Imágenes de páginas

both. On page 122, like is ranked as a preposition. The reasons given for this would make unlike, near, and nigh, prepositions also; and should this be done, we should have prepositions admitting of comparison and modification by adverbs, and sometimes used without an object, as in the sentence, "Who is like unto thee?" In spite of these difficulties, and the analogies of Latin and Greek, Mr. Weld chooses to make like a preposition, simply because it is sometimes awkward to supply after it the prepositions to or unto, though they are often used, and may always be understood in connection with it. This indeed is a rather small matter, but taste and judgment may be displayed as much in small as in large matters. On page 151, the author gives as a faulty sentence, "Ferdinand and Isabella's reign," with directions to make it, "Ferdinand's and Isabella's reign," as if these sovereigns were not husband and wife, and did not reign jointly. Their accurate and tasteful historian says: "Ferdinand and Isabella's laws," which is authority sufficient, if authority be needed. On page 153, the author says, that "nouns denoting time, distance, duration, etc. are often put in the objective without a preposition." Some authorities may be found for understanding a preposition before words so used; but the best authorities regard them as being used independently. Mr. Weld, however, does not even allude to a preposition understood; leaving it unexplained, how the objective is governed. In a remark in this connection, forgetting that he has before made like a preposition, our author classes it with other words followed by the objective without a preposition! We notice also the spelling of "elliptical" with one or two l's, of which forms the eliptical predominates. Here belongs also an allusion to the classification of sounds of a; amongst which, in all gravity, is given the sound of a in foot! Having puzzled over this a long time, we accidentally discovered that Mr. Weld's classification of vowel sounds is taken, examples and all, from Worcester's dictionary, by referring to which we learned that for a in foot we should read a in fast! Such freaks of the types are sadly out of place in a school-book.

Looseness of definition claims our next attention.

On page

5, it is stated in regard to GH, that in ghost and ghastly the h is silent; but the words Ghaut, ghee, and gherkin are not alluded to; while the numerous cases in which both the g and h

it is stated

are silent are not mentioned. On the same page, that 8 after a consonant has usually the sound of z. This is not precise enough, after p, t, k, e hard, and th soft, and often after I and n, it has its natural sound.

On the same page, a word is defined to "consist of one or more letters, and to be usually the sign of an idea." At this rate MSS. and viz. are words; but they are not words, and the definition should not have included them.† On pages 32 and 35, the author says, that a subject may be modified by a noun or a pronoun, aud gives examples of a modifying noun, but in neither place of a modifying pronoun. Why should so important an illustration have been twice omitted? On page 36, it is stated, that "the subject may be modified by the words in, on, of, at, with, and the noun following them;" but it is not intimated that other prepositions may be used in precisely the same way. The idea conveyed to a beginner must certainly be, that there is some peculiarity about those words; whereas across, from, by, out, or any preposition with its object, would have served equally well. On page 72, the moods are discussed; and in regard to the indicative, it is barely implied that it asserts. Of the other moods, simply the form is given; and not the slightest attempt is made to show what is their nature and their consequent use. This is out of character in a book which defines the noun five times, and three times states that a verb and a noun are necessary to make a sentence. No where does the Grammar allude to the fact, that the potential mood asserts as directly as the indicative, and that the other moods are depend

All these inaccuracies in the discussion of Orthography, are done away in the third edition. The first had nothing on the subject, the second contains Mr. W.'s unskilful compilation which we have sufficiently exposed; in the third, this is all swept away, and a new analysis of sounds given from a pamphlet by Mr. Thurston of Maine. It seems to us, teachers who use Mr. W.'s Grammars must be reminded of the sailor who attended a magician's show, and being unluckily blown up, came down rubbing his eyes, and wondering "what the funny fellow was going to do next!"

In the third edition, Mr. W. says words consist of two or more letters etc., thus striking out from our tongue the words a, I, O! while still retaining viz., dwt., etc. It is a query in our minds, whether an author who cannot define a word correctly, can be safely relied on in a science like Grammar, where so much depends on precise definition of principles.



ent on these, and cannot make sense without one of them expressed or implied. On page 82, it is stated, that" participles are considered as forms of verbs, but they modify nouns, and agree with them like adjectives." How is the scholar to learn from this, that participles are only sometimes used as adjectives, and often have the qualities of the verb as clearly as the infinitive mood, which, like the participle, has tenses, but neither number nor person? On page 137, under what are generally called complex nouns, the author gives us three different prevailing opinions; but not his own, unless it may be gathered from the examples given. His own opinion should have been stated precisely, and then, if judged best, the opinions of others might have followed in a note or remark. This symptom of modesty and self-distrust can, however, be readily pardoned. On page 166, several wrong comparatives are corrected, and the young student is cautioned against unskilful employment of this important function of the adjective; but no principle is suggested to assist in distinguishing what is correct from what is faulty. The correction of a faulty example, without showing why it is so, imparts little instruction: the clear statement of principles is always needed.

We pass on to barbarous phrases. These, it is pleasant to find, are not very numerous. They occur entirely among the examples and exercises; for instance, on page 134, “I know not whether Charles was the author, but I understood it to be him." Again; page 136, "Tippicanoe, [Tippecanoe] a river of Indiana, is" etc. The names of rivers should have the article before them; we do not say Connecticut, a river in New England, flows into Long Island Sound. Also on page 159, "Themselves have made themselves worthy to suffer it."*

Omissions claim our next attention. Some of these have been noticed already in the consideration of loose definitions. There are, however, some subjects entirely omitted, which should have been treated. Of minor matters, it will be found that common

In the third edition, among skeletons of words beginning and ending with consonant sounds, occurs the following, "lamb-1-b." Very likely Mr. W., was brought up to say lab; this pronunciation does not obtain, however, Down East, where we have spent some years in learning and teaching, and we believe it is not justified by such men as Worcester and Webster.

nouns personified are not classed among words spelled with a capital. Several words which have different plurals with different meanings, are not noticed at all; for instance die, in the plural, dies, and dice; genius, in the plural, genii and geniuses. The list of nouns which form their plural after the analogy of foreign languages, does not contain animalculum or scoria, and is not alphabetically arranged. Of more important subjects, the differences between shall and will, should and would, and the use of the tenses of the potential mood, are entirely omitted.*

As to the bad arrangement, there is room for greater difference of opinion than in those matters which have been already treated. There is no accounting for tastes, and some will perhaps prefer the method followed by Mr. Weld to any other. We will present a brief account of the method he has adopted, and give every one an opportunity to judge of it for himself. In the rules for capital letters, the first, fourth, and ninth rules, should certainly have been included in one or at least made to follow each other. † It is not unusual to find kindred subject as much scattered about as, by a moment's inspection, any one will find these rules to be. Few subjects can be found fully treated in one place. The enumeration of the parts of speech is repeated in the same staring capitals, after an interval of about thirty pages. The rules of syntax, exercises in parsing, composition, analysis, guessing synonymes, heaping together adjectives, conjugation, and letter-writing, are mingled together in much confusion. The Grammar begins with the names of the parts of speech, takes up the noun, and defines number, and common and proper nouns, then takes up the verb, and defines its grammatical object before saying a

* In edition third, the definition of the objective, P. 70, is amended for the worse, by silently excluding prepositions from governing it. Perhaps Louis Philippe would be comforted by meditations on this sudden overthrow of long established governments.

We are glad to see that Mr. Weld "lives and learns." In the third edition he has made changes which prove the justice of this and our other criticisms on the rules for capitals. While in justice to Mr. W., we call attention to this, in justification of our own allusions to errors since corrected, we must say, that, while all authors are liable to errors and omissions, there is yet a degree beyond which forbearance cannot properly be shown them. Whether the errors we have pointed out are pardonable in the author of a school-book, especially in the second edition, is a question of which others may judge.

word about the subject, distinguishes between transitive and intransitive verbs, next discusses the elements of a sentence, presents some peculiarities and irregularities of the verb to be, and returns to the consideration of sentences. After this, the pronoun is introduced; and next modifications of nouns and pronouns by adjectives, apposition, and adjuncts. The adjective is next presented; and under this head, articles are spoken of, and the good old Saxon root of an or a is hinted at, and the modification of subjects by nouns, pronouns, and adjuncts, is again amiably discussed. The verb is next resumed, and its various modifications by adverbs and adjuncts are discussed; which leads to a pretty full and minute consideration of adverbs, after which prepositions are again brought on the tapis, followed by analysis and the formation of sentences, and these in their turn by conjunctions and interjections. Here ends Part I.

In the second part, a similar disorder prevails, the same subjects being again brought up, to be more fully discussed, and a little more thoroughly finished off. It is really refreshing to say, after all this, that the syntax is somewhat logical. We do not mean that it is free from faults, but that, compared with the other parts of the book, it is so much superior as almost to appear respectable.

We close with some miscellaneous remarks, after which there will be still much left. There is a great want of system in the typographical arrangement of the book. Derivations and expla nations are sometimes given in the body of the text, and sometimes in notes at the bottom of the page, without any discernible reason for this variety of location. The various sizes of type are used in a very random method, the smallest sometimes containing most important explanations. For instance, on page 59, the nominative and objective cases are defined in small type, while the possessive and independent follow immediately in the medium size. On page 66, person is defined in the smallest type, the specification of the different persons following in larger characters. In this case, however, the smallness of the type does little mischief; for the nature of person is so blindly defined, that no great harm would have resulted, had the definition been entirely omitted.

It is another defect of this Grammar, that it makes too little account of memory and the reasoning faculties in youth. Too many opportunities for exercising them are superseded by marginal references or italics, to inform the pupil, for instance, that and is a

« AnteriorContinuar »