Lectures on Language Part 7

LECTURE VIII.

ON VERBS.

Unpleasant to expose error.--Verbs defined.--Every thing acts.-- Actor and object.--Laws.--Man.--Animals.--Vegetables.--Minerals.-- Neutrality degrading.--n.o.body can explain a neuter verb.--_One_ kind of verbs.--_You_ must decide.--Importance of teaching children the truth.--Active verbs.--Transitive verbs false.--Samples.--Neuter verbs examined.--Sit.--Sleep.--Stand.--Lie.--Opinion of Mrs.

W.--Anecdote.

We now come to the consideration of that cla.s.s of words which in the formation of language are called _Verbs_. You will allow me to bespeak your favorable attention, and to insist most strenuously on the propriety of a free and thoro examination into the nature and use of these words. I shall be under the necessity of performing the thankless task of exposing the errors of honest, wise, and good men, in order to remove difficulties which have long existed in works on language, and clear the way for a more easy and consistent explanation of this interesting and essential department of literature. I regret the necessity for such labors; but no person who wishes the improvement of mankind, or is willing to aid the growth of the human intellect, in its high aspirations after truth, knowledge, and goodness, should shrink from a frank exposition of what he deems to be error, nor refuse his a.s.sistance, feeble tho it may be, in the establishment of correct principles.

In former lectures we have confined our remarks to things and a description of their characters and relations, so that every ent.i.ty of which we can conceive a thought, or concerning which we can form an expression, has been defined and described in the use of nouns and adjectives. Every thing in creation, of which we think, material or immaterial, real or imaginary, and to which we give a name, to represent the idea of it, comes under the cla.s.s of words called nouns. The words which specify or distinguish one thing from another, or describe its properties, character, or relations, are designated as adjectives. There is only one other employment left for words, and that is the expression of the actions, changes, or inherent tendencies of things. This important department of knowledge is, in grammar, cla.s.sed under the head of =Verbs=.

_Verb_ is derived from the Latin _verb.u.m_, which signifies a _word_. By specific application it is applied to those _words_ only which express action, correctly understood; the same as Bible, derived from the Greek "_biblos_" means literally _the book_, but, by way of eminence, is applied to the sacred scriptures only.

This interesting cla.s.s of words does not deviate from the correct principles which we have hitherto observed in these lectures. It depends on established laws, exerted in the regulation of matter and thought; and whoever would learn its sublime use must be a close observer of things, and the mode of their existence. The important character it sustains in the production of ideas of the changes and tendencies of things and in the transmission of thought, will be found simple, and obvious to all.

Things exist; Nouns name them.

Things differ; Adjectives define or describe them.

Things act; Verbs express their actions.

_All Verbs denote action._

By action, we mean not only perceivable motion, but an inherent tendency to change, or resist action. It matters not whether we speak of animals possessed of the power of locomotion; of vegetables, which _send_ forth their branches, leaves, blossoms, and fruits; or of minerals, which _retain_ their forms, positions, and properties. The same principles are concerned, the same laws exist, and should be observed in all our attempts to understand their operations, or employ them in the promotion of human good. Every thing acts according to the ability it possesses; from the small particle of sand, which _occupies_ its place upon the sea sh.o.r.e, up thro the various gradation of being, to the tall archangel, who _bows_ and _wors.h.i.+ps_ before the throne of the uncreated Cause of all things and actions which exist thro out his vast dominions.

As all actions presuppose an _actor_, so every action must result on some _object_. No effect can exist without an efficient cause to produce it; and no cause can exist without a corresponding effect resulting from it. These mutual relations, helps, and dependencies, are manifest in all creation. Philosophy, religion, the arts, and all science, serve only to develope these primary laws of nature, which unite and strengthen, combine and regulate, preserve and guide the whole. From the Eternal I AM, the uncreated, self-existent, self-sustaining =Cause= of all things, down to the minutest particle of dust, evidences may be traced of the existence and influence of these laws, in themselves irresistible, exceptionless, and immutable. Every thing has a place and a duty a.s.signed it; and harmony, peace, and perfection are the results of a careful and judicious observance of the laws given for its regulation.

Any infringement of these laws will produce disorder, confusion, and distraction.

Man is made a little lower than the angels, possessed of a mind capable of reason, improvement, and happiness; an intellectual soul inhabiting a mortal body, the connecting link between earth and heaven--the material and spiritual world. As a physical being, he is subject, in common with other things, to the laws which regulate matter: as an intellectual being, he is governed by the laws which regulate mind: as possessed of both a body and mind, a code of moral laws demand his observance in all the social relations and duties of life. Obedience to these laws is the certain source of health of body, and peace of mind. An infringement of them will as certainly be attended with disease and suffering to the one, and sorrow and anguish to the other.

Lower grades of animals partake of many qualities in common with man. In some they are deficient; in others they are superior. Some animals are possessed of all but reason, and even in that, the highest of them come very little short of the lowest of the human species. If they have not reason, they possess an instinct which nearly approaches it. These qualities dwindle down gradually thro the various orders and varieties of animated nature, to the lowest grade of animalculae, a mult.i.tude of which may inhabit a single drop of water; or to the zoophytes and lythophytes, which form the connecting link between the animal and vegetable kingdom; as the star-fish, the polypus, and spunges. Then strike off into another kingdom, and observe the laws vegetable life.

Mark the tall pine which has grown from a small seed which _sent_ forth its root downwards and its trunk upwards, drawing nourishment from earth, air, and water, till it now waves its top to the pa.s.sing breeze, a hundred feet above this dirty earth: or the oak or olive, which have _maintained_ their respective positions a dozen centuries despite the operations of wind and weather, and have shed their foliage and their seeds to propagate their species and extend their kinds to different places. While a hundred generations have lived and died, and the country often changed masters, they resist oppression, scorn misrule, and retain rights and privileges which are slowly encroached upon by the inroads of time, which will one day triumph over them, and they fall helpless to the earth, to submit to the chemical operations which shall dissolve their very being and cause them to mingle with the common dust, yielding their strength to give life and power to other vegetables which shall occupy their places.[10] Or mark the living principle in the "sensitive plant," which withers at every touch, and suffers long ere it regains its former vigor.

Descend from thence, down thro the various gradations of vegetable life, till you pa.s.s the narrow border and enter the mineral world. Here you will see displayed the same sublime principle, tho in a modified degree.

Minerals _a.s.sume_ different shapes, hues and relations; they increase and diminish, attach and divide under various circ.u.mstances, all the while _retaining_ their ident.i.ty and properties, and exerting their abilities according to the means they possess, till compelled to yield to a superior power, and learn to submit to the laws which operate in every department of this mutable world.

_Every_ thing _acts_ according to the ability G.o.d has bestowed upon it; and man can do no more. He has authority over all things on earth, and yet he is made to depend upon all. His authority extends no farther than a privilege, under wholesome restrictions, of making the whole subservient to his real good. When he goes beyond this, he usurps a power which belongs not to him, and the destruction of his happiness pays the forfeit of his imprudence. The injured power rises triumphant over the aggressor, and the glory of G.o.d's government, in the righteous and immediate execution of his laws, is clearly revealed. So long as man obeys the laws which regulate health, observes temperance in all things, uses the things of this world as not abusing them, he is at rest, he is blessed, he is happy: but no sooner has he violated heaven's law than he becomes the slave, and the servant a.s.sumes the master. But I am digressing. I would gladly follow this subject further, but I shall go beyond my limits, and, it may be, your patience.

I would insist, however, on the facts to which your attention has been given, for it is impossible, as I have before contended, to use language correctly without a knowledge of the things and ideas it is employed to represent.

Grovelling, indeed, must be the mind which will not trace the sublime exhibitions of Divine power and skill in all the operations of nature; and false must be that theory which teaches the young mind to think and speak of neutrality as attached to things which do exist. As low and debasing as the speculations of the schoolmen were, they gave to things which they conceived to be incapable of action, a principle which they called "_vis inertiae_," or, _power to lie still_. Shall our systems of instruction descend below them, throw an insurmountable barrier in the way of human improvement, and teach the false principles that actions can exist without an effect, or that there is a cla.s.s of words which "express neither action or pa.s.sion." Such a theory is at war with the first principles of philosophy, and denies that "like causes produce like effects."

The ablest minds have never been able to explain the foundation of a "neuter verb," or to find a single word, with a solitary exception, which does not, in certain conditions, express a positive action, and terminate on a definite object; and that exception we shall see refers to a verb which expresses the highest degree of conceivable action.

Still they have insisted on _three_ and some on _four_ kinds of verbs, one expressing action, another pa.s.sion or suffering, and the third neutrality. We propose to offer a brief review of these distinctions, which have so long perplexed, not only learners, but teachers themselves, and been the fruitful source of much dissention among grammarians.

It is to be hoped you will come up to this work with as great candor as you have heretofore manifested, and as fully resolved to take nothing for granted, because it has been said by good or great men, and to reject nothing because it appears new or singular. Let truth be our object and reason our guide to direct us to it. We can not fail of arriving at safe and correct conclusions.

Mr. Murray tells us that "verbs are of three kinds, _active_, _pa.s.sive_, and _neuter_. In a note he admits of "active _transitive_ and intransitive verbs," as a subdivision of his first kind. Most of his "improvers" have adopted this distinction, and regard it as of essential importance.

We shall contend, as before expressed, that _all_ verbs are of _one kind_, that they _express action_, for the simple yet sublime reason, that every thing acts, at all times, and under every possible condition; according to the true definition of _action_ as understood and employed by all writers on grammar, and natural and moral science. Here we are at issue. Both, contending for principles so opposite, can not be correct.

One or the other, however pure the motives, must be attached to a system wrong in theory, and of course pernicious in practice. You are to be the umpires in the case, and, if you are faithful to your trust, you will not be bribed or influenced in the least by the opinions of others. If divested of all former attachments, if free from all prejudice, there can be no doubt of the safety and correctness of your conclusions. But I am apprehensive I expect too much, if I place the _new_ system of grammar on a footing equally favorable in your minds with those you have been taught to respect, as the only true expositions of language, from your childhood up, and which are recommended to you on the authority of the learned and good of many generations. I have to combat early prejudices, and systems long considered as almost sacred. But I have in my favor the common sense of the world, and a feeling of opposition to existing systems, which has been produced, not so much by a detection of their errors, as by a lack of capacity, as the learner verily thought, to understand their profound mysteries. I am, therefore, willing to risk the final decision with you, if _you_ will decide. But I am not willing to have you made the tools of the opposite party, determined, whether convinced or not, to hold to your old _neuter_ verb systems, right or wrong, merely because others are doing so. All I ask is _your_ adoption of what is proved to be undeniably true, and rejection of whatever is found to be false.

Here is where the matter must rest, for it will not be pretended that it is better to teach falsehood because it is ancient and popular, than truth because it is novel. Teachers, in this respect, stand in a most responsible relation to their pupils. They should always insist with an unyielding pertinacity, on the importance of truth, and the evils of error. Every trifling incident, in the course of education, which will serve to show the contrast, should be particularly observed. If an error can be detected in their books, they should be so taught as to be able to correct it; and they should be so inclined as to be willing to do it.

They should not be skeptics, however, but close observers, original thinkers, and correct reasoners. It is degrading to the true dignity and independence of man, to submit blindly to any proposition. Freedom of thought is the province of all. Children should be made to breathe the free air of honest inquiry, and to inhale the sweet spirit of truth and charity. They should not study their books as the end of learning, but as a means of knowing. Books should be regarded as lamps, which are set by the way side, not as the objects to be looked at, but the aids by which we may find the object of our search. Knowledge and usefulness const.i.tute the leading motives in all study, and no occasion should be lost, no means neglected, which will lead the young mind to their possession.

Your attention is now invited to some critical remarks on the distinctions usually observed in the use of verbs. Let us carefully examine the meaning of these _three kinds_ and see if there is any occasion for such a division; if they have any foundation in truth, or application in the correct use of language. We will follow the arrangements adopted by the most popular grammars.

"A _verb active_ expresses an action, and necessarily implies an agent, and an object acted upon; as, to love, I love Penelope." A very excellent definition, indeed! Had grammarians stopped here, their works would have been understood, and proved of some service in the study of language. But when they diverge from this bright spot in the consideration of verbs--this oasis in the midst of a desert--they soon become lost in the surrounding darkness of conjecture, and follow each their own dim light, to hit on a random track, which to follow in the pursuit of their object.

We give our most hearty a.s.sent to the above definition of a verb. It expresses action, which necessarily implies an _actor_, and an _object_ influenced by the action. In our estimation it matters not whether the object on which the action terminates is expressed or _understood_. If I _love_, I must love some object; either my neighbor, my enemy, my family, _myself_, or something else. In either case the _action_ is the same, tho the objects may be different; and it is regarded, on all hands, as an active verb. Hence when the object on which the action terminates is not expressed, it is necessarily understood. All language is, in this respect, more or less eliptical, which adds much to its richness and brevity.

Active verbs, we are told, are divided into _transitive_ and _intransitive_. Mr. Murray does not exactly approve of this distinction, but prefers to cla.s.s the intransitive and neuter together. Others, aware of the fallacy of attempting to make children conceive any thing like neutrality in the verbs, _run_, _fly_, _walk_, _live_, &c., have preferred to mark the distinction and call them _in_transitive; because, say they, they do not terminate on any object expressed.

A _transitive verb_ "expresses an action which pa.s.ses from the agent to the object; as, Caesar conquered Pompey." To this definition we can not consent. It attempts a distinction where there is none. It is not true in principle, and can not be adopted in practice.

"Caesar conquered Pompey." Did the act of conquering pa.s.s _transitively_ over from _Caesar_ to Pompey? They might not have seen each other during the whole battle, nor been within many miles of each other. They, each of them, stood at the head of their armies, and alike gave orders to their subordinate officers, and they again to their inferiors, and so down, each man contending valiantly for _victory_, till, at last, the fate of the day sealed the downfall of Pompey, and placed the crown of triumph on the head of Caesar. The expression is a correct one, but the action expressed by the verb "conquered," is not transitive, as that term is understood. A whole train of causes was put in operation which finally terminated in the defeat of one, and the conquest of the other.

"Bonaparte _lost_ the battle of Waterloo." What did _he_ do to _lose_ the battle? He exerted his utmost skill to _gain_ the battle and escape defeat. He did not do a single act, he entertained not a single thought, which lead to such a result; but strove against it with all his power.

If the fault was _his_, it was because he failed to act, and not because he labored to _lose_ the battle. He had too much at stake to adopt such a course, and no man but a teacher of grammar, would ever accuse him of _acting_ to _lose_ the battle.

"A man was sick; he desired to recover (his health). He took, for medicine, opium by mistake, and _lost_ his life by it." Was he guilty of suicide? Certainly, if our grammars are true. But he _lost_ his life in trying to get well.

"A man in America _possesses_ property in Europe, and his children _inherit_ it after his death." What do the children do to _inherit_ this property, of which they know nothing?

"The geese, by their gabbling, _saved_ Rome from destruction." How did the geese save the city? They made a noise, which waked the sentinels, who roused the soldiers to arms; they fought, slew many Gauls, and delivered the city.

"A man in New-York _transacts_ business in Canton." How does he do it?

He has an agent there to whom he sends his orders, and he transacts the business. But how does he get his letters? The clerk writes them, the postman carries them on board the s.h.i.+p, the captain commands the sailors, who work the ropes which unfurl the sails, the wind blows, the vessel is managed by the pilot, and after a weary voyage of several months, the letters are delivered to the agent, who does the business that is required of him.

The miser _denies_ himself every comfort, and spends his whole life in h.o.a.rding up riches; and yet he dies and _leaves_ his gold to be the possession of others.

Christians _suffer_ insults almost every day from the Turks.

Windows _admit_ light and _exclude_ cold.

Who can discover any thing like _transitive_ action--a pa.s.sing from the agent to the object--in these cases? What transitive action do the windows perform to _admit the light_; or the christians, to _suffer insults_; or the miser, to _leave his money_? If there is neutrality any where, we would look for it here. The fact is, these words express _relative_ action, as we shall explain when we come to the examination of the true character of the verb.

_Neutrality_ signifies (transitive verb!) no action, and _neuter_ verbs _express a state of being_! A cla.s.s of words which can not act, which apply to things in a quiescent state, _perform_ the transitive action of "_expressing_ a state of being!"

Who does not perceive the inconsistency and folly of such distinctions?

And who has not found himself perplexed, if not completely bewildered in the dark and intricate labyrinths into which he has been led by the false grammar books! Every attempt he has made to extricate himself, by the dim light of the "simplifiers," has only tended to bewilder him still more, till he is utterly confounded, or else abandons the study altogether.