so in our
apprehension of the thoughts, and our interpretation of the words, of
others. Hence, Perizonius, in commenting upon Sanctius's imperfect
definition, "_Grammatica est ars recte loquendi_," not improperly asks,
"_et quidni intelligendi et explicandi_?" "and why not also of
understanding and explaining?" Hence, too, the art of _reading_ is
virtually a part of grammar; for it is but the art of understanding and
speaking correctly that which we have before us on paper. And Nugent has
accordingly given us the following definition: "Grammar is the art of
reading, speaking, and writing a language by rules."--_Introduction to
Dict._, p. xii.[1]

8. The word _recte_, rightly, truly, correctly, which occurs in most of the
foregoing Latin definitions, is censured by the learned Richard Johnson, in
his Grammatical Commentaries, on account of the vagueness of its meaning.
He says, it is not only ambiguous by reason of its different uses in the
Latin classics, but destitute of any signification proper to grammar. But
even if this be true as regards its earlier application, it may well be
questioned, whether by frequency of use it has not acquired a signification
which makes it proper at the present time. The English word _correctly_
seems to be less liable to such an objection; and either this brief term,
or some other of like import, (as, "with correctness"--"with propriety,")
is still usually employed to tell what grammar is. But can a boy learn by
such means what it is, _to speak and write grammatically_? In one sense, he
can; and in an other, he cannot. He may derive, from any of these terms,
some idea of grammar as distinguished from other arts; but no simple
definition of this, or of any other art, can communicate to him that learns
it, the skill of an artist.

9. R. Johnson speaks at large of _the relation_ of words to each other in
sentences, as constituting in his view the most essential part of grammar;
and as being a point very much overlooked, or very badly explained, by
grammarians in general. His censure is just. And it seems to be as
applicable to nearly all the grammars now in use, as to those which he
criticised a hundred and thirty years ago. But perhaps he gives to the
relation of words, (which is merely their dependence on other words
according to the sense,) an earlier introduction and a more prominent
place, than it ought to have in a general system of grammar. To the right
use of language, he makes fo