The Grammar of English Grammars, Goold Brown [ebook reader for manga txt] 📗
- Author: Goold Brown
- Performer: -
Book online «The Grammar of English Grammars, Goold Brown [ebook reader for manga txt] 📗». Author Goold Brown
"But how short are my expressions of its excellency!"—Baxter. "There is a remarkable union in his style, of harmony with ease."—Blair's Rhet., "It disposes in the most artificial manner, of the light and shade, for viewing every thing to the best advantage."—"Aristotle too holds an eminent rank among didactic writers for his brevity."—"In an introduction, correctness should be carefully studied in the expression."—"Precision is to be studied, above all things in laying down a method."—"Which shall make the impression on the mind of something that is one, whole and entire."—"At the same time, there are some defects which must be acknowledged in the Odyssey."—"Beauties, however, there are, in the concluding books, of the tragic kind."—"These forms of conversation by degrees multiplied and grew troublesome."—Spectator, No. 119. "When she has made her own choice, for form's sake, she sends a congé-d'-élire to her friends."—"Let us endeavour to establish to ourselves an interest in him who holds the reins of the whole creation in his hand."—"Let us endeavour to establish to ourselves an interest in him, who, in his hand, holds the reins of the whole creation."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 53. "The most frequent measure next to this in English poetry is that of eight syllables."—Blair's Gram., "To introduce as great a variety as possible of cadences."—Jamieson's Rhet., "He addressed several exhortations to them suitable to their circumstances."—Murray's Key, ii, "Habits must be acquired of temperance and self-denial."—"In reducing the rules prescribed to practice."—Murray's Gram., "But these parts must be so closely bound together as to make the impression upon the mind, of one object, not of many."—Blair's Rhet., "Errors are sometimes committed by the most distinguished writer, with respect to the use of shall and will"—Butler's Pract. Gram.,
CHAPTER XI—INTERJECTIONS.Interjections, being seldom any thing more than natural sounds or short words uttered independently, can hardly be said to have any syntax; but since some rule is necessary to show the learner how to dispose of them in parsing, a brief axiom for that purpose, is here added, which completes our series of rules: and, after several remarks on this canon, and on the common treatment of Interjections, this chapter is made to embrace Exercises upon all the other parts of speech, that the chapters in the Key may correspond to those of the Grammar.
RULE XXIV.—INTERJECTIONS.Interjections have no dependent construction; they are put absolute, either alone, or with other words: as, "O! let not thy heart despise me."—Dr. Johnson. "O cruel thou!"—Pope, Odys., B. xii, l. 333. "Ah wretched we, poets of earth!"—Cowley,
"Ah Dennis! Gildon ah! what ill-starr'd rage
Divides a friendship long confirm'd by age?"
Pope, Dunciad, B. iii,
OBS. 1.—To this rule, there are properly no exceptions. Though interjections are sometimes uttered in close connexion with other words, yet, being mere signs of passion or of feeling, they seem not to have any strict grammatical relation, or dependence according to the sense. Being destitute alike of relation, agreement, and government, they must be used independently, if used at all. Yet an emotion signified in this manner, not being causeless, may be accompanied by some object, expressed either by a nominative absolute, or by an adjective after for: as, "Alas! poor Yorick!"—Shak. Here the grief denoted by alas, is certainly for Yorick; as much so, as if the expression were, "Alas for poor Yorick!" But, in either case, alas, I think, has no dependent construction; neither has Yorick, in the former, unless we suppose an ellipsis of some governing word.
OBS. 2.—The interjection O is common to many languages, and is frequently uttered, in token of earnestness, before nouns or pronouns put absolute by direct address; as, "Arise, O Lord; O God, lift up thine hand."—Psalms, x, 12. "O ye of little faith!"—Matt., vi, 30. The Latin and Greek grammarians, therefore, made this interjection the sign of the vocative case; which case is the same as the nominative put absolute by address in English. But this particle is no positive index of the vocative; because an independent address may be made without that sign, and the O may be used where there is no address: as, "O scandalous want! O shameful omission!"—"Pray, Sir, don't be uneasy."—Burgh's Speaker, p. 86.
OBS. 3.—Some grammarians ascribe to two or three of our interjections the power of governing sometimes the nominative case, and sometimes the objective. First, NIXON; in an exercise entitled, "NOMINATIVE GOVERNED BY AN INTERJECTION," thus: "The interjections O! Oh! and Ah! require after them the nominative case of a substantive in the second person; as, 'O thou persecutor!'—'O Alexander! thou hast slain thy friend.' O is an interjection, governing the nominative case Alexander."—English Parser, Again, under the title, "OBJECTIVE CASE GOVERNED BY AN INTERJECTION," he says: "The interjections O! Oh! and Ah! require after them the objective case of a substantive in the first or third person; as, 'Oh me!' 'Oh the humiliations!' Oh is an interjection, governing the objective case humiliations."—These two rules are in fact contradictory, while each of them absurdly suggests that O, oh, and ah, are used only with nouns. So J. M. PUTNAM: "Interjections sometimes govern an objective case; as, Ah me! O the tender ties! O the soft enmity! O me miserable! O wretched prince! O cruel reverse of fortune! When an address is made, the interjection does not perform the office of government."—Putnam's Gram., So KIRKHAM; who, under a rule quite different from these, extends the doctrine of government to all interjections: "According to the genius of the English language, transitive verbs and prepositions require the objective case of a noun or pronoun after them; and this requisition is all that is meant by government, when we say that these parts of speech govern the objective case. THE SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO THE INTERJECTION. 'Interjections require the objective case of a pronoun of the first person after them; but the nominative of a noun or pronoun of the second or third person; as, Ah me! Oh thou! O my country!' To say, then, that interjections require particular cases after them, is synonymous with saying, that they govern those cases; and this office of the interjection is in perfect accordance with that which it performs in the Latin, and many other languages."—Kirkham's Gram., According to this, every interjection has as much need of an object after it, as has a transitive verb or a preposition! The rule has, certainly, no "accordance" with what occurs in Latin, or in any other language; it is wholly a fabrication, though found, in some shape or other, in well-nigh all English grammars.
OBS. 4.—L. MURRAY'S doctrine on this point is thus expressed: "The interjections O! Oh! and Ah! require the objective case of a pronoun in the first person after them, as, 'O me! oh me! Ah me!' But the nominative case in the second person: as, 'O thou persecutor!' 'Oh ye hypocrites!' 'O thou, who dwellest,' &c."—Octavo Gram., INGERSOLL copies this most faulty note literally, adding these words to its abrupt end,—i. e., to its inexplicable "&c." used by Murray; "because the first person is governed by a preposition understood: as, 'Ah for me!' or, 'O what will become of me!' &c., and the second person is in the nominative independent, there being a direct address."—Conversations on E. Gram., So we see that this grammarian and Kirkham, both modifiers of Murray, understand their master's false verb "require" very differently. LENNIE too, in renouncing a part of Murray's double or threefold error, "Oh! happy us!" for, "O happy we!" teaches thus: "Interjections sometimes require the objective case after them, but they never govern it. In the first edition of this grammar," says he, "I followed Mr. Murray and others, in leaving we, in the exercises to be turned into us; but that it should be we, and not us, is obvious; because it is the nominative to are understood; thus, Oh happy are we, or, Oh we are happy, (being) surrounded with so many blessings."—Lennie's Gram., Fifth Edition, Twelfth, Here is an other solution of the construction of this pronoun of the first person, contradictory alike to Ingersoll's, to Kirkham's, and to Murray's; while all are wrong, and this among the rest. The word should indeed be we, and not us; because we have both analogy and good authority for the former case, and nothing but the false conceit of sundry grammatists for the latter. But it is a nominative absolute, like any other nominative which we use in the same exclamatory manner. For the first person may just as well be put in the nominative absolute, by exclamation, as any other; as, "Behold I and the children whom God hath given me!"—Heb., "Ecce ego et pueri quos mihi dedit Deus!"—Beza. "O brave we!"—Dr. Johnson, often. So Horace: "O ego lævus," &c.—Ep. ad Pi., 301.
"Ah! luckless I! who purge in spring my spleen—
Else sure the first of bards had Horace been."
—Francis's Hor., ii, 209.
OBS. 5.—Whether Murray's remark above, on "O! Oh! and Ah!" was originally designed for a rule of government or not, it is hardly worth any one's while to inquire. It is too lame and inaccurate every way, to deserve any notice, but that which should serve to explode it forever. Yet no few, who have since made English grammars, have copied the text literally; as they have, for the public benefit, stolen a thousand other errors from the same quarter. The reader will find it, with little or no change, in Smith's New Grammar, p. 96 and 134; Alger's, 56; Allen's, 117; Russell's, 92; Blair's, 100, Guy's, 89; Abel Flint's, 59; A Teacher's, 43, Picket's, 210; Cooper's[439] Murray, 136; Wilcox's, 95; Bucke's, 87; Emmons's, 77; and probably in others. Lennie varies it indefinitely, thus: "RULE. The interjections Oh! and Ah! &c. generally require the objective case of the first personal pronoun, and the nominative of the second; as, Ah me! O thou fool! O ye hypocrites!"—Lennie's Gram., p. 110; Brace's, 88. M'Culloch, after Crombie, thus: "RULE XX. Interjections are joined with the objective case of the pronoun of the first person, and with the nominative of the pronoun of the second; as, Ah me! O ye hypocrites."—Manual of E. Gram., p. 145; and Crombie's Treatise, p. 315; also Fowler's E. Language, p. 563. Hiley makes it a note, thus: "The interjections. O! Oh! Ah! are followed by the objective case of a pronoun of the first person; as, 'Oh me!' 'Ah me!' but by the nominative case of the pronoun in the second person; as, 'O thou who dwellest.' "—Hiley's Gram., p. 82. This is what the same author elsewhere calls "THE GOVERNMENT OF INTERJECTIONS;" though, like some others, he had set it in the "Syntax of PRONOUNS." See Ib., p. 108. Murray, in forming his own little "Abridgment," omitted it altogether. In his other grammars, it is still a mere note, standing where he at first absurdly put it, under his rule for the agreement of pronouns with their antecedents. By many of his sage amenders, it has been placed in the catalogue of principal rules. But, that it is no adequate rule for interjections, is manifest; for, in its usual form, it is limited to three, and none of these can ever, with any propriety, be parsed by it. Murray himself has not used it in any of his forms of parsing. He conceived, (as I hinted before in Chapter 1st,) that, "The syntax of the Interjection is of so very limited a nature, that it does not require a distinct, appropriate rule."—Octavo Gram., i. 224.
OBS. 6.—Against this remark of Murray's, a good argument may be drawn from the ridiculous use which has been made of his own suggestion in the other place. For, though that suggestion never had in it the least shadow of truth, and was never at all applicable either to the three interjections, or to pronouns, or to cases, or to the persons, or to
Comments (0)