Particles
The same author disapproves of to after averse; another example of his hasty decision. The practice of good writers and speakers is almost wholly in favor of to, and this is good authority; the propriety of the English particles depending almost solely on their use, without any reference to Latin rules. Averse is an adjective, describing a certain state or quality of the mind, without regard to motion, and therefore averse from is as improper as contrary from, opposed from, or reluctant from. Indeed in the original sense of from, explained by Mr. Horne Tooke, as denoting beginning, averse from appears to be nonsense.
The following phrases are said to be faulty; previous to, antecedent to, with others of a similar nature. The criticism on these expressions must have been made on a very superficial view of the subject. In this sentence, “previous to the establishment of the new government, the resolutions of Congress could not be enforced by legal compulsory penalties;” previous refers to the word time or something equivalent implied, at the time previous, or during the time or period, previous to the establishment of the new government. This is the strict grammatical resolution of the phrase; and the usual correction, previously, is glaringly absurd; during the time previously to the establishment; into such wild errors are men led by a slight view of things, or by applying the principles of one language to the construction of another.124
“Agreeable to his promise, he sent me the papers;” here agreeable is correct; for it refers to the fact done; he sent me the papers, which sending was agreeable to his promise. In such cases, practice has often a better foundation than the criticisms which are designed to change it.
According is usually numbered among the prepositions; but most absurdly; it is always a participle, and has always a reference to some noun or member of a sentence. “According to his promise, he called on me last evening.” Here according refers to the whole subsequent member of the sentence; “he called on me last evening, which (the whole of which facts) was according to his promise.” No person pretends that “accordingly to his promise” is good English; yet the phrase is not more incorrect than “agreeably to his promise,” or “previously to this event,” which the modern critics and refiners of our language have recommended.
“Who do you speak to?” “Who did he marry?” are challenged as bad English; but whom do you speak to? was never used in speaking, as I can find, and if so, is hardly English at all. There is no doubt, in my mind, that the English who and the Latin qui, are the same word with mere variations of dialect. Who, in the Gothic or Teutonic, has always answered to the Latin nominative, qui; the dative cui, which was pronounced like qui, and the ablative quo; in the same manner as whose has answered to cujus, in all genders; whom to quem, quam, and what to quod. So that who did he speak to? Who did you go with? were probably as good English, in ancient times, as cui dixit? Cum quo ivisti? in Latin. Nay, it is more than probable that who was once wholly used in asking questions, even in the objective case; who did he marry? until some Latin student began to suspect it bad English, because not agreeable to the Latin rules. At any rate, whom do you speak to? is a corruption, and all the grammars that can be formed will not extend the use of the phrase beyond the walls of a college.
The foregoing criticisms will perhaps illustrate and confirm an assertion of Mr. Horne Tooke, that “Lowth has rejected much good English.” I should go farther and assert that he has criticized away more phrases of good English, than he has corrected of bad. He has not only mistaken the true construction of many phrases, but he has rejected others that have been used generally by the English nation from the earliest times, and by arbitrary rules, substituted phrases that have been rarely, or never used at all. To detect such errors, and restrain the influence of such respectable names, in corrupting the true idiom of our tongue, I conceive to be the duty of every friend to American literature.
On examining the language, and comparing the practice of speaking among the yeomanry of this country, with the stile of Shakespear and Addison, I am constrained to declare that the people of America, in particular the English descendants, speak the most pure English now known in the world. There is hardly a foreign idiom in their language; by which I mean, a phrase that has not been used by the best English writers from the time of Chaucer. They retain a few obsolete words, which have been dropt by writers, probably from mere affectation, as those which are substituted are neither more melodious nor expressive. In many instances they retain correct phrases, instead of which the pretended refiners of the language have introduced those which are highly improper and absurd.
Let Englishmen take notice that when I speak of the American yeomanry, the latter are not to be compared to the illiterate peasantry of their own country. The yeomanry of this country consist of substantial independent freeholders, masters of their own persons and lords of their own soil. These men have considerable education. They not only learn to read, write and keep accounts; but a vast proportion of them read newspapers every week, and besides the Bible, which is found in all families, they read the best English sermons and treatises upon religion, ethics, geography and history; such as the works of Watts, Addison, Atterbury, Salmon, &c. In the eastern states, there are public schools sufficient to instruct every man’s children, and most of the children are actually benefited by these institutions. The people of distant counties in England can hardly understand one another, so various are their dialects; but in the extent of twelve hundred miles in America, there are very few, I question whether a hundred words, except such as are used in employments wholly local, which are not universally intelligible.
But unless the rage for imitating foreign changes can be restrained, this agreeable and advantageous uniformity will be gradually destroyed. The standard writers abroad give us local practice, the momentary whims of the great, or their own arbitrary rules to direct our pronunciation; and we, the apes of fashion, submit to imitate any thing we hear and see. Sheridan has introduced or given sanction to more arbitrary and corrupt changes of pronunciation, within a few years, than had before taken place in a century; and in Perry’s Dictionary, not to mention the errors in what he most arrogantly calls his “Only sure Guide to the English Tongue,” there are whole pages in which there are scarcely two or three words marked for a just pronunciation. There is no Dictionary yet published in Great Britain, in which so many of the analogies of the language and the just rules of pronunciation are preserved, as in the common practice of the well informed Americans, who have never consulted any foreign standard. Nor is there any grammatical treatise, except Dr. Priestley’s, which has explained the real idioms of the language, as they are found in Addison’s works, and which remain to this day in the American practice of speaking.
The result of the whole is, that we should adhere to our own practice and general customs, unless it can be made very obvious that such practice is wrong, and that a change will produce some considerable advantage.
Footnotes
85 It is a dispute among grammarians, whether the interjection is a part of speech; and the question, like many others upon similar subjects, has employed more learning than common sense. The simple truth is this; the involuntary sounds produced by a sudden passion, are the language of nature which is subject only to nature’s rules. They are, in some degree, similar among all nations. They do not belong to a grammatical treatise, any more than the looks of fear, surprise or any other passion. The words, ah me! oh me! are mere exclamations, as are bless me! my gracious! and numberless other sounds, which are uttered without any precise meaning, and are not reduceable to any rules.
86 See Dr. Edwards on the Mohegan tongue. New Haven. 1788.
87 While is an old Saxon noun, signifying time; and it is still used in the same sense, one while, all this while. Adown is of uncertain origin. The Saxon aduna cannot easily be explained. Above is from an old word, signifying head. Among is from the Saxon gemengan to mix. The etymology of the others is obvious.
88 It has been remarked that y and g are gutturals which bear nearly the same affinity to each other as b and p. Thus it happens that we find in old writings a y in many words where g is now used; as ayen, ayenst, for again, against. Thus bayonet is pronounced bagonet.
89 Four hundred years ago, the purest author wrote sen or sin which is now deemed vulgar:
“Sin thou art rightful juge, how may it be,
That thou wolt soffren innocence to spill,
And wicked folk to regne in prosperitee?”
Chaucer, Cant. Tales. 5234.
90 Out was originally a verb. So in the first line of the celebrated Chevy Chace,
“The Persé owt of Northombarlande,
And a vow to God made he,” &c.
I have, in one or two instances, observed the use of it still among the lower classes of people, in this country; and I find outed in some good writers, as late as Charles I.
91 Mr. Horne remarks that the French word mais was formerly used in the sense of more, or bot. The English word more was formerly often spelt mo.
“Telle me anon withouten wordes mo.”
Chaucer, Prol. to Cant. Tales, 810.
Is it not possible that mo or more and the French mais may be radically the same word?
The following passage will confirm the foregoing explanation of beutan. It is taken from the Saxon version of the Gospels.—— Luke, chap. 1. v. 74. of the original.
“Hæt we butan ege of ure feonda handa alysede, him theowrian.”
This version of the Gospels was doubtless as early as the tenth or eleventh century. In Wickliff’s version, made about three centuries later, the passage stands thus: “That we without drede, delyvered fro the hand of oure enemyes, serve to him.” Where we find butan and without are synonimous.
The word bot or bote is still retained in the law language, as fire-bote, house-bote; where it is equivalent to enough or sufficiency.
92 So in Mandeville’s works. “And right as the schip men taken here avys here, and govern hem be the lode sterre, right so don schip men bezonde the parties, be the sterre of the Southe, the which apperethe not to us.”
93 The French oui is said to be a derivative or participle of the verb ouir to hear. The mode of assent therefore is by the word heard; as what you say is heard; a mode equally expressive with the English.
94 It is most probable that many of the English words beginning with wh are from the same original as the Latin qui, quæ, quod; and both coeval with the Greek. Qui and who; quod and what; are from the same root, and a blending of the Greek και ο and και οτι. This supposition is strongly supported by the ancient Scotch orthography of what, where, &c. which was quhat, quhar.
95 The termination ly, from liche, added to adjectives, forms the part of speech called adverbs; as great, greatly; gracious, graciously. But when this termination is added to a noun, it forms an adjective, as God, Godly; heaven, heavenly; and these words are also used adverbially; for they will not admit the addition of another ly. Godlily, which has been sometimes used, that is, Godlikelike, and other similar words, are not admissible, on any principle whatever.
96 Do and to are undoubtedly from the same root; d and t being convertible letters.
97 This word is not used in modern French; but its derivatives, avitailler, avitaillment, &c. are still retained.
98 Correspondence, letter 53.
99 Some of these articles, in other languages, have names in the singular number, as in Latin, forceps, pincers; forfex, sheers or scissors; follis, bellows. In French, souflet is singular, and pincettes, plural. A bellows is sometimes heard in English, and is perfectly correct.
100 Will the same authority justify our farmers in prefixing pair to a sett of bars, and other people, in prefixing it to stairs, when there are five or six of the former, and perhaps twenty of the latter? A pair of bars, a pair of stairs, in strictness of speech, are very absurd phrases; but perhaps it is better to admit such anomalies, than attempt to change universal and immemorial practice.
101 “The King of England’s court, toto nempe illi aggregato. The King of England, tamquam uni substantivo potponitur litera formativa s.”——Wallis.
102 Second part of the Grammatical Institute. Tit. Notes.
103 Chaucer’s Works, Glossary, p. 151.
104 The Editor of Chaucer’s Works before mentioned, remarks, “that a, in composition with words of Saxon original, is an abbreviation of as or of, at, on or in; and often a corruption of the prepositive particle ge or y.” According to this writer, a is any thing and every thing; it has so many derivations and uses, that it has no certain derivation or meaning at all. In the phrase a coming, a seems now to be a mere expletive; but otherwise a, one, and an have the same meaning in all cases.
105 Lowth’s Introduction. Tit. verb.
106 Run, like many other verbs, may be used either transitively or intransitively. Simply to run, is intransitive; to run a horse, transitive.
107 Lowth observes a distinction between the verb to will, and the auxiliary, will; the first being regularly inflected. I will, thou willest, he wills, and the latter, I will, thou will, he will. But altho this distinction actually exists in modern practice, yet the words are, in both cases, the same—derived from the same root, and still retaining nearly the same meaning.
108 If I were, thou wert, he were, in the present hypothetical tense of the subjunctive mode, are not used in the indicative.
109 It has been before observed, that the common people have not wholly lost this pronunciation, woll, to this day.
110 See the second part of the Grammatical Institute. Appendix.
111 It must be remembered that be is the old original substantive verb, and belongs to the indicative. Am and art are of later introduction into English.
112 Lowth’s Introduction, p. 39. Note.
113 “The present tense in English hath often the sense of the future; as when do you go out of town? I go tomorrow: that is, when will you, shall you go? I shall go. If you do well, that is, shall do well, you will be rewarded: As soon as, or when you come there; that is, shall come, turn on your right hand: With these forms of speaking, the verb is always placed in the future in Latin, Greek and Hebrew.”——Bayley’s Intro. to Lan. Lit. and Phil. 99.
This critical writer has explained this mode of speaking with accuracy; but it would be more correct to call this form of the verb, an elliptical future, than to say, the present tense has the sense of the future.
114 So in the law stile. “If a man die intestate;” “if a man die seised of an estate in fee;” “if Titius enfeoff Gaius,” &c. are future; and in most such phrases used in translations from the Latin and French, the verbs in the original are future. But in law the same form is used in the present very frequently, agreeable to the ancient practice. The reason may be, the convenience and necessity of copying words and phrases with great exactness. But Blackstone, the most accurate and elegant law writer, uses the other form, “if a man has heirs;” “if a good or valuable consideration appears;” and too often, when the sense requires the future. He generally gives be its subjunctive form, as it is called, and most other verbs the indicative.
115 In some instances, the time is present, and the ellipsis may be supplied by may or some other auxiliary.
116 In the original, the participle of the present time is employed: ἱνα και εχοντες γυναικας, ὡς μη εχοντες; and so in the other instances. The Greek is correct; “those having wives as not having them.” The translation is agreeable enough to the English idiom; but the verbs represent the present time.]
117 A similar use of the verb occurs after wish; “I wish I had my estate now in possession;” this would be expressed in Latin. Utinam me habere, using the present of the infinitive, or Utinam ut haberem; but this Imperfect tense of the Subjunctive, both in Latin and French, is used to convey the same ideas as English verbs after if; if I had, si haberem, si j’aurois, and whatever may be the name annexed to this form of the verb, it cannot, in the foregoing sense, have any reference to past time.
The common phrases, I had rather, he had better, are said to be a corruption of I would rather, he would better, rapidly pronounced, I’d rather. I am not satisfied that this is a just account of their origin; would will not supply the place of had in all cases. At any rate, the phrases have become good English.
118 The following translation of a passage in Cicero is directly in point. “Vivo tamen in ea ambitione et labore tanquam id, quod non postulo, expectem.”——Cicero ad Quintum. 2. 15.
“I live still in such a course of ambition and fatigue, as if I were expecting what I do not really desire.”——Middleton, Life of Cicero, vol. 2. p. 97.
Here tanquam expectem are rendered very justly, “as if I were expecting;” now, in present time, agreeable to the original. The words carry a negative: if I were expecting, implying, that I do not expect.
119 This tense is not admitted to be good English; yet is often used in speaking; the have being contracted or corrupted into a, had a written, if he had a received.
120 We have derived our substantive verb from two radical verbs; beon, whence come the English be, and the German bist; and weorthan, to be or become, fieri; from which probably, the Danes have their varer, and the English their were.
121 The great source of these errors is this: Grammarians have considered that as a conjunction, and supposed that “conjunctions couple like cases and modes;” a Latin rule that does not always hold in English. But Mr. Horne Tooke has clearly proved the word that to be always a relative pronoun: It always relates to a word or sentence; and the reason why grammarians have called it a conjunction, may be this; they could not find any word to govern it as a relative, and therefore did not know what to do with it. But it is in fact a relative word, thus, “two men have made a discovery;” this is one assertion. What discovery? “that or this is the discovery;” the word that carrying the force of a complete affirmation; “there was a God.” Here we see the absurdity of Swift’s declaration and the common notions of a subjunctive mode. There is no subjunctive; in strictness of speech, all sentences are resolvable into distinct declaratory phrases. “There is a God;” “two young men have discovered that;” so the sentence should be written to show the true construction.
122 A passage in Dr. Middleton’s Life of Cicero, is remarkably accurate; “The celebrated orator, L. Cassius, died of the same disease (the pleurisy,) which might probably be then, as I was told in Rome it is now, the peculiar distemper of the place.” Was refers to time completely past; but is declares a fact that exists generally, at all times; the verb is therefore in the present tense, or as Harris terms it,123 the aorist of the present. So also in Dr. Reid’s Essays, vol. 1. p. 18. “Those philosophers held, that there are three first principles of all things;” which is correct English. “Aristotle thought every object of human understanding enters at first by the senses.”—Page 110. The following passage is equally correct. “There is a courage depending on nerves and blood, which was improved to the highest pitch among the Greeks.”——Gillies, Hist. of Greece, vol. 1. p. 248. This courage is derived from the constitution of the human body; it exists therefore at all times; and had our author said, “there was a courage depending on nerves and blood, which the Greeks improved to the highest pitch,” the sense would have been left imperfect. Here then we see the indefinite use of this form of the present tense; for were the verb is, in the foregoing example, limited to time now present, it would make the author write nonsense; it being absurd to say, “the Greeks 2000 years ago improved a courage which exists only at the present time.” So that verbs, in the present tense, express facts that have an uninterrupted existence in past, present, and future time.
123 Hermes, page 123.
124 Previous may be vindicated on another principle; viz. by considering it as qualifying the whole subsequent member of the sentence. “The resolutions of Congress could not be enforced by legal penalties; this fact was previous to the establishment,” &c. But the other is the real construction.