Lectures on Language Part 11

The great fault is, grammarians do not allow themselves to _think_ on the subject of language, or if they do, they only think intransitively, that is, produce no _thoughts_ by their cogitations.

This brings us to a more direct consideration of the subject before us.

All admit the correctness of the axiom that every effect must have a cause, and that every cause will have an effect. It is equally true that "_like causes will produce like effects_," a rule from which nature itself, and thought, and language, can never deviate. It is as plain as that two things mutually equal to each other, are equal to a third. On this immutable principle we base our theory of the activity of all verbs, and contend that they must have an object after them, either expressed or _necessarily understood_. We can not yield this position till it is proved that _causes_ can operate without producing effects, which can never be till the order of creation is reversed! There never was, to our knowledge, such a thing as an intransitive action, with the solitary exception of the burning bush.[13] In that case the laws of nature were suspended, and no effects were produced; for the _bush burned_, but there was nothing burnt; no consequences followed to the bush; it was not consumed. The records of the past present no instance of like character, where effects have failed to follow, direct or more distantly, every cause which has been set in operation.

It makes no difference whether the object of the action is expressed or not. It is the same in either case. But where it is not necessarily implied from the nature and fitness of things, it must be expressed, and but for such object or effect the action could not be understood. For example, _I run_; but if there is no effect produced, _nothing_ run, how can it be known whether I run or not. If I write, it is necessarily understood that I write _something_--a _letter_, a _book_, a _piece_ of poetry, a _communication_, or some other _writing_. When such object is not liable to be mistaken, it would be superfluous to express it--it would be a redundancy which should be avoided by all good writers and speakers. All languages are, in this respect, more or less eliptical, which const.i.tutes no small share of their beauty, power, and elegance.

This elipsis may be observed not only in regard to the objects of verbs, but in the omission of many nouns after adjectives, which thus a.s.sume the character of nouns; as, the Almighty, the Eternal, the Allwise, applied to G.o.d, understood. So we say the wise, the learned, the good, the faithful, the wicked, the vile, the base, to which, if nouns, it would sound rather harsh to apply plurals. So we say, take your hat off ( ); put your gloves on ( ); lay your coat off ( ); and pull your boots on ( ); presuming the person so addressed knows enough to fill the elipsis, and not take his hat off his back, pull his gloves on his feet, or his boots on his head.

In pursuing this subject farther, let us examine the sample words which are called _intransitive_ verbs, because frequently used without the object expressed after them; such as run, walk, step, fly, rain, snow, burn, roll, s.h.i.+ne, smiles, &c.

"_I run._"

That here is an action of the first kind, none will deny. But it is contended by the old systems that there is no object on which the action terminates. If that be true then there is _nothing_ run, no effect produced, and the first law of nature is outraged, in the very onset; for there is a _cause_, but no _effect_; an _action_, but no _object_.

How is the fact? Have you run nothing? conveyed nothing, moved nothing from one place to another? no change, no effect, nothing moved? Look at it and decide. It is said that a neuter or intransitive verb may be known from the fact that it takes after it a preposition. Try it by this rule. "A man run _against_ a post in a dark night, and broke his neck;"

that is, he run nothing against a post--no object to run--and yet he broke his neck. Unfortunate man!

The fact in relation to this verb is briefly this: It is used to express the action which more usually terminates on the actor, than on any other object. This circ.u.mstance being generally known, it would be superfluous to mention the object, except in cases where such is not the fact. But whenever we desire to be definite, or when there is the least liability to mistake the object, it is invariably expressed. Instances of this kind are numerous. "They _ran_ the _boat_ ash.o.r.e." "The captain _ran_ his _men_ to rescue them from the enemy." "They _ran_ the _gauntlet_." "They _run_ a _stage_ to Boston." "He _ran himself_ into discredit." "One bank _runs_ another." "The man had a hard _run_ of it."

"_Run_ the _account_ over, and see if it is right." "They _run forty looms_ and two thousand spindles." "He _runs_ his _mill_ evenings." Such expressions are common and correct, because they convey ideas, and are understood.

Two men were engaged in argument. The believer in intransitive verbs set out to _run his opponent_ into an evident absurdity, and, contrary to his expectation, he _ran himself_ into one. Leave out the objects of this verb, run, and the sense is totally changed. He set out to _run_ into an _evident absurdity_, and he ran into one; that is, he did the very absurd thing which he intended to do.[14]

"_I walk._"

The action expressed by this verb is very similar in character to the former, but rather _slower_ in performance. Writers on health tell us that _to walk_ is a very healthy exercise, and that it would be well for men of sedentary habits _to walk_ several miles every day. But if there is no action in walk, or if it has no _object_ necessarily _walked_, it would be difficult to understand what good could result from it.

"Did you have a pleasant _walk_ this morning?" says a teacher to his grammar cla.s.s.

"We did have a very pleasant one. The flowers were _blooming_ on each side of the _walk_, and _sent_ forth their sweetest aroma, _perfuming_ the soft breezes of the morning. Birds were _flitting from_ spray to spray, _carolling_ their hymns of praise to Deity. The tranquil waters of the lake lay _slumbering_ in silence, and _reflected_ the bright _rays_ of the sun, _giving_ a sweet but solemn _aspect_ to the whole scene. _To go_ thro the grove, down by the lake, and up thro the meadow, is the most delightful _walk_ a person can take."

"How did you get your _walk_?"

"We walked it, to be sure; how did you think we got it?"

"Oh, I did not know. _Walk_, your books tell you, is an intransitive verb, terminating on no object; so I supposed, if you followed them, you obtained it some other way; by _riding_, _running_, _sailing_, or, may be, _bought_ it, as you could not have _walked it_! Were you tired on your return?"

"We were exceedingly fatigued, for you know it is a very long _walk_, and we _walked it_ in an hour."

"But _what_ tired you? If there are no effects produced by walking, I can not conceive why _you_ should be fatigued by such exercise."

Who does not perceive what flagrant violations of grammar rules are committed every day, and every hour, and in almost every sentence that is framed to express our knowledge of facts.

_To step._

This verb is the same in character with the two just noticed. It expresses the act of _raising_ each foot alternately, and usually implies that the body is, by that means, conveyed from one place to another. But as people _step_ their _feet_ and not their hands, or any thing else, it is entirely useless to mention the object; for generally, that can not be mistaken any more than in the case of the gloves, boots, and hat. But it would be bad philosophy to teach children that there is no objective word after it, because it is not written out and placed before their eyes. They will find such teaching contradicted at every _step_ they take. Let a believer in intransitive verbs _step_ on a red hot iron; he will soon find to his sorrow, that he was mistaken when he thought that he could _step_ without stepping any thing. It would be well for grammar, as well as many other things, to have more practice and less theory. The thief was detected by his steps. Step softly; put your feet down carefully.

_Birds fly._

We learned from our primers, that

"The eagle's _flight_ Is out of sight,"

How did the eagle succeed in producing a _flight_? I suppose he _flew_ it. And if birds ever fly, they must produce a flight. Such being the fact, it is needless to supply the object. But the action does not terminate solely on the flight produced, for that is only the name given to the action itself. The expression conveys to the mind the obvious fact, that, by strong muscular energy, by the aid of feathers, and the atmosphere, the bird carries itself thro the air, and changes its being from one place to another. As birds rarely fly a race, or any thing but _themselves_ and a _flight_, it is not necessary to suffix the object.

_It rains._

This verb is insisted on as the strongest proof of intransitive action; with what propriety, we will now inquire. It will serve as a clear elucidation of the whole theory of intransitive verbs.

What does the expression signify? It simply declares the fact, that _water is shed_ down from the clouds. But is there no object after _rains_? There is none expressed. Is there nothing rained? no effect produced? If not, there can be no water fallen, and our cisterns would be as empty, our streams as low, and fields as parched, after a rain as before it! But who that has common sense, and has never been blinded by the false rules of grammar, does not know that when _it rains_, it never fails to _rain rain_, _water_, or _rain-water_, unless you have one of the paddy's dry rains? When it hails, it hails _hail_, _hail-stones_, or frozen _rain_. When it snows, it _snows snow_, sometimes two feet of it, sometimes less. I should think teachers in our northern countries would find it exceeding difficult to convince their readers that snow is an intransitive verb--that it snows _nothing_. And yet so it is; people will remain wedded to their old systems, and refuse to open their eyes and behold the evidences every where around them. Teachers themselves, the guides of the young--and I blush to say it, for I was long among the number--have, with their scholars, labored all the morning, breaking roads, _shovelling snow_, and clearing paths, to get to the school-house, and then set down and taught them that _to snow_ is an _in_transitive verb. What nonsense; nay, worse, what falsehoods have been instilled into the youthful mind in the name of grammar! Can we be surprised that people have not understood grammar? that it is a dry, cold, and lifeless business?

I once lectured in Poughkeepsie, N. Y. In a conversation with Miss B., a distinguished scholar, who had taught a popular female school for twenty years; was remarking upon the subject of intransitive verbs, and the apparent inconsistency of the new system, that all verbs must have an object after them, expressed or understood; she said, "there was the verb _rain_, (it happened to be a rainy day,) the whole action is confined to the agent; it does not pa.s.s on to another object; it is purely intransitive." Her aged mother, who had never looked into a grammar book, heard the conversation, and very bluntly remarked, "Why, you fool you, I want to know if you have studied grammar these thirty years, and taught it more than twenty, and have never _larned_ that when it rains it _always_ rains _rain_? If it didn't, do you s'pose you'd need an umbrella to go out now into the storm? I should think you'd know better. I always told you these plaguy grammars were good for nothing, I didn't b'lieve." "Amen," said I, to the good sense of the old lady, "you are right, and have reason to be thankful that you have never been initiated into the intricate windings, nor been perplexed with the false and contradictory rules, which have blasted many bright geniuses in their earliest attempts to gain a true knowledge of the sublime principles of language, on which depends so much of the happiness of human life." The good matron's remark was a poser to the daughter, but it served as a means of her entire deliverance from the thraldom of neuter verbs, and the adoption of the new principles of the exposition of language.

The anecdote shows us how the unsophisticated mind will observe facts, and employ words as correctly, if not more so, than those schooled in the high pretensions of science, falsely taught. Who does not know from the commonest experience, that the direct object of _raining_ must follow as the necessary sequence? that it can never fail? And yet our philologists tell us that such is not always the case; and that the exception is to be marked on the singular ground, whether the word is written out or omitted! What a narrow view of the sublime laws of motion! What a limited knowledge of things! or else, what a _mistake_!

"Then the Lord said unto Moses, behold, I will _rain_ bread for you from heaven."

"Then the _Lord rained_ down, upon Sodom and Gomorrah, _brimstone_ and _fire_, from the Lord out of heaven."--_Bible._

_The fire burns._

The fire _burns_ the wood, the coal, or the peat. The great fire in New-York _burned_ the buildings which covered fifty-two acres of ground.

Mr. Experiment _burns_ coal in preference to wood. His new grate _burns it_ very finely. Red ash coal _burns_ the best; it _makes_ the fewest _ashes_, and hence _is_ the most convenient. The cook _burns_ too much fuel. The house took fire and _burned_ up. _Burned what_ up? Burn is an intransitive verb. It would not trouble the unfortunate tenant to know that there must be an _object burned_, or what _it_ was. He would find it far more difficult to rebuild his _house_. Do you suppose fires never burn any thing belonging to neuter verb folks? Then they never need pay away insurance money. With the solitary exception I have mentioned--the burning bush--this verb can not be intransitive.

_The sun s.h.i.+nes._

This is an intransitive verb if there ever was one, because the object is not often expressed after it. But if the sun _emits_ no _rays_ of light, how shall it be known whether it s.h.i.+nes or not? "The _radiance_ of the sun's bright beaming" is produced by the _exhibition_ of _itself_, when it _brightens_ the objects exposed to its _rays_ or _radiance_. We talk of _sun s.h.i.+ne_ and moon s.h.i.+ne, but if these bodies never produce _effects_ how shall it be known whether such things are real? _Sun s.h.i.+ne_ is the direct effect of the sun's _s.h.i.+ning_. But clouds sometimes intervene and prevent the rays from extending to the earth; but _then_ we do not say "the sun _s.h.i.+nes_." You see at once, that all we know or can know of the fact we state as truth, is derived from a knowledge of the very _effects_ which our grammars tell us do not exist. Strange logic indeed! It is a mark of a wiser man, and a better scholar, not to know the popular grammars, than it is to profess any degree of proficiency in them!

_To smile._

The _smiles_ of the morning, the _smiles_ of affection, a _smile_ of kindness, are only produced by the appearance of something that _smiles_ upon us. _Smiles_ are the direct consequence of _smiling_. If a person should _smile_ ever so _sweetly_ and yet present no _smiles_, they might, for aught we could know to the contrary, be _sour_ as vinegar.

But this verb frequently has another object after it; as, "to _smile_ the _wrinkles_ from the brow of age," or "_smile_ dull _cares_ away." "A sensible wife would soon _reason_ and _smile him_ into good nature."

But I need not multiply examples. When such men as Johnson, Walker, Webster, Murray, Lowthe, and a host of other wise and renowned men, gravely tell us that _eat_ and _drink_, which they define, "to _take food_; _to feed_; _to take a meal_; _to go to meals_; to be maintained in food; _to swallow liquors_; _to quench thirst_; to take any liquid;"

are _intransitive_ or _neuter_ verbs, having no objects after them, we must think them insincere, egregiously mistaken, or else possessed of a means of subsistence different from people generally! Did they _eat_ and _drink_, "take food and swallow liquors," _in_transitively; that is, without _eating_ or _drinking_ any thing? Is it possible in the nature of things? Who does not see the absurdity? And yet they were _great_ men, and n.o.body has a right to question such _high_ authority. And the "_simplifiers_" who have come after, making books and teaching grammar to _earn_ their _bread_, have followed close in their footsteps, and, I suppose, _eaten_ nothing, and thrown their bread away! Was I a believer in neuter verbs and desired to get money, my first step would be to set up a boarding house for all believers in, and _practisers_ of, intransitive verbs. I would board cheap and give good fare. I could afford it, for no provisions would be consumed.

Some over cautious minds, who are always second, if not last, in a good cause, ask us why these principles, if so true and clear, were not found out before? Why have not the learned who have studied for many centuries, never seen and adopted them? It is a sufficient answer to such a question, to ask why the copernican system of astronomy was not sooner adopted, why the principles of chemistry, the circulation of the blood, the power and application of steam, nay, why all improvement was not known before. When grammar and dictionary makers, those wise expounders of the principles of speech, have so far forgotten facts as to teach that _eat_ and _drink_, "express neither action nor pa.s.sion,"

or are "confined to the agents;" that when a man eats, he eats nothing, or when he drinks, he drinks nothing, we need not stop long to decide why these things were unknown before. The wisest may sometimes mistake; and the proud aspirant for success, frequently pa.s.ses over, un.o.bserved, the humble means on which all true success depends.

Allow me to quote some miscellaneous examples which will serve to show more clearly the importance of supplying the elipses, in order to comprehend the meaning of the writers, or profit by their remarks. You will supply the objects correctly from the attendant circ.u.mstances where they are not expressed.

"Ask ( ) and ye shall receive ( ); seek ( ) and ye shall find ( ); knock ( ) and _it_ shall be opened unto you."

Ask _what_? Seek _what_? Knock _what_? That _it_ may be opened? Our "Grammars Made Easy" would teach us to _ask_ and _seek_ nothing! no objectives after them. What then could we reasonably expect to _receive_ or _find_? The _thing_ we _asked_ for, of course, and that was nothing!

Well might the language apply to such, "Ye ask ( ) and _receive not_ (naught) because ye ask ( ) amiss." False teaching is as pernicious to religion and morals as to science.

"Charge them that are rich in this world--that they _do good_, that they be rich in good works, ready to _distribute_ ( ), willing to _communicate_ ( )."--_Paul to Timothy._

The hearer is to observe that there is no object after these words--_nothing_ distributed, or communicated! There is too much such charity in the world.