Lectures on Language As Particularly Connected with English Grammar.

LECTURE XIV.

ON CON­TRAC­TIONS.

A tem­po­rary ex­pe­di­ent.--Words not un­der­stood.--All words must have a mean­ing.--Their for­ma­tion.--Changes of mean­ing and form.--Should be ob­served.--=Ad­verbs=.--End­ing in _ly_.--Ex­am­ples.--Ago.--Astray. --Awake.--Asleep.--Then, when.--There, where, here.--While, till.--Whether, to­geth­er.--Ev­er, nev­er, when­ev­er, etc.--Oft.--Hence. --Per­haps.--Not.--Or.--Nor.--Than.--As.--So.--Dis­tinc­tions false.--Rule 18.--If.--But.--Tho.--Yet.

We have con­clud­ed our re­marks on the nec­es­sary di­vi­sions of words. Things _named_, _de­fined_ and _de­scribed_, and their _ac­tions_, _re­la­tions_, and _ten­den­cies_, have been con­sid­ered un­der the class­es of Nouns, Ad­jec­tives, and Verbs. To these class­es all words be­long when prop­er­ly ex­plained; a fact we de­sire you to bear con­stant­ly in mind in all your at­tempts to un­der­stand and em­ploy lan­guage. But there are many words in our lan­guage as well as most oth­ers, which are so al­tered and dis­guised that their mean­ing is not eas­ily com­pre­hend­ed. Of course they are dif­fi­cult of ex­pla­na­tion. These words we have classed un­der the head of _Con­trac­tions_, a term bet­ter cal­cu­lat­ed than any oth­er we have seen adopt­ed to ex­press their char­ac­ter. We do not how­ev­er lay any stress on the ap­pro­pri­ate­ness of this ap­pel­la­tion, but adopt it as a tem­po­rary ex­pe­di­ent, till these words shall be bet­ter un­der­stood. They will then be ranked in their prop­er places among the class­es al­ready no­ticed.

Un­der this head may be con­sid­ered the words usu­al­ly known as “ad­verbs, con­junc­tions, prepo­si­tions, and in­ter­jec­tions.” That the et­ymol­ogy and mean­ing of these words have not been gen­er­al­ly un­der­stood will be con­ced­ed, I pre­sume, on all hands. In our opin­ion, that is the on­ly rea­son why they have been con­sid­ered un­der these dif­fer­ent heads, for in num­ber­less cas­es there is noth­ing in their im­port to cor­re­spond with such dis­tinc­tions. Why “an ad­verb ex­press­es some _qual­ity_ or cir­cum­stance re­spect­ing a verb, ad­jec­tive, or oth­er ad­verb;” why “a con­junc­tion is chiefly used to con­nect sen­tences, so as out of _two_ to make on­ly _one_ sen­tence;” or why “prepo­si­tions serve to con­nect words with one an­oth­er, and show the re­la­tion be­tween them,” has nev­er been ex­plained. They have been _passed over_ with lit­tle dif­fi­cul­ty by teach­ers, hav­ing been fur­nished with lists of words in each “part of speech,” which they re­quire their pupils to com­mit to mem­ory, and “for ev­er af­ter hold their peace” con­cern­ing them. But that these words have been de­fined or ex­plained in a way to be un­der­stood will not be pre­tend­ed. In jus­ti­fi­ca­tion of such ig­no­rance, it is con­tend­ed that such ex­pla­na­tion is not es­sen­tial to their prop­er and el­egant use. If such is the fact, we may eas­ily ac­count for the in­cor­rect use of lan­guage, and ex­on­er­ate chil­dren from the la­bor of study­ing et­ymol­ogy.

But these words have mean­ing, and sus­tain a most im­por­tant rank in the ex­pres­sion of ideas. They are, gen­er­al­ly, ab­bre­vi­at­ed, com­pound­ed, and so dis­guised that their ori­gin and for­ma­tion are not gen­er­al­ly known. Horne Tooke calls them “the _wheels_ of lan­guage, the _wings_ of Mer­cury.” He says “tho we might be dragged along with­out them, it would be with much dif­fi­cul­ty, very heav­ily and te­dious­ly.” But when he un­der­takes to show that they were _con­struct­ed_ for this ob­ject, he mis­takes their true char­ac­ter; for they were not in­vent­ed for that pur­pose, but were orig­inal­ly em­ployed as nouns or verbs, from which they have been cor­rupt­ed by use. And he seems to ad­mit this fact when he says,[19] “_ab­bre­vi­ation_ and _cor­rup­tion_ are al­ways bus­iest with the words which are most fre­quent­ly in use. Let­ters, like sol­diers, be­ing very apt to desert and drop off in a long march, and es­pe­cial­ly if their pas­sage hap­pens to lie near the con­fines of an en­emy's coun­try.”

In the orig­inal con­struc­tion of lan­guage a set of lit­er­ary men did not get to­geth­er and man­ufac­ture a lot of words, fin­ished thro out and ex­act­ly adapt­ed to the ex­pres­sion of thought. Had that been the case, lan­guage would doubt­less have ap­peared in a much more reg­ular, stiff, and for­mal dress, and been de­prived of many of its beau­ti­ful and lofty fig­ures, its rich­est and bold­est ex­pres­sions. Ne­ces­si­ty is the moth­er of in­ven­tion. It was not un­til peo­ple had _ideas_ to com­mu­ni­cate, that they sought a medi­um for the trans­mis­sion of thought from one to an­oth­er; and then such sounds and signs were adopt­ed as would best an­swer their pur­pose. But lan­guage was not then framed like a cot­ton mill, ev­ery part com­plet­ed be­fore it was set in op­er­ation. Sin­gle ex­pres­sions, _sign_-if­icant of things, or _ideas_ of _things_ and _ac­tions_, were first em­ployed, in the most sim­ple, plain, and easy man­ner.[20] As the hu­man mind ad­vanced in knowl­edge, by ob­serv­ing the char­ac­ter, re­la­tions, and dif­fer­ences of things, words were changed, al­tered, com­pound­ed, and con­tract­ed, so as to keep pace with such ad­vance­ment; just as many sim­ple parts of a ma­chine, op­er­at­ing on per­fect and dis­tinct prin­ci­ples, may be com­bined to­geth­er and form a most com­pli­cat­ed, cu­ri­ous, and pow­er­ful en­gine, of as­ton­ish­ing pow­er, and great util­ity. In the adap­ta­tion of steam to lo­co­mo­tives, the prin­ci­ples on which sta­tion­ary en­gines op­er­at­ed were some­what mod­ified. Some wheels, shafts, bands, screws, etc., were omit­ted, oth­ers of a dif­fer­ent kind were added, till the whole ap­peared in a new char­ac­ter, and the en­gine, be­fore fixed to a spot, was seen travers­ing the road with im­mense ra­pid­ity. The prin­ci­ples of the for­mer en­gine, so far from be­ing unessen­tial, were in­dis­pens­able to the con­struc­tion of the new one, and should be clear­ly un­der­stood by him who would build or _use_ the lat­ter. So, in the for­ma­tion of lan­guage, sim­ple _first_ prin­ci­ples must be ob­served and traced thro all their ram­ifi­ca­tions, by those who would ob­tain a clear and thoro knowl­edge of it, or “read and write it with pro­pri­ety.”

In math­emat­ics, the four sim­ple rules, ad­di­tion, sub­trac­tion, mul­ti­pli­ca­tion, and di­vi­sion, form the ba­sis on which that in­ter­est­ing sci­ence de­pends. The mod­ifi­ca­tions of these rules, ac­cord­ing to their var­ious ca­pa­bil­ities, will give a com­plete knowl­edge of all that can be known of num­bers, re­la­tions, and pro­por­tions, an acme to which all may as­pire, tho none have yet at­tained it. The prin­ci­ples of lan­guage are equal­ly sim­ple, and, if cor­rect­ly ex­plained, may be as well un­der­stood. But the dif­fi­cul­ty un­der which we la­bor in this de­part­ment of sci­ence, is the pauci­ty of _means_ to trace back to their orig­inal form and mean­ing many words and phras­es in com­mon use among us. Lan­guage has been em­ployed as the ve­hi­cle of thought, for six thou­sand years, and in that long space has un­der­gone many and strange mod­ifi­ca­tions. At the dis­per­sion from Ba­bel, and the “con­fu­sion of tongues” oc­ca­sioned there­by, peo­ple were thrown up­on their own re­sources, and left to pick up by piece­meal such shreds as should af­ter­wards be wove in­to a sys­tem, and adopt­ed by their re­spec­tive na­tions. Wars, pesti­lence, and famine, as well as com­merce, en­ter­prize, lit­er­ature, and re­li­gion, brought the dif­fer­ent na­tions in­to in­ter­course with each oth­er; and changes were thus pro­duced in the lan­guages of such peo­ple. Who­ev­er will take the trou­ble to com­pare the id­ioms of speech adopt­ed by those na­tions whose af­fairs, civ­il, po­lit­ical, and re­li­gious, are most in­ti­mate­ly al­lied, will be con­vinced of the cor­rect­ness of the sen­ti­ment now ad­vanced.

In the lapse of ages, words would not on­ly change their form, but in a mea­sure their mean­ing, so as to cor­re­spond with the ideas of those who use them. Some would be­come ob­so­lete, and oth­ers be adopt­ed in their stead. Many words are found in the Bible which are not in com­mon use; and the man­ner of spelling, as well as some en­tire words, have been changed in that book, since it was trans­lat­ed and first pub­lished in 1610. With these ex­am­ples you are fa­mil­iar, and I shall be spared the ne­ces­si­ty of quot­ing them. I have al­ready made some ex­tracts from old writ­ers, and may have oc­ca­sion to do so again be­fore I close this lec­ture.

The words which we class un­der the head of Con­trac­tions, are so al­tered and dis­guised in their ap­pear­ance, that their et­ymol­ogy and con­nex­ion are not gen­er­al­ly un­der­stood. It may ap­pear like pedantry in me to at­tempt an in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to their ori­gin and mean­ing. But to avoid that charge, I will frankly ac­knowl­edge the truth, and own my in­abil­ity to do jus­tice to this sub­ject, by of­fer­ing a full ex­pla­na­tion of all the words which be­long to this class. I will be can­did, if I am not suc­cess­ful. But I think most of the words long con­sid­ered dif­fi­cult, may be eas­ily ex­plained; enough to con­vince you of the fea­si­bil­ity of the ground we have as­sumed, and fur­nish a sam­ple by which to pur­sue the sub­ject in all our fu­ture in­quiries in­to the et­ymol­ogy of words.

But even if I fail in this mat­ter, I shall have one com­fort left, that I am not alone in the trans­gres­sion; for no philol­ogist, with few ex­cep­tions, has done any thing like jus­tice to this sub­ject. Our com­mon gram­mars have not even at­tempt­ed an in­quiry in­to the _mean­ing_ of these words, but have treat­ed them as tho they had none. Class­es, like pens or reser­voirs, are made for them, in­to which they are thrown, and al­lowed to rest, on­ly to be named, with­out be­ing dis­turbed. Some­times, how­ev­er, they are found in one en­clo­sure, some­times in an­oth­er, more by mis­take, I ap­pre­hend, than by in­ten­tion; for “prepo­si­tions” un­der cer­tain cir­cum­stances are parsed as “ad­verbs,” and “ad­verbs” as “ad­jec­tives,” and “con­junc­tions” as ei­ther “ad­verbs” or “prepo­si­tions;” and not un­fre­quent­ly the whole go off to­geth­er, like the tail of the drag­on, draw­ing oth­er re­spectable words along with them, un­der the sweep­ing cog­nomen of “ad­ver­bial phras­es,” or “con­junc­tive ex­pres­sions;” as, Can you write your les­son? _Not yet quite well enough._ “_But and if_ that evil ser­vant,”[21] etc. Mr. Mur­ray says, "the same word is oc­ca­sion­al­ly used _both as_ a con­junc­tion _and as_ an ad­verb, and some­times _as_ a prepo­si­tion.

Let these words be cor­rect­ly de­fined, their mean­ing be fer­ret­ed out from the rub­bish in which they have been en­closed; or have their dis­mem­bered parts re­stored to them, they will then ap­pear in their true char­ac­ter, and their con­nex­ion with oth­er words will be found reg­ular and easy. Un­til such work is ac­com­plished, they may as well be called con­trac­tions, for such they _most­ly_ are, as ad­verbs or any thing else; for that ap­pel­la­tion we re­gard as more ap­pro­pri­ate than any oth­er.

In the at­tempts we are about to make, we shall en­deav­or to be guid­ed by sound philo­soph­ic prin­ci­ples and the light of pa­tient in­ves­ti­ga­tion; and what­ev­er ad­vances we may make shall be in strict ac­cor­dance with the true and prac­ti­cal use of these words.

Let us be­gin with _Ad­verbs_.

I have not time to go in­to a thoro in­ves­ti­ga­tion of the mis­takes in­to which gram­mar­ians have fall­en in their at­tempts to ex­plain this “part of speech.” Mr. Mur­ray says they “seem orig­inal­ly to have been _con­trived_ to ex­press com­pen­dious­ly in _one word_, what must _oth­er­wise_ have re­quired two or more; as, ”he act­ed _wise­ly_.“ They could have been ”_con­trived_“ for no such pur­pose, for we have al­ready seen that they are made up of var­ious words com­bined to­geth­er, which are used to ex­press re­la­tion, to de­fine or de­scribe oth­er things. Take the very ex­am­ple Mr. M. has giv­en. _Wise­ly_ is made up of two words; _wise_ and _like_. ”He act­ed wise­ly,“ wise-​like. What did he _act_? _Wise­ly_, we are taught, ex­press­es the ”_man­ner_ or qual­ity“ of the verb _act_. But _act_, in this case, is a neuter or in­tran­si­tive verb, and _wise­ly_ ex­press­es the _man­ner of ac­tion_ where there is none! But he must have _act­ed some­thing_ which was _wise_ like some­thing else. What did he act? If he pro­duced no _ac­tions_, how can it be known that he _act­ed_ wise­ly or un­wise­ly? _Ac­tion_ or _acts_ is the di­rect ob­ject of to _act_. Hence the sen­tence ful­ly stat­ed would stand thus: ”He act­ed _acts_ or _ac­tions_ like wise ac­tions or acts." But stat­ed at length, it ap­pears auk­ward and clum­sy, like old fash­ioned ve­hi­cles. We have mod­ified, im­proved, cut down, and made elip­ti­cal, all of our ex­pres­sions, as we have pre­vi­ous­ly ob­served, to suit the fash­ions and cus­toms of the age in which we live; the same as tai­lors cut our gar­ments to cor­re­spond with the lat­est fash­ions.

“The bird sings _sweet­ly_.” The bird sings _songs_, _notes_, or _tunes_, _like sweet notes_, _tunes,_ or _songs_. The com­par­ison here made, is not in ref­er­ence to the agent or ac­tion, but the _ob­ject_ of the ac­tion; and this ex­plains the whole the­ory of those _ad­verbs_, which are said to “qual­ify man­ner” of ac­tion. We have al­ready seen that no _ac­tion_, as such, can ex­ist, or be con­ceived to ex­ist, sep­arate(-ed) from the _thing_ or _agent_ which _acts_; and such ac­tion can on­ly be de­ter­mined by the _changed_ or al­tered con­di­tion of some­thing which is the _ob­ject_ of such ac­tion. How then, can any word, in truth, or in thought, be known to _qual­ify_ the ac­tion, as dis­tinct from the ob­ject or agent? And if it does not in _fact_, how can we ex­plain words to chil­dren, or to our own minds, so as to un­der­stand what is not true?

Hence all words of this char­ac­ter are ad­jec­tives, de­scrib­ing one thing by its re­la­tion or like­ness to an­oth­er, and as such, ad­mit of com­par­ison; as, a like­ly man, a _very_ like­ly man, a like­li­er, and the _like­li­est_ man. “He is the _most like­ly_ ped­lar I ev­er knew.” “He is _more li­able_ to be de­ceived.” “A _live­ly_ lit­tle fel­low.” “He is worth­less.” He is worth less, _less wor­thy_ of re­spect and con­fi­dence. “He writes very cor­rect­ly.” He writes his let­ters and words _like very cor­rect_ let­ters. But I need not en­large. You have on­ly to bear in mind the fact, that _ly_ is a con­trac­tion of _like_, which is of­ten re­tained in many words; as god_like_, chris­tian_like_, etc., and search for a def­ini­tion ac­cord­ing­ly; and you will find no trou­ble in dis­pos­ing of a large por­tion of this ad­verb fam­ily.

It is a cu­ri­ous fact, and should be ma­ture­ly con­sid­ered by all who still ad­here to the neuter verb the­ory, that ad­verbs _qual­ify neuter_ as well as ac­tive verbs, and ex­press the _qual­ity_ or _man­ner of ac­tion_, where there is none! Ad­verbs ex­press “man­ner of ac­tion” in a neuter verb! When a per­son starts wrong it is very dif­fi­cult to go right. The safest course is to re­turn back and start again.

Ad­verbs have been di­vid­ed in­to class­es, vary­ing from _eleven_ to _sev­en­ty-​two_, to suit the fan­cies of those who have on­ly ob­served the nice shades of form which these words have as­sumed. But a bon­net is a bon­net, let its shape, form, or fash­ion, be what it may. You may put on as many trim­mings, flow­ers, bows, and rib­bons, as you please; it is a bon­net still; and when we speak of it we will call it a _bon­net_, and talk about its _ap­pendages_. But when it is con­struct­ed in­to some­thing else, then we will give it a new name.

Ad­jec­tives, we have said, are _de­rived_ from ei­ther nouns or verbs, and we now con­tend that the words for­mer­ly re­gard­ed as ad­verbs are ei­ther ad­jec­tives, nouns, or verbs. In de­fence of this sen­ti­ment we will ad­duce a few words in this place for ex­am­ples.

=Ago.= “Three years _ago_, we dwelt in the coun­try.” This word is a past par­tici­ple from the verb _ago_, mean­ing the same as _gone_ or _agone_, and was so used a few cen­turies _ago_--_agone_, or _gone by_.

“For eu­er the lat­ter ende of ioye is wo, God wotte, world­ly ioye is soone _ago_.” _Chaucer._

“For if it erst was well, tho was it bet A thou­sand folde, this nedeth it not re­quire _Ago_ was eu­ery sorowe and eu­ery fere.” _Troy­lus, boke 3, p. 2._

“Of such ex­am­ples as I finde Up­on this point of tyme _agone_ I thinke for to tellen one.” _Gow­er_, lib. 5, p. 1.

“Which is no more than has been done By knights for ladies, long _agone_.” _Hudi­bras._

“Twen­ty years _agone_.” _Tillot­son's ser­mon._

“Are all _the go_.” _Knicker­bock­er._

=Astray.= “They went astray.” _Astrayed_, wan­dered or were scat­tered, and of course soon be­came _es­tranged_ from each oth­er. Farm­ers all know what it is for cat­tle to _stray_ from home; and many par­ents have felt the keen pangs of sor­row when their sons _strayed_ from the paths of virtue. In that con­di­tion they are _astray-​ed_.

“This prest was drank and goth _astrayede_.”

“Achab to the bot­tle went. When Benedad for all his shelde Him slough, so that up­on the felde His peo­ple goth aboute _as­traie_.” _Gow­er._

=Awake.= “He is _awake_.” “Sam­son _awaked_ out of his sleep.” “That I may _awake_ him out of sleep.” “It is high time to _awake_.” “As a man that is _wak­ened_ out of sleep.” The Irish hold _a wake_--they do not sleep the night af­ter the loss of friends.

=Asleep.=

“When that pyte, which longe _on sleep_ doth tary Hath set the fyne of al my heuy­nesse.” _Chaucer, La belle dame, p. 1. c. 1._

“Ful sound _on sleep_ did caucht thare rest be kind.” _Dou­glas_, b. 9, p. 283.

“In these provynces the fayth of Chryste was all quenchyd and _in sleepe_.”--_Fabi­an._

A nu­mer­ous por­tion of these con­trac­tions are nouns, which, from their fre­quent re­cur­rence, are used with­out their usu­al con­nex­ion with small words. The let­ter _a_ is com­pound­ed with many of these words, which may have been joined to them by habit, or as a prepo­si­tion, mean­ing _on_, _to_, _at_, _in_, as it is used in the french and some oth­er lan­guages. You of­ten hear ex­pres­sions like these, “he is _a_-go­ing; he is _a_-writ­ing; he be­gan _a_-new,” etc. The old ad­verbs which take this let­ter, you can eas­ily an­alyze; as, “The house is _a_-fire”--on fire; “He fell _a_-sleep”--he fell _on_ sleep. “When deep sleep fal­leth on men.”--_Job._ “He stept _a_-side”--on one side. “He came _a_-board”--on board. “They put it _a_-foot”--on foot. “He went _a_-way”--a way, fol­lowed some _course_, to a dis­tance. “Blue bon­nets are all the _go_ now _a_-days,” etc.

The fol­low­ing ex­tracts will give you an idea of the et­ymol­ogy of these words:

“Tur­nus seyes the Troia­nis in grete yre, And al thare schyp­pis and navy set _in fire_.” _Dou­glas_, b. 9, p. 274.

“Now hand in hand the dynt lichtis with _ane_ swak, Now bendis he up his bour­don with _ane_ mynt, _On side_ (a-​side) he bradis for to es­chew the dynt.” _Idem._

“That east­er fire and flame aboute Both at mouth and at nase So that thei set­ten all _on blaze_,” (ablaze.) _Gow­er._

“And tyl a wicked deth him take _Him had_ leuer _ason­dre_ (a-​sun­der) shake And let al his lymmes _ason­dre_ ryue Thane leaue his richesse in his lyue.” _Chaucer._

Ex­am­ples of this kind might be mul­ti­plied to an in­def­inite length. But the above will suf­fice to give you an idea of the for­mer use of these words, and al­so, by com­par­ison with the present, of the changes which have tak­en place in the method of spelling with­in a few cen­turies.

A large por­tion of ad­verbs re­late to _time_ and _place_, be­cause many of our ideas, and much of our lan­guage, are em­ployed in ref­er­ence to them; as, _then_, _when_, _where_, _there_, _here_, _hence_, _whence_, _thence_, _while_, _till_, _whether_, etc. These are com­pound words con­sid­er­ably dis­guised in their mean­ing and for­ma­tion. Let us briefly no­tice some of them.

_Per an­num_ is a latin phrase, _for the year_, a _year_; and _the an­num_ is _the year_, _round_ or _pe­ri­od_ of time, from which it was cor­rupt­ed grad­ual­ly in­to its present shape. _Thanne_, tha anne, _thane_, _thenne_, _then_, _than_, are dif­fer­ent forms of the same word.

“We see nowe bi a mir­ror in dar­cnesse: thanne for­sathe, face to face. Nowe I know of par­tye; _thanne_ for­sathe schal know as I am knowen.”--1. Cor. 13: 12. _Trans­la­tion in 1350._

I have a trans­la­tion of the same pas­sage in 1586, which stands thus: “For nowe we see through a glasse dark­ley: but _thene_ face to face: now I know in part: but _then_ shal I know even as I am knowen.” Here sev­er­al words are spelled dif­fer­ent­ly in the same verse.

=Then=, _the anne_, that time. =When=, _wha anne_, “_wha-​icht-​anne_,” which, or what _anne_, pe­ri­od of time.

_Area_ means an open space, a plat of ground, a spot or place. Are­na is from the same et­ymon, al­tered in ap­pli­ca­tion. =There=, _the area_, the _place_ or _spot_. “If we go _there_,” to that place. =Where=, which, or what (“wha-​icht area”) place. =Here=, _his_ (latin word for _this_,) _area_, this place. These words re­fer to _place_, _state_, or _con­di­tion_.

_While_ is an­oth­er spelling for _wheel_. “To while away our time,” is to _pass_, spend, or _wheel_ it away. _While_ ap­plies to the _pe­ri­od_, or space of time, in which some­thing _wheels_, _whirls_, _turns_ round, or tran­spires; as, “You had bet­ter re­main here _while_ (dur­ing the time) he ex­am­ines whether it is pru­dent for you to go.”

=Till= is _to while_, to the _pe­ri­od_ at which some­thing is ex­pect­ed to fol­low. “If I will that he tar­ry _till_ (to the time) I come what is that to thee?”

The idea of _time_ and _place_ are of­ten blend­ed to­geth­er. It is not un­com­mon to hear lads and pro­fessed schol­ars, in some parts of our coun­try say “down _till_ the bot­tom, over _till_ the woods.” etc. Al­tho we do not re­gard such ex­pres­sions cor­rect, yet they serve to ex­plain the mean­ing of the word. The on­ly mis­take is in ap­ply­ing it to _place_ in­stead of _time_.

=Whether= is _which ei­ther_. “Shew _whether_ of these _two_ thou hast cho­sen.”--_Acts 1: 24._ It is more fre­quent­ly ap­plied in mod­ern times to cir­cum­stance and events _than to_ per­sons and things. “I will let you know _whether_ I _will_ or _will not_ adopt it,” one or the oth­er.

=To­geth­er= sig­ni­fies two or more unit­ed. _Geth­ered_ is the past par­tici­ple of _gath­er_.

“As Mailie, an' her lambs _the­git­her_, Were ae day nib­bling on the teth­er.” _Burns._

=Ev­er= means _time_, _age_, _pe­ri­od_. It orig­inal­ly and es­sen­tial­ly sig­ni­fied _life_. _For ev­er_ is for the age or pe­ri­od. _For ev­er_ and _ev­er_, to the ages of ages. _Ev­er-​last­ing_ is _age-​last­ing_. Ev­er-​last­ing hills, snows, land­marks, etc.

=Nev­er=, _ne-​ev­er_, _not ev­er_, at no time, age or pe­ri­od.

=When-​ev­er.=--At what point or space of _time_ or _age_.

=What-​ev­er.=--What thing, fact, cir­cum­stance, or event.

=Where-​ev­er.=--To, at, or in what place, pe­ri­od, age, or time.

=Whith­er-​so-​ev­er=, which-​way-​so-​ev­er, where-​so-​ev­er, nev­er-​the-​less, etc. need on­ly be an­alyzed, and their mean­ing will ap­pear ob­vi­ous to all.

=Oft=, _of­ten_, _oft-​times_, of­ten-_times_, can be un­der­stood by all, be­cause the noun to which they be­long is _oft-​en_ re­tained in prac­tice.

=Once=, twice, at one time, two times.

=Hence=, _thence_, _whence_, from _this_, _that_, or _what_, place, spot, cir­cum­stance, post, or start­ing place.

=Hence-​for-​ward=, _hence-​forth_, in time _to come_, af­ter this pe­ri­od.

=Here-​af­ter=, af­ter this _era_, or present time.

=Hith­er=, to this spot or place. _Thith­er_, to that place. _Hith­er-​to_, _hith­er-​ward_, etc. the same as _to you ward_, or to God ward, still re­tained in our bibles.

=Per-​haps=, it may hap. _Per­chance_, _per­ad­ven­ture_, by chance, by ad­ven­ture. The latin _per_ means _by_.

=Not=, no ought, not any, noth­ing. It is a com­pound of _ne_ and _ought_ or _a_ught.

=Or= is a con­trac­tion from oth­er, and _nor_ from _ne-​or_, no-​or, no oth­er.

=No-​wise=, no ways. I will go, or, oth­er-​wise, in an­oth­er way or man­ner, you must go.

=Than=, _the ane_, the one, that one, al­lud­ing to a par­tic­ular ob­ject with which a com­par­ison is made; as, This book is larg­er _than_ that bible. That _one_ bible, this book is larg­er. It is al­ways used with the com­par­ative de­gree, to de­fine par­tic­ular­ly the ob­ject with which the com­par­ison is made. Tal­ent is bet­ter than flat­tery. Than flat­tery, of­ten be­stowed re­gard­less of mer­it, tal­ent is bet­ter.

=As= is an ad­jec­tive, in ex­ten­sive use. It means the, this, that, these, the same, etc. It is a defin­ing word of the first kind. You prac­tice _as_ you have been taught--_the same du­ties_ or _prin­ci­ples_ un­der­stood. We use lan­guage _as_ we have learned it; in _the same_ way or man­ner. It is of­ten as­so­ci­at­ed with oth­er words to par­tic­ular­ly spec­ify the way, man­ner, or de­gree, in which some­thing is done or com­pared. I can go _as well as_ you. In _the same well_, easy, con­ve­nient way or man­ner you can go, I can go in _the same_ way. He was _as_ learned, _as_ pi­ous, _as_ benev­olent, _as_ brave, _as_ faith­ful, _as_ ar­dent. These are pure­ly ad­jec­tives, used to de­note the de­gree of the like­ness or sim­ilar­ity be­tween the things com­pared. Sec­ondary words are of­ten added to this, to aid the dis­tinc­tion or def­ini­tion; as, (_the same_ il­lus­trat­ed,) He is _just as will­ing_. I am _quite as well_ pleased with­out it. _As_, like many oth­er ad­jec­tives, of­ten oc­curs with­out a noun ex­pressed, in which case it was for­mer­ly parsed by Mur­ray him­self _as_ (like, or the same) a rel­ative pro­noun; as, “And in­deed it sel­dom at any pe­ri­od ex­tends to the tip, _as hap­pens_ in acute dis­eases.”--_Dr. Sweet­ster._ “The ground I have as­sumed is ten­able, _as will ap­pear_.”--_Web­ster._ “Bona­parte had a spe­cial mo­tive in dec­orat­ing Paris, for 'Paris is France, _as has_ of­ten been ob­served.”--_Chan­ning._ “The words are such _as seem_.”--_Mur­ray's Read­er! p. 16, in­tro._

=So= has near­ly the same sig­ni­fi­ca­tion as the word last no­ticed, and is fre­quent­ly used along with it, to de­fine the oth­er mem­ber of the com­par­ison. _As_ far _as_ I can un­der­stand, _so_ far I ap­prove. _As_ he di­rect­ed, _so_ I obeyed. It very of­ten oc­curs as a sec­ondary ad­jec­tive; as, “In pi­ous and benev­olent of­fices _so_ sim­ple, _so_ minute, _so_ steady, _so_ ha­bit­ual, that they will car­ry,” etc. “He pur­sued a course _so_ un­vary­ing.”--_Chan­ning._

These words are the most im­por­tant of any small ones in our vo­cab­ulary, be­cause (_for this cause_, be this the cause, this is the cause) they are the most fre­quent­ly used; and yet there are no words _so_ lit­tle un­der­stood, or _so_ much abused by gram­mar­ians, _as_ these are.

We have bare­ly time to no­tice the re­main­ing parts of speech. “Con­junc­tions” are de­fined to be a “part of speech void of sig­ni­fi­ca­tion, but so formed as to help sig­ni­fi­ca­tion, by mak­ing two or more sig­nif­icant sen­tences to be one sig­nif­icant sen­tence.” Mr. Har­ris gives about forty “species.” Mur­ray ad­mits of on­ly the _dis_-junc­tive and cop­ula­tive, and re­duces the whole list of words to twen­ty-​four. But what is meant by a _dis_-junc­tive _con_-junc­tive word, is left for you to de­ter­mine. It must be in keep­ing with _in_def­inite _defin­ing_ ar­ti­cles, and _post_-pos­itive _pre_-po­si­tions. He says, “it joins words, but dis­joins the sense.”[22] And what is a _word_ with out _sense_,“ pray tell us? If ”words are the signs of ideas," how, in the name of rea­son, can you give the sign and sep­arate the sense? You can as well sep­arate the shad­ow from the sub­stance, or a qual­ity from mat­ter.

We have al­ready no­ticed Rule 18, which teach­es the use of con­junc­tions. Un­der that rule, you may ex­am­ine these ex­am­ples. “As it _was_ in the be­gin­ning, _is_ now, _and_ ev­er _shall be_.”--_Com­mon Prayer._ “What I _do_, _have done,_ or _may_ here­after _do_, _has been_, and _will_ al­ways _be_ mat­ter of in­cli­na­tion, the grat­ify­ing of which _pays_ it­self: and I _have_ no more mer­it in em­ploy­ing my time and mon­ey in the way I _am known_ to do, than an­oth­er has in oth­er oc­cu­pa­tions.”--_Howard._

The fol­low­ing ex­am­ples must suf­fice.

=If.= This word is de­rived from the sax­on _gi­fan_, and was for­mer­ly writ­ten _giff_, _gyff_, _gif_, _geve_, _give_, _yiff_, _yef_, _yeve_. It sig­ni­fies _give_, _grant_, _al­low_, _sup­pose_, _ad­mit_, and is al­ways a verb in the im­per­ative mood, hav­ing the fol­low­ing sen­tence or idea for its ob­ject. “_If_ a pound of sug­ar cost ten cents, what will ten pounds cost?” _Give_, grant, al­low, sup­pose, (the fact,) _one pound cost_, etc. In this case the sup­po­si­tion which stands as a pred­icate--_one pound of sug­ar cost ten cents_, is the ob­ject of _if_--the thing to be al­lowed, sup­posed, or grant­ed, and from which the con­clu­sion as to the cost of _ten_ pounds is to be drawn.

“He will as­sist us if he has the means.” Al­low, ad­mit, (the fact,) he has the means, he will as­sist us.

“_Gif_ luf be vertew, than is it le­ful thing; _Gif_ it be vice, it is your un­do­ing.” _Dou­glas_ p. 95.

“Ne I ne wol non re­herce, _yef_ that I may.” _Chaucer._

“She was so char­ita­ble and so py­tous She wolde wepe _yf that_ she sawe a mous Caught in a trappe, _if_ it were deed or bled­de.” _Pri­oresse._

“O haste and come to my mas­ter dear.”

“_Gin_ ye be Bar­bara Allen.” _Burns._

=But.= This word has two op­po­site sig­ni­fi­ca­tions. It is de­rived from two dif­fer­ent rad­icals. _But_, from the sax­on _be_ and _utan_, _out_, means _be out_, _leave out_, _save_, _ex­cept_, _omit_, as, “all _but_ one are here.” _Leave out_, _ex­cept_, _one_, all are here.

“Heav­en from all cre­ation hides the book of fate All _but_ (_save_, _ex­cept_) the page pre­scribed our present state.”

“When nought _but_ (_leave out_) the _tor­rent_ is heard on the hill, And nought _but_ (_save_) the nightin­gale's _song_ in the grove.”

“Noth­ing _but fear_ re­strains him.” In these cas­es the di­rect _ob­jects_ of the verb, the things to be omit­ted are ex­pressed.

_But_ is al­so de­rived from _botan_, which sig­ni­fies _to add_, _su­per­add_, _join_ or _unite_; as, in the old form of a deed, “it is _but­ted_ and bound­ed as fol­lows.” Two an­imals _butt_ their heads to­geth­er. The _butt_ of a log is that end which was _joined_ to the stump. A _butt_, _but­ment_ or _a-​but­ment_ is the joined end, where there is a con­nex­ion with some­thing else. A _butt_ of ridicule is an ob­ject to which ridicule is at­tached.

“Not on­ly saw he all that was, _But (add) much_ that nev­er came to pass.” _M'Fin­gal._

_To but­ton_, _butt-​on_, is de­rived from the same word, to join one side to the oth­er, to fas­ten to­geth­er. It was for­mer­ly spelled _botan_, _boote_, _bote_, _bot_, _butte_, _bute_, _but_. It is still spelled _boot_ in cer­tain cas­es as a verb; as,

“What _boots it_ thee to fly from pole to pole, Hang o'er the earth, and with the plan­ets roll? What boots ( ) thro space's far­ther­est bourns to roam, _If_ thou, O man, a stranger art at home?” _Grainger._

“If love had _boot­ed_ care or cost.”

A man ex­changed his house in the city for a farm, and re­ceived fifty dol­lars to _boot_; _to add_ to his prop­er­ty, and make the ex­change equal.

_Let_ presents the same con­struc­tion in form and mean­ing as _but_, for it is de­rived from two rad­icals of op­po­site sig­ni­fi­ca­tions. It means some­times to _per­mit_ or _al­low_; as, _let_ me go; _let_ me have it; and to _hin­der_ or _pre­vent_; as, “I pro­posed to come un­to you, _but_ (add this fact) I was _let_ hith­er­to.”--_Rom. 1: 13._ “He who now _let­teth_, will _let_ un­til he be tak­en out of the way.”--_2 Thess. 2: 7._

=And= is a past par­tici­ple sig­ni­fy­ing _added_, _one-​ed_, _joined_. It was for­mer­ly placed af­ter the words; as, “James, John, David, _and_, (_unit­ed to-_geth­er_-ed_,) go to school.” We now place it _be­fore_ the last word.

=Tho=, _al­tho_, _yet_. “Tho (_ad­mit_, _al­low_, _the fact_) he slay me, yet (_get_, _have_, _know_, _the fact_) I will trust in him.” _Yes_ is from the same word as _yet_. It means _get_ or _have_ my con­sent to the ques­tion asked. _Nay_ is the op­po­site of _yes_, _ne_-aye, nay, no. The _ayes_ and _noes_ were called for.

I can pur­sue this mat­ter no far­ther. The lim­its as­signed me have been over­run al­ready. What light may have been af­ford­ed you in re­la­tion to these words, will en­able you to dis­cov­er that they have _mean­ing_ which must be learned be­fore they can be ex­plained cor­rect­ly; that done, all dif­fi­cul­ty is re­moved.

In­ter­jec­tions de­serve no at­ten­tion. They form no part of lan­guage, but may be used by beasts and birds as well as by men. They are in­dis­tinct ut­ter­ances of emo­tions, which come not with­in the range of hu­man speech.

FOOT­NOTES:

[1] The read­er is re­ferred to “The Red Book,” by William Bearcroft, re­vised by Daniel H. Barnes, late of the New-​York High School, as a cor­rect sys­tem of teach­ing prac­ti­cal or­thog­ra­phy.

[2] Gall, Spurzheim, and Combe, have re­flect­ed a light up­on the sci­ence of the mind, which can­not fail of ben­efi­cial re­sults. Tho the doc­trines of phrenol­ogy, as now taught, may prove false--which is quite doubt­ful--or re­ceive ex­ten­sive mod­ifi­ca­tions, yet the con­se­quences to the phi­los­ophy of the mind will be vast­ly use­ful. The very terms em­ployed to ex­press the fac­ul­ties and af­fec­tions of the mind, are so def­inite and clear, that phrenol­ogy will long de­serve pe­cu­liar re­gard, if for no oth­er rea­son than for the in­tro­duc­tion of a vo­cab­ulary, from which may be se­lect­ed words for the com­mu­ni­ca­tion of ideas up­on in­tel­lec­tu­al sub­jects.

[3] Meta­physics orig­inal­ly sig­ni­fied the sci­ence of the caus­es and prin­ci­ples of all things. Af­ter­wards it was con­fined to the phi­los­ophy of the mind. In our times it has ob­tained still an­oth­er mean­ing. Meta­physi­cians be­came so ab­struse, be­wil­dered, and lost, that no­body could un­der­stand them; and hence, _meta­phys­ical_ is now ap­plied to what­ev­er is ab­struse, doubt­ful, and un­in­tel­li­gi­ble. If a speak­er is not un­der­stood, it is be­cause he is too meta­phys­ical. “How did you like the ser­mon, yes­ter­day?” “Tol­er­ably well; but he was too meta­phys­ical for com­mon hear­ers.” They could not un­der­stand him.

[4] In this re­spect, many for­eign lan­guages pos­sess a great ad­van­tage over ours. They can aug­ment or di­min­ish the same word to in­crease or lessen the mean­ing. For in­stance; in the Span­ish, we can say _Hom­bre_, a man; _Hom­bron_, a _large_ man; _Hom­brecito_, a _young_ man, or youth; _Hom­bre­cil­lo_, a _mis­er­able lit­tle_ man; _Pa­garo_, a bird; _Pa­gar­ito_, a _pret­ty lit­tle_ bird; _Per­ro_, a dog; _Per­ril­lo_, an _ug­ly lit­tle_ dog; _Per­ra­zo_, a _large_ dog.

The In­di­an lan­guages ad­mit of diminu­tives in a sim­ilar way. In the Delaware di­alect, they are formed by the suf­fix _tit_, in the class of an­imate nouns; but by _es_, to the inan­imate; as, _Sen­no_, a man; _Sen­notit_, a _lit­tle_ man; _Wik­wam_, a house; _Wik­wames_, a _small_ house.--_Enc. Amer. Art. In­di­an Lan­guages, vol. 6, p. 586._

[5] Mr. Har­ris, in his “Her­mes,” says, “A prepo­si­tion is a part of speech, _de­void it­self of sig­ni­fi­ca­tion_; but so formed as to unite two words that are sig­nif­icant, and that refuse to co­alesce or unite them­selves.”

Mr. Mur­ray says, “Prepo­si­tions serve to _con­nect_ words with one an­oth­er, and show the re­la­tion be­tween them.”

[6] “Me thou shalt use in what thou wilt, and doe that with a slen­der _twist_, that none can doe with a tough _with_.” _Eu­phues and his Eng­land, p. 136._

“They had arms un­der the straw in the boats, and had cut the _with­es_ that held the oars of the town boats, to pre­vent any pur­suit.” _Lud­low's Mem­oirs, p. 435._

“The on­ly fur­ni­ture be­long­ing to the hous­es, ap­pears to be an ob­long ves­sel made of bark, by ty­ing up the ends with a _withe_.” _Cooke's De­scrip­tion of Botany Bay._

[7] See Gala­tians, chap. 1, verse 15. “When it pleased God, who _sep­arat­ed_ me,” &c.

[8] Acts, xvii, 28.

[9] St. Pierre's Stud­ies of Na­ture.--Dr. Hunter's trans­la­tion, pp. 172-176.

[10] It is re­port­ed on very good au­thor­ity that the same olive trees are now stand­ing in the gar­den of Geth­se­mane un­der which the Saviour wept and near which he was be­trayed. This is ren­dered more prob­able from the fact, that a tax is laid, by the Ot­toman Porte, on all olive trees plant­ed since Pales­tine passed in­to the pos­ses­sion of the Turks, and that sev­er­al trees stand­ing in Geth­se­mane do not pay such trib­ute, while all oth­ers do.

[11] We do not as­sent to the no­tions of an­cient philoso­phers and po­ets, who be­lieved the doc­trine that the world is an­imat­ed by a soul, like the hu­man body, which is the spir­it of De­ity him­self; but that by the op­er­ation of wise and per­fect laws, he ex­erts a su­per­vi­sion in the cre­ation and preser­va­tion of all things an­imate and inan­imate. Vir­gil stat­ed the opin­ions of his times, in his AEneid, B. VI. l. 724.

“Prin­ci­pio coelum, ac ter­ras, cam­posque liquentes, Lu­cen­temque globum, Lu­nae, Ti­ta­ni­aque as­tra Spir­itus in­tus alit, to­tamque in­fusa per ar­tus Mens ag­itat molem, et mag­no se cor­pore mis­cet.”

“Know, first, that heav­en, and earth's com­pact­ed frame, And flow­ing wa­ters, and the star­ry flame, And both the ra­di­ant lights, _one com­mon soul_ In­spires and feeds--and _an­imates the whole_. This ac­tive mind, in­fused thro all the space, Unites and min­gles with the mighty mass.” _Dry­den_, b. VI. l. 980.

This sen­ti­ment, he prob­ably bor­rowed from Pythago­ras and Pla­to, who ar­gue the same sen­ti­ment, and di­vide this spir­it in­to “_in­tel­lec­tus_, _in­tel­li­gen­tia_, et _natu­ra_”--in­tel­lec­tu­al, in­tel­li­gent, and nat­ural. Whence, “_Ex hoc Deo, qui est mun­di an­ima: quasi de­cerp­tae par­tic­ulae sunt vi­tae hominum et pecud­um._” Or, “Om­nia an­imalia ex quatuor el­emen­tis et _di­vi­no spir­itu_ con­stare man­ifes­tum est. Trahunt en­im a ter­ra carnem, ab aqua hu­morem, ab aere an­heli­tum, ab igne fer­vorem, _a di­vi­no spir­itu in­ge­ni­um_.”--_Timeus, chap. 24, and Vir­gil's Geor. b. 4, l. 220, Dry­den's trans. l. 322._

Pope al­ludes to the same opin­ion in these lines:

“All are but parts of one stu­pen­dous whole. Whose body na­ture is, and God the soul.”

[12] Page 41.

[13] Ex­odus, iii. 2, 3.

[14] Cardell's gram­mar.

[15] The Jews long pre­served this name in Samar­itan let­ters to keep it from be­ing known to strangers. The mod­ern Jews af­firm that by this mys­te­ri­ous name, en­graven on his rod, Moses per­formed the won­ders record­ed of him; that Je­sus stole the name from the tem­ple and put it in­to his thigh be­tween the flesh and skin, and by its pow­er ac­com­plished the mir­acles at­tribut­ed to him. They think if they could pro­nounce the word cor­rect­ly, the very heav­ens and earth would trem­ble, and an­gels be filled with ter­ror.

[16] Plutarch says, “This ti­tle is not on­ly _prop­er_ but _pe­cu­liar to God_, be­cause =He= alone is _be­ing_; for mor­tals have no par­tic­ipa­tion of _true be­ing_, be­cause that which _be­gins_ and _ends_, and is con­stant­ly _chang­ing_, is nev­er _one_ nor the _same_, nor in the same state. The de­ity on whose tem­ple this word was in­scribed was called =Apol­lo=, Apol­lon, from _a_ neg­ative and _pol­lus_, _many_, be­cause God is =one=, his na­ture sim­ple, and _un­com­pound­ed_.”--_Vide, Clark's Com._

[17] The same fact may be ob­served in oth­er lan­guages, for all peo­ple form lan­guage alike, in a way to cor­re­spond with their ideas. The fol­low­ing hasty ex­am­ples will il­lus­trate this point.

_Agent._ _Verb._ _Ob­ject._ _En­glish_ Singers Sing Songs _French_ Les chanteurs Chantent Les chan­sons _Span­ish_ Los can­tores Can­tan Las can­tinelas _Ital­ian_ I can­tori Can­tano I can­ti _Latin_ Can­tores Ca­nunt Can­tus

_En­glish_ Givers Give Gifts _French_ Les don­neurs Don­nent Les dons _Span­ish_ Los don­adores Dan o do­nan Los dones _Ital­ian_ I dana­tori Dano o danano I doni _Latin_ Da­tores Do­nant Dona

_En­glish_ Fish­ers Fish Fish­es _French_ Les pecheurs Pechent Les pois­sons _Span­ish_ Los pescadores Pes­can Los peces _Ital­ian_ I pesca­tori Pes­can I pesci _Latin_ Pis­ca­tores Pis­cant­ur Pisces

_En­glish_ Stu­dents Study Stud­ies _French_ Les etu­di­ens Etu­di­ent Les etudes _Span­ish_ Los es­tu­di­antes Es­tu­di­an Los es­tu­dios _Ital­ian_ I stu­di­en­ti Stu­di­ano I studii _Latin_ Stu­diosi Stu­dent Stu­dia

[18] Mr. Mur­ray says, “These com­pounds,” _have_, _shall_, _will_, _may_, _can_, _must_, _had_, _might_, _could_, _would_, and _should_, which he us­es as aux­il­iaries to _help_ con­ju­gate _oth­er_ verbs, “are, how­ev­er, to be con­sid­ered as _dif­fer­ent forms_ of the _same_ verb.” I should like to know, if these words have any thing to do with the _prin­ci­pal_ verbs; if they on­ly al­ter the _form_ of the verb which fol­lows them. I _may_, _can_, _must_, _shall_, _will_, or _do love_. Are these on­ly dif­fer­ent forms of _love_? or rather, are they not dis­tinct, im­por­tant, and orig­inal verbs, pure and per­fect _in_ and _of_ them­selves? Ask for their et­ymons and mean­ing, and then de­cide.

[19] Di­ver­sions of Pur­ley, vol. 1, p. 77.

[20] Dr. Ed­wards ob­serves, in a com­mu­ni­ca­tion to the Con­necti­cut So­ci­ety of Arts and Sci­ences, from per­son­al knowl­edge, that “the Mo­he­gans (In­di­ans) have _no ad­jec­tives_ in all their lan­guage. Al­tho it may at first seem not on­ly sin­gu­lar and cu­ri­ous, but im­pos­si­ble, that a lan­guage should ex­ist with­out ad­jec­tives, yet it is an in­du­bitable fact.” But it is proved that in lat­er times the In­di­ans em­ploy ad­jec­tives, de­rived from nouns or verbs, as well as oth­er na­tions. Al­tho many of their di­alects are co­pi­ous and har­mo­nious, yet they suf­fered no in­con­ve­nience from a want of con­tract­ed words and phras­es. They added the ideas of def­ini­tion and de­scrip­tion to the things them­selves, and ex­pressed them in the _same_ word, in a mod­ified form.

[21] Matthew, chap. 24, v. 48.

[22] Ex­am­ples of a _dis_-junc­tive con­junc­tion. “They came with her, _but_ they went with­out her.”--_Mur­ray._

Mur­ray is _wrong_, _and_ Cardell is _right_. The sim­pli­fiers are wrong, _but_ their stan­dard is so like­wise.

“Me he re­stored to my of­fice, _and_ him he hanged.”--_Pharaoh's Let­ter._

TRAN­SCRIBER'S NOTE

The fol­low­ing print­er's er­rors have been cor­rect­ed in this etext. Changes are in­di­cat­ed in brack­ets.

Con­tents ON NOUNS AMD [AND] PRO­NOUNS

Lec­ture I pro­cess of time as in­gle [a sin­gle] will not un­fre­quen­ly [un­fre­quent­ly] rep­re­sent

Lec­ture III Ger­man, Dan­ish, Dutch, Sweed­ish [Swedish]

Lec­ture V _David_ killed Go­li­ah [Go­liath]

Lec­ture VI and cosin­der [con­sid­er] them in this place

Lec­ture VII We are told there are are [are] two ar­ti­cles the moth­er is _mas­cu.line_ [mas­cu­line] dress hand­ker­chief.["] The res­olu­tion

Lec­ture VI­II ob­ject will be to as­cer­tion [as­cer­tain] ["]But where­fore _sits he_ there? act _tran­si­tive­ly_, acord­ing [ac­cord­ing] to

Lec­ture IX the pock­et of Guy Fawks [Fawkes] For we should rem­ber [re­mem­ber] _looks_ like or _re­sem­bles_ his broth­er,["]

Lec­ture X A philo­soph­ical ax­iom[.]--Man­ner And our lan­guge [lan­guage] should ["]I have ad­dressed this vol­ume

Lec­ture XI Be not sur­prized [sur­prised] when I tell you

Lec­ture XII the qual­ifi­fi­ca­tion [qual­ifi­ca­tion] of an _ad­verb_, --“ex­press nei­ther ac­tionn [ac­tion] or pas­sion.”

Lec­ture XIV trace back to their orig­nal [orig­inal] form [“]He stept _a_-side” [“]As Mailie, an' her lambs [”]Not on­ly saw he all that was,

Foot­note 22 Mur­ray is _wroug_ [wrong]

End of Project Guten­berg's Lec­tures on Lan­guage, by William S. Balch

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTEN­BERG EBOOK LEC­TURES ON LAN­GUAGE ***

***** This file should be named 17594.txt or 17594.zip ***** This and all as­so­ci­at­ed files of var­ious for­mats will be found in: http://www.guten­berg.org/1/7/5/9/17594/

Pro­duced by Bar­bara Tozi­er, Amy Cun­ning­ham, Bill Tozi­er and the On­line Dis­tribut­ed Proof­read­ing Team at http://www.pgdp.net

Up­dat­ed edi­tions will re­place the pre­vi­ous one--the old edi­tions will be re­named.

Cre­at­ing the works from pub­lic do­main print edi­tions means that no one owns a Unit­ed States copy­right in these works, so the Foun­da­tion (and you!) can copy and dis­tribute it in the Unit­ed States with­out per­mis­sion and with­out pay­ing copy­right roy­al­ties. Spe­cial rules, set forth in the Gen­er­al Terms of Use part of this li­cense, ap­ply to copy­ing and dis­tribut­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works to pro­tect the PROJECT GUTEN­BERG-​tm con­cept and trade­mark. Project Guten­berg is a reg­is­tered trade­mark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, un­less you re­ceive spe­cif­ic per­mis­sion. If you do not charge any­thing for copies of this eBook, com­ply­ing with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for near­ly any pur­pose such as cre­ation of deriva­tive works, re­ports, per­for­mances and re­search. They may be mod­ified and print­ed and giv­en away--you may do prac­ti­cal­ly ANY­THING with pub­lic do­main eBooks. Re­dis­tri­bu­tion is sub­ject to the trade­mark li­cense, es­pe­cial­ly com­mer­cial re­dis­tri­bu­tion.

*** START: FULL LI­CENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTEN­BERG LI­CENSE PLEASE READ THIS BE­FORE YOU DIS­TRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To pro­tect the Project Guten­berg-​tm mis­sion of pro­mot­ing the free dis­tri­bu­tion of elec­tron­ic works, by us­ing or dis­tribut­ing this work (or any oth­er work as­so­ci­at­ed in any way with the phrase “Project Guten­berg”), you agree to com­ply with all the terms of the Full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense (avail­able with this file or on­line at http://guten­berg.org/li­cense).

Sec­tion 1. Gen­er­al Terms of Use and Re­dis­tribut­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works

1.A. By read­ing or us­ing any part of this Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work, you in­di­cate that you have read, un­der­stand, agree to and ac­cept all the terms of this li­cense and in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty (trade­mark/copy­right) agree­ment. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agree­ment, you must cease us­ing and re­turn or de­stroy all copies of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works in your pos­ses­sion. If you paid a fee for ob­tain­ing a copy of or ac­cess to a Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agree­ment, you may ob­tain a re­fund from the per­son or en­ti­ty to whom you paid the fee as set forth in para­graph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Guten­berg” is a reg­is­tered trade­mark. It may on­ly be used on or as­so­ci­at­ed in any way with an elec­tron­ic work by peo­ple who agree to be bound by the terms of this agree­ment. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works even with­out com­ply­ing with the full terms of this agree­ment. See para­graph 1.C be­low. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works if you fol­low the terms of this agree­ment and help pre­serve free fu­ture ac­cess to Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works. See para­graph 1.E be­low.

1.C. The Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion (“the Foun­da­tion” or PGLAF), owns a com­pi­la­tion copy­right in the col­lec­tion of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works. Near­ly all the in­di­vid­ual works in the col­lec­tion are in the pub­lic do­main in the Unit­ed States. If an in­di­vid­ual work is in the pub­lic do­main in the Unit­ed States and you are lo­cat­ed in the Unit­ed States, we do not claim a right to pre­vent you from copy­ing, dis­tribut­ing, per­form­ing, dis­play­ing or cre­at­ing deriva­tive works based on the work as long as all ref­er­ences to Project Guten­berg are re­moved. Of course, we hope that you will sup­port the Project Guten­berg-​tm mis­sion of pro­mot­ing free ac­cess to elec­tron­ic works by freely shar­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm works in com­pli­ance with the terms of this agree­ment for keep­ing the Project Guten­berg-​tm name as­so­ci­at­ed with the work. You can eas­ily com­ply with the terms of this agree­ment by keep­ing this work in the same for­mat with its at­tached full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense when you share it with­out charge with oth­ers.

1.D. The copy­right laws of the place where you are lo­cat­ed al­so gov­ern what you can do with this work. Copy­right laws in most coun­tries are in a con­stant state of change. If you are out­side the Unit­ed States, check the laws of your coun­try in ad­di­tion to the terms of this agree­ment be­fore down­load­ing, copy­ing, dis­play­ing, per­form­ing, dis­tribut­ing or cre­at­ing deriva­tive works based on this work or any oth­er Project Guten­berg-​tm work. The Foun­da­tion makes no rep­re­sen­ta­tions con­cern­ing the copy­right sta­tus of any work in any coun­try out­side the Unit­ed States.

1.E. Un­less you have re­moved all ref­er­ences to Project Guten­berg:

1.E.1. The fol­low­ing sen­tence, with ac­tive links to, or oth­er im­me­di­ate ac­cess to, the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense must ap­pear promi­nent­ly when­ev­er any copy of a Project Guten­berg-​tm work (any work on which the phrase “Project Guten­berg” ap­pears, or with which the phrase “Project Guten­berg” is as­so­ci­at­ed) is ac­cessed, dis­played, per­formed, viewed, copied or dis­tribut­ed:

This eBook is for the use of any­one any­where at no cost and with al­most no re­stric­tions what­so­ev­er. You may copy it, give it away or re-​use it un­der the terms of the Project Guten­berg Li­cense in­clud­ed with this eBook or on­line at www.guten­berg.org

1.E.2. If an in­di­vid­ual Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work is de­rived from the pub­lic do­main (does not con­tain a no­tice in­di­cat­ing that it is post­ed with per­mis­sion of the copy­right hold­er), the work can be copied and dis­tribut­ed to any­one in the Unit­ed States with­out pay­ing any fees or charges. If you are re­dis­tribut­ing or pro­vid­ing ac­cess to a work with the phrase “Project Guten­berg” as­so­ci­at­ed with or ap­pear­ing on the work, you must com­ply ei­ther with the re­quire­ments of para­graphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or ob­tain per­mis­sion for the use of the work and the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark as set forth in para­graphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an in­di­vid­ual Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work is post­ed with the per­mis­sion of the copy­right hold­er, your use and dis­tri­bu­tion must com­ply with both para­graphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any ad­di­tion­al terms im­posed by the copy­right hold­er. Ad­di­tion­al terms will be linked to the Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense for all works post­ed with the per­mis­sion of the copy­right hold­er found at the be­gin­ning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not un­link or de­tach or re­move the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense terms from this work, or any files con­tain­ing a part of this work or any oth­er work as­so­ci­at­ed with Project Guten­berg-​tm.

1.E.5. Do not copy, dis­play, per­form, dis­tribute or re­dis­tribute this elec­tron­ic work, or any part of this elec­tron­ic work, with­out promi­nent­ly dis­play­ing the sen­tence set forth in para­graph 1.E.1 with ac­tive links or im­me­di­ate ac­cess to the full terms of the Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense.

1.E.6. You may con­vert to and dis­tribute this work in any bi­na­ry, com­pressed, marked up, non­pro­pri­etary or pro­pri­etary form, in­clud­ing any word pro­cess­ing or hy­per­text form. How­ev­er, if you pro­vide ac­cess to or dis­tribute copies of a Project Guten­berg-​tm work in a for­mat oth­er than “Plain Vanil­la ASCII” or oth­er for­mat used in the of­fi­cial ver­sion post­ed on the of­fi­cial Project Guten­berg-​tm web site (www.guten­berg.org), you must, at no ad­di­tion­al cost, fee or ex­pense to the us­er, pro­vide a copy, a means of ex­port­ing a copy, or a means of ob­tain­ing a copy up­on re­quest, of the work in its orig­inal “Plain Vanil­la ASCII” or oth­er form. Any al­ter­nate for­mat must in­clude the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense as spec­ified in para­graph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for ac­cess to, view­ing, dis­play­ing, per­form­ing, copy­ing or dis­tribut­ing any Project Guten­berg-​tm works un­less you com­ply with para­graph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a rea­son­able fee for copies of or pro­vid­ing ac­cess to or dis­tribut­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works pro­vid­ed that

- You pay a roy­al­ty fee of 20% of the gross prof­its you de­rive from the use of Project Guten­berg-​tm works cal­cu­lat­ed us­ing the method you al­ready use to cal­cu­late your ap­pli­ca­ble tax­es. The fee is owed to the own­er of the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark, but he has agreed to do­nate roy­al­ties un­der this para­graph to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion. Roy­al­ty pay­ments must be paid with­in 60 days fol­low­ing each date on which you pre­pare (or are legal­ly re­quired to pre­pare) your pe­ri­od­ic tax re­turns. Roy­al­ty pay­ments should be clear­ly marked as such and sent to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion at the ad­dress spec­ified in Sec­tion 4, “In­for­ma­tion about do­na­tions to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion.”

- You pro­vide a full re­fund of any mon­ey paid by a us­er who no­ti­fies you in writ­ing (or by e-​mail) with­in 30 days of re­ceipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense. You must re­quire such a us­er to re­turn or de­stroy all copies of the works pos­sessed in a phys­ical medi­um and dis­con­tin­ue all use of and all ac­cess to oth­er copies of Project Guten­berg-​tm works.

- You pro­vide, in ac­cor­dance with para­graph 1.F.3, a full re­fund of any mon­ey paid for a work or a re­place­ment copy, if a de­fect in the elec­tron­ic work is dis­cov­ered and re­port­ed to you with­in 90 days of re­ceipt of the work.

- You com­ply with all oth­er terms of this agree­ment for free dis­tri­bu­tion of Project Guten­berg-​tm works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or dis­tribute a Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work or group of works on dif­fer­ent terms than are set forth in this agree­ment, you must ob­tain per­mis­sion in writ­ing from both the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion and Michael Hart, the own­er of the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark. Con­tact the Foun­da­tion as set forth in Sec­tion 3 be­low.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Guten­berg vol­un­teers and em­ploy­ees ex­pend con­sid­er­able ef­fort to iden­ti­fy, do copy­right re­search on, tran­scribe and proof­read pub­lic do­main works in cre­at­ing the Project Guten­berg-​tm col­lec­tion. De­spite these ef­forts, Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works, and the medi­um on which they may be stored, may con­tain “De­fects,” such as, but not lim­it­ed to, in­com­plete, in­ac­cu­rate or cor­rupt da­ta, tran­scrip­tion er­rors, a copy­right or oth­er in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty in­fringe­ment, a de­fec­tive or dam­aged disk or oth­er medi­um, a com­put­er virus, or com­put­er codes that dam­age or can­not be read by your equip­ment.

1.F.2. LIM­IT­ED WAR­RAN­TY, DIS­CLAIMER OF DAM­AGES - Ex­cept for the “Right of Re­place­ment or Re­fund” de­scribed in para­graph 1.F.3, the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion, the own­er of the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark, and any oth­er par­ty dis­tribut­ing a Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work un­der this agree­ment, dis­claim all li­abil­ity to you for dam­ages, costs and ex­pens­es, in­clud­ing le­gal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REME­DIES FOR NEG­LI­GENCE, STRICT LI­ABIL­ITY, BREACH OF WAR­RAN­TY OR BREACH OF CON­TRACT EX­CEPT THOSE PRO­VID­ED IN PARA­GRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUN­DA­TION, THE TRADE­MARK OWN­ER, AND ANY DIS­TRIB­UTOR UN­DER THIS AGREE­MENT WILL NOT BE LI­ABLE TO YOU FOR AC­TU­AL, DI­RECT, IN­DI­RECT, CON­SE­QUEN­TIAL, PUNI­TIVE OR IN­CI­DEN­TAL DAM­AGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NO­TICE OF THE POS­SI­BIL­ITY OF SUCH DAM­AGE.

1.F.3. LIM­IT­ED RIGHT OF RE­PLACE­MENT OR RE­FUND - If you dis­cov­er a de­fect in this elec­tron­ic work with­in 90 days of re­ceiv­ing it, you can re­ceive a re­fund of the mon­ey (if any) you paid for it by send­ing a writ­ten ex­pla­na­tion to the per­son you re­ceived the work from. If you re­ceived the work on a phys­ical medi­um, you must re­turn the medi­um with your writ­ten ex­pla­na­tion. The per­son or en­ti­ty that pro­vid­ed you with the de­fec­tive work may elect to pro­vide a re­place­ment copy in lieu of a re­fund. If you re­ceived the work elec­tron­ical­ly, the per­son or en­ti­ty pro­vid­ing it to you may choose to give you a sec­ond op­por­tu­ni­ty to re­ceive the work elec­tron­ical­ly in lieu of a re­fund. If the sec­ond copy is al­so de­fec­tive, you may de­mand a re­fund in writ­ing with­out fur­ther op­por­tu­ni­ties to fix the prob­lem.

1.F.4. Ex­cept for the lim­it­ed right of re­place­ment or re­fund set forth in para­graph 1.F.3, this work is pro­vid­ed to you 'AS-​IS' WITH NO OTH­ER WAR­RANTIES OF ANY KIND, EX­PRESS OR IM­PLIED, IN­CLUD­ING BUT NOT LIM­IT­ED TO WAR­RANTIES OF MER­CHAN­TIBIL­ITY OR FIT­NESS FOR ANY PUR­POSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not al­low dis­claimers of cer­tain im­plied war­ranties or the ex­clu­sion or lim­ita­tion of cer­tain types of dam­ages. If any dis­claimer or lim­ita­tion set forth in this agree­ment vi­olates the law of the state ap­pli­ca­ble to this agree­ment, the agree­ment shall be in­ter­pret­ed to make the max­imum dis­claimer or lim­ita­tion per­mit­ted by the ap­pli­ca­ble state law. The in­va­lid­ity or un­en­force­abil­ity of any pro­vi­sion of this agree­ment shall not void the re­main­ing pro­vi­sions.

1.F.6. IN­DEM­NI­TY - You agree to in­dem­ni­fy and hold the Foun­da­tion, the trade­mark own­er, any agent or em­ploy­ee of the Foun­da­tion, any­one pro­vid­ing copies of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works in ac­cor­dance with this agree­ment, and any vol­un­teers as­so­ci­at­ed with the pro­duc­tion, pro­mo­tion and dis­tri­bu­tion of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works, harm­less from all li­abil­ity, costs and ex­pens­es, in­clud­ing le­gal fees, that arise di­rect­ly or in­di­rect­ly from any of the fol­low­ing which you do or cause to oc­cur: (a) dis­tri­bu­tion of this or any Project Guten­berg-​tm work, (b) al­ter­ation, mod­ifi­ca­tion, or ad­di­tions or dele­tions to any Project Guten­berg-​tm work, and (c) any De­fect you cause.

Sec­tion 2. In­for­ma­tion about the Mis­sion of Project Guten­berg-​tm

Project Guten­berg-​tm is syn­ony­mous with the free dis­tri­bu­tion of elec­tron­ic works in for­mats read­able by the widest va­ri­ety of com­put­ers in­clud­ing ob­so­lete, old, mid­dle-​aged and new com­put­ers. It ex­ists be­cause of the ef­forts of hun­dreds of vol­un­teers and do­na­tions from peo­ple in all walks of life.

Vol­un­teers and fi­nan­cial sup­port to pro­vide vol­un­teers with the as­sis­tance they need, is crit­ical to reach­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm's goals and en­sur­ing that the Project Guten­berg-​tm col­lec­tion will re­main freely avail­able for gen­er­ations to come. In 2001, the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion was cre­at­ed to pro­vide a se­cure and per­ma­nent fu­ture for Project Guten­berg-​tm and fu­ture gen­er­ations. To learn more about the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion and how your ef­forts and do­na­tions can help, see Sec­tions 3 and 4 and the Foun­da­tion web page at http://www.pglaf.org.

Sec­tion 3. In­for­ma­tion about the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion

The Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion is a non prof­it 501(c)(3) ed­uca­tion­al cor­po­ra­tion or­ga­nized un­der the laws of the state of Mis­sis­sip­pi and grant­ed tax ex­empt sta­tus by the In­ter­nal Rev­enue Ser­vice. The Foun­da­tion's EIN or fed­er­al tax iden­ti­fi­ca­tion num­ber is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) let­ter is post­ed at http://pglaf.org/fundrais­ing. Con­tri­bu­tions to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion are tax de­ductible to the full ex­tent per­mit­ted by U.S. fed­er­al laws and your state's laws.

The Foun­da­tion's prin­ci­pal of­fice is lo­cat­ed at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fair­banks, AK, 99712., but its vol­un­teers and em­ploy­ees are scat­tered through­out nu­mer­ous lo­ca­tions. Its busi­ness of­fice is lo­cat­ed at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email busi­ness@pglaf.org. Email con­tact links and up to date con­tact in­for­ma­tion can be found at the Foun­da­tion's web site and of­fi­cial page at http://pglaf.org

For ad­di­tion­al con­tact in­for­ma­tion: Dr. Gre­go­ry B. New­by Chief Ex­ec­utive and Di­rec­tor gb­new­by@pglaf.org

Sec­tion 4. In­for­ma­tion about Do­na­tions to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion

Project Guten­berg-​tm de­pends up­on and can­not sur­vive with­out wide spread pub­lic sup­port and do­na­tions to car­ry out its mis­sion of in­creas­ing the num­ber of pub­lic do­main and li­censed works that can be freely dis­tribut­ed in ma­chine read­able form ac­ces­si­ble by the widest ar­ray of equip­ment in­clud­ing out­dat­ed equip­ment. Many small do­na­tions ($1 to $5,000) are par­tic­ular­ly im­por­tant to main­tain­ing tax ex­empt sta­tus with the IRS.

The Foun­da­tion is com­mit­ted to com­ply­ing with the laws reg­ulat­ing char­ities and char­ita­ble do­na­tions in all 50 states of the Unit­ed States. Com­pli­ance re­quire­ments are not uni­form and it takes a con­sid­er­able ef­fort, much pa­per­work and many fees to meet and keep up with these re­quire­ments. We do not so­lic­it do­na­tions in lo­ca­tions where we have not re­ceived writ­ten con­fir­ma­tion of com­pli­ance. To SEND DO­NA­TIONS or de­ter­mine the sta­tus of com­pli­ance for any par­tic­ular state vis­it http://pglaf.org

While we can­not and do not so­lic­it con­tri­bu­tions from states where we have not met the so­lic­ita­tion re­quire­ments, we know of no pro­hi­bi­tion against ac­cept­ing un­so­licit­ed do­na­tions from donors in such states who ap­proach us with of­fers to do­nate.

In­ter­na­tion­al do­na­tions are grate­ful­ly ac­cept­ed, but we can­not make any state­ments con­cern­ing tax treat­ment of do­na­tions re­ceived from out­side the Unit­ed States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Guten­berg Web pages for cur­rent do­na­tion meth­ods and ad­dress­es. Do­na­tions are ac­cept­ed in a num­ber of oth­er ways in­clud­ing checks, on­line pay­ments and cred­it card do­na­tions. To do­nate, please vis­it: http://pglaf.org/do­nate

Sec­tion 5. Gen­er­al In­for­ma­tion About Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works.

Pro­fes­sor Michael S. Hart is the orig­ina­tor of the Project Guten­berg-​tm con­cept of a li­brary of elec­tron­ic works that could be freely shared with any­one. For thir­ty years, he pro­duced and dis­tribut­ed Project Guten­berg-​tm eBooks with on­ly a loose net­work of vol­un­teer sup­port.

Project Guten­berg-​tm eBooks are of­ten cre­at­ed from sev­er­al print­ed edi­tions, all of which are con­firmed as Pub­lic Do­main in the U.S. un­less a copy­right no­tice is in­clud­ed. Thus, we do not nec­es­sar­ily keep eBooks in com­pli­ance with any par­tic­ular pa­per edi­tion.

Most peo­ple start at our Web site which has the main PG search fa­cil­ity:

http://www.guten­berg.org