FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   913   914   915   916   917   918   919   920   921   922   923   924   925   926   927   928   929   930   931   932   933   934   935   936   937  
938   939   940   941   942   943   944   945   946   947   948   949   950   951   952   953   954   955   956   957   958   959   960   961   962   >>   >|  
one judge of what others say concerning them. Erroneous or inadequate views, confused or inconsistent statements, are the peculiar property of those who advance them; they have, in reality, no relationship to science itself, because they originate in ignorance; but all science is knowledge--it is knowledge methodized. What general rules are requisite for the syntactical parsing of the several parts of speech in English, may be seen at once by any one who will consider for a moment the usual construction of each. The correction of false syntax, in its various forms, will require more--yes, five times as many; but such of these as answer only the latter purpose, are, I think, better reserved for notes under the principal rules. The doctrines which I conceive most worthy to form the leading canons of our syntax, are those which are expressed in the twenty-four rules above. If other authors prefer more, or fewer, or different principles for their chief rules, I must suppose, it is because they have studied the subject less. Biased, as we may be, both by our knowledge and by our ignorance, it is easy for men to differ respecting matters of _expediency_; but that clearness, order, and consistency, are both _expedient_, and _requisite_, in didactic compositions, is what none can doubt. OBS. 7.--Those English grammarians who tell us, as above, that syntax is divided into _parts_, or included under a certain number of _heads_, have almost universally contradicted themselves by treating the subject without any regard to such a division; and, at the same time, not a few have somehow been led into the gross error of supposing broad principles of concord or government where no such things exist. For example, they have invented general RULES like these: "The adjective _agrees_ with its noun in number, case, and gender."--_Bingham's English Gram._, p. 40. "Interjections _govern_ the nominative case, and sometimes the objective: as, '_O thou! alas me!_'"--_Ib._, p. 43. "Adjectives _agree_ with their nouns in number."--_Wilbur and Livingston's Gram._, p. 22. "Participles _agree_ with their nouns in number."--_Ib._, p. 23. "Every adjective _agrees in number_ with some substantive expressed or understood."-- _Hiley's Gram._, Rule 8th, p. 77. "The article THE _agrees_ with nouns in either number: as, _The wood, the woods_."--_Bucke's Classical Grammar of the English Language_, p. 84. "O! oh! ah! _require_ the accusative case of a pronoun
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   913   914   915   916   917   918   919   920   921   922   923   924   925   926   927   928   929   930   931   932   933   934   935   936   937  
938   939   940   941   942   943   944   945   946   947   948   949   950   951   952   953   954   955   956   957   958   959   960   961   962   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
number
 

English

 

knowledge

 
syntax
 
agrees
 

principles

 
expressed
 

subject

 
require
 

adjective


general

 

requisite

 

ignorance

 

science

 

things

 

Language

 
government
 

concord

 

supposing

 

universally


pronoun

 
divided
 

included

 

contradicted

 

accusative

 
division
 

treating

 

regard

 

understood

 

objective


substantive

 

Wilbur

 

Participles

 

Livingston

 

Adjectives

 
nominative
 
Grammar
 

Classical

 

invented

 

Interjections


govern

 

article

 

gender

 
Bingham
 

construction

 
correction
 

moment

 

speech

 

answer

 

purpose