A philosophicalaxiom.— Manner of expressing action. — Things taken for granted. — Simple facts must be known. — Must never deviate from the truth. — Everycausewill have aneffect. — An example of an intransitive verb. — Objects expressed or implied. — All language eliptical. — Intransitive verbs examined. — I run. — I walk. — To step. — Birds fly. — It rains. — The fire burns. — The sun shines. — To smile. — Eat and drink. — Miscellaneous examples. — Evils of false teaching. — A change is demanded. — These principles apply universally. — Their importance.
A philosophicalaxiom.— Manner of expressing action. — Things taken for granted. — Simple facts must be known. — Must never deviate from the truth. — Everycausewill have aneffect. — An example of an intransitive verb. — Objects expressed or implied. — All language eliptical. — Intransitive verbs examined. — I run. — I walk. — To step. — Birds fly. — It rains. — The fire burns. — The sun shines. — To smile. — Eat and drink. — Miscellaneous examples. — Evils of false teaching. — A change is demanded. — These principles apply universally. — Their importance.
We have made some general remarks on the power, cause, and means, necessary in the production of action. We now approach nearer to the application of these principles as observed in the immediateagencyandeffectswhich precede and follow action, and as connected with the verb.
It is an axiom in philosophy which cannot be controverted, that everyeffectis the product of a priorcause, and that everycausewill necessarily produce a correspondingeffect. This fact has always existed and will forever remain unchanged. It applies universally in physical, mental, and moral science; to God or man; to angels or to atoms; in time or thro eternity. No language can be constructed which does not accord with it, for no ideas can be gained but by an observance of its manifestations in the material or spiritual universe. The manner ofexpressingthis cause and effect may differ in different nations or by people of the same nation, but the fact remains unaltered,and so far as understood the idea is the same. In the case of the horse mentioned in a former lecture,[12]the idea was the same, but the manner of expressing it different. Let that horsewalk,laydown,rollover,riseup,shakehimself,rear, orstandstill, all present will observe the same attitude of the horse, and will form the same ideas of his positions. Some will doubtless inquire more minutely into thecauseandmeansby which these various actions are produced, what muscles are employed, what supports are rendered by the bones; and the whole regulated by the will of the horse, and their conclusions may be quite opposite. But this has nothing to do with the obvious fact expressed by the words above; or, more properly, it is not necessary to enter into a minute detail of these minor considerations, these secret springs of motion, in order to relate the actions of the horse. For were we to do this we should be required to go back, step by step, and find the causes still more numerous, latent, and perplexing. The pursuit of causes would lead us beyond the mere organization of the horse, his muscular energy, and voluntary action; for gravitation has no small service to perform in the accomplishment of these results; as well as other principles. Let gravitation be removed, and how could the horselaydown? He couldrollover as well in the air as upon the ground. But the particular notice of these things is unnecessary in the construction of language to express the actions of the horse; for he stands as the obviousagentof the whole, and theeffectsare seen to follow—thehorseis laid down,his bodyis rolled over,the fore partof it isreared up,himselfis shaken, and the wholefeatis produced by the direction of his master.
Allow me to recal an idea we considered in a former lecture. I said no action as such could be known distinct from the thing which acts; that action as such is not perceptible, and that all things act, according to the ability they possess. To illustrate this idea: Take a magnet and lower it down over a piece of iron, till it attracts it to itself and holds it suspended there. If you are not in possession of a magnet you can make one at your pleasure, by the following process. Lay your knife blade on a flat iron, or any hard, smooth surface; let another take the old tongs or other iron which have stood erect for a considerable length of time, and draw it upon the blade for a minute or more. A magnetic power will be conveyed from the tongs to the blade sufficient to take up a common needle. The tongs themselves may be manufactured into a most perfect magnet. Now as the knifeholdsthe needle suspended beneath it you perceive there must be an action, a power, and cause exerted beyond our comprehension. Let the magnetic power be extracted from the blade, and the needle will drop to the floor. A common unmagnetized blade will notraiseandholda needle as this does. How those tongs come in possession of such astonishing power; by what process it is there retained; the power and means of transmission of a part of it to the knife blade, and the reason of the phenomena you now behold—an inanimate blade drawing to itself and there holding this needle suspended—will probably long remain unknown to mortals. But that such are the facts, incontestibly true, none will deny, for the evidence is before us. Now fix your attention on that needle. There is an active andactingprinciple in that as well as in the magnetized blade; for the blade will not attract a splinter of wood, of whalebone, or piece of glass, tho equal insize and weight. It will have no operation on them. Then it is by a sort of mutual affinity, a reciprocity of attachment, between the blade and needle, that this phenomena is produced.
To apply this illustration you have only to reverse the case—turn the knife and needle over—and see all things attracted to the earth by the law of gravitation, a principle abiding in all matter. All that renders the exhibition of the magnet curious or wonderful is that it is an uncommon condition of things, an apparent counteraction of the regular laws of nature. But we should know that the same sublime principle is constantly operating thro out universal nature. Let that be suspended, cease its active operations for a moment, and our own earth will be decomposed into particles; the sun, moon and stars will dissolve and mingle with the common dust; all creation will crumble into atoms, and one vast ocean of darkness and chaos will fill the immensity of space.
Are you then prepared to deny the principles for which we are contending? I think you will not; but accede the ground, that such being the fact, true in nature, language, correctly explained, is only the medium by which the ideas of these great truths, may be conveyed from one mind to another, and must correspond therewith. If language is the sign of ideas, and ideas are the impressions of things, it follows of necessity, that no language can be employed unless it corresponds with these natural laws, or first principles. The untutored child cannot talk of these things, nor comprehend our meaning till clearly explained to it. But some people act as tho they thought children must first acquire a knowledge of words, and then begin to learn whatsuch words mean. This is putting the "cart before the horse."
Much, in this world, is to be taken for granted. We can not enter into the minutiæ of all we would express, or have understood. We go upon the ground that other people know something as well as we, and that they will exercise that knowledge while listening to our relation of some new and important facts. Hence it is said that "brevity is the soul of wit." But suppose you should talk of surds, simple and quadratic equations, diophantine problems, and logarithms, to a person who knows nothing of proportion or relation, addition or subtraction. What would they know about your words? You might as well give them a description in Arabic or Esquimaux. They must first learn the simple rules on which the whole science of mathematics depends, before they can comprehend a dissertation on the more abstruse principles or distant results. So children must learn to observe things as they are, in their simplest manifestations, in order to understand the more secret and sublime operations of nature. And ourlanguageshould always be adapted to their capacities; that is, it should agree with their advancement. You may talk to a zealot in politics of religion, the qualities of forbearance, candor, and veracity; to the enthusiast of science and philosophy; to the bigot of liberality and improvement; to the miser of benevolence and suffering; to the profligate of industry and frugality; to the misanthrope of philanthropy and patriotism; to the degraded sinner of virtue, truth, and heaven; but what do they know of your meaning? How are they the wiser for your instruction? You have touched a cord which does not vibrate thro their hearts, or, phrenologically, addressed an organ they do not possess, except ina very moderate degree, at least. Food must be seasoned to the palates of those who use it. Milk is for babes and strong meat for men. Our instruction must be suited to the capacities of those we would benefit, always elevated just far enough above them to attract them along the upward course of improvement.
But it should be remembered that evils will only result from a deviation from truth, and that we can never be justified in doing wrong because others have, or for the sake of meeting them half way. And yet this very course is adopted in teaching, and children are learned to adopt certain technical rules in grammar, not because they aretrue, but because they areconvenient! In fact, it is said by some, that language is an arbitrary affair altogether, and is only to be taught and learned mechanically! But who would teach children thatseven times sevenarefifty, andnine times nineahundred, and assign as a reason for so doing, thatfiftyand ahundredare more easily remembered thanforty-nineandeighty-one? Yet there would be as much propriety in adopting such a principle in mathematics, as in teaching for a rule of grammar that when an objective case comes after a verb, it is active; but when there is none expressed, it is intransitive or neuter.
The great fault is, grammarians do not allow themselves tothinkon the subject of language, or if they do, they only think intransitively, that is, produce nothoughtsby their cogitations.
This brings us to a more direct consideration of the subject before us. All admit the correctness of the axiom that every effect must have a cause, and that every cause will have an effect. It is equally true that "like causes will produce like effects," a rule from which nature itself, andthought, and language, can never deviate. It is as plain as that two things mutually equal to each other, are equal to a third. On this immutable principle we base our theory of the activity of all verbs, and contend that they must have an object after them, either expressed ornecessarily understood. We can not yield this position till it is proved thatcausescan operate without producing effects, which can never be till the order of creation is reversed! There never was, to our knowledge, such a thing as an intransitive action, with the solitary exception of the burning bush.[13]In that case the laws of nature were suspended, and no effects were produced; for thebush burned, but there was nothing burnt; no consequences followed to the bush; it was not consumed. The records of the past present no instance of like character, where effects have failed to follow, direct or more distantly, every cause which has been set in operation.
It makes no difference whether the object of the action is expressed or not. It is the same in either case. But where it is not necessarily implied from the nature and fitness of things, it must be expressed, and but for such object or effect the action could not be understood. For example,I run; but if there is no effect produced,nothingrun, how can it be known whether I run or not. If I write, it is necessarily understood that I writesomething—aletter, abook, apieceof poetry, acommunication, or some otherwriting. When such object is not liable to be mistaken, it would be superfluous to express it—it would be a redundancy which should be avoided by all good writers and speakers. All languages are, in this respect, more or less eliptical, which constitutes no small share of their beauty, power, and elegance.
This elipsis may be observed not only in regard to the objects of verbs, but in the omission of many nouns after adjectives, which thus assume the character of nouns; as, the Almighty, the Eternal, the Allwise, applied to God, understood. So we say the wise, the learned, the good, the faithful, the wicked, the vile, the base, to which, if nouns, it would sound rather harsh to apply plurals. So we say, take your hat off ( ); put your gloves on ( ); lay your coat off ( ); and pull your boots on ( ); presuming the person so addressed knows enough to fill the elipsis, and not take his hat off his back, pull his gloves on his feet, or his boots on his head.
In pursuing this subject farther, let us examine the sample words which are calledintransitiveverbs, because frequently used without the object expressed after them; such as run, walk, step, fly, rain, snow, burn, roll, shine, smiles, &c.
"I run."
That here is an action of the first kind, none will deny. But it is contended by the old systems that there is no object on which the action terminates. If that be true then there isnothingrun, no effect produced, and the first law of nature is outraged, in the very onset; for there is acause, but noeffect; anaction, but noobject. How is the fact? Have you run nothing? conveyed nothing, moved nothing from one place to another? no change, no effect, nothing moved? Look at it and decide. It is said that a neuter or intransitive verb may be known from the fact that it takes after it a preposition. Try it by this rule. "A man runagainsta post in a dark night, and broke his neck;" that is, he run nothing against a post—no object to run—and yet he broke his neck. Unfortunate man!
The fact in relation to this verb is briefly this: It is used to express the action which more usually terminates on the actor, than on any other object. This circumstance being generally known, it would be superfluous to mention the object, except in cases where such is not the fact. But whenever we desire to be definite, or when there is the least liability to mistake the object, it is invariably expressed. Instances of this kind are numerous. "Theyrantheboatashore." "The captainranhismento rescue them from the enemy." "Theyranthegauntlet." "Theyrunastageto Boston." "Heran himselfinto discredit." "One bankrunsanother." "The man had a hardrunof it." "Runtheaccountover, and see if it is right." "Theyrun forty loomsand two thousand spindles." "Herunshismillevenings." Such expressions are common and correct, because they convey ideas, and are understood.
Two men were engaged in argument. The believer in intransitive verbs set out torun his opponentinto an evident absurdity, and, contrary to his expectation, heran himselfinto one. Leave out the objects of this verb, run, and the sense is totally changed. He set out toruninto anevident absurdity, and he ran into one; that is, he did the very absurd thing which he intended to do.[14]
"I walk."
The action expressed by this verb is very similar in character to the former, but ratherslowerin performance. Writers on health tell us thatto walkis a very healthy exercise, and that it would be well for men of sedentary habitsto walkseveral miles every day. But if there is no action in walk, or if it has noobjectnecessarilywalked, itwould be difficult to understand what good could result from it.
"Did you have a pleasantwalkthis morning?" says a teacher to his grammar class.
"We did have a very pleasant one. The flowers werebloomingon each side of thewalk, andsentforth their sweetest aroma,perfumingthe soft breezes of the morning. Birds wereflitting fromspray to spray,carollingtheir hymns of praise to Deity. The tranquil waters of the lake layslumberingin silence, andreflectedthe brightraysof the sun,givinga sweet but solemnaspectto the whole scene.To gothro the grove, down by the lake, and up thro the meadow, is the most delightfulwalka person can take."
"How did you get yourwalk?"
"We walked it, to be sure; how did you think we got it?"
"Oh, I did not know.Walk, your books tell you, is an intransitive verb, terminating on no object; so I supposed, if you followed them, you obtained it some other way; byriding,running,sailing, or, may be,boughtit, as you could not havewalked it! Were you tired on your return?"
"We were exceedingly fatigued, for you know it is a very longwalk, and wewalked itin an hour."
"Butwhattired you? If there are no effects produced by walking, I can not conceive whyyoushould be fatigued by such exercise."
Who does not perceive what flagrant violations of grammar rules are committed every day, and every hour, and in almost every sentence that is framed to express our knowledge of facts.
To step.
This verb is the same in character with the two just noticed. It expresses the act ofraisingeach foot alternately, and usually implies that the body is, by that means, conveyed from one place to another. But as peoplesteptheirfeetand not their hands, or any thing else, it is entirely useless to mention the object; for generally, that can not be mistaken any more than in the case of the gloves, boots, and hat. But it would be bad philosophy to teach children that there is no objective word after it, because it is not written out and placed before their eyes. They will find such teaching contradicted at everystepthey take. Let a believer in intransitive verbsstepon a red hot iron; he will soon find to his sorrow, that he was mistaken when he thought that he couldstepwithout stepping any thing. It would be well for grammar, as well as many other things, to have more practice and less theory. The thief was detected by his steps. Step softly; put your feet down carefully.
Birds fly.
We learned from our primers, that
"The eagle'sflightIs out of sight,"
"The eagle'sflightIs out of sight,"
How did the eagle succeed in producing aflight? I suppose heflewit. And if birds ever fly, they must produce a flight. Such being the fact, it is needless to supply the object. But the action does not terminate solely on the flight produced, for that is only the name given to the action itself. The expression conveys to the mind the obvious fact, that, by strong muscular energy, by the aid of feathers, and the atmosphere, the bird carries itself thro the air, and changes its being from one place to another. As birds rarely fly arace, or any thing butthemselvesand aflight, it is not necessary to suffix the object.
It rains.
This verb is insisted on as the strongest proof of intransitive action; with what propriety, we will now inquire. It will serve as a clear elucidation of the whole theory of intransitive verbs.
What does the expression signify? It simply declares the fact, thatwater is sheddown from the clouds. But is there no object afterrains? There is none expressed. Is there nothing rained? no effect produced? If not, there can be no water fallen, and our cisterns would be as empty, our streams as low, and fields as parched, after a rain as before it! But who that has common sense, and has never been blinded by the false rules of grammar, does not know that whenit rains, it never fails torain rain,water, orrain-water, unless you have one of the paddy's dry rains? When it hails, it hailshail,hail-stones, or frozenrain. When it snows, itsnows snow, sometimes two feet of it, sometimes less. I should think teachers in our northern countries would find it exceeding difficult to convince their readers that snow is an intransitive verb—that it snowsnothing. And yet so it is; people will remain wedded to their old systems, and refuse to open their eyes and behold the evidences every where around them. Teachers themselves, the guides of the young—and I blush to say it, for I was long among the number—have, with their scholars, labored all the morning, breaking roads,shovelling snow, and clearing paths, to get to the school-house, and then set down and taught them thatto snowis anintransitive verb. What nonsense; nay, worse, what falsehoods have been instilled into the youthful mind in the name of grammar! Can webe surprised that people have not understood grammar? that it is a dry, cold, and lifeless business?
I once lectured in Poughkeepsie, N. Y. In a conversation with Miss B., a distinguished scholar, who had taught a popular female school for twenty years; was remarking upon the subject of intransitive verbs, and the apparent inconsistency of the new system, that all verbs must have an object after them, expressed or understood; she said, "there was the verbrain, (it happened to be a rainy day,) the whole action is confined to the agent; it does not pass on to another object; it is purely intransitive." Her aged mother, who had never looked into a grammar book, heard the conversation, and very bluntly remarked, "Why, you fool you, I want to know if you have studied grammar these thirty years, and taught it more than twenty, and have neverlarnedthat when it rains italwaysrainsrain? If it didn't, do you s'pose you'd need an umbrella to go out now into the storm? I should think you'd know better. I always told you these plaguy grammars were good for nothing, I didn't b'lieve." "Amen," said I, to the good sense of the old lady, "you are right, and have reason to be thankful that you have never been initiated into the intricate windings, nor been perplexed with the false and contradictory rules, which have blasted many bright geniuses in their earliest attempts to gain a true knowledge of the sublime principles of language, on which depends so much of the happiness of human life." The good matron's remark was a poser to the daughter, but it served as a means of her entire deliverance from the thraldom of neuter verbs, and the adoption of the new principles of the exposition of language.
The anecdote shows us how the unsophisticated mind will observe facts, and employ words as correctly, if notmore so, than those schooled in the high pretensions of science, falsely taught. Who does not know from the commonest experience, that the direct object ofrainingmust follow as the necessary sequence? that it can never fail? And yet our philologists tell us that such is not always the case; and that the exception is to be marked on the singular ground, whether the word is written out or omitted! What a narrow view of the sublime laws of motion! What a limited knowledge of things! or else, what amistake!
"Then the Lord said unto Moses, behold, I willrainbread for you from heaven."
"Then theLord raineddown, upon Sodom and Gomorrah,brimstoneandfire, from the Lord out of heaven."—Bible.
The fire burns.
The fireburnsthe wood, the coal, or the peat. The great fire in New-Yorkburnedthe buildings which covered fifty-two acres of ground. Mr. Experimentburnscoal in preference to wood. His new grateburns itvery finely. Red ash coalburnsthe best; itmakesthe fewestashes, and henceisthe most convenient. The cookburnstoo much fuel. The house took fire andburnedup.Burned whatup? Burn is an intransitive verb. It would not trouble the unfortunate tenant to know that there must be anobject burned, or whatitwas. He would find it far more difficult to rebuild hishouse. Do you suppose fires never burn any thing belonging to neuter verb folks? Then they never need pay away insurance money. With the solitary exception I have mentioned—the burning bush—this verb can not be intransitive.
The sun shines.
This is an intransitive verb if there ever was one, because the object is not often expressed after it. But if the sunemitsnoraysof light, how shall it be known whether it shines or not? "Theradianceof the sun's bright beaming" is produced by theexhibitionofitself, when itbrightensthe objects exposed to itsraysorradiance. We talk ofsun shineand moon shine, but if these bodies never produceeffectshow shall it be known whether such things are real?Sun shineis the direct effect of the sun'sshining. But clouds sometimes intervene and prevent the rays from extending to the earth; butthenwe do not say "the sunshines." You see at once, that all we know or can know of the fact we state as truth, is derived from a knowledge of the veryeffectswhich our grammars tell us do not exist. Strange logic indeed! It is a mark of a wiser man, and a better scholar, not to know the popular grammars, than it is to profess any degree of proficiency in them!
To smile.
Thesmilesof the morning, thesmilesof affection, asmileof kindness, are only produced by the appearance of something thatsmilesupon us.Smilesare the direct consequence ofsmiling. If a person shouldsmileever sosweetlyand yet present nosmiles, they might, for aught we could know to the contrary, besouras vinegar.
But this verb frequently has another object after it; as, "tosmilethewrinklesfrom the brow of age," or "smiledullcaresaway." "A sensible wife would soonreasonandsmile himinto good nature."
But I need not multiply examples. When such men as Johnson, Walker, Webster, Murray, Lowthe, and a host of other wise and renowned men, gravely tell us thateatanddrink, which they define, "totake food;to feed;to take a meal;to go to meals; to be maintained in food;to swallow liquors;to quench thirst; to take any liquid;" areintransitiveorneuterverbs, having no objects after them, we must think them insincere, egregiously mistaken, or else possessed of a means of subsistence different from people generally! Did theyeatanddrink, "take food and swallow liquors,"intransitively; that is, withouteatingordrinkingany thing? Is it possible in the nature of things? Who does not see the absurdity? And yet they weregreatmen, and nobody has a right to question suchhighauthority. And the "simplifiers" who have come after, making books and teaching grammar toearntheirbread, have followed close in their footsteps, and, I suppose,eatennothing, and thrown their bread away! Was I a believer in neuter verbs and desired to get money, my first step would be to set up a boarding house for all believers in, andpractisersof, intransitive verbs. I would board cheap and give good fare. I could afford it, for no provisions would be consumed.
Some over cautious minds, who are always second, if not last, in a good cause, ask us why these principles, if so true and clear, were not found out before? Why have not the learned who have studied for many centuries, never seen and adopted them? It is a sufficient answer to such a question, to ask why the copernican system of astronomy was not sooner adopted, why the principles of chemistry, the circulation of the blood, the power and application of steam, nay, why all improvement was not known before. When grammar and dictionary makers, those wise expounders of the principles of speech, have so far forgotten facts as to teach thateatanddrink, "express neither action nor passion," or are "confined to the agents;" that when a man eats, he eats nothing, or when he drinks, he drinks nothing, we need not stop long to decide why these thingswere unknown before. The wisest may sometimes mistake; and the proud aspirant for success, frequently passes over, unobserved, the humble means on which all true success depends.
Allow me to quote some miscellaneous examples which will serve to show more clearly the importance of supplying the elipses, in order to comprehend the meaning of the writers, or profit by their remarks. You will supply the objects correctly from the attendant circumstances where they are not expressed.
"Ask ( ) and ye shall receive ( ); seek ( ) and ye shall find ( ); knock ( ) anditshall be opened unto you."
Askwhat? Seekwhat? Knockwhat? Thatitmay be opened? Our "Grammars Made Easy" would teach us toaskandseeknothing! no objectives after them. What then could we reasonably expect toreceiveorfind? Thethingweaskedfor, of course, and that was nothing! Well might the language apply to such, "Ye ask ( ) andreceive not(naught) because ye ask ( ) amiss." False teaching is as pernicious to religion and morals as to science.
"Charge them that are rich in this world—that theydo good, that they be rich in good works, ready todistribute( ), willing tocommunicate( )."—Paul to Timothy.
The hearer is to observe that there is no object after these words—nothingdistributed, or communicated! There is too much such charity in the world.
"He spoke ( ), anditwas done; he commanded ( ), anditstood fast."
"Bless( ), andcurse( ) not."—Bible.
"Strike( ) while the iron is hot."—Proverb.
"Icame( ), Isaw( ), Iconquered( )."—Cæsar's Letter.
He lives ( ) contented and happy.
"Thelifethat I nowlive, in the flesh, Iliveby the faith of the son of God."—Paul.
"Let mediethedeathof the righteous, and let my lastend belike his."—Numbers.
As bodily exercise particularly strengthens ( ), as it invites ( ) to sleep ( ), and secures ( ) against great disorders, it is to be generally encouraged. Gymnastic exercises may be established for all ages and for all classes. The Jews were ordered totake a walkout of the city on the Sabbath day; and here rich and poor, young and old, master and slave, met ( ) and indulged ( ) in innocent mirth or in the pleasures of friendly intercourse.—Spurzheim on Education.
"Men will wrangle ( ) for religion; write ( ) for it; fight ( ) for it; die ( ) for it; any thing but live ( ) for it."—Lacon.
"Ihave addressed this volume to those that think ( ), and some may accuse me of an ostentatious independence, in presuming ( ) to inscribe a book to so small a minority. But a volume addressed to those that think ( ) is in fact addressed to all the world; for altho the proportion of those whodo( ) think ( ) be extremely small, yet every individualflatters himselfthat he is one of the number."—Idem.
What is the difference whether a manthinksor not, if he produces nothoughts?
"He thatthinks himselfthe happiest man, really is so; but he thatthinks himselfthe wisest, is generally the greatest fool."—Idem.
"A manhasmanyworkmen employed; some to plough ( ) and sow ( ), others to chop ( ) and split ( ); some to mow ( ) and reap ( ); one to score ( ) and hew ( ); two to frame ( ) and raise ( ). In his factory he has persons to card ( ), spin ( ), reel ( ), spool ( ), warp ( ), and weave ( ), and a clerk to deliver ( ) and charge ( ), to receive ( ) and pay ( ). They eat ( ), and drink ( ), heartily, three times a day; and as they work ( ) hard, and feel ( ) tired at night, they lay ( ) down, sleep ( ) soundly, and dream ( ) pleasantly; they rise ( ) up early to go ( ) to work ( ) again. In the morning the children wash ( ) and dress ( ) and prepare ( ) to go ( ) to school, to learn ( ) to read ( ), write ( ), and cipher ( )." All neuter or intransitive verbs!!
"The celebrated horse, Corydon, will perform ( ) on Tuesday evening in the circus. He will leap ( ) over four bars, separately, in imitation of the english hunter. He will lie ( ) down, and rise ( ) up instantly at theword of command. He will move ( ) backwards and sideways, rear ( ) and stand ( ) on his hind feet; he will sit ( ) down, like a Turk, on a cushion. To conclude ( ), he will leap ( ), in a surprising manner, over two horses."—Cardell's Grammar.
The gymnastic is not a mountebank; he palms off no legerdemain upon the public. He will stretch a line across the room, several feet from the floor, over which he will leap ( ) with surprising dexterity. He will stand ( ) on his head, balance, ( ) on one foot, and swing ( ) from side to side of the room; lay ( ) crosswise, and sideways; spring ( ) upon his feet; bound ( ) upon the floor; dance ( ) and keel ( ) over with out touching his hands.He will sing ( ), play ( ), and mimic ( ); look ( ) like a king, and act ( ) like a fool. He will laugh ( ) and cry ( ), as if real; roar ( ) like a lion, and chirp ( ) like a bird. To conclude ( ): He will do all this to an audience of neuter grammarians, without either "actionorpassion," all the while having a "state of being," motionless, in the center of the room!!
What a lie! say you.A lie?I hope you do not accusemeof lying. If there is any thing false in this matter it allliesin the quotation, at the conclusion, from the standard grammar. If that is false, whose fault is it? Not mine, certainly. But what if I shouldlie( ), intransitively? I should tell no falsehoods.
But enough of this. If there is any thing irrational or inconsistent, any thing false or ridiculous, in this view of the subject, it should be remembered that it has been long taught, not only in common schools, but in our academies and colleges, as serious, practical truth; as the only means of acquiring a correct knowledge of language, or fitting ourselves for usefulness or respectability in society. You smile at such trash, and well you may; but you must bear in mind that grammar is not the only thing in which we may turn round andlaugh( ) at past follies.
But I am disposed to consider this matter of more serious consequence than to deserve ourlaughter. When I see the rising generation spend months and years of the best and most important part of their lives, which should be devoted to the acquisition of that which is true and useful, studying the dark and false theory of language as usually taught, I am far from feeling any desire to laugh at the folly which imposes such a task upon them. I remember too distinctly the years that have just gone by. I have seen too manyblighted hopes, too many wearisome hours, too many sad countenances, too many broken resolutions; to say nothing of corporeal chastisements; to think it a small matter that children are erroneously taught the rudiments of language, because sanctioned by age, or great names. A change, an important change, a radical change, in this department of education, is imperiously demanded, and teachers must obey the call, and effect the change. There is a spirit abroad in the land which will not bow tamely and without complaint, to the unwarranted dictation of arbitrary, false, and contradictory rules, merely from respect to age. It demands reason, consistency and plainness; and yields assent only where they are found. And teachers, if they will not lead in the reformation, must be satisfied to follow after; for a reformation is loudly called for, and will be had. None are satisfied with existing grammars, which, in principle, are nearly alike. The seventy-three attempts to improve and simplify Murray, have only actedintransitively, and accomplished very little, if any good, save the employment given to printers, paper makers, and booksellers.
But I will not enlarge. We have little occasion to wonder at the errors and mistakes of grammar makers, when our lexicographers tell us for sober truth, thatto act,to be in action,not to rest, to be inmotion, tomove, isv. n.a verb neuter, signifyingno action!! orv. i.verb intransitive, producingno effects; and that a "neuter verbexpresses(active transitive verb)a state of being!! There are few minds capable of adopting such premises, and drawing therefrom conclusions which are rational or consistent. Truth is rarely elicted from error, beauty from deformity, or order from confusion. While, therefore, we allow the neuter systems to sink into forgetfulness, as they usually doas soon as we leave school and shut our books, let us throw the mantle of charity over those who have thoughtlessly (withoutthinking thoughts) and innocently lead us many months in dark and doleful wanderings, in paths of error and contradiction, mistaken for the road to knowledge and usefulness. But let us resolve to save ourselves and future generations from following the same unpleasant and unprofitable course, and endeavor toreflectthelightwhich mayshineupon our minds, to dispel the surrounding darkness, and secure the light and knowledge of truth to those who shall come after us.
Many philologists have undertaken to explain our language by the aid of foreign tongues. Because there are genitive cases, different kinds of verbs, six tenses, etc. in the Latin or Greek, the same distinctions should exist in our grammars. But this argument will not apply, admitting that other languages will not allow of the plan of exposition we have adopted, which we very seriously question, tho we have not time to go into that investigation. We believe that the principles we have adopted are capable of universal application; that what is action in England would be action in Greece, Rome, Turkey, and every where else; that "like causes will produce like effects" all the world over. It matters not by whom the action is seen, it is the same, and all who gather ideas therefrom will describe it as it appears to them, let them speak what language they may. But if they have no ideas to express, they need no language to speak. Monkeys, for aught I know to the contrary, can speak as well as we; but the reason they do not, is because they have nothing to say.
Let Maelzael's automaton chess-player be exhibited to a promiscuous multitude. They would all attempt a description of it, so far as they were able to gain a knowledge of its construction, each in his own language. Some might be unable to trace thecause, the movingpower, thro all the curiously arrangedmeans, to theagentwho acted as prime mover to the whole affair. Others, less cautious in their conclusions, might think it a perpetual motion. Such would find afirst causeshort of the Creator, the great original of all things and actions; and thus violate the soundest principles of philosophy. Heaven has never left a vacuum where a new andselfsustaining power may be set in operation independent of his ever-present supervision; and hence the long talked ofperpetual motionis the vainest chimera which ever occupied the human brain. It may well appear as the opposite extreme of neuter verbs; for, while one would give no action to matter according to the physical laws which regulate the world, the other would make matter act of itself, independent of the Almighty. Be it ours to take a more rational and consistent stand; to view all things and beings as occupying a place duly prescribed by Infinite Wisdom,actingaccording to their several abilities, and subject to the regulation of the all-pervading laws which guide, preserve, and harmonize the whole.
If there is a subject which teaches us beyond controversy the existence of a Supreme Power, a Universal Father, an all-wise and ever-present God, it is found in the order and harmony of all things, produced by the regulation of Divine laws; and man's superiority to the rest of the world is most clearly proved, from the possession of a power to adapt language to the communication of ideas in free and social converse, or in the transmission of thought, drawn from an observation and knowledge of things as presented to his understanding.
There is no science so directly important to the growth of intellect and the future happiness of the child, as the knowledge of language. Without it, what is life? Wherein would man be elevated above the brute? And what is language without ideas? A sound without harmony—a shadow without a substance.
Let language be taught on the principles of true philosophy, as a science, instead of an arbitrary, mechanical business, a mere art, and you will no longer hear the complaint of a "dry,cold, uninteresting study." Its rules will be simple, plain, and easy; and at every step the child will increase in the knowledge of more thanwords, in an acquaintance with principles of natural and moral science. And if there is any thing that will carry the mind of the child above the low and grovelling things of earth, and fill the soul with reverence and devotion to the Holy Being who fills immensity with his presence, it is when, from observing the laws which govern matter, he passes to observe the powers and capabilities of the mind, and thence ascends to the Intellectual Source oflight,life, andbeing, and contemplates the perennial and ecstatic joys which flow from the presence of Deity; soul mingling with soul, love absorbed in love, and God all in all.
The verbto be. — Compounded of different radical words. —Am. — Defined. — The name of Deity. —Ei. —Is. —Are. —Were,was. —Be. — A dialogue. — Examples. — Passive Verbs examined. — Cannot be in the present tense. — The past participle is an adjective.
The verbto be. — Compounded of different radical words. —Am. — Defined. — The name of Deity. —Ei. —Is. —Are. —Were,was. —Be. — A dialogue. — Examples. — Passive Verbs examined. — Cannot be in the present tense. — The past participle is an adjective.
We have gone through the examination ofneuterandintransitiveverbs, with the exception of the verbto be, which we propose to notice in this place. Much more might be said on the subjects I have discussed, and many more examples given to illustrate the nature and operation of actions as expressed by verbs, and also in reference to theobjectsof action; but I trust the hints I have given will be satisfactory. I am confident, if you will allow your minds tothinkcorrectthoughts, and notsufferthemto bemisled by erroneous teaching, you will arrive at the same conclusion that I have, viz. that all verbs depend on acommon principlefor their explanation; that they are alike active, and necessarily take an object after them, either expressed or understood, in accordance with the immutable law of nature, which teaches that like causes will produce like effects.
The verbto be, as it is called, is conjugated by the aid of six different words, in its various modes and tenses;am,is,are,was,were,be.Amis unchanged, always in the indicative mood, present tense, agreeing with thefirstperson singular.Isis also unchanged, in the same mood and tense, agreeing with thethirdperson singular.Art, in the singular, is the same asarein the plural.Wasandwast, are the same aswereandwertin meaning, being derived from the same etymon.Be,being, andbeen, are changes of the same word.Bewas formerly extensively used in the indicative present, but in that condition it is nearly obsolete.Werewas also used in the singular as well as plural, especially when coming before the agent; as, "were I to go, I would do your business." But it is now more common to havewascorrectly used in that case. But, as one extreme often follows another, people have laidwerequite too much aside, and often crowdwasinto its place in common conversation; as "wewas(were) there yesterday." "Therewas(were) five or six men engaged in the business." This error appears to be gaining ground, and should be checked before it goes farther.
The combination of these different words was produced by habit, to avoid the monotony which the frequent recurrence of one word, so necessary in the expression of thought, would occasion: the same as the past tense ofgois made by the substitution of another word radically different,went, the past tense ofwendorwind. "O'er hills and dales theywendtheir way." "The lowing herdwindslowly o'er the lea."Goandwendconvey to our minds nearly the same ideas. The latter is a little more poetical, because less used. But originally their signification was quite different. So with the parts of the verbto be. They were consolidated as a matter of convenience, and now appear in their respective positions to express the idea of being, life, or existence.
I have said this verb expresses the highest degree of action. I will now attempt to prove it. I should like to go into a labored and critical examination of the words, and trace their changes thro various languages, was it in accordance with the design of these lectures. But as it is not, I shall content myself with general observations.
I am.
This word is not defined in our dictionaries. It is only said to be "the first person of to be." We must look for its meaning some where else. It is a compound of two ancient words,ah,breath, tobreathe, life, tolive,light, tolight; andma, thehand, or tohand. It signifies tovivify,sustain, orsupportone's self in being or existence. In process of time, like other things in this mutable world, its form was changed, but the meaning retained. But as one person could notvivifyorliveanother,inflateanother's lungs, or breathe another's breath, it became restricted to the first person. It means, Ibreathe breath,vivify myself,live life, orexercisethe power ofbeingorliving. It conveys this fact in every instance, for no person incapable of breathing can sayI am. Let any person pronounce the wordah-ma, and they will at once perceive the appropriateness of the meaning here given. It is very similar to the letterh, and the pronoun, (originallynoun,)he, or the "rough breathing" in the Greek language.Mais compounded with many words which express action done by the hand; as,manufacture,manumit. It denoted any action or work done by the hand as the instrument; but, like other words, it gradually changed its import, so as to express anyeffectiveoperation. Hence the union of the words was natural and easy, andahmadenotedbreathing,to liveor sustain life.His a precarious letter in all languages that use it, as the pronunciation of itby many who speak the English language, will prove. It was long ago dropt, in this word, and after it the lasta, so that we now have the plain wordam.
It was formerly used as a noun in our language, and as such may be found in Exodus 3: 13, 14. "And Moses said unto God, Behold when I come unto the children of Israel and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is hisname? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, Iamthe I AM; and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." Chap. 6: 3.—"I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; but by my nameJehovah(I AM) was I not known unto them." The wordJehovahis the same asam. It is the name of theself-existent,self-sustainingBeing, who has not only power to uphold all things, but to perform the still more sublime action ofupholdingorsustaining himself. This is the highest possible degree of action. Let this fail, and all creation will be a wreck. He is theever-living,uncontrolled,unfailing,unassisted, andnever-changingGod, the Creator, Preserver, Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and End of all things. He is theFirst Causeof all causes, theAgent, original moving Power, and guiding Wisdom, which set in motion the wheels of universal nature, and guides and governs them without "variableness or the shadow of turning."