Plausible arguments may be _advanced_, for rejecting _neuter_ and pa.s.sive verbs; but they have been found to be so convenient in practice, that the theory which recognises them, has stood the test of ages. If you tell the young learner, that, in the following expressions, The church _rests_ on its foundation; The book _lies_ on the desk; The boys _remain (are)_ idle, the nouns _church, book_, and _boys_, are represented as acting, and, therefore, the verbs _rests, lies, remain_, and _are_, are _active_, he will not believe you, because there is no action that is apparent to his senses. And should you proceed further, and, by a labored and metaphysical investigation and development of the laws of motion, attempt to prove to him that "every portion of matter is influenced by different, active principles, tending to produce change," and, therefore, every thing in universal nature is _always_ acting, it is not at all probable, that you could convince his _understanding_, in opposition to the dearer testimony of his senses. Of what avail to learners is a theory which they cannot comprehend?
Among the various theorists and speculative writers on philosophical grammar, the ingenious Horne Tooke stands pre-eminent; but, unfortunately, his princ.i.p.al speculations on the verb, have never met the public eye. William S. Cardell has also rendered himself conspicuous in the philological field, by taking a bolder stand than any of his predecessors. His view of the verb is novel, and ingeniously supported. The following is the substance of his theory
OF THE VERB.
A verb is a word which expresses _action;_ as, Man _exists_; Trees _grow_; Waters_flow_; Mountains _stand_; I _am_.
All verbs are active, and have one object or more than one, expressed or implied. The pillar _stands_; that is, it _keeps itself_ in an erect or standing posture; it _upholds_ or _sustains itself_ in that position. They _are_; i.e. they _air_ themselves, or _breathe_ air; they _inspirit, vivify_, or _uphold_ themselves by inhaling air.
Many verbs whose objects are seldom expressed, always have a persona or verbal one implied. The clouds _move_; i.e. move _themselves_ along. The troops _marched_ twenty miles a day; i.e. marched _themselves_. The moon _shines_:--The moon _shines_ or _sheds_ a _shining, sheen, l.u.s.tre_, or _brightness_. The sparrow _flies:--flies_ or _takes_ a _flight_. Talkers talk or speak _words_ or _talk_; Walkers walk _walkings_ or _walks_; The rain rains _rain_; Sitters sit or hold _sittings_ or _sessions_.
To prove that there is no such thing as a neuter verb, the following appear to be the strongest arguments adduced.
1. No portion of matter is ever in a state of perfect quiescence; but the component parts of every thing are at all times "influenced by different, active principles, tending to produce change." Hence, it follows, that no being or thing can be represented in a _neuter_ or _non-acting state_.
This argument supposes the essential character of the verb to be identified with the primary laws of action, as unfolded by the principles of physical science. The correctness of this position may be doubted; but if it can be clearly demonstrated, that every particle of matter is always in motion, it does not, by any means, follow, that we cannot _speak of_ things in a state of quiescence.
What is _false_ in fact may be _correct_ in grammar. _The point contested, is not whether things always_ act, _but whether, when we a.s.sert or affirm something respecting them, we always_ represent _them as acting_.
2. Verbs were _originally_ used to express the motions or changes of things which produced obvious actions, and, by an easy transition, were afterward applied, in the same way, to things whose actions were not apparent. This a.s.sumption is untenable, and altogether gratuitous.
3. Verbs called neuter are used in the imperative mood; and, as this mood commands some one to _do_ something, any verb which adopts it, must be active. Thus, in the common place phrases, "_Be_ there quickly; _Stand_ out of my way; _Sit_ or _lie_ farther."
It is admitted that these verbs are here employed in an _active_ sense; but it is certain, that they are not used according to their proper, _literal_ meaning. When I tell a man, _literally_, to _stand, sit_, or _lie_, by _moving_ he would disobey me; but when I say, "_Stand_ out of my way," I employ the neuter verb _stand_, instead of the active verb _move_ or _go_, and in a correspondent sense. My meaning is, _Move_ yourself out of my way; or _take_ your _stand_ somewhere else. This, however, does not prove that _stand_ is properly used. If we choose to overstep the bounds of custom, we can employ any _word_ in the language as an active-transitive verb.
_Be, sit_, and _lie_, may be explained in the same manner.
4. Neuter verbs are used in connexion with adverbs which express the manner of _action_. They must, therefore, be considered active verbs. The child _sleeps soundly_; He _sits genteelly_; They _live contentedly_ and _happily_ together.
The cla.s.s of verbs that are never employed as active, is small. By using adverbs in connexion with verbs, we can fairly prove that some verbs are _not_ active. It is incorrect to say, I am _happily_; They were _peacefully_; She remains _quietly_; The fields appear _greenly_. These verbs in their common acceptation, do not express _action_; for which reason we say, I am _happy_; They are _peaceful_; &c. But in the expressions, The child sleeps _soundly_; She sits _gracefully_; They live _happily_ and _contentedly_; we employ the verbs _sleeps, sits_, and _live_, in an active sense.
When no action is intended, we say, They live _happy_ and _contented_.
If, on scientific principles, it can be proved that those verbs generally denominated neuter, _originally_ expressed action, their present, accepted meaning will still oppose the theory, for the generality of mankind do not attach to them the idea of _action_.
Thus I have endeavored to present a brief but impartial abstract of the _modern_ theory of the verb, leaving it with the reader to estimate it according to its value.
To give a satisfactory definition of the verb, or such a one as shall be found scientifically correct and unexceptionable, has. .h.i.therto baffled the skill, and transcended the learning, of our philosophical writers. If its essential quality, as is generally supposed, is made to consist in _expressing affirmation_, it remains still to be defined _when_ a verb _expresses_ affirmation. In English, and in other languages, words appropriated to express affirmation, are often used without any such force; our idea of affirmation, in such instances, being the mere _inference of custom_.
In the sentence,--"_Think, love_, and _hate_, denote moral actions,"
the words _think, love_, and _hate_, are nouns, because they are mere _names_ of actions. So, when I say, "John, _write_--is an irregular verb," the word _write_ is a noun; but when I say, "John, _write_--your copy," _write_ is called a verb.
Why is this word considered a noun in one construction, and a verb in the other, when both constructions, until you pa.s.s beyond the word write, are exactly alike? If write does not _express_ action in the former sentence, neither does it in the latter, for, in both, it is introduced in the same manner. On scientific principles, _write_ must be considered a noun in the latter sentence, for it does not _express_ action, or make an affirmation; but it merely _names_ the action which I wish John to perform, and affirmation is the _inferential_ meaning.
The verb in the infinitive, as well as in the imperative mood, is divested of its affirmative or verbal force. In both these moods, it is always presented in its _noun-state_.
If, after dinner, I say to a servant, "_Wine,"_ he infers, that I wish him to bring me wine; but all this is not said. If I say, _Bring_ some _wine_, he, in like manner, understands, that I wish him to bring me wine; but all that is expressed, is the _name_ of the action, and of the object of the action. In fact, as much is done by _inference_, as by actual expression, in every branch of language, for thought is too quick to be wholly transmitted by words.
It is generally conceded, that the termination of our verbs, _est, eth, s, ed_, and, also, of the other parts of speech, were originally separate words of distinct meaning; and that, although they have been contracted, and, by the refinement of language, have been made to coalesce with the words in connexion with which they are employed, yet, in their present character of terminations, they retain their primitive meaning and force. To denote that a verbal name was employed as a verb, the Saxons affixed to it a verbalizing adjunct; thus, _the_ (to take, hold) was the noun-state of the verb; and when they used it as a verb, they added the termination _an_; thus, the_an_. The termination added, was a sign that _affirmation_ was intended. The same procedure has been adopted, and, in many instances, is still practised, in our language. _An_, originally affixed to our verbs, in the progress of refinement, was changed to en, and finally dropped. A few centuries ago, the plural number of our verbs was denoted by the termination, _en_; thus, they _weren_, they _loven_; but, as these terminations do not supersede the necessity of expressing the _subject_ of affirmation, as is the case in the Latin and Greek verbs, they have been laid aside, as unnecessary excrescences. For the same reason, we might, without any disparagement to the language, dispense with the terminations of our verbs in the singular.
In support of the position, that these terminations were once separate words, we can trace many of them to their origin. To denote the feminine gender of some nouns, we affix _ess_; as, heir_ess_, instructr_ess. Ess_ is a contraction of the Hebrew noun _essa_, a female. Of our verbs, the termination _est_ is a contraction of _doest, eth_, of _doeth_, _s_ of _does_. We say, thou _dost_ or _doest_ love; or thou _lovest_; i.e. _love-dost_, or _love-doest_.
Some believe these terminations to be contractions of _havest, haveth, has_. We affix _ed_, a contraction of _dede_, to the present tense of verbs to denote that the action named is _dede, did, doed_, or _done_.
_To_ and _do_ from the Gothic noun _taui_, signifying _act_ or _effect_, are, according to Horne Tooke, nearly alike in meaning and force; and when the custom of affixing some more ancient verbalizing adjunct, began to be dropped, its place and meaning were generally supplied by prefixing one of these. When I say, "I am going _to walk,"_ the verbal or affirmative force is conveyed by the use of _to_, meaning the same as _do_; and _walk_ is employed merely as a verbal name; that is, I a.s.sert that I shall _do_ the act which I name by the word _walk_, or the act of _walking_.
Perhaps such speculations as these will prove to be more curious than profitable. If it be made clearly to appear, that, on scientific principles, whenever the verbal name is unaccompanied by a verbalizing adjunct, it is in the _noun-state_, and does not express affirmation, still this theory would be very inconvenient in practice.
I shall resume this subject in Lecture XI.
QUESTIONS ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.
What has usually been the object of philosophical investigations of language? (page 32.)--Do the syntactical dependances and connexions of words depend on their _original_ import?--Is the power of a.s.sociation and custom efficient in changing the radical meaning of some words?--Have words intrinsically a signification of their own; or is their meaning _inferential_; i.e. such as _custom_ has a.s.signed to them?
(page 38.)--On what _fact_ is based the true, philosophical principle of cla.s.sification?--Define philosophical grammar.--Which is supposed to be the original part of speech?--How were the others formed from that?--How many parts of speech may be recognised in a scientific development and arrangement of the principles of our language?--Name them.--What testimony have we that many things do not act? (page 43.)--Repeat some of the arguments in favor of, and against, the principle which regards all verbs as _active_.--In what moods are verbs used in their _noun-state?_ (page 48.)--Give examples.--What is said of the terminations _est, eth, s,_ and _en_, and of the words _to_ and _do?_
REMARKS ON VERBS AND NOUNS.
You have already been informed, that verbs are the most important part of speech in our language; and to convince you of their importance, I now tell you, that you cannot express a _thought_, or communicate an _idea_, without making use of a verb, either expressed or implied. Verbs express, not only _the state_ or _manner of being_, but, likewise, all the different _actions_ and _movements_ of all creatures and things, whether animate or inanimate. As yet I have given you only a partial description of this sort of words; but when you are better prepared to comprehend the subject, I will explain all their properties, and show you the proper manner of using them.
A word that is generally a _noun_, sometimes becomes a _verb_; and a verb is frequently used as a _noun_. These changes depend on the sense which the word conveys; or, rather, on the office it performs in the sentence; that is the _manner_ in which it is applied to things. For instance, _glory_ is generally a noun; as "The _glory_ of G.o.d"s throne."
But if I say, I _glory_ in religion; or, He _glories_ in wickedness, the word _glory_ becomes a verb. The _love_ of man is inconstant. In this sentence, _love_ is a _noun_; in the next, it is a _verb_: They _love_ virtue. He _walks_ swiftly; Scavengers _sweep_ the streets; The ship _sails_ well. In these phrases, the words _walks, sweep_, and _sails_, are verbs; in the following they are nouns: Those are pleasant _walks_; He takes a broad _sweep_; The ship lowered her _sails_.
Thus you see, it is impossible for you to become a grammarian without exercising your judgment. If you have sufficient resolution to do this, you will, in a short time, perfectly understand the nature and office of the different parts of speech, their various properties and relations, and the rules of syntax that apply to them; and, in a few weeks, be able to speak and write accurately. But you must not take things for granted, without examining their propriety and correctness. No. You are not a mere _automaton_, or _boy-machine_; but a rational being. You ought, therefore, to _think_ methodically, to _reason_ soundly, and to _investigate_ every principle critically. Don"t be afraid to _think for yourself_. You know not the high destiny that awaits you. You know not the height to which you may soar in the scale of intellectual existence.
Go on, then, boldly, and with unyielding perseverance; and if you do not gain admittance into the temple of fame, strive, at all hazards, to drink of the fountain which gurgles from its base.
EXERCISES IN FALSE SYNTAX.
NOTE 1, TO RULE 12. A noun in the possessive case, should always be distinguished by the apostrophe, or mark of elision; as, The _nation"s_ glory.
That girls book is cleaner than those boys books.
Not correct, because the nouns _girls_ and _boys_ are both in the possessive case, and, therefore, require the apostrophe, by which they should be distinguished; thus, "_girl"s, boys""_ according to the preceding NOTE. [Repeat the note.]
Thy ancestors virtue is not thine.
If the writer of this sentence meant _one_ ancestor, he should have inserted the apostrophe after _r_, thus, "_ancestor"s"_; if more than one, after _s_, thus, _"ancestors"_ virtue;" but, by neglecting to place the apostrophe, he has left his meaning ambiguous, and we cannot ascertain it. This, and a thousand other mistakes you will often meet with, demonstrate the truth of my declaration, namely, that "without the knowledge and application of grammar rules, you will often speak and write in such a manner as not to be _understood."_ You may now turn back and re-examine the "ill.u.s.tration" of Rules 3, 4, and 12, on page 52, and then correct the following examples about _five_ times over.
A mothers tenderness and a fathers care, are natures gift"s for mans advantage. Wisdoms precept"s form the good mans interest and happiness.
They suffer for conscience"s sake. He is reading Cowpers poems. James bought Johnsons Dictionary.
RULE 4. A verb must agree with its nominative in number and person.
Those boys improves rapidly. The men labors in the field. Nothing delight some persons. Thou shuns the light. He dare not do it. They reads well.
I know you can correct these sentences without a rule, for they all have a harsh sound, which offends the ear. I wish you, however, to adopt the habit of correcting errors by applying rules; for, by-and-by, you will meet with errors in composition which you cannot correct, if you are ignorant of the application of grammar rules.
Now let us clearly understand this 4th Rule. Recollect, it applies to the _verb_ and not to the noun; therefore, in these examples the verb is ungrammatical. The noun _boys_, in the first sentence, is of the third person _plural_, and the verb _improves_ is of the third person _singular_; therefore, Rule 4th is violated, because the verb dues not agree with its nominative in _number_. It should be, "boys _improve_."
The verb would then be _plural_, and agree with its nominative according to the Rule. In the fourth sentence, the verb does not agree in _person_ with its nominative. _Thou_ is of the _second_ person, and _shuns_ is of the _third_. It should be, "thou _shunnest_," &c. You may correct the other sentences, and, likewise, the following exercises in