Lectures on Language, as Particularly Connected with English Grammar.

The form of the verb is changed when it agrees with the second or third person singular; more on account of habit, I apprehend, than from any reason, or propriety as to a change of meaning in the word. We say, when using the regular second person singular, "thou writest," a form rarely observed except in addresses to Deity, or on solemn occasions. In the third person, an s is added to the regular form; as, "he writes." The old form, which was in general use at the time the common version of the Bible was published, was still different, ending in eth; as, he thinketh, he writeth. This style, altho considerably used in the last century, is nearly obsolete. When the verb agrees with the plural number it is usually the same as when it agrees with the first person; as, "We write, you write, they write." There are few exceptions to these rules.

Some people have been very tenacious about retaining the old forms of words, and our books were long printed without alteration; but change will break thro every barrier, and book-makers must keep pace with the times, and put on the dress that is catered for them by the public taste; bearing in mind, meanwhile, that great and practical truths are more essential than the garb in which they appear. We should be more careful of our health of body and purity of morals than of the costume we put on. Many genteel coats wrap up corrupt hearts, and fine hats cover silly heads. What is the chaff to the wheat?

Even our good friends, the quakers, who have particularly labored to retain old forms—"the plain language,"—have failed in their attempt, and have substituted the object form of the pronoun for the agent, and say, "thee thinks," for thou thinkest. Their mistake is even greater than the substitution of you for thou.

So far as language depends on the conventional regulation of those who use it, it will be constantly changing; new words will be introduced, and the spelling of old ones altered, so as to agree with modern pronounciation. We have all lived long enough to witness the truth of this remark. The only rule we can give in relation to this matter is, to follow our own judgments, aided by our best writers and speakers.

The words which express action, are in many cases very similar to the agents which produce them; and the objects which are the direct results produced by such action, do not differ very materially. I will give you a few examples.

I give you these examples to show you the near alliance between actors, (   ,) and actions; or agents, actions, and objects. Such expressions as the above are inelegant, because they are uncommon; but for no other reason, for we, in numberless cases, employ the same word for agent and verb; as, painters paint buildings, and artists paint paintings; bookbinders bind books; printers print books, and other prints. A little observation will enable you to carry out these hints, and profit by them. You have observed the disposition in children, and foreigners, who are partially acquainted with our language, to make verbs out of almost every noun, which appears to us very aukward; but was it common, it would be just as correct as the verbs now used. There are very few verbs which have not a noun to correspond with them, for we make verbs, that is, we use words to express action, which are nearly allied to the agent with which such action agrees.17 From botany we have made botanize; from Mr. McAdam, the inventor of a particular kind of road, macadamize, which means to make roads as he made them. Words are formed in this way very frequently. The word church is often used as a noun to express a building used for public worship; for the services performed in it; for the whole congregation; for a portion of believers associated together; for the Episcopal order, etc. It is also used as a verb. Mr. Webster defines it, "To perform with any one the office of returning thanks in the church after any signal deliverance." But the word has taken quite a different turn of late. To church a person, instead of receiving him into communion, as that term would seem to imply, signifies to deal with an offending member, to excommunicate, or turn him out.

But I will not pursue this point any farther. The brief hints I have thrown out, will enable you to discover how the meaning and forms of words are changed from their original application to suit the notions and improvements of after ages. A field is here presented which needs cultivation. The young should be taught to search for the etymology of words, to trace their changes and meaning as used at different times and by different people, keeping their minds constantly directed to the object signified by such verbal sign. This is the business of philosophy, under whatever name it may be taught; for grammar, rhetoric, logic, and the science of the mind, are intimately blended, and should always be taught in connexion. We have already seen that words without meaning are like shadows without realities. And persons can not employ language "correctly," or "with propriety," till they have acquainted themselves with the import of such language—the ideas of things signified by it. Let this course be adopted in the education of children, and they will not be required to spend months and years in the study of an "art" which they can not comprehend, for the simple reason that they can not apply it in practice. Grammar has been taught as a mere art, depending on arbitrary rules to be mechanically learned, rather than a science involving the soundest and plainest principles of philosophy, which are to be known only as developed in common practice among men, and in accordance with the permanent laws which govern human thought.

Verbs differ in the manner of forming their past tenses, and participles, or adjectives. Those ending in ed are called regular; those which take any other termination are irregular. There are about two hundred of the latter in our language, which differ in various ways. Some of them have the past tense and the past participle the same; as,

Others have the past tense and participle alike, but different from the present; as,

Some have the present and past tense and participle different; as,

There are a few which are made up of different radicals, which have been wedded together by habit, to avoid the frequent and unpleasant recurrence of the same word; as,

Some which were formerly irregular, are now generally used with the regular termination, in either the past tense or participle, or both; as,

The syllable ed is a contraction of the past tense of do; as, I loved, love did, did love, or love-ed. He learned, learn did, did learn, or learned. It signifies action, did, done, or accomplished. You have all lived long enough to have noticed the change in the pronounciation of this syllable. Old people sound it full and distinct; and so do most others in reading the scriptures; but not so generally as in former times. In poetry it was usually abbreviated so as to avoid the full sound; and hence we may account for the irregular termination of many words, such as heard, for heared; past, for passed; learnt, for learned; built, for builded. In modern poetry, however, the e is retained, tho sounded no more than formerly.

Ing is derived from the verb to be, and signifies being, existing; and, attached to a verb, is used as a noun, or adjective, retaining so much of its former character as to have an object after it which is affected by it; as, "I am writing a lecture." Here writing, the present participle of write, describes myself in my present employment, and yet retains its action as a verb, and terminates on lecture as the thing written. "The man was taken in the act of stealing some money." In this case stealing names the action which the man was performing when detected, which action thus named, has money for the object on which it terminates.

I barely allude to this subject in this place to give you an idea of the method we adopt to explain the meaning and use of participles. It deserves more attention, perhaps, to make it plain to your minds; but as it is not an essential feature in the new system, I shall leave it for consideration in a future work. Whoever is acquainted with the formation of the present participle in other languages, can carry out the suggestions I have made, and fully comprehend my meaning.

I will present you with an example of the conjugations of a few verbs which you are requested to compare with the "might could would should have been loved" systems, which you were required to learn in former times. You will find the verb in every form or position in which it ever occurs in our language, written or spoken.

Conjugation of the regular verb to love.

INDICATIVE MOODIMPERATIVE MOODLoveINFINITIVE MOODTo lovePARTICIPLESPresent, LovingPast, Loved

The irregular verb to have, is thus conjugated.

INDICATIVE MOODIMPERATIVE MOODHaveINFINITIVE MOODTo havePARTICIPLESPresent, HavingPast, Had

The irregular verb to be, stands thus:

INDICATIVE MOODIMPERATIVE MOODBeINFINITIVE MOODTo bePARTICIPLESPresent, BeingPast, Been

These examples will suffice to give you an idea of the ease and simplicity of the construction of verbs, and by a comparison with old systems, you can, for yourselves, determine the superiority of the principles we advocate. The above tabular views present every form which the verb assumes, and every position in which it is found. In use, these words are frequently compounded together;18 but with a knowledge of the above principles, and the meaning of the words—a most essential consideration—you will always be able to analyze any sentence, and parse it correctly. I have not time to enlarge on this point, to show how words are connected together. Nor do I think it necessary to enable you to understand my views. To children such a work would be indispensable, and shall be attended to if we are able to publish a grammar containing the simple principles of language.

The indicative mood is varied four ways. 1st, affirmatively, he writes; 2d, negatively, he writes not; 3d, interrogatively, does he write? or writes he? 4th, suppositively, if he writes, suppose he writes, allow he writes.

The first is a simple affirmation of a fact, and is easily understood. The second is formed by annexing a term to express negation. Not is a contraction from nought or naught, which is a compound of ne, negative, and ought or aught, ne-aught, meaning no-thing. He writes not; he writes nothing. He does not write; he does nothing to write. Neither is a compound of ne and either, not either. He can not read; he can, kens, knows nothing, has no ability to read.

The third is constructed into a question by placing the verb before the agent, or by prefixing another word before the agent, and then placing the former verb as an infinitive after it; as, Does he write? or writes he? When another verb is prefixed, one is always chosen which will best decide the query. Does he any thing to write? Does he make any motions or show any indications to write? When the will or disposition of a person is concerned, we choose a word accordingly. Will he write? Has he the will or disposition to write? Can he write? Is he able—knows he how to write? A little observation will enable you to understand my meaning.

In the fourth place, a supposition is made in the imperative mood, in accordance with which the action is performed. "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Give, grant, allow, suppose this fact—you love me, keep my commandments. I will go if I can. I resolve, will, or determine to go; if, gif, give, grant, allow this fact, I can, ken, know how, or am able to go. But more on this point when we come to the consideration of contractions.

In this mood the verb must have an agent and object, expressed or implied; as, "farmers cultivate the soil." But a whole sentence, that is, an idea written out, may perform this duty; as, "The study of grammar, on false principles, is productive of no good." What is productive of no good? What is the agent of is? "The study," our books and teachers tell us. But does such a construction give the true meaning of the sentence? I think not, for study is indispensable to knowledge and usefulness, and the study of grammar, properly directed, is a most useful branch of literature, which should never be dispensed with. It is the study of grammar on false principles, which is productive of no good. You discover my meaning, and will not question its correctness. You must also see how erroneous it would be to teach children that "to study is productive of no good." The force of the sentence rests on the "false principles" taught. Hence the whole statement is truly the agent of the verb.

The object on which the action terminates is frequently expressed in a similar manner; as, "He wrote to me, that he will adopt the new system of grammar, if he can procure some books to give his scholars to learn." Will you parse wrote? Most grammarians will call it an intransitive verb, and make out that "he wrote" nothing to me, because there is no regular objective word after it. Will you parse that? It is a "conjunction copulative." What does it connect? "He wrote" to the following sentence, according to Rule 18 of Mr. Murray; "conjunctions connect the same moods and tenses of verbs and cases of nouns and pronouns." Unluckily you have two different tenses connected in this case. Will you parse if? It is a copulative conjunction, connecting the two members of the sentence—he will adopt if he can procure: Rule, as above. How exceeding unfortunate! You have two different moods, and too different tenses, connected by a copulative conjunction which the rule says "connects the same moods and tenses! What nonsense! What a falsehood! What a fine thing to be a grammarian! And yet, I venture the opinion, and I judge from what I have seen in myself and others, there is not one teacher in a hundred who will not learn children to parse as above, and apply the same rule to it. "I will go if I can." "I do and will contend." "As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be." "I am here and must remain." "He will do your business if he has time." "I am resolved to expose the errors of grammar, and will do it thoroly if I can."

In these examples you have different moods and tenses, indiscriminately, yet correctly coupled together, despite the rules of syntax which teach us to explain language "with propriety."

That, in the sentence before us, is an adjective, referring to the following sentence, which is the object of wrote, or is the thing written. "He wrote to me that" fact, sentiment, opinion, determination, or resolution, that writing, letter, or word—"he will adopt the new system of grammar, if he can procure some books."

This subject properly belongs to that department of language called syntax; but as I shall not be able to treat of that in this course of lectures, I throw in here these brief remarks to give you some general ideas of the arrangement of words into sentences, according to their true meaning, as obtained from a knowledge of their etymology. You cannot fail to observe this method of constructing language if you will pay a little attention to it when reading; keeping all the time in view the fact that words are only the signs of ideas, derived from an observation of things. You all know that it is not merely the steam that propels the boat, but that it is steam applied to machinery. Steam is the more latent cause; and the engine with its complicated parts is the direct means. In the absence of either, the boat would not be propelled. In the formation of language, I may say correctly, "Solomon built the temple;" for he stood in that relation to the matter which supposes it would not have been built without his direction and command. To accomplish such an action, however, he need not raise a hammer or a gavel, or draw a line on the trestle board. His command made known to his ministers was sufficient to cause the work to be done. Hence the whole fact is indicated or declared by the single expression, "Solomon built the temple."

The Imperative mood is unchanged in form. I can say to one man, go, or to a thousand, go. The commander when drilling one soldier, says, march; and he bids the whole battalion, march. The agent who is to perform the action is understood when not expressed; as, go, go thou, or go you. The agent is generally omitted, because the address is given direct to the person who is expected to obey the instruction, request, or command. This verb always agrees with an agent in the second person. And yet our "grammars made easy" have given us three persons in this mood—"Let me love; love, love thou, or do thou love; let him love." In the name of common sense, I ask, what can children learn by such instruction? "Let me love," in the conjugation of the verb to love! To whom is this command given? To myself of course! I command myself to "let me love!" What nonsense! "Let him love." I stand here, you set there, and the third person is in Philadelphia. I utter these words, "Let him love." What is my meaning? Why, our books tell us, that the verb to love is third person. Then I command him to let himself love! What jargon and falsehood! You all know that we can address the second person only. You would call me insane if I should employ language according to the rules of grammar as laid down in the standard books. In my room alone, no person near me, I cry out, "let me be quiet"—imperative mood, first person of to be! Do I command myself to let myself be quiet? Most certainly, if be is the principal verb in the first person, and let the auxiliary. The teacher observes one of his pupils take a pencil from a classmate who sets near him. He says, "let him have it." To whom is the command given? It is the imperative mood, third person of the verb to have. Does he command the third person, the boy who has not the pencil? Such is the resolution of the sentence, according to the authority of standard grammars. But where is there a child five years old who does not know better. Every body knows that he addresses the second person, the boy who has the pencil, to let the other have it.

Teachers have learned their scholars the first and third persons of this mood when committing the conjugation of verbs; but not one in ten thousand ever adopted them in parsing. "Let me love." Let, all parse, Mr. Murray not excepted, in the second person, and love in the infinitive mood after it, without the sign to; according to the rule, that "verbs which follow bid, dare, feel, hear, let, needs, speak," etc. are in the infinitive mood. It is strange people will not eat their own cooking.

There can be no trouble in understanding this mood, as we have explained it, always in the future tense, that is, future to the command or request, agreeing with the second person, and never varied on account of number.

The only variation in the infinitive mood is the omission of to in certain cases, which is considered as a part of the verb; tho in truth it is no more so than when used in the character of an old fashioned preposition. In certain cases, as we have before observed, it is not expressed. This is when the infinitive verb follows small words in frequent use; as, shall, will, let, can, must, may, bid, do, have, make, feel, hear, etc.

This mood is always in the future tense; that is, it is future to the circumstances or condition of things upon which it depends; as, they are making preparations to raise the building. Here to raise is future to the preparations, for if they make no preparations, the buildings will not be raised. The boy studies his book to learn his lesson. If he does not study, he will not be likely to learn his lesson.

The allied powers of Europe combined their forces to defeat Napoleon. In this instance the whole expression is in the past tense; nevertheless, the action expressed in the infinitive mood, was future to the circumstance on which it depended; that is, the defeat was future to the combination of the forces. Abraham raised the knife to slay his son. Not that he did slay him, as that sentence must be explained on the common systems, which teach us that to slay is in the present tense; but he raised the fatal knife for that purpose, the fulfilment of which was future; but the angel staid his hand, and averted the blow. The patriots of Poland made a noble attempt to gain their liberty. But they did not gain it, as our grammars would teach us. To gain was future to the attempt, and failed because the circumstances indicated by the event, were insufficient to produce so favorable a result.

No person of common discernment can fail to observe the absolute falsehood of existing systems in respect to this mood. It is used by our authors of grammar in the present and past tenses, but never in the future. Let us give a moment to the consideration of this matter. Take the following example. He will prepare himself next week to go to Europe. Let the school master parse will prepare. It is a verb, indicative mood, first future tense. Next week is the point in futurity when the preparation will be made. Now parse to go. It is a verb, infinitive mood, present tense! Then he is already on his way to Europe, when he is not to prepare himself till next week! An army is collected to fight the enemy. Is the fight already commenced? To fight is present tense, say the books. We shall study grammar next year, to obtain a knowledge of the principles and use of language. Is to obtain present tense? If so there is little need of spending time and money to study for a knowledge we already possess.