Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 26

I.—Our Common Grammars Defective

page 6

I.—Our Common Grammars Defective.

Yet it is remarkable that our English grammar, as it has been till lately taught, and as even now too generally taught in our common class-books, is very far from all this, and is full of positive error and illogical classification. English grammar is the least correct and least scientific part of our school course in text-book and practice. This is a grave charge to make, but it is too true. Indeed, so much is this the case that a good grammarian could, without fear, undertake to show error, deficiency, or logical fallacy in almost every page of the most of our grammars, and most successfully in those in most common use, and that by a few questions given to an average class. Into this subject and the substantiation of this charge, we cannot now enter at any length. We shall only adduce a few examples, as pointing out what any one may discover for himself, and which it is his duty to do, if his teaching on this most important subject is to produce the result it is calculated to do. Let us glance hurriedly through the pages of most of our common school grammars, and note a few points.

The Noun.

The definition of a noun, where it departs from the simple statement that a noun is a name, or the name of anything, is generally either defective or redundant, or both.

In the definition of gender a confusion is made between gender, which is a distinction of words, and sex, which is a distinction of animals. The classification of words by gender is made the same as the sexual differences in animals, and English gender is declared to be of two kinds. Gender, however, is a verbal distinction. It is based upon difference in sex, but is not sex. Sex is dual, but words in English may have five genders or kinds as based on sex:—masculine= he of male; feminine=she or female; neuter= what has no sex, hence its name—neither; common; what has either sex; and words including both sexes, as children: or shortly thus,—he page 7 and she; and then either, neither, or both—all the possible varieties based on the idea of the two sexes.

Neuter is too often defined as "that which is without life"; one hears it almost daily. The word, of course, tells its own meaning; neuter is neither—i.e., neither "he" nor "she," life being only an accidental idea, which may be present or not. If neuter is without life, what is the gender of "spirit," "soul," which = it? What is the gender of the whole vegetable world, which certainly has life? A tree lives, and can die, and yet it is neuter.

Case.—In our grammars, English is said to have three cases, and yet, in these same books, we read not only of nominative possessive, and objective, but of the absolute case and the case of address. Then what is to determine case—inflection or function in a sentence? Let us adhere to either the one idea or the other. If it is to be determined by inflection, nouns have only two cases, pronouns three, if not four. If by function, English will be found to have at least these cases—nominative, genitive or possessive, objective or accusative, case of address or vocative, case absolute, and the dative case, which last it has both functionally and historically, as in him, "m" being the old dative termination.

Then, nominative absolute is a misnomer, and unphilosophic, nominative being the case in all languages of the subject, and the absolute case being always one of the oblique cases,—"genitive," as in Greek; "ablative," as in Latin; "dative," as in Saxon, &c.: "case absolute" would perhaps be the simplest name in modern English. The same objection holds of nominative of address.

The Adjective.

The definition of the adjective is equally defective. If it is defined by quality, what of adjectives of quantity? and if by quality and quantity, what of adjectives of distinction?

Then it is generally defined as being added to a noun, and, more fully, a pronoun. What of phrases, and sentences, and ideas expressed by paragraphs or otherwise?

page 8

Then one still hears that the comparative sometimes expresses a less degree of comparison, as "smaller." The comparative "er" always, of course, expresses a higher degree of the idea of the positive.

The superlative is often stated to be the highest degree of the positive, ignoring the true conception of comparison, that the comparative and superlative are only higher and highest of certain things compared; while the same positive in another instance may be much higher in degree, than its own superlative in this instance. The general statement, that adjectives have three degrees, should therefore be modified by the statement that, when things are compared, adjectives take three degrees. Absolutely, they have many degrees expressed in various ways.

The positive is also stated to express an idea without any reference to another, which is only true in a very limited sense; for, when I assert any man to be tall, I can do so only by reference to others.

There is a fertile source of error and confusion in not distinguishing between adjectives and pronouns. Many words have both functions in most languages, as the demonstrative, distributive, indefinite, and relative. They are, of course, adjectives when they qualify, and pronouns when they stand alone—i.e., stand for a noun. Yet we hear of a demonstrative adjective pronoun, &c., as if both at once. "Did he tell you that? " That is either an adjective or a pronoun, not both.

One seldom now hears of nine parts of speech, and the articles are referred to their true class of adjective. But this is frequently carried too far. These articles form a distinct class by themselves, and should not be coolly allocated to the demonstratives and numerals. They are absent in some languages and present in others, and add to the completeness of any language that has them. They should be made one of the classes of adjectives.

The Pronoun.

Pronouns are generally stated to be used to prevent the page 9 too frequent occurrence of the noun, which is a subsidiary idea. Each of them conveys certain specific additional conceptions which are their distinctive functions.

The personal pronoun is stated to be the mere substitute for a noun, which is only the general definition of a pronoun, and misses the specific function of the personals—that of expressing the relation of the speaker or writer to the persons or things spoken of.

Then, personal is explained as meaning, standing for persons. What of the neuters, which are oftener spoken of than persons? The true meaning of the word lies in the dramatic meaning of "persona," denoting the part played in speech.

Again, demonstratives point out. What, then, are "they," "theirs," "them," "he," "she," "it," which can do this as distinctly as "this" and "that," can be used interchangeably with them, and are derived from them etymologically? Our classification of pronouns sadly lacks reform.

Again, the relative has as its special definition, that it relates to something going before it, which is simply stating a property of all pronouns. One distinctive function is missed—that of joining sentences, suggesting conjunctive as a better term. If relative is retained, it should be explained not as relating to a noun, but as relating, that is, joining, sentences.

The first person expresses the one speaking; the second, the one spoken to. But all pronouns are spoken of, however used. What of this definition?

The word compound is used with confusing vagueness. Compound should be used either of etymological structure or of function, not of both. "Whatever" is compound by structure, yet "what" is also called compound, but in quite a different sense; hence confusion.

Words like "myself," "himself," &c., are classed as pronouns. are they so, in use or derivation? They are simply nouns with possessive pronouns prefixed and sometimes attached. But you ask, what of "himself," &c.? "Him" is simply put for "his" by way of euphony. It existed in old English, and still exists in Scotch. Yet we see them variously called emphatic, reflective, and reciprocal pronouns, for this page 10 good reason, that in Latin and some other languages such ideas are expressed by pronouns, ignoring the plain fact that English has a different idiom, and expresses these by nouns.

The word indefinite is most indefinitely used as applied to pronouns. Surely "all," "both," "none," and others, are the most definite of words. These pronouns are indefinite in special and different senses. Some, as "many," "all," are indefinite in number, and should be called indefinite numerals; others, in selection of person, as "another," "other," though definite enough in number. Others are definite in both number and individuality, as "both." These ought to be discriminated.

The Verb.

The definition of the verb is often erroneous or defective. Its radical idea of making a statement has come into our grammars only recently. The common one mostly heard yet, that it "expresses being, doing, or suffering," is true of nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and in short is the basis of all idea and of its expression in words. Every conception must express being or doing or suffering.

The definition of transitive is peculiar. "An action that passes over to an object," is at least a strange idea, if we think of it, and I fear turns out to be unreal. What is an action that passes over to an object? Can the thing be done? The idea of a transitive verb can be given with greater simplicity from the necessity for a completion of the conception.

There is a confusion between tense and time. Tense, like gender, is a conception belonging to words; time to things. Tense is based on time, but is more than time. There are only three times, but there may be many tenses.

Mood requires reform and re-determination. If the indicative is the mood of direct statement, we demolish potential. "He can lift a ton" is as much indicative in every sense as "he is able to lift a ton." Some late grammarians have therefore rightly put this Latin mood aside.

Nothing requires more urgent reform than the infinitive and participles. The infinitive is the noun of the verb, yet page 11 we hear of the participles being used as nouns. The truth is, that we have at least three infinitives—an infinitive with to, an infinitive without to, and an infinitive with ing, which is a corruption of the old Saxon infinitive in an; while the ing of the participle is a corruption of the participial termination in and or end. The confusion has been made from the modern form ing representing two old terminations and two different moods.

The to of the infinitive also requires investigation; it is sometimes the preposition to in form and function, sometimes something else: but though it is interesting, into this we cannot enter.

The division of the infinitive and participle into present and past is, of course, erroneous. They have no time in the sense of the other moods, but take their time from the words to which they are joined. Their classification should be based on the state of the action, as complete or incomplete.

The future tense is generally wrongly given in our grammars, heard in our schools, and spoken in common speech by those that should know better. There are at least three tenses included in the one so-called future; one of simple statement of futurity, and two of determination, the one that of the speaker, the other that of the subject of the verb. Another form of the same tense is used, conveying the idea of the original meaning of "shall"= ought, as "Thou shalt not kill."

These should be distinguished and thoroughly conquered. If they were, we should hear less frequently the daily errors made in even good society.

But we must cease our criticism. Not half the field has been traversed, and in that gone over only a mere indication of the surprising extent of the incorrectness of our grammatical knowledge as shown in our common text-books. Indeed, so much is this the case that Latham declares:—

"I have no hesitation in asserting that out of every hundred statements made by the current writers on English grammar, ninety-nine come under one of the two following predicaments: they either contain that which is incorrect, and better not known at all, or something that was known before, and would have been known independent of any grammatical lesson whatever."

page 12

Much has lately been done towards rendering our grammars more correct, and banishing common traditional errors, but much more still remains to be done. English grammarians have been bound hand and foot by traditional definitions and classifications, and most of all by painful adherence to Latin grammar. The English language has never received sufficient justice as an independent tongue, having its own idioms, and governed by its own laws and by those of the cognate Teutonic languages. On the revival of letters, the only grammar known and taught was, of course, the classical; and its forms and divisions got into our schools and scholars, and by these, and these only, the structure and forms of our language were determined and interpreted; to these it was made by every means to conform. No matter that the languages were those of very differing types. The classical grammar was so and so, the greatest and only grammar, and the English must be the same; and to this rock the undying Prometheus of the English tongue has been bound, with his strong thews stretched and twisted until now; and only recently have some of these bonds been untied. Our English tongue must be interpreted by its own principles and idioms and by those of its sister Teutonic tongues, and all foreign antagonistic systems and classifications must be rigorously expelled. English grammar, as taught in our schools, must be based on the genius and history of the English language. The great want in grammatical study is a historical English grammar. Many works have of late come into the field, and our noble language will ere long receive the full justice to which its independent and firmly-knit structure entitle it.