Page images
[ocr errors][merged small]

Now we venture to say that in every important case this, that, these and those may be substituted for the without altering the sense. Mr. Murray says that the in the sentence ‘Nathan said unto David, thou art the man,' is peculiarly emphatical. But thou art this or that man is equally so.

An article, (our author says,) is a word prefixed to substantives, this and that, these and those, one, two, three, and every other numeral and ordinal adjective, are prefixed to nouns, in the same way, ' to point them out,' and even to show how far their signification extends, for they effectually limit the signification of the noun. The man, this man, that man, forty men, seventh man. The words in Italic are all articles, if Murray's definition be correct. Thus we have disposed of one article.

Not satisfied with one (that is an) article, our grammarian must have two. An is a contraction of one. An is generally contracted into a before words beginning with a consonant, and a does not be. come an, as Mr. Murray asserts; for, at no very remote period of our literature, an was used before all words. One is sometimes spelled ane, hence an.

A book is one book. The article un which the French grammarians have impressed into the class of articles, is also their numeral adjective. How a numeral adjective can be called indefinite is hard to conceive. Is one or ten an indefinite number?

The fact is a, an, and the, are as good adjectives as any in our language; and had there not been an article in the Greek Grammar, these words would have been left among the adjectives in ours.

The Substantive. · A substantive or noun is the name of any thing that erists, or of urhich we have any notion.'

Why the term substantive should be preferred to noun, or, what is better, name, we know not. Substantive carries with it the notion of substance; but many nouns are unsubstantial. Noun or name has no such objection. We think the definition would be less mystical if it merely said, a noun is the name of any thing, or, to save tautology, “ The first class of words are names.'

It is as well to say nothing about existence, for some nouns imply nonexistence. Then comes the following distinction.

Substantives are either proper or common.' Proper nouns are names appropriated to individuals. All nouns in the singular must be individual names, hence our author adds,

common nouns may also be used to signify individuals by the addition of articles or pronouns!' That is, proper nouns are common nouer and common nouns are proper nouns.

But this is not the best of it. He says ‘Common nouns stand for kinds, containing many

sorts, or for sorts containing many individuals' and then very truly adus, • when proper names have an article (that is, an adjective) annexed to them, they are used as common names.' We venture to assert that there is no distinction of proper and common nouns, and we bring the above extracts to prove our assertion. We say that every noun in the singular is the name of an individual, and George is no more appropriated to an (that is one) individual, than any other singular noun; for there are or may be a thousand Georges. It is true that 'when proper nouns have an article before them they are used as common names, but it is also true that they are used as common names, without what Mr. Murray calls the article. The Cesars were emperors; Twelve Cesars were emperors. It is also true that proper names become common without either an article or adjective before them. Cesars were once emperors, now they are dogs.' Why then this unmeaning distinction, contradicted in the very first page that asserts it?

* All nouns are of the third person when spoken of, and of the second when spoken to.' We see no reason for this distinction. There is no need of it on Mr. Murray's plan, for he does not let any noun of the second person change its own termination or that of its verb. There is an appearance of reason in attributing three persons to pronouns, but it is not so with nouns. Grant, however, that

nouns have persons, why have they only two? Do not some persons represent the person speaking, as well as the person spoken to? 'I, Mr. Murray puzzle children', is as good an instance of the first person, as "Be grateful, children of men' is of the second.

Even Mr. Murray seems to have had some rational views, for in his remarks upon passive verbs he has these remarkable words. 'The English tongue is in many respects materially different from the learned languages. It is, therefore, very possible to be mistaken ouselves, and to mislead and perplex others, by an undistinguishing attachment to the principles, and arrangement of Greek and Latin grammarians. Much of the confusion and perplexity, which we meet with in the writings of some English Grammarians, on the subject of verbs, moods and conjugations, (he might have said cases also,) has arisen from the misapplication of names.

We are apt to think that the old names must always be attached to the identical forms and things to which they were anciently attached. But if we rectify this mistake, and properly adjust the names to the peculiar forms and nature of the things in our own language, we shall be clear and consistent in our ideas;' (and, we add, not till then.) It is to be lamented that in the very chapter which contains the above remarks, Mr. Murray undertakes to defend his system of moods, tenses, voices, &c. on the score of their utility, convenience, resemblance to the Latin, beautiful symmetry, &c. for, he con

[ocr errors]

"name of a

cludes, although the learned languages, with respect to voices

, moods and tenses, are, in general, differently constructed from the English tongue, “ Yet in some respects, they are so similar to it, a to warrant the principle which I', (Mr. Murray,) ‘have adopted.

We are willing to admit that there is a convenience in allowing to nouns three situations in the sentence, which situations, Mr. Murray, who seems to be one of those whom he describes as "apt to think that old names must continue to be attached to what they were anciently attached to calls cases, a term possibly applicable to Latin, but not at all to English nouns. Let us examine his debinitions.

The Nominative Case simply expresses the name of a thing, or the subject of the verb. As T'he girls learn.' If this definition has any meaning separate from the definition of nouns in general, we cannot discover it. The objective case also, simply expresses the name of a thing' and is the subject on which a verb acts. The girls learn' (what subject?)‘grammar.' The surgeons dissect' (what subjects?) bodies.' Are the girls and surgeons the subjects of the verbs learn and dissect? The fact is, the nomin ative and objective cases, as he calls them, are the same word, the same thing:' sometimes acting, when they are placed before the verb; and sometimes the subject or object of action, when in the sense they follow the verb.

The term nominative from the Latin monino to name, has led Mr. Murray to give a definition which implies that the objective case is not the name of a thing. Had he said a word of the doubts which have been raised in regard to the possessive case being the name of a thing, we should have been less inclined to censure him. There has been a spirited contest on this subject, grammarians asserting that all adjectives are nouns, and others that all nouns are adjectives. It may be well to remark that, whichever existed first, the noun or adjective, it is clear that what we now call nouns may be used as adjectives and verbs also, as 'eye, 'to eye,' 'eye ball;' and if some words sound oddly when used in either of these three ways, it is not because the genius of our language forbids such use of them, but because such use is uncom mon or unnecessary.

The terminations of the numerous cases in Latin and Greek, and of the possessive in English were undoubtedly significant of something. It is generally supposed that the is, or es of our poş sessive was equivalent to add or join, and therefore my father's house' is the same as “my father add house.' The omission of the e or i before s, and the substitution of the apostrophe, of more modern times, and were no doubt intended to distinguish the possessive from the plural of nouns, which were before spelled


are the work

alike. But this termination was by no means indispensable nor was it generally affixed to nouns. There can be no doubt that in such expressions as 'bell rope, 'shoe string,' 'night cap,' and a thousand others, 'bell,' 'shoe,' and 'night,' are substitutes for the possessive case. But we hesitate not to call these words adjectives. Some connect the two words with a hyphen, and call the united words a compound noun, but we conceive this to be as unnecessary as it would be to connect any other adjective with the noun it qualifies.* Thus rope is the common name of a thing, long rope restricts the meaning of the noun, as do large, old, new, cart or bell rope.

Bell and cart cease to be properly names, and serve to express the quality of things. Again, Charlotte when alone may be a noun, but when prefixed to the sirname, is merely a distinctive term. The office of an adjective, is merely to enable us to distinguish nouns, that is names, from each other. Mr. Wilson has three daughters. Wilson is the family name of each, but they must be distinguished. The father calls one the good daughter, another the fair daughter, and the third the little daughter, but he has another way of distinguishing them and calls the first Charlotte, the second Harriet, and the third Caroline. Charlotte, Harriet, and Caroline, therefore, are true adjectives when used in this manner, and we shall endeavor to show that every possessive case in our language is no other than an adjective.

If a noun is the name of a thing, we think no one will deny that the English possessive is not a noun. Father's house. Father's in this sentence is not a name. Falher to be sure is so, but father's implies more than the relation which exists between a parent and his child. In fact its original meaning is secondary, and subordinate to its new office, which is, to distinguish one house from another. We can see no difference between the office performed by the first words in the following sentences, and therefore are compelled to call them all adjectives. 'Noisy carriages;' Boston streets,' *Boston's streets;' vernacular tongue,’ ‘mother tongue, 'mother's tongue.' As we have hinted before, if the termination 's, have any meaning, father and father's differ in meaning; and if father can be used alone, while father's, like any adjective, cannot make sense without a substantive, the use of the two words is different.

[ocr errors]

* Our contributor is here at variance with the practice of the more correct presses, both of this country and of England. To the following, and similar cases, a hyphen is thought indispensable: a glass-house, (a house for the manufacture of glass)—the only possible means of distinction from a glass house, (a house made of glass.) -Examples: • A man who lives in a glass house, should not throw stones at his neighbor's windows.'-'I found James at the glass-house.'-Ed.

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]


Extracts from Professor Voelker's prospectus. For many centuries education has been exclusively directed to the developement of the mental faculties, while the bodily powers have been entirely neglected; and this because the intimate connection between mind and body has not been sufficiently considered, for who does not know, from bis own experience, that the mind uniformly participates in the condition of the body ;-that it is cheerful when the body is strong and healthy; and depressed, when the body is languid and unhealthy ?

The ancients better understood the value of bodily exercise. What rendered that little troop of Greeks so courageous, and so formidable to the numberless hosts of their enemies, but their continual and regulated gymnastic exercises ! And what inspired them with such contempt for the barbarians, but the effeminate education of the latter, that made them unfit to cope with antagonists trained to discharging every duty of a warrior by running, leaping, climbing, wrestling, &c. ?-See Xenophon, Paneg. Ages.

In modern times, great promoters of education, as Locke, Rousseau, Campe, Basedow, Pestalozzi, and Fellenberg, have pointed out the want of so important a discipline; but it was reserved for Professor Jahn to be the restorer of this long lost art. After a careful examination of the structure of the human body, he de vised a great number of exercises, arranged them in a well-adapted series

, and again raised Gymnastics to the rank of an art. In 1810, he established a Gym, nasium at Berlin, and the number of his pupils, consisting of boys, youth, and men, soon increased to several thousands. His ardent zeal and indefatigable er: ertion, and his powerful and persuasive appeals to his pupils, had such an effect that all vied with each other in endeavoring to render their bodies strong and active. But the rising of the German people, in 1813, suddenly changed the cheerful game into a serious combat. Professor Jahn, and such of his pupils as were capable of bearing arms, (many of these being but fourteen years of age,) joined the volun. teers of Lutzow. But few lived to revisit the place, where they had prepared themselves for enduring the hardships of war. Most of these young heroes cover ed the fields of battle with their corpses from the gates of Berlin to the capital of their enemies. The exercises, however, were resumed at Berlin, and had spread through several other towns, when the campaign of 1815 caused a new, but short interruption.

As a pupil of Jahn's, I also had the honor of serving among the volunteers The campaign being finished, I returned to my studies; and when I thought myself sufficiently qualified for the duties of a teacher, I commenced them in 1818. At first

, I established gymnastic exercises at the Academy of Eisenach, and in the University of Tubingen. In these establishments, as in all others, where similar exercises had been introduced by Professor Jahn or his pupils, imparted to the scholars. Boys, youths, and men, soon found more pleasure in exercises which strengthened the powers of their body, than in pleasures, which render it effeminate and wcak. By the consciousı ess of increased vigor, ibe nind, too, was powerfully excited, and strove for equal perfection ; and each od the pupils had always before his eyes, as the object of his exertions Mens sang in corpore sano. Even men indulent hy nature were irresistibly carried away by the zeal of their comrades. Weakly and sick persons, too, recovered their have been found for their complaints. The judgement of physicians, in all places health ; and these exercises were, perhaps, the only effectual remedy that could

a new vigor W.7$

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »