, the sentence will be understood to embrace collectively that species of animal; and I shall be thought to mean, "Horses are noble animals.
Such limitations should be made, whenever there is occasion for them; but needless restrictions displease the imagination, and ought to be avoided; because the mind naturally delights in terms as comprehensive as they may be, if also specific. Lindley Murray, though not uniform in his practice respecting this, seems to have thought it necessary to use the plural in many sentences in which I should decidedly prefer the singular; as, "That the learners may have no doubts. Of plural names like these, and especially of such as designate tribes and sects, there is a very great number.
Like other proper names, they must be distinguished from the ordinary words of the language, and accordingly they are always written with capitals; but they partake so largely of the nature of common nouns, that it seems doubtful to which class they most properly belong. Hence they not only admit, but require the article; while most other proper names are so definite in themselves, that the article, if put before them, would be needless, and therefore improper.
But if the word river be added, the article becomes needless; as, Delaware river, Hudson river, Connecticut river. Yet there seems to be no impropriety in using both; as, The Delaware river, the Hudson river, the Connecticut river. And if the common noun be placed before the proper name, the article is again necessary; as, The river Delaware, the river Hudson, the river Connecticut. In the first form of expression, however, the article has not usually been resolved by grammarians as relating to the proper name; but these examples, and others of a similar character, have been supposed elliptical: But in the second form, the apposition is reversed; and, in the third, the proper name appears to be taken adjectively.
Without the article, some names of rivers could not be understood; as,. So, sometimes, when the phrase relates to a collective body of men: A similar application of the article in the following sentences, makes a most beautiful and expressive form of compliment: In this last example, the noun man is understood after " generous ," and again after " rich ;" for, the article being an index to the noun, I conceive it to be improper ever to construe two articles as having reference to one unrepeated word.
Priestley says, "We sometimes repeat the article , when the epithet precedes the substantive; as He was met by the worshipful the magistrates. It is true, we occasionally meet with such fulsome phraseology as this; but the question is, how is it to be explained? I imagine that the word personages , or something equivalent, must be understood after worshipful , and that the Doctor ought to have inserted a comma there. See, in the original, these texts: So of other nouns.
But the definite article of that language, which is exactly equivalent to our the , is a declinable word, making no small figure in grammar. It is varied by numbers, genders, and cases; so that it assumes more than twenty different forms, and becomes susceptible of six and thirty different ways of agreement. But this article in English is perfectly simple, being entirely destitute of grammatical modifications, and consequently incapable of any form of grammatical agreement or disagreement--a circumstance of which many of our grammarians seem to be ignorant; since they prescribe a rule, wherein they say, it " agrees ," " may agree ," or " must agree ," with its noun.
Nor has the indefinite article any variation of form, except the change from an to a , which has been made for the sake of brevity or euphony. An eagle is one eagle, and the plural word eagles denotes more than one; but what could possibly be meant by " ans eagles ," if such a phrase were invented? What a sample of grammar is this!
The force of what? Of a plural an or a,! The error of the first of these sentences, Dr. Blair has copied entire into his eighth lecture. For the purpose of preventing any erroneous construction of the articles, these rules are utterly useless; and for the purpose of syntactical parsing, or the grammatical resolution of this part of speech, they are awkward and inconvenient. The syntax of the articles may be much better expressed in this manner: Murray, contrary to Johnson and Webster, considers a to be the original word, and an the euphonic derivative. But if the h be sounded, the a only is to be used.
To this he adds, in a marginal note, " A instead of an is now used before words beginning with u long. It is used before one. An must be used before words WHERE the h is not silent, if the accent is on the second syllable; as, an heroic action, an historical account. This explanation, clumsy as it is, in the whole conception; broken, prolix, deficient, and inaccurate as it is, both in style and doctrine; has been copied and copied from grammar to grammar, as if no one could possibly better it. Besides several other faults, it contains a palpable misuse of the article itself: Before h in an unaccented syllable, either form of the article may be used without offence to the ear; and either may be made to appear preferable to the other, by merely aspirating the letter in a greater or less degree.
But as the h , though ever so feebly aspirated has something of a consonant sound, I incline to think the article in this case ought to conform to the general principle: Within two lines of this quotation, the biographer speaks of " an heroic multitude! An should be used before words beginning with any of these letters , or with a silent h. If these rules were believed and followed, they would greatly multiply errors. This, if it be worth the search, must be settled by consulting some genuine writings of the twelfth century. In the pure Saxon of an earlier date, the words seldom occur ; and in that ancient dialect an , I believe, is used only as a declinable numerical adjective, and a only as a preposition.
In the thirteenth century, both forms were in common use, in the sense now given them, as may be seen in the writings of Robert of Gloucester; though some writers of a much later date--or, at any rate, one , the celebrated Gawin Douglas, a Scottish bishop, who died of the plague in London, in constantly wrote ane for both an and a: Gower and Chaucer used an and a as we now use them.
M'Culloch, in an English grammar published lately in Edinburgh, says, " A and an were originally ae and ane , and were probably used at first simply to convey the idea of unity; as, ae man, ane ox. For this idea, and indeed for a great part of his book, he is indebted to Dr. Crombie; who says, "To signify unity, or one of a class, our forefathers employed ae or ane ; as, ae man, ane ox.
These authors, like Webster, will have a and an to be adjectives. Johnson says, " A , an article set before nouns of the singular number; as, a man, a tree. This article has no plural signification. Before a word beginning with a vowel, it is written an ; as, an ox, an egg; of which a is the contraction. Webster says, " A is also an abbreviation of the Saxon an or ane, one , used before words beginning with an articulation; as, a table, instead of an table, or one table.
This is a modern change ; for, in Saxon, an was used before articulations as well as vowels; as, an tid, a time, an gear , a year. A modern change, indeed! By his own showing in other works, it was made long before the English language existed! He says, " An , therefore, is the original English adjective or ordinal number one ; and was never written a until after the Conquest. This author has long been idly contending, that an or a is not an article , but an adjective ; and that it is not properly distinguished by the term " indefinite.
If a and one were equal, we could not say, " Such a one ,"--" What a one ,"--" Many a one ,"--" This one thing ;" and surely these are all good English, though a and one here admit no interchange. Nay, a is sometimes found before one when the latter is used adjectively; as, "There is no record in Holy Writ of the institution of a one all-controlling monarchy.
Burgh's Speaker , p. Matt , xii, 1. Mark , ii, Alger, the improver of Murray's Grammar, and editor of the Pronouncing Bible, taking this an to be the indefinite article, and perceiving that the h is sounded in hungered , changed the particle to a in all these passages; as, "And his disciples were a hungered. The Greek text, rendered word for word, is simply this: An , as I apprehend, is here a mere prefix , which has somehow been mistaken in form, and erroneously disjoined from the following word.
If so, the correction ought to be made after the fashion of the following passage from Bishop M'Ilvaine: He that died a Wednesday. That is, on Wednesday. So sometimes before plurals; as, "He carves a Sundays. That is, on Sundays. That is, on nights--like the following example: That is, in pieces, or to pieces. Compounds of this kind, in most instances, follow verbs, and are consequently reckoned adverbs; as, To go astray,--To turn aside,--To soar aloft,--To fall asleep. But sometimes the antecedent term is a noun or a pronoun, and then they are as clearly adjectives; as, "Imagination is like to work better upon sleeping men, than men awake.
For example, "You have set the cask a leaking," and, "You have set the cask to leaking," are exactly equivalent, both in meaning and construction. Building is not here a noun, but a participle; and in is here better than a , only because the phrase, a building , might be taken for an article and a noun, meaning an edifice. In the last six sentences, a seems more suitable than any other preposition would be: Alexander Murray says, "To be a -seeking, is the relic of the Saxon to be on or an seeking.
What are you a-seeking? It means more fully the going on with the process. I dissent also from Dr. Murray, concerning the use of the preposition or prefix a , in examples like that which he has here chosen. After a neuter verb , this particle is unnecessary to the sense, and, I think, injurious to the construction. Except in poetry, which is measured by syllables, it may be omitted without any substitute; as, "I am a walking. Say--"be wandering elsewhere;" and omit the a , in all such cases. Thus we say, The landlord hath a hundred a year; the ship's crew gained a thousand pounds a man.
Whether a in this construction is the article or the preposition, seems to be questionable. It is to be observed that an , as well as a , is used in this manner; as, "The price is one dollar an ounce. Modern merchants, in stead of accenting the a , commonly turn the end of it back; as,.
That the article relates not to the plural noun, but to the numerical word only, is very evident; but whether, in these instances, the words few, many, dozen, hundred , and thousand , are to be called nouns or adjectives, is matter of dispute. Lowth, Murray, and many others, call them adjectives , and suppose a peculiarity of construction in the article;--like that of the singular adjectives every and one in the phrases, " Every ten days,"--" One seven times more.
Churchill and others call them nouns , and suppose the plurals which follow, to be always in the objective case governed by of , understood: Neither solution is free from difficulty. Now, if many is here a singular nominative, and the only subject of the verb, what shall we do with are? Taken in either of these ways, the construction is anomalous. One can hardly think the word " adjectives " to be here in the objective case, because the supposed ellipsis of the word of cannot be proved; and if many is a noun, the two words are perhaps in apposition, in the nominative.
If I say, " A thousand men are on their way," the men are the thousand , and the thousand is nothing but the men ; so that I see not why the relation of the terms may not be that of apposition. But if authorities are to decide the question, doubtless we must yield it to those who suppose the whole numeral phrase to be taken adjectively ; as, "Most young Christians have, in the course of half a dozen years, time to read a great many pages. Dozen , or hundred , or thousand , when taken abstractly, is unquestionably a noun; for we often speak of dozens, hundreds , and thousands.
Few and many never assume the plural form, because they have naturally a plural signification; and a few or a great many is not a collection so definite that we can well conceive of fews and manies ; but both are sometimes construed substantively, though in modern English[] it seems to be mostly by ellipsis of the noun. Johnson says, the word many is remarkable in Saxon for its frequent use. The following are some of the examples in which he calls it a substantive, or noun: In saying, 'A few of his adherents remained with him;' we insinuate, that they constituted a number sufficiently important to be formed into an aggregate: A similar difference occurs between the phrases: The word little , in its most proper construction, is an adjective, signifying small ; as, "He was little of stature.
And in sentences like the following, it is also reckoned an adjective, though the article seems to relate to it, rather than to the subsequent noun; or perhaps it may be taken as relating to them both: But by a common ellipsis, it is used as a noun, both with and without the article; as, " A little that a righteous man hath, is better than the riches of many wicked.
It is also used adverbially, both alone and with the article a ; as, "The poor sleep little. It is not vaguely therefore, but on fixed principles, that the article is omitted, or inserted, in such phrases as the following: Hence, while some have objected to the peculiar distinction bestowed upon these little words, firmly insisting on throwing them in among the common mass of adjectives; others have taught, that the definitive adjectives--I know not how many--such as, this, that, these, those, any, other, some, all, both, each, every, either, neither --"are much more properly articles than any thing else.
But, in spite of this opinion, it has somehow happened, that these definitive adjectives have very generally, and very absurdly, acquired the name of pronouns. Hence, we find Booth, who certainly excelled most other grammarians in learning and acuteness, marvelling that the articles "were ever separated from the class of pronouns. Whereas the other definitives above mentioned are very often used to supply the place of their nouns; that is, to represent them understood.
For, in general, it is only by ellipsis of the noun after it, and not as the representative of a noun going before, that any one of these words assumes the appearance of a pronoun. Hence, they are not pronouns, but adjectives. Nor are they "more properly articles than any thing else;" for, "if the essence of an article be to define and ascertain" the meaning of a noun, this very conception of the thing necessarily supposes the noun to be used with it.
Let the general term be man , the plural of which is men: A man --one unknown or indefinite; The man --one known or particular; The men --some particular ones; Any man --one indefinitely; A certain man --one definitely; This man --one near; That man --one distant; These men --several near; Those men --several distant; Such a man --one like some other; Such men --some like others; Many a man --a multitude taken singly; Many men --an indefinite multitude taken plurally; A thousand men --a definite multitude; Every man --all or each without exception; Each man --both or all taken separately; Some man --one, as opposed to none; Some men --an indefinite number or part; All men --the whole taken plurally; No men --none of the sex; No man --never one of the race.
The definitions to be given in the Second Praxis, are two for an article, and one for a noun, an adjective, a pronoun, a verb, a participle, an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition, or an interjection. The is the definite article. The definite article is the , which denotes some particular thing or things.
Task is a noun. A is the indefinite article. The indefinite article is an or a , which denotes one thing of a kind, but not any particular one. Schoolmaster is a noun. Laboriously is an adverb. Prompting is a participle. Urging is a participle. An is the indefinite article. Indolent is an adjective. Class is a noun. Is is a verb. Worse is an adjective. Than is a conjunction.
Drives is a verb. Lazy is an adjective. Horses is a noun. Along is a preposition. Sandy is an adjective. Road is a noun. In the pursuit of knowledge, the greater the excellence of the subject of inquiry, the deeper ought to be the interest, the more ardent the investigation, and the dearer to the mind the acquisition of the truth. The boys in this great school play truant, and there is no person to chastise them.
A legislature may unjustly limit the surgeon's fee; but the broken arm must be healed, and a surgeon is the only man to restore it. It was made the duty of the whole Christian community to provide for the stranger, the poor, the sick, the aged, the widow, and the orphan. Of this, round is an example. A column is a more agreeable figure than a pilaster; and, for that reason, it ought to be preferred, all other circumstances being equal.
An other reason concurs, that a column connected with a wall, which is a plain surface, makes a greater variety than a pilaster. But, according to a principle expressed on page th, " A is to be used whenever the following word begins with a consonant sound. But, according to a suggestion on page th, "Articles should be inserted as often as the sense requires them.
Murray's Octavo Gram , p. Two, the singular and plural. Three persons--the first, second, and third. Three--the nominative, possessive and objective. But, according to a principle on page th, "Needless articles should be omitted; they seldom fail to pervert the sense. A Noun Substantive common. But, according to a principle on page th, "The articles can seldom be put one for the other, without gross impropriety; and either is of course to be preferred to the other, as it better suits the sense.
Murray's , i, 53; Hiley's , Murray's Gram , i, p. Appropriately, and by way of distinction, the books of the Old and New Testament; the Bible. That he is regenerate? Many words commonly belonging to other parts of speech are occasionally used as nouns; and, since it is the manner of its use, that determines any word to be of one part of speech rather than of an other, whatever word is used directly as a noun, must of course be parsed as such. Song , vii, Interjections or phrases made nouns: Nouns are divided into two general classes; proper and common.
A proper noun is the name of some particular individual, or people, or group; as, Adam, Boston , the Hudson , the Romans , the Azores , the Alps. A common noun is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things; as, Beast, bird, fish, insect,--creatures, persons, children. The particular classes, collective, abstract , and verbal , or participial , are usually included among common nouns. The name of a thing sui generis is also called common. A collective noun , or noun of multitude , is the name of many individuals together; as, Council, meeting, committee, flock.
An abstract noun is the name of some particular quality considered apart from its substance; as, Goodness, hardness, pride, frailty. A verbal or participial noun is the name of some action, or state of being; and is formed from a verb, like a participle, but employed as a noun: A thing sui generis , i. Nouns have modifications of four kinds; namely, Persons, Numbers, Genders , and Cases. Persons, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish the speaker, the hearer, and the person or thing merely spoken of.
The first person is that which denotes the speaker or writer; as, " I Paul have written it. The second person is that which denotes the hearer, or the person addressed; as, " Robert , who did this? The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of; as, " James loves his book. The speaker or writer, being the mover and maker of the communication, of course stands in the nearest or first of these relations. The hearer or hearers, being personally present and directly addressed, evidently sustain the next or second of these relations; this relation is also that of the reader, when he peruses what is addressed to himself in print or writing.
Lastly, whatsoever or whosoever is merely mentioned in the discourse, bears to it that more remote relation which constitutes the third person. The distinction of persons belongs to nouns, pronouns, and finite verbs; and to these it is always applied, either by peculiarity of form or construction, or by inference from the principles of concord.
Pronouns are like their antecedents, and verbs are like their subjects, in person. Hence, it is necessary that our definitions of these things be such as will apply to each of them in full, or under all circumstances; for the definitions ought to be as general in their application as are the things or properties defined.
Any person, number, gender, case, or other grammatical modification, is really but one and the same thing, in whatever part of speech it may be found. This is plainly implied in the very nature of every form of syntactical agreement; and as plainly contradicted in one half, and probably more, of the definitions usually given of these things. But persons, in common parlance, or in ordinary life, are intelligent beings , of one or the other sex. These objects, different as they are in their nature, are continually confounded by the makers of English grammars: So Bicknell, of London: The second person has the speech directed to him , and is supposed to be present; as, Thou Harry art a wicked fellow.
The third person is spoken of, or described, and supposed to be absent ; as, That Thomas is a good man. And in the same manner the plural pronouns are used, when more than one are spoken of. And how can the first person be "the person WHO speaks ," when every word of this phrase is of the third person? Most certainly, it is not HE, nor any one of his sort. If any body can boast of being " the first person in grammar ," I pray, Who is it?
Is it not I , even I? Many grammarians say so. Charles Adams, with infinite absurdity, makes the three persons in grammar to be never any thing but three nouns , which hold a confabulation thus: The noun that speaks [,] is the first person; as, I, James , was present.
The noun that is spoken to, is the second person; as, James , were you present? The noun that is spoken of is the third person; as, James was present. What can be a greater blunder, than to call the first person of a verb, of a pronoun, or even of a noun, " the noun that speaks? Nouns are of the second person when addressed or spoken to. Thou is the second person, singular. He, she , or it , is the third person, singular. We is the first person, plural.
Ye or you is the second person, plural. They is the third person, plural. Murray's Grammar , p. Adams's , 37; A. Flint's , 18; Kirkham's , 98; Cooper's , 34; T. Now there is no more propriety in affirming, that " I is the first person ," than in declaring that me, we, us, am, ourselves, we think, I write , or any other word or phrase of the first person, is the first person.
Yet Murray has given us no other definitions or explanations of the persons than the foregoing erroneous assertions; and, if I mistake not, all the rest who are here named, have been content to define them only as he did. Some others, however, have done still worse: I, who is the person speaking ; 2d thou, who is spoken to; 3d he, she , or it, who is spoken of, and their plurals, we, ye or you, they.
Here the two kinds of error which I have just pointed out, are jumbled together. It is impossible to write worse English than this! Nor is the following much better: I , in the first person, speaking; Thou , in the second person, spoken to; and He, she, it , in the third person, spoken of. This exception takes place more particularly in the writing of dialogues and dramas; in which the first and second persons are abundantly used, not as the representatives of the author and his reader, but as denoting the fictitious speakers and hearers that figure in each scene.
But, in discourse, the grammatical persons may be changed without a change of the living subject. In the following sentence, the three grammatical persons are all of them used with reference to one and the same individual: Consequently, nouns are rarely used in the first person; and when they do assume this relation, a pronoun is commonly associated with them: But some grammarians deny the first person to nouns altogether; others, with much more consistency, ascribe it;[] while very many are entirely silent on the subject.
Yet it is plain that both the doctrine of concords, and the analogy of general grammar, require its admission. The reason of this may be seen in the following examples: Again, if the word God is of the second person, in the text, " Thou, God , seest me," why should any one deny that Paul is of the first person, in this one? And so of the plural: How can it be pretended, that, in the phrase, " I Paul ," I is of the first person, as denoting the speaker, and Paul , of some other person, as denoting something or somebody that is not the speaker?
Let the admirers of Murray, Kirkham, Ingersoll, R. Smith, Comly, Greenleaf, Parkhurst, or of any others who teach this absurdity, answer. In the following example, the patriarch Jacob uses both forms; applying the term servant to himself, and to his brother Esau the term lord: For when a speaker or writer does not choose to declare himself in the first person, or to address his hearer or reader in the second , he speaks of both or either in the third.
So Judah humbly beseeches Joseph: And Abraham reverently intercedes with God: And the Psalmist prays: So, on more common occasions: Ye mountains , that ye skipped like rams; and ye little hills , like lambs? Tremble, thou earth , at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob. The plural number is that which denotes more than one; as, "The boys learn. The plural number of nouns is regularly formed by adding s or es to the singular: When the singular ends in a sound which will unite with that of s , the plural is generally formed by adding s only , and the number of syllables is not increased: But when the sound of s cannot be united with that of the primitive word, the regular plural adds s to final e , and es to other terminations, and forms a separate syllable: In some languages, as the Greek and the Arabic, there is a dual number, which denotes two , or a pair ; but in ours, this property of words, or class of modifications, extends no farther than to distinguish unity from plurality, and plurality from unity.
It belongs to nouns, pronouns, and finite verbs; and to these it is always applied, either by peculiarity of form, or by inference from the principles of concord. Pronouns are like their antecedents, and verbs are like their subjects, in number.