Lectures on Language Part 5

What idea could the Pacha of Egypt form of ice, having never seen any till the french chemists succeeded in freezing water in his presence?

They told him of ice; that it was _cold_; that it would freeze; that whole streams were often frozen over, so that men and teams could walk over them. He believed no such thing--it was a "christian lie." This idea was confirmed on the first trial of the chemists, which failed of success. But when, on the second attempt, they succeeded, he was all in raptures. A new field was open before him. New ideas were produced in his mind. New qualities were learned; and he could now form some idea of the _ice_ bergs of the north; of _frozen_ regions, which he had never seen; of _icy_ hearts, and storms of _frozen_ rain.

We often hear it said, such a man is very _stoical_; another is an _epicurean_; and another is a _baccha.n.a.l_, or _baccha.n.a.lian_. But what idea should we form of such persons, if we had never read of the Stoics and their philosophy; of Epicurus and his notions of happiness and duty; or of Bacchus, the G.o.d of wine and revelry, whose annual feasts, or Dionysia, were celebrated with the most extravagant licentiousness thro out Greece and Rome, till put down by the Senate of the latter.

You can not fail to see the importance of the knowledge on which we here insist. The meaning you attach to words is exceedingly diverse; and hence you are not always able to think alike, or understand each other, nor derive the same sentiment from the same language. The contradictory opinions which exist in the world may be accounted for, in a great measure, in this way. Our knowledge of many things of which we speak, is limited, either from lack of means, or disposition to employ them.

People always differ and contend most about things of which they know the least. Did we all attach the same meaning to the same words, our opinions would all be the same, as true as the forty-fifth problem of Euclid. How important, then, that children should always be taught the same meaning of words, and learn to use them correctly. Etymology, viewed in this light, is a most important branch of science.

Whenever a word is sufficiently understood, no adjective should be connected with it. There is a ridiculous practice among many people, of appending to every noun one or more adjectives, which have no other effect than to expose their own folly. Some writers are so in the habit of annexing adjectives to all nouns, that they dare not use one without.

You will not unfrequently see adjectives different in form, added to a noun of very similar meaning; as, sad melancholy, an ominous sign, this mundane earth, pensive thoughts.

When words can be obtained, which not only name the object, but also describe its properties, it should be preferred to a noun with an adjective; as _pirate_, for _sea robber_; _savan_, for a _learned_ or _wise man_.[4]

In relation to that cla.s.s of adjectives derived from verbs, we will be brief. They include what have been termed participles, not a distinct "part of speech," but by some included in the verbs. We use them as adjectives to describe things as standing in some relation to other things on the account of the action expressed by the verb from which they are derived. "The man is respected." _Respected_, in this case, describes the man in such a relation to those who have become acquainted with his good qualities, that he now receives their respect. He is respect_able_, (_able_ to command, or worthy of respect,) and of course, respected for his respectability. To avoid repet.i.tion, we select different words to a.s.sist in the expression of a complex idea. But I indulge in phrases like the above, to show the nice shades of meaning in the common use of words, endeavoring to a.n.a.lyze, as far as possible, our words and thoughts, and show their mutual connexion and dependencies.

What has been termed the "present participle" is also an adjective, describing things in their present condition in reference to actions.

"The man is writing." Here, _writing_ describes the man in his present employment. But the consideration of this matter more properly belongs to the construction of sentences.

There is another cla.s.s or variety of words properly belonging to this division of grammar, which may as well be noticed in this place as any other. I allude to those words generally called "Prepositions." We have not time now to consider them at large, but will give you a brief view of our opinion of them, and reserve the remainder of our remarks till we come to another part of these lectures.

Most of the words called prepositions, in books of grammar, are participles, derived from verbs, many of which are still in use, but some are obsolete. They are used in the true character of adjectives, _describing one thing by its relation to another_. But their meaning has not been generally understood. Our dictionaries have afforded no means by which we can trace their etymology. They have been regarded as a kind of cement to stick other words together, having no meaning or importance in themselves.[5] Until their meaning is known, we can not reasonably expect to draw them from their hiding places, and give them a respectable standing in the transmission of thought.

Many words, from the frequency of their use, fail to attract our attention as much as those less employed; not because they are less important, but because they are so familiarly known that the operations of thought are not observed in the choice made of them to express ideas.

If we use words of which little is known, we ponder well before we adopt them, to determine whether the sense usually attached to them accords exactly with the notions we desire to convey by them. The same can not be said of small words which make up a large proportion of our language, and are, in fact, more necessary than the others, in as much as their meaning is more generally known. Those who employ carriages to convey their bodies, observe little of their construction, unless there is something singular or fine in their appearance. The common parts are un.o.bserved, yet as important as the small words used in the common construction of language, the vehicle of thought. As the apostle says of the body politic, "those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary;" so the words least understood by grammarians are most necessary in the correct formation of language.

It is an easy matter to get along with the words called prepositions, after they are all learned by rote; but when their meaning and use are inquired into, the best grammarians have little to say of them.

A list of prepositions, alphabetically arranged, is found in nearly every grammar, which scholars are required to commit to memory, without knowing any thing of their meaning or use, only that they are prepositions when an objective word comes after them, _because the books say so_; but occasionally the same words occur as adverbs and adjectives. There is, however, no trouble in "parsing" them, unless the list is forgotten. In that case, you will see the pupil, instead of inquiring after the meaning and duty of the word, go to the book and search for it in the lists of prepositions or conjunctions; or to the dictionary, to see if there is a "_prep._" appended to it. What will children ever learn of language in this way? Of what avail is all such grammar teaching? As soon as they leave school it is all forgotten; and you will hear them say, at the very time they should be reaping the harvest of former toil, that they once understood grammar, but it is all gone from them. Poor souls! their memory is very treacherous, else they have never learned language as they ought. There is a fault somewhere.

To us it is not difficult to determine where it is.

That certain words are prepositions, there can be no doubt, because the books say they are; but _why_ they are so, is quite another matter. All we desire is to have their meaning understood. Little difficulty will then be found in determining their use.

I have said they are derived from verbs, many of which are obsolete.

Some are still in use, both as verbs and nouns. Take for example the word =with=. This word signifies _joined_ or _united_. It is used to show that two things are some how joined together so that they are spoke of in connexion. It frequently occurs in common conversation, as a verb and noun, but not as frequently in the books as formerly. The farmer says to his _hired_ man, "Go and get a _withe_ and come and _withe_ up the fence;" that is, get some pliant twigs of tough wood, twist them together, and _withe_ or bind them round these posts, so that one may stand firm _with_, or _withed_ to, the other. A book _with_ a cover, is one that has a cover _joined_, bound, or attached to it. "A father _with_ a son, a man _with_ an estate, a nation _with_ a const.i.tution."

In all such cases _with_ expresses the relation between the two things mentioned, produced by a _union_ or connexion with each other.[6]

=In= is used in the same way. It is still retained as a noun and is suspended on the signs of many public houses. "The traveller's _inn_,"

is a house where travellers _in_ themselves, or go _in_, for entertainment. It occurs frequently in Shakspeare and in more modern writers, as a verb, and is still used in common conversation as an imperative. "Go, _in_ the crops of grain." "_In_ with you." "_In_ with it." In describes one thing by its relation to another, which is the business of adjectives. It admits of the regular degrees of comparison; as, _in_, _inner_, _innermost_ or _inmost_. It also has its compounds.

_In_step, the _inner_ part of the foot, _in_let, _in_vestment, _in_heritance. In this capacity it is extensively used under its different shades of meaning which I cannot stop to notice.

=Of= signifies _divided_, _separated_, or _parted_. "The s.h.i.+p is _off_ the coast." "I am bound _off_, and you are bound _out_." "A part _of_ a pencil," is that part which is _separated_ from the rest, implying that the act of _separating_, or _offing_, has taken place. "A branch _of_ the tree." There is the tree; this branch is from it. "Our communication was broken _off_ several years ago." "Sailors record their _off_ings, and parents love their _off_spring," or those children which sprung from them.[7] "We also _are his offspring_;" that is, sprung from G.o.d.[8] In all these, and every other case, you will perceive the meaning of the word, and its office will soon appear essential in the expression of thought. Had all the world been a compact whole, nothing ever separated from it, we could never speak of a part _of_ it, for we could never have such an idea. But we look at things, as separated, divided, parted; and speak of one thing as separated from the others.

Hence, when we speak of the part of the earth we inhabit, we, in imagination, separate it from some other _part_, or the general whole.

We can not use this word in reference to a thing which is indivisible, because we can conceive no idea of a part _of_ an indivisible thing. We do not say, a portion _of_ our mind taken as a whole, but as capable of division. A share _of_ our regards, supposes that the remainder is reserved for something else.

=Out=, out_er_ or utter, outer_most_ or utmost, admits of the same remark as _in_.

In this manner, we might explain a long list of words, called adverbs, conjunctions, and prepositions. But I forbear, for the present, the further consideration of this subject, and leave it for another lecture.

LECTURE VII.

ON ADJECTIVES.

Adjectives.--How formed.--The syllable _ly_.--Formed from proper nouns.--The apostrophe and letter _s_.--Derived from p.r.o.nouns.-- Articles.--_A_ comes from _an_.--_In_definite.--_The_.--Meaning of _a_ and _the_.--Murray's example.--That.--What.--"p.r.o.noun adjectives."--_Mon_, _ma_.--Degrees of comparison.--Secondary adjectives.--Prepositions admit of comparison.

We resume the consideration of Adjectives. The importance of this cla.s.s of words in the expression of our thoughts, is my excuse for bestowing upon it so much labor. Had words always been used according to their primitive meaning, there would be little danger of being misunderstood.

But the fact long known, "_Verba mutanter_"--words change--has been the prolific source of much of the diversity of opinion, asperity of feeling, and apparent misconstruction of other's sentiments, which has disturbed society, and disgraced mankind. I have, in a former lecture, alluded to this point, and call it up in this place to prepare your minds to understand what is to be said on the secondary use of words in the character of adjectives.

I have already spoken of adjectives in general, as derived from nouns and verbs, and was somewhat particular upon the cla.s.s sometimes called _prepositions_, which describe one thing by its relation to another, produced by some action which has placed them in such relation. We will now pa.s.s to examine a little more minutely into the character and use of certain adjectives, and the manner of their derivation.

We commence with those derived from nouns, both common and proper, which are somewhat peculiar in their character. I wish you distinctly to bear in mind the use of adjectives. They are words _added to nouns to define or describe them_.

Many words which name things, are used as adjectives, with out change; as, _ox_ beef, _beef_ cattle, _paper_ books, _straw_ hats, _bonnet_ paper. Others admit of change, or addition; as, nation_al_ character, a merci_ful_ (mercy-_ful_) man, a gloom_y_ prospect, a fam_ous_ horse, a gold_en_ ball. The syllables which are added, are parts of words, which are at first compounded with them, till, by frequency of use, they are incorporated into the same word. "A merci_ful_ man" is one who is full of mercy. A gold_en_ ball is one made of gold. This word is sometimes used without change; as, a _gold_ ring.

A numerous portion of these words take the syllable _ly_, contracted from _like_, which is still retained in many words; as, Judas-_like_, lady-_like_, gentleman-_like_. These two last words, are of late, occasionally used as other words, lady_ly_, gentleman_ly_; but the last more frequently than the former. She behaved very ladi_ly_, or lady_like_; and his appearance was quite gentleman_ly_. But to say ladi_ly_ appearance, does not yet sound quite soft enough; but it is incorrect only because it is uncommon. G.o.d_ly_ and G.o.d_like_ are both in use, and equally correct, with a nice shade of difference in meaning.

All grammarians have found a difficulty in the word _like_, which they were unable to unravel. They could never account for its use in expressing a relation between two objectives. They forgot that to be like, one thing must be _likened_ to another, and that it was the very meaning of this word to express such like_ness_. John looks _like_ his brother. The looks, the countenance, or appearance of John, are _likened_ to his brother's looks or appearance. "This machine is more like the pattern than any I have seen." Here the adjective _like_ takes the comparative degree, as it is called, to show a nearer resemblance than has been before observed between the things compared. "He has a statesman-_like_ appearance." I _like_ this apple, because it agrees with my taste; it has qualities _like_ my notion of what is palateable."

In every situation the word is used to express likeness between two things. It describes one thing by its likeness to another.

Many adjectives are formed from proper nouns by adding an apostrophe and the letter _s_, except when the word ends in _s_, in which case the final _s_ is usually omitted for the sake of euphony. This, however, was not generally adopted by old writers. It is not observed in the earliest translations of the Bible into the english language. It is now in common practice. Thus, Montgomery's monument in front of St. Paul's church; Was.h.i.+ngton's funeral; Shay's rebelion; England's bitterest foes; Hamlet's father's ghost; Peter's wife's mother; Todd's, Walker's, Johnson's dictionary; Winch.e.l.l's Watts' hymns; Pond's Murray's grammar.

No body would suppose that the "relation of property or possession" was expressed in these cases, as our grammar books tell us, but that the terms employed are used to _define_ certain objects, about which we are speaking. They possess the true character and use of adjectives, and as such let them be regarded. It must be as false as frivolous to say that Montgomery, who n.o.bly fell at the siege of Quebec, _owns_ the monument erected over his remains, which were conveyed to New-York many years after his death; or that St. Paul _owns_ or _possesses_ the church beneath which they were deposited; that Hamlet owned his father, and his father his ghost; that Todd owns Walker, and Walker owns Johnson, and Johnson his dictionary which may have had a hundred owners, and never been the property of its author, but printed fifty years after his death. These words, I repeat, are merely _definitive_ terms, and like others serve to point out or specify particular objects which may thus be better known.

Words, however, in common use form adjectives the same as other words; as, Russia iron, China s.h.i.+ps, India silks, Vermont cheese, Orange county b.u.t.ter, New-York flour, Carolina potatoes. Morocco leather was first manufactured in a city of Africa called by that name, but it is now made in almost every town in our country. The same may be said of Leghorn hats, Russia binding, French shoes, and China ware. Although made in our own country we still retain the words, morocco, leghorn, russia, french, and china, to define the fas.h.i.+on, kind, or quality of articles to which we allude. Much china ware is made in Liverpool, which, to distinguish it from the real, is called liverpool china. Many french shoes are made in Lynn, and many Roxbury russets, Newton pippins, and Rhode-Island greenings, grow in Vermont.

It may not be improper here to notice the adjectives derived from p.r.o.nouns, which retain so much of their character as relates to the persons who employ them. These are _my_, _thy_, _his_, _her_, _its_, _our_, _your_, _their_, _whose_. This is _my_ book, that is _your_ pen, this is _his_ knife, and that is _her_ letter. Some of these, like other words, vary their ending when standing alone; as, two apples are your_s_, three her_s_, six their_s_, five our_s_, and the rest mine.

_His_ does not alter in popular use. Hence the reason why you hear it so often, in common conversation, when standing without the noun expressed, p.r.o.nounced as if written _hisen_. The word _other_, and some others, come under the same remark. When the nouns specified are expressed, they take the regular termination; as, give me these Baldwin apples, and a few others--a few other apples.

There is a cla.s.s of small words which from the frequency of their use have, like p.r.o.nouns, lost their primitive character, and are now preserved only as adjectives. Let us examine a few of them by endeavoring to ferret out their true meaning and application in the expression of ideas. We will begin with the old articles, _a_, _an_, and _the_, by testing the truth and propriety of the duty commonly a.s.signed to them in our grammars.

The standard grammar a.s.serts that "an article is a word prefixed to substantives, to point them out, and to show how far their signification extends; as, "a garden, an eagle, the woman." Skepticism in grammar is no crime, so we will not hesitate to call in question the correctness of this "best of all grammars beyond all comparison." Let us consider the very examples given. They were doubtless the best that could be found.

Does _a_ "point out" the garden, or "show how far its signification extends?" It does neither of these things. It may name "_any_" garden, and it certainly does not define whether it is a _great_ or a _small_ one. It simply determines that _one_ garden is the subject of remark.

All else is to be determined by the word _garden_.

We are told there are two articles, the one _in_definite, the other definite--_a_ is the former, and _the_ the latter. I shall leave it with you to reconcile the apparent contradiction of an _indefinite_ article which "is used in a _vague sense, to point out the signification_ of another word." But I challenge teachers to make their pupils comprehend such a jargon, if they can do it themselves. But it is as good sense as we find in many of the popular grammars of the day.

Again, Murray says "_a_ becomes _an_ before a vowel or silent _h_;" and so say all his _simplifying_ satellites after him. Is such the fact? Is he right? He is, I most unqualifiedly admit, with this little correction, the addition of a single word--he is right _wrong_! Instead of _a_ becoming _an_, the reverse is the fact. The word is derived directly from the same word which still stands as our first numeral. It was a short time since written _ane_, as any one may see by consulting all old books. By and by it dropped the _e_, and afterwards, for the sake of euphony, in certain cases, the _n_, so that now it stands a single letter. You all have lived long enough to have noticed the changes in the word. Formerly we said _an_ union, _an_ holiday, _an_ universalist, _an_ unitarian, &c., expressions which are now rarely heard. We now say _a_ union, &c. This single instance proves that arbitrary rules of grammar have little to do in the regulation of language. Its barriers are of sand, soon removed. It will not be said that this is an unimportant mistake, for, if an error, it is pernicious, and if a grammarian knows enough to say that _a_ becomes _an_, he ought to know that he tells a falsehood, and that _an_ becomes _a_ under certain circ.u.mstances. Mr. Murray gives the following example to ill.u.s.trate the use of _a_. "Give me _a_ book; that is, _any_ book." How can the learner understand such a rule? How will it apply? Let us try it. "A man has _a_ wife;" that is, _any_ man has _any_ wife. I have a hat; that is, _any_ hat. A farmer has a farm--_any_ farmer has _any_ farm. A merchant in Boston has a beautiful piece of broadcloth--_any_ merchant in Boston has any beautiful piece of broadcloth. A certain king of Europe decreed a protestant to be burned--_any_ king of Europe decreed _any_ protestant to be burned. How ridiculous are the rules we have learned and taught to others, to enable them to "speak and write with propriety." No wonder we never understood grammar, if so at variance with truth and every day's experience. The rules of grammar as usually taught can never be observed in practice. Hence it is called a _dry study_. In every thing else we learn something that we can understand, which will answer some good purpose in the affairs of life.

But this branch of science is among the things which have been tediously learned to no purpose. No good account can be given of its advantages.

_The_, we are told, "is called the definite article, because it ascertains what _particular_ thing or things are meant." A most unfortunate definition, and quite as erroneous as the former. Let us try it. _The_ stars s.h.i.+ne, _the_ lion roars, _the_ camel is a beast of burden, _the_ deer is good for food, _the_ wind blows, _the_ clouds appear, _the_ Indians are abused. What is there in these examples, which "ascertain what _particular_ thing or things are meant?" They are expressions as _in_definite as we can imagine.