William S. Balch - Lectures on Language

W >> William S. Balch >> Lectures on Language

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17

We also think and speak of the qualities and affections of the mind as
well as matter, as wisdom, knowledge, virtue, vice, love, hatred, anger.
Our conceptions in this case may be less distinct, but we have ideas,
and use words to express them. There is, we confess, a greater liability
to mistake and misunderstand when treating of mind and its qualities,
than of matter. The reason is evident, people know less of it. Its
operations are less distinct and more varying.

The child first sees material objects. It is taught to name them. It
next learns the qualities of things; as the sweetness of sugar, the
darkness of night, the beauty of flowers. From this it ascends by
gradation to the higher attainments of knowledge as revealed in the
empire of mind, as well as matter. Great care should be taken that this
advancement be easy, natural, and thoro. It should be constantly
impressed with the importance of obtaining clear and definite ideas of
things, and never employ words till it has ideas to express; never name
a thing of which it has no knowledge. This is ignorance.

It would be well, perhaps, to extend this remark to those older than
children, in years, but less in real practical knowledge. The remark is
of such general application, that no specification need be made, except
to the case before us; to those affected proficients in grammar, whose
only knowledge is the memory of words, which to them have no meanings,
if, indeed, the writers themselves had any to express by them; a fact we
regard as questionable, at best. There is hardly a teacher of grammar,
whose self-esteem is not enormous, who will not confess himself ignorant
on many of the important principles of language; that he has never
understood, and could never explain them. He finds no difficulty in
repeating what the books say, but if called upon to express an opinion
of his own, he has none to give. He has learned and used words without
knowing their meaning.

Children should be taught language as they are taught music. They should
learn the simple tones on which the whole science depends. Distinct
impressions of sounds should be made on their minds, and the characters
which represent them should be inseparably associated with them. They
will then learn tunes from the compositions of those sounds, as
represented by notes. By dint of application, they will soon become
familiar with these principles, if possessed of a talent for song, and
may soon pass the acme with ease, accuracy, and rapidity. But there are
those who may sing very prettily, and tolerably correct, who have never
studied the first rudiments of music. But such can never become adepts
in the science.

So there are those who use language correctly, who never saw the inside
of a grammar book, and who never examined the principles on which it
depends. But this, by no means, proves that it is better to sing by
rote, than "with the understanding." These rudiments, however, should
form the business of the nursery, rather than the grammar school. Every
mother should labor to give distinct and forcible impressions of such
things as she learns her children to _name_. She should carefully
prevent them from employing words which have no meaning, and still more
strictly should she guard them against attaching a wrong meaning to
those they do use. In this way, the foundation for future knowledge and
eminence, would be laid broad and deep. But I wander.

We attach names to imaginary things; as ghosts, genii, imps.

To this class belong the thirty thousand gods of the ancients, who were
frequently represented by emblems significant of the characters attached
to them. We employ words to name these imaginary things, so that we read
and converse about them understandingly, tho our ideas may be
exceedingly various.

Nouns are also used to express negation, of which no idea can be formed.
In this case, the mind rests on what exists, and employs a word to
express what does not. We speak of _a hole_ in the paper. But we can
form no idea of _a hole_, separated from the surrounding substances.
Remove the parts of the paper till nothing is left, and then you may
look in vain for the hole. It is not there. It never was. In the same
way we use the words nothing, nobody, nonentity, vacuum, absence, space,
blank, annihilation, and oblivion. These are relative terms, to be
understood in reference to things which are known to exist. We must know
of _some_thing before we can talk of _no_thing, of an entity before we
can think of nonentity.

In a similar way we employ words to name actions, which are produced by
the changes of objects. We speak of a race, of a flight, of a sitting or
session, of a journey, of a ride, of a walk, of a residence, etc. In all
these cases, the mind is fixed on the persons who performed these
things. Take for example, a race. Of that, we can conceive no idea
separate from the agent or object which _ran_ the _race_. Without some
other word to inform us we could not decide whether a _horse_ race, a
_foot_ race, a boat race, the race of a mill, or some other race, was
the object of remark. The same may be said of flight, for we read of the
flight of birds, the flight of Mahommed, the flight of armies, and the
flight of intellect.

We also give names to actions as tho they were taking place in the
present tense. "The _reading_ of the report was deferred;" steamboat
_racing_ is dangerous to public safety; _stealing_ is a crime; false
_teaching_ deserves the reprobation of all.

The hints I have given will assist you in acquiring a knowledge of nouns
as used to express ideas in vocal or written language. This subject
might be pursued further with profit, if time would permit. As the time
allotted to this lecture is nearly exhausted, I forbear. I shall
hereafter have occasion to show how a whole phrase may be used to name
an idea, and as such stand as the agent or object of a verb.

Some nouns are specifically used to designate certain objects, and
distinguish them from the class to which they usually belong. In this
way they assume a distinctive character, and are usually denominated
=proper nouns=. They apply to persons, places and things; as, John
Smith, Boston, Hylax. _Boy_ is applied in common to all young males of
the human species, and as such is a _common noun_ or name. _John Smith_
designates a particular boy from the rest.

Proper names may be also applied to animals and things. The stable
keeper and stageman has a name for every horse he owns, to distinguish
it from other horses; the dairyman for his cows, the boy for his dog,
and the girl for her doll. Any word, in fact, may become a proper name
by being specifically used; as the ship Fair Trader, the brig Success,
sloop Delight in Peace, the race horse Eclipse, Black Hawk, Round Nose,
and Red Jacket.

Proper names were formerly used in reference to certain traits of
character or circumstances connected with the place or thing. _Abram_
was changed to _Abraham_, the former signifying _an elevated father_,
the latter, _the father of a multitude_. _Isaac_ signified _laughter_,
and was given because his mother laughed at the message of the angel.
_Jacob_ signified _a supplanter_, because he was to obtain the
birthright of his elder brother.

A ridiculous rage obtained with our puritan fathers to express scripture
sentiments in the names of their children, as may be seen by consulting
the records of the Plymouth and Massachusetts colonies.

This practice has not wholly gone out of use in our day, for we hear of
the names of Hope, Mercy, Patience, Comfort, Experience, Temperance,
Faith, Deliverance, Return, and such like, applied usually to females,
(being more in character probably,) and sometimes to males. We have also
the names of White, Black, Green, Red, Gray, Brown, Olive, Whitefield,
Blackwood, Redfield, Woodhouse, Stonehouse, Waterhouse, Woodbridge,
Swiftwater, Lowater, Drinkwater, Spring, Brooks, Rivers, Pond, Lake,
Fairweather, Merryweather, Weatherhead, Rice, Wheat, Straw, Greatrakes,
Bird, Fowle, Crow, Hawks, Eagle, Partridge, Wren, Goslings, Fox, Camel,
Zebra, Bear, Wolf, Hogg, Rain, Snow, Haile, Frost, Fogg, Mudd, Clay,
Sands, Hills, Valley, Field, Stone, Flint, Silver, Gould, and Diamond.

Proper nouns may also become common when used as words of general
import; as, _dunces_, corrupted from Duns Scotus, a distinguished
theologian, born at Dunstane, Northumberland, an opposer of the
doctrines of Thomas Aquinus. He is a real _solomon_, jack tars, judases,
antichrist, and so on.

Nouns may also be considered in respect to person, number, gender, and
positive, or case. There are _three_ persons, _two_ numbers, _two_
genders, and _two_ cases. But the further consideration of these things
will be deferred, which, together with Pronouns, will form the subject
of our next lecture.

LECTURE V.

ON NOUNS AND PRONOUNS.

Nouns in respect to persons.--Number.--Singular.--Plural.--How
formed.--Foreign plurals.--Proper names admit of plurals.--Gender.
--No neuter.--In figurative language.--Errors.--Position or case.--
Agents.--Objects.--Possessive case considered.--A definitive
word.--Pronouns.--One kind.--Originally nouns.--Specifically
applied.

We resume the consideration of nouns this evening, in relation to
person, number, gender, and position or case.

In the use of language there is a speaker, person spoken to, and things
spoken of. Those who speak are the _first_ persons, those who hear the
_second_, and those who are the subject of conversation the _third_.

The first and second persons are generally used in reference to human
beings capable of speech and understanding. But we sometimes condesend
to hold converse with animals and inanimate matter. The bird trainer
talks to his parrots, the coachman to his horses, the sailor to the
winds, and the poet to his landscapes, towers, and wild imaginings, to
which he gives a "local habitation and a name."

By metaphor, language is put into the mouths of animals, particularly in
fables. By a still further license, places and things, flowers, trees,
forests, brooks, lakes, mountains, towers, castles, stars, &c. are made
to speak the most eloquent language, in the first person, in addresses
the most pathetic. The propriety of such a use of words I will not stop
to question, but simply remark that such figures should never be
employed in the instruction of children. As the mind expands, no longer
content to grovel amidst mundane things, we mount the pegasus of
imagination and soar thro the blissful or terrific scenes of fancy and
fiction, and study a language before unknown. But it would be an
unrighteous demand upon others, to require them to understand us; and
quite as unpardonable to brand them with ignorance because they do not.

Most nouns are in the third person. More things are talked about than
talk themselves, or are talked to by others. Hence there is little
necessity for teaching children to specify except in the first or second
person, which is very easily done.

In English there are two _numbers_, singular and plural. The singular is
confined to one, the plural is extended to any indefinite number. The
Greeks, adopted a dual number which they used to express two objects
united in pairs, or couples; as, a span of horses, a yoke of oxen, a
brace of pistols, a pair of shoes. We express the same idea with more
words, using the singular to represent the union of the two. We also
extend this use of words and employ what are called _nouns of
multitude_; as, a people, an army, a host, a nation. These and similar
words are used in the singular referring to many combined in a united
whole, or in the plural comprehending a diversity; as, "the armies met,"
"the nations are at peace." _People_ admits no change on account of
number. We say "_many_ people are collected together and form _a_
numerous people."

The plural is not always to be understood as expressing an increase of
number, but of qualities or sorts of things, as the merchant has a
variety of _sugars_, _wines_, _teas_, _drugs_, _medicines_, _paints_ and
_dye-woods_. We also speak of _hopes_, _fears_, _loves_, _anxieties_.

Some nouns admit of no plural, in fact, or in use; as, chaos, universe,
fitness, immortality, immensity, eternity. Others admit of no singular;
as, scissors, tongs, vitals, molasses. These words probably once had
singulars, but having no use for them they became obsolete. We have long
been accustomed to associate the two halves of shears together, so that
in speaking of one whole, we say shears, and of apart, half of a shears.
But of some words originally, and in fact plural, we have formed a
singular; as, "one twin died, and, tho the other one survived its
dangerous illness, the mother wept bitterly for her twins." _Twin_ is
composed of _two_ and _one_. It is found in old books, spelled _twane_,
two-one, or twin. Thus, the _twi_-light is formed by the mingling of two
lights, or the division of the rays of light by the approaching or
receding darkness. They _twain_ shall be one flesh. Sheep and deer are
singular or plural.

Most plurals are formed by adding _s_ to the singular, or, when euphony
requires it, _es_; as, tree, trees; sun, suns; dish, dishes; box, boxes.
Some retain the old plural form; as, ox, oxen; child, children; chick,
chicken; kit, kitten. But habit has burst the barrier of old rules, and
we now talk of chicks and chickens, kits and kittens. _Oxen_ alone
stands as a monument raised to the memory of unaltered saxon plurals.

Some nouns form irregular plurals. Those ending in _f_ change that
letter to _v_ and then add _es_; as, half, halves; leaf, leaves; wolf,
wolves. Those ending in _y_ change that to _i_ and add the _es_; as,
cherry, cherries; berry, berries; except when the _y_ is preceded by a
vowel, in which case it only adds the _s_; as, day, days; money, moneys
(not _ies_); attorney, attorneys. All this is to make the sound more
easy and harmonious. _F_ and _v_ were formerly used indiscriminately, in
singulars as well as plurals, and, in fact, in the composition of all
words where they occurred. The same may be said of _i_ and _y_.

"The Fader (Father) Almychty of the heven abuf (above)
In the mene tyme, unto Juno his _luf_ (love)
Thus spak; and sayd."
_Douglas, booke 12, pag. 441._

"They lyued in ioye and in felycite
For eche of hem had other lefe and dere."
_Chaucer, Monks Tale, fol. 81, p. 1._

"When straite twane beefes he tooke
And an the aultar layde."

The reason why _y_ is changed into _i_ in the formation of plurals, and
in certain other cases, is, I apprehend, accounted for from the fact
that words which now end in _y_ formerly ended in _ie_, as may be seen
in all old books. The regular plural was then formed by adding _s_.

"And upon those members of the _bodie_, which _wee_ thinke most
unhonest, put _wee_ more honestie on." "It rejoyceth not in
iniquitie--diversitie of gifts--all thinges edifie not." See old bible,
1 Cor., chap. 13 and 14.

Other words form their plurals still more differently, for which no
other rule than habit can be given; as, man, men; foot, feet; tooth,
teeth; die, dice; mouse, mice; penny, pence, and sometimes pennies, when
applied to distinct pieces of money, and not to value.

Many foreign nouns retain the plural form as used by the nations from
whom we have borrowed them; as, cherub, cherubim; seraph, seraphim;
radius, radii; memorandum, memoranda; datum, data, &c. We should be
pleased to have such words carried home, or, if they are ours by virtue
of possession, let them be adopted into our family, and put on the
garments of naturalized citizens, and no longer appear as lonely
strangers among us. There is great aukwardness in adding the english to
the hebrew plural of cherub, as the translators of the common version of
the bible have done. They use _cherub_ in the singular and cherub_ims_
in the plural. The _s_ should be omitted and the Hebrew plural retained,
or the preferable course adopted, and the final _s_ be added, making
cherubs, seraphs, &c. The same might be said of all foreign nouns. It
would add much to the regularity, dignity, and beauty, of our vernacular
tongue.

Proper nouns admit of the plural number; as, there are sixty-four John
Smiths in New-York, twenty Arnolds in Providence, and fifteen Davises in
Boston. As we are not accustomed to form the plurals of proper names
there is not that ease and harmony in the first use of them that we have
found in those with which we are more familiar; especially those we have
rarely heard pronounced. Habit surmounts the greatest obstacles and
makes things the most harsh and unpleasant appear soft and agreeable.

Gender is applied to the distinction of the sexes. There are
two--masculine and feminine. The former is applied to males, the latter
to females. Those words which belong to neither gender, have been called
_neuter_, that is, _no gender_. But it is hardly necessary to perplex
the minds of learners with _negatives_. Let them distinguish between
masculine and feminine genders, and little need be said to them about a
_neuter_.

There are some nouns of both genders, as student, writer, pupil,
person, citizen, resident. _Poet_, _author_, editor, and some other
words, have of late been applied to females, instead of poet_ess_,
author_ess_, edit_ress_. Fashion will soon preclude the necessity of
this former distinction.

Some languages determine their genders by the form of the endings of
their nouns, and what is thus made masculine in Rome, may be feminine in
France. It is owing, no doubt, to this practice, in other nations, that
we have attached the idea of gender to inanimate things; as, "the sun,
_he_ shines majestically;" while of the moon, it is said, "_she_ sheds a
milder radiance." But we can not coincide with the reason assigned by
Mr. Murray, for this distinction. His notion is not valid. It does not
correspond with facts. While in the south of Europe the sun is called
masculine and the moon feminine, the northern nations invariably reverse
the distinction, particularly the dialects of the Scandinavian. It was
so in our own language in the time of Shakspeare. He calls the sun a
"_fair wench_."

By figures of rhetoric, genders may be attached to inanimate matter.
Where things are personified, we usually speak of them as masculine and
feminine; but this practice depends on fancy, and not on any fixed
rules. There is, in truth, but two genders, and those confined to
animals. When we break these rules, and follow the undirected wanderings
of fancy, we can form no rules to regulate our words. We may have as
many fanciful ones as we please, but they will not apply in common
practice. For example: poets and artists have usually attached female
loveliness to angels, and placed them in the feminine gender. But they
are invariably used in the masculine thro out the scriptures.

There is an apparent absurdity in saying of the ship General Williams,
_she_ is beautiful; or, of the steamboat Benjamin Franklin, _she_ is out
of date. It were far better to use no gender in such cases. But if
people will continue the practice of making distinctions where there are
none, they must do it from habit and whim, and not from any reason or
propriety.

There are three ways in which we usually distinguish the forms of words
in reference to gender. 1st. By words which are different; as boy, girl;
uncle, aunt; father, mother. 2d. By a different termination of the same
word; as instructor, instructress; lion, lioness; poet, poetess. _Ess_
is a contraction from the hebrew _essa_, a female. 3d. By prefixing
another word; as, a male child, a female child; a man servant, a maid
servant; a he-goat, a she-goat.

The last consideration that attaches to nouns, is the _position_ they
occupy in written or spoken language, in relation to other words, as
being _agents_, or _objects_ of action. This is termed _position_.

There are two positions in which nouns stand in reference to their
meaning and use. First, as _agents_ of action, as _David_ killed
Goliath. Second, as _objects_ on which action terminates; as, _Richard_
conquered _Henry_. These two distinctions should be observed in the use
of all nouns. But the propriety of this division will be more evident
when we come to treat of verbs, their agents and objects.

It will be perceived that we have abandoned the use of the "_possessive
case_," a distinction which has been insisted on in our grammars; and
also changed the names of the other two. As we would adopt nothing that
is new without first being convinced that something is needed which the
thing proposed will supply; so we would reject nothing that is old,
till we have found it useless and cumbersome. It will be admitted on all
hands that the fewer and simpler the rules of grammar, the more readily
will they be understood, and the more correctly applied. We should
guard, on the one hand, against having so many as to perplex, and on the
other, retain enough to apply in the correct use of language. It is on
this ground that we have proposed an improvement in the names and number
of cases, or positions.

The word noun signifies name, and _nominative_ is the adjective derived
from noun, and partakes of the same meaning. Hence the _nominative_ or
_naming_ case may apply as correctly to the object as the agent. "_John_
strikes _Thomas_, and _Thomas_ strikes _John_." John and Thomas name the
boys who strike, but in the first case John is the actor or agent and
Thomas the object. In the latter it is changed. To use a _nominative
name_ is a redundancy which should be avoided. You will understand my
meaning and see the propriety of the change proposed, as the mind of the
learner should not be burthened with needless or irrelevant phrases.

But our main objection lies against the "possessive case." We regard it
as a false and unnecessary distinction. What is the possessive case?
Murray defines it as "expressing the relation of property or possession;
as, my father's house." His rule of syntax is, "one substantive governs
another, signifying a different thing, in the possessive or genitive
case; as, my father's house." I desire you to understand the definition
and use as here given. Read it over again, and be careful that you know
the meaning of _property_, _possession_, and _government_. Now let a
scholar parse correctly the example given. "_Father's_" is a common
noun, third person, singular number, masculine gender, and _governed_ by
house:" Rule, "One noun _governs_ another," &c. Then my father does not
govern his own house, but his house him! What must be the conduct and
condition of the family, if they have usurped the government of their
head? "John Jones, hatter, keeps constantly for sale all kinds of _boy's
hats_. Parse boy's. It is a noun, possessive case, _governed_ by hats."
What is the possessive case? It "signifies the _relation of property or
possession_." Do the hats belong to the boys? Oh no. Are they the
_property_ or in the _possession_ of the boys? Certainly not. Then what
relation is there of property or possession? None at all. They belong to
John Jones, were made by him, are his property, and by him are
advertised for sale. He has used the word _boy's_ to distinguish their
size, quality, and fitness for boy's use.

"The master's slave." Master's is in the possessive case, and _governed_
by slave! If grammars are true there can be no need of abolition
societies, unless it is to look after the master and see that he is not
abused. The rider's horse; the captain's ship; the general's army; the
governor's cat; the king's subject. How false it would be to teach
scholars the idea of _property_ and _government_ in such cases. The
_teacher's scholars_ should never learn that by virtue of their
grammars, or the _apostrophe_ and letter _s_, they have a right to
_govern_ their teachers; nor the mother's son, to govern his mother. Our
merchants would dislike exceedingly to have the _ladies_ understand them
to signify by their advertisements that the "ladies' merino shawls, the
ladies's bonnets and lace wrought veils, the ladies' gloves and elegant
Thibet, silk and challa dresses, were the _property_ of the ladies; for
in that case they might claim or _possess_ themselves of their
_property_, and no longer trouble the merchant with the care of it.

"Peter's wife's mother lay sick of a fever." "_His_ physician said that
_his_ disease would require _his_ utmost skill to defeat _its_ progress
in _his_ limbs." Phrases like these are constantly occurring, which can
not be explained intelligibly by the existing grammars. In fact, the
words said to be nouns in the possessive case, have changed their
character, by use, from nouns to adjectives, or definitive words, and
should thus be classed. Russia iron, Holland gin, China ware, American
people, the Washington tavern, Lafayette house, Astor house, Hudson
river, (formerly Hudson's,) Baffin's bay, Van Dieman's land, John
street, Harper's ferry, Hill's bridge, a paper book, a bound book, a red
book, John's book--one which John is known to use, it may be a borrowed
one, but generally known as some way connected with him,--Rev. Mr.
Smith's church, St. John's church, Grace church, Murray's grammar; not
the property nor in the possession of Lindley Murray, neither does it
_govern him_; for he has gone to speak a purer language than he taught
on earth. It is mine. I bought it, have possessed it these ten years;
but, thank fortune, am little _governed_ by it. But more on this point
when we come to the proper place. What I have said, will serve as a
hint, which will enable you to see the impropriety of adopting the
"possessive case."

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17