Lectures on Language Part 3

In this case, the mind rests on what exists, and employs a word to express what does not. We speak of _a hole_ in the paper. But we can form no idea of _a hole_, separated from the surrounding substances.

Remove the parts of the paper till nothing is left, and then you may look in vain for the hole. It is not there. It never was. In the same way we use the words nothing, n.o.body, nonent.i.ty, vacuum, absence, s.p.a.ce, blank, annihilation, and oblivion. These are relative terms, to be understood in reference to things which are known to exist. We must know of _some_thing before we can talk of _no_thing, of an ent.i.ty before we can think of nonent.i.ty.

In a similar way we employ words to name actions, which are produced by the changes of objects. We speak of a race, of a flight, of a sitting or session, of a journey, of a ride, of a walk, of a residence, etc. In all these cases, the mind is fixed on the persons who performed these things. Take for example, a race. Of that, we can conceive no idea separate from the agent or object which _ran_ the _race_. Without some other word to inform us we could not decide whether a _horse_ race, a _foot_ race, a boat race, the race of a mill, or some other race, was the object of remark. The same may be said of flight, for we read of the flight of birds, the flight of Mahommed, the flight of armies, and the flight of intellect.

We also give names to actions as tho they were taking place in the present tense. "The _reading_ of the report was deferred;" steamboat _racing_ is dangerous to public safety; _stealing_ is a crime; false _teaching_ deserves the reprobation of all.

The hints I have given will a.s.sist you in acquiring a knowledge of nouns as used to express ideas in vocal or written language. This subject might be pursued further with profit, if time would permit. As the time allotted to this lecture is nearly exhausted, I forbear. I shall hereafter have occasion to show how a whole phrase may be used to name an idea, and as such stand as the agent or object of a verb.

Some nouns are specifically used to designate certain objects, and distinguish them from the cla.s.s to which they usually belong. In this way they a.s.sume a distinctive character, and are usually denominated =proper nouns=. They apply to persons, places and things; as, John Smith, Boston, Hylax. _Boy_ is applied in common to all young males of the human species, and as such is a _common noun_ or name. _John Smith_ designates a particular boy from the rest.

Proper names may be also applied to animals and things. The stable keeper and stageman has a name for every horse he owns, to distinguish it from other horses; the dairyman for his cows, the boy for his dog, and the girl for her doll. Any word, in fact, may become a proper name by being specifically used; as the s.h.i.+p Fair Trader, the brig Success, sloop Delight in Peace, the race horse Eclipse, Black Hawk, Round Nose, and Red Jacket.

Proper names were formerly used in reference to certain traits of character or circ.u.mstances connected with the place or thing. _Abram_ was changed to _Abraham_, the former signifying _an elevated father_, the latter, _the father of a mult.i.tude_. _Isaac_ signified _laughter_, and was given because his mother laughed at the message of the angel.

_Jacob_ signified _a supplanter_, because he was to obtain the birthright of his elder brother.

A ridiculous rage obtained with our puritan fathers to express scripture sentiments in the names of their children, as may be seen by consulting the records of the Plymouth and Ma.s.sachusetts colonies.

This practice has not wholly gone out of use in our day, for we hear of the names of Hope, Mercy, Patience, Comfort, Experience, Temperance, Faith, Deliverance, Return, and such like, applied usually to females, (being more in character probably,) and sometimes to males. We have also the names of White, Black, Green, Red, Gray, Brown, Olive, Whitefield, Blackwood, Redfield, Woodhouse, Stonehouse, Waterhouse, Woodbridge, Swift.w.a.ter, Lowater, Drinkwater, Spring, Brooks, Rivers, Pond, Lake, Fairweather, Merryweather, Weatherhead, Rice, Wheat, Straw, Greatrakes, Bird, Fowle, Crow, Hawks, Eagle, Partridge, Wren, Goslings, Fox, Camel, Zebra, Bear, Wolf, Hogg, Rain, Snow, Haile, Frost, Fogg, Mudd, Clay, Sands, Hills, Valley, Field, Stone, Flint, Silver, Gould, and Diamond.

Proper nouns may also become common when used as words of general import; as, _dunces_, corrupted from Duns Scotus, a distinguished theologian, born at Dunstane, Northumberland, an opposer of the doctrines of Thomas Aquinus. He is a real _solomon_, jack tars, judases, antichrist, and so on.

Nouns may also be considered in respect to person, number, gender, and positive, or case. There are _three_ persons, _two_ numbers, _two_ genders, and _two_ cases. But the further consideration of these things will be deferred, which, together with p.r.o.nouns, will form the subject of our next lecture.

LECTURE V.

ON NOUNS AND p.r.o.nOUNS.

Nouns in respect to persons.--Number.--Singular.--Plural.--How formed.--Foreign plurals.--Proper names admit of plurals.--Gender.

--No neuter.--In figurative language.--Errors.--Position or case.-- Agents.--Objects.--Possessive case considered.--A definitive word.--p.r.o.nouns.--One kind.--Originally nouns.--Specifically applied.

We resume the consideration of nouns this evening, in relation to person, number, gender, and position or case.

In the use of language there is a speaker, person spoken to, and things spoken of. Those who speak are the _first_ persons, those who hear the _second_, and those who are the subject of conversation the _third_.

The first and second persons are generally used in reference to human beings capable of speech and understanding. But we sometimes condesend to hold converse with animals and inanimate matter. The bird trainer talks to his parrots, the coachman to his horses, the sailor to the winds, and the poet to his landscapes, towers, and wild imaginings, to which he gives a "local habitation and a name."

By metaphor, language is put into the mouths of animals, particularly in fables. By a still further license, places and things, flowers, trees, forests, brooks, lakes, mountains, towers, castles, stars, &c. are made to speak the most eloquent language, in the first person, in addresses the most pathetic. The propriety of such a use of words I will not stop to question, but simply remark that such figures should never be employed in the instruction of children. As the mind expands, no longer content to grovel amidst mundane things, we mount the pegasus of imagination and soar thro the blissful or terrific scenes of fancy and fiction, and study a language before unknown. But it would be an unrighteous demand upon others, to require them to understand us; and quite as unpardonable to brand them with ignorance because they do not.

Most nouns are in the third person. More things are talked about than talk themselves, or are talked to by others. Hence there is little necessity for teaching children to specify except in the first or second person, which is very easily done.

In English there are two _numbers_, singular and plural. The singular is confined to one, the plural is extended to any indefinite number. The Greeks, adopted a dual number which they used to express two objects united in pairs, or couples; as, a span of horses, a yoke of oxen, a brace of pistols, a pair of shoes. We express the same idea with more words, using the singular to represent the union of the two. We also extend this use of words and employ what are called _nouns of mult.i.tude_; as, a people, an army, a host, a nation. These and similar words are used in the singular referring to many combined in a united whole, or in the plural comprehending a diversity; as, "the armies met,"

"the nations are at peace." _People_ admits no change on account of number. We say "_many_ people are collected together and form _a_ numerous people."

The plural is not always to be understood as expressing an increase of number, but of qualities or sorts of things, as the merchant has a variety of _sugars_, _wines_, _teas_, _drugs_, _medicines_, _paints_ and _dye-woods_. We also speak of _hopes_, _fears_, _loves_, _anxieties_.

Some nouns admit of no plural, in fact, or in use; as, chaos, universe, fitness, immortality, immensity, eternity. Others admit of no singular; as, scissors, tongs, vitals, mola.s.ses. These words probably once had singulars, but having no use for them they became obsolete. We have long been accustomed to a.s.sociate the two halves of shears together, so that in speaking of one whole, we say shears, and of apart, half of a shears.

But of some words originally, and in fact plural, we have formed a singular; as, "one twin died, and, tho the other one survived its dangerous illness, the mother wept bitterly for her twins." _Twin_ is composed of _two_ and _one_. It is found in old books, spelled _twane_, two-one, or twin. Thus, the _twi_-light is formed by the mingling of two lights, or the division of the rays of light by the approaching or receding darkness. They _twain_ shall be one flesh. Sheep and deer are singular or plural.

Most plurals are formed by adding _s_ to the singular, or, when euphony requires it, _es_; as, tree, trees; sun, suns; dish, dishes; box, boxes.

Some retain the old plural form; as, ox, oxen; child, children; chick, chicken; kit, kitten. But habit has burst the barrier of old rules, and we now talk of chicks and chickens, kits and kittens. _Oxen_ alone stands as a monument raised to the memory of unaltered saxon plurals.

Some nouns form irregular plurals. Those ending in _f_ change that letter to _v_ and then add _es_; as, half, halves; leaf, leaves; wolf, wolves. Those ending in _y_ change that to _i_ and add the _es_; as, cherry, cherries; berry, berries; except when the _y_ is preceded by a vowel, in which case it only adds the _s_; as, day, days; money, moneys (not _ies_); attorney, attorneys. All this is to make the sound more easy and harmonious. _F_ and _v_ were formerly used indiscriminately, in singulars as well as plurals, and, in fact, in the composition of all words where they occurred. The same may be said of _i_ and _y_.

"The Fader (Father) Almychty of the heven abuf (above) In the mene tyme, unto Juno his _luf_ (love) Thus spak; and sayd."

_Douglas, booke 12, pag. 441._

"They lyued in ioye and in felycite For eche of hem had other lefe and dere."

_Chaucer, Monks Tale, fol. 81, p. 1._

"When straite twane beefes he tooke And an the aultar layde."

The reason why _y_ is changed into _i_ in the formation of plurals, and in certain other cases, is, I apprehend, accounted for from the fact that words which now end in _y_ formerly ended in _ie_, as may be seen in all old books. The regular plural was then formed by adding _s_.

"And upon those members of the _bodie_, which _wee_ thinke most unhonest, put _wee_ more honestie on." "It rejoyceth not in iniquitie--diversitie of gifts--all thinges edifie not." See old bible, 1 Cor., chap. 13 and 14.

Other words form their plurals still more differently, for which no other rule than habit can be given; as, man, men; foot, feet; tooth, teeth; die, dice; mouse, mice; penny, pence, and sometimes pennies, when applied to distinct pieces of money, and not to value.

Many foreign nouns retain the plural form as used by the nations from whom we have borrowed them; as, cherub, cherubim; seraph, seraphim; radius, radii; memorandum, memoranda; datum, data, &c. We should be pleased to have such words carried home, or, if they are ours by virtue of possession, let them be adopted into our family, and put on the garments of naturalized citizens, and no longer appear as lonely strangers among us. There is great aukwardness in adding the english to the hebrew plural of cherub, as the translators of the common version of the bible have done. They use _cherub_ in the singular and cherub_ims_ in the plural. The _s_ should be omitted and the Hebrew plural retained, or the preferable course adopted, and the final _s_ be added, making cherubs, seraphs, &c. The same might be said of all foreign nouns. It would add much to the regularity, dignity, and beauty, of our vernacular tongue.

Proper nouns admit of the plural number; as, there are sixty-four John Smiths in New-York, twenty Arnolds in Providence, and fifteen Davises in Boston. As we are not accustomed to form the plurals of proper names there is not that ease and harmony in the first use of them that we have found in those with which we are more familiar; especially those we have rarely heard p.r.o.nounced. Habit surmounts the greatest obstacles and makes things the most harsh and unpleasant appear soft and agreeable.

Gender is applied to the distinction of the s.e.xes. There are two--masculine and feminine. The former is applied to males, the latter to females. Those words which belong to neither gender, have been called _neuter_, that is, _no gender_. But it is hardly necessary to perplex the minds of learners with _negatives_. Let them distinguish between masculine and feminine genders, and little need be said to them about a _neuter_.

There are some nouns of both genders, as student, writer, pupil, person, citizen, resident. _Poet_, _author_, editor, and some other words, have of late been applied to females, instead of poet_ess_, author_ess_, edit_ress_. Fas.h.i.+on will soon preclude the necessity of this former distinction.

Some languages determine their genders by the form of the endings of their nouns, and what is thus made masculine in Rome, may be feminine in France. It is owing, no doubt, to this practice, in other nations, that we have attached the idea of gender to inanimate things; as, "the sun, _he_ s.h.i.+nes majestically;" while of the moon, it is said, "_she_ sheds a milder radiance." But we can not coincide with the reason a.s.signed by Mr. Murray, for this distinction. His notion is not valid. It does not correspond with facts. While in the south of Europe the sun is called masculine and the moon feminine, the northern nations invariably reverse the distinction, particularly the dialects of the Scandinavian. It was so in our own language in the time of Shakspeare. He calls the sun a "_fair wench_."

By figures of rhetoric, genders may be attached to inanimate matter.

Where things are personified, we usually speak of them as masculine and feminine; but this practice depends on fancy, and not on any fixed rules. There is, in truth, but two genders, and those confined to animals. When we break these rules, and follow the undirected wanderings of fancy, we can form no rules to regulate our words. We may have as many fanciful ones as we please, but they will not apply in common practice. For example: poets and artists have usually attached female loveliness to angels, and placed them in the feminine gender. But they are invariably used in the masculine thro out the scriptures.

There is an apparent absurdity in saying of the s.h.i.+p General Williams, _she_ is beautiful; or, of the steamboat Benjamin Franklin, _she_ is out of date. It were far better to use no gender in such cases. But if people will continue the practice of making distinctions where there are none, they must do it from habit and whim, and not from any reason or propriety.

There are three ways in which we usually distinguish the forms of words in reference to gender. 1st. By words which are different; as boy, girl; uncle, aunt; father, mother. 2d. By a different termination of the same word; as instructor, instructress; lion, lioness; poet, poetess. _Ess_ is a contraction from the hebrew _essa_, a female. 3d. By prefixing another word; as, a male child, a female child; a man servant, a maid servant; a he-goat, a she-goat.

The last consideration that attaches to nouns, is the _position_ they occupy in written or spoken language, in relation to other words, as being _agents_, or _objects_ of action. This is termed _position_.

There are two positions in which nouns stand in reference to their meaning and use. First, as _agents_ of action, as _David_ killed Goliath. Second, as _objects_ on which action terminates; as, _Richard_ conquered _Henry_. These two distinctions should be observed in the use of all nouns. But the propriety of this division will be more evident when we come to treat of verbs, their agents and objects.

It will be perceived that we have abandoned the use of the "_possessive case_," a distinction which has been insisted on in our grammars; and also changed the names of the other two. As we would adopt nothing that is new without first being convinced that something is needed which the thing proposed will supply; so we would reject nothing that is old, till we have found it useless and c.u.mbersome. It will be admitted on all hands that the fewer and simpler the rules of grammar, the more readily will they be understood, and the more correctly applied. We should guard, on the one hand, against having so many as to perplex, and on the other, retain enough to apply in the correct use of language. It is on this ground that we have proposed an improvement in the names and number of cases, or positions.

The word noun signifies name, and _nominative_ is the adjective derived from noun, and partakes of the same meaning. Hence the _nominative_ or _naming_ case may apply as correctly to the object as the agent. "_John_ strikes _Thomas_, and _Thomas_ strikes _John_." John and Thomas name the boys who strike, but in the first case John is the actor or agent and Thomas the object. In the latter it is changed. To use a _nominative name_ is a redundancy which should be avoided. You will understand my meaning and see the propriety of the change proposed, as the mind of the learner should not be burthened with needless or irrelevant phrases.

But our main objection lies against the "possessive case." We regard it as a false and unnecessary distinction. What is the possessive case?

Murray defines it as "expressing the relation of property or possession; as, my father's house." His rule of syntax is, "one substantive governs another, signifying a different thing, in the possessive or genitive case; as, my father's house." I desire you to understand the definition and use as here given. Read it over again, and be careful that you know the meaning of _property_, _possession_, and _government_. Now let a scholar pa.r.s.e correctly the example given. "_Father's_" is a common noun, third person, singular number, masculine gender, and _governed_ by house:" Rule, "One noun _governs_ another," &c. Then my father does not govern his own house, but his house him! What must be the conduct and condition of the family, if they have usurped the government of their head? "John Jones, hatter, keeps constantly for sale all kinds of _boy's hats_. Pa.r.s.e boy's. It is a noun, possessive case, _governed_ by hats."

What is the possessive case? It "signifies the _relation of property or possession_." Do the hats belong to the boys? Oh no. Are they the _property_ or in the _possession_ of the boys? Certainly not. Then what relation is there of property or possession? None at all. They belong to John Jones, were made by him, are his property, and by him are advertised for sale. He has used the word _boy's_ to distinguish their size, quality, and fitness for boy's use.