that this triad of parts
is not that which is mentioned by Vossius and Quintilian. But authority may
be found for reducing the number of the parts of speech yet lower. Plato,
according to Harris, and the first inquirers into language, according to
Horne Tooke, made them _two_; nouns and verbs, which Crombie, Dalton,
M'Culloch, and some others, say, are the only parts essentially necessary
for the communication of our thoughts. Those who know nothing about
grammar, regard all words as of _one_ class. To them, a word is simply a
word; and under what other name it may come, is no concern of theirs.

23. Towards this point, tends every attempt to simplify grammar by
suppressing any of the _ten_ parts of speech. Nothing is gained by it; and
it is a departure from the best authority. We see by what steps this kind
of reasoning may descend; and we have an admirable illustration of it in
the several grammatical works of William S. Cardell. I shall mention them
in the order in which they appeared; and the reader may judge whether the
author does not ultimately arrive at the conclusion to which the foregoing
series is conducted. This writer, in his Essay on Language, reckons seven
parts of speech; in his New-York Grammar, six; in his Hartford Grammar,
three principal, with three others subordinate; in his Philadelphia
Grammar, three only--nouns, adjectives, and verbs. Here he alleges, "The
unerring plan of _nature_ has established three classes of perceptions, and
consequently three parts of speech."--P. 171. He says this, as if he meant
to abide by it. But, on his twenty-third page, we are told, "Every
adjective is either a noun or a participle." Now, by his own showing, there
are no participles: he makes them all adjectives, in each of his schemes.
It follows, therefore, that all his adjectives, including what others call
participles, are nouns. And this reduces his three parts of speech to two,
in spite of "the unerring plan of _nature!_" But even this number is more
than he well believed in; for, on the twenty-first page of the book, he
affirms, that, "All other terms are but derivative forms and new
applications of _nouns_." So simple a thing is this method of grammar! But
Neef, in his zeal for reformation, carries the anticlimax fairly off the
brink; and declares, "In the grammar which shall be the work of my pupils,
there shall be found no nouns, no pronouns, no articles, no participles, no
verbs, no prepositions, no conjun