FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230  
231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   >>   >|  
the parts of speech, and to point out _things_ as individuals of their class, are very different matters; and which of these is the purpose for which articles are used, according to Lowth and Murray? Their definition says the former, their explanations imply the latter; and I am unable to determine which they really meant. The term _placed before_ would have been better than "_prefixed_;" because the latter commonly implies junction, as well as location. The word "_indeterminate_" is not a very easy one for a boy; and, when he has found out what it means, he may possibly not know to which of the four preceding nouns it ought to be referred:--"in a vague _sense_, to point out one single _thing_ of the _kind_, in other _respects_ indeterminate." What is this "vague sense?" and what is it, that is "indeterminate?" 22. SECOND DEFINITION:--"A Substantive or Noun is the name of any thing _that_ exists, or of _which_ we have any notion."--_Murray, and others_. According to his own syntax, this sentence of Murray's is wrong; for he himself suggests, that when two or more relative clauses refer to the same antecedent, the same pronoun should be used in each. Of clauses connected like these, this is true. He should therefore have said, "A Substantive, or Noun, is the name of any thing _which_ exists, or of _which_ we have any notion." His rule, however, though good against a text like this, is utterly wrong in regard to many others, and not very accurate in taking _two_ for a "_series_" thus: "Whatever relative is used, in one of a _series_ of clauses relating to the same antecedent, the same relative ought, generally to be used in _them all_. In the following sentence, _this rule is violated_: 'It is remarkable, that Holland, against _which_ the war was undertaken, and _that_, in the very beginning, was reduced to the brink of destruction, lost nothing.' The clause ought to have been, 'and _which_ in the very beginning.'"--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 155. But both the rule and the example, badly as they correspond, were borrowed from Priestley's Grammar, p. 102, where the text stands thus: "Whatever relative _be_ used, in one of a _series_ of clauses, relating to the same antecedent, the same ought to be used in _them all_. 'It is remarkable, that Holland,'" &c. 23. THIRD DEFINITION:--"An Adjective is a word added to a substantive, to express _its_ quality."--_Lowth, Murray, Bullions, Pond, and others_. Here we have the choice
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230  
231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Murray

 

clauses

 

relative

 
indeterminate
 
series
 

antecedent

 
Substantive
 

relating

 

remarkable

 

Holland


DEFINITION
 

Whatever

 

beginning

 

notion

 

exists

 
sentence
 

accurate

 

generally

 

regard

 
utterly

taking

 
stands
 

Priestley

 

Grammar

 

Adjective

 

choice

 

Bullions

 
quality
 

substantive

 

express


borrowed

 

destruction

 

reduced

 

violated

 

undertaken

 

clause

 

correspond

 

individuals

 

prefixed

 

location


junction

 

commonly

 

implies

 

definition

 

articles

 

matters

 
purpose
 

unable

 

determine

 

explanations