Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

When the singular and plural are alike in the nominative, the apostrophe ought to follow the s in the plural, to distinguish it from the singular; as a sheep's head;" "sheeps' heads."

66

The sign 's is a contraction of es or is. Thus man's, king's, were formerly written manes or manis, kinges or kingis.

N.B. The Rev. Dr. M'Culloch, in his admirable "Manual of English Grammar," says "It has been supposed that the termination ['s] of the English possessive is a contraction of the possessive pronoun his. Thus-John's book' has been said to be an abbreviation of John his book.' But this opinion is evidently erroneous. The termination ['s] cannot always be resolved into the pronoun his. We cannot resolve 'queen's crown' into 'queen his crown,' or 'children's bread' into 'children his bread.' The fact seems to be, that the English possessive termination is one of the parts of our language, which we have preserved from the Saxon. The casal termination of the Saxon possessive is es or is, as appears in such phrases as Godes sight,' 'kingis crown.' The progress of change in the termination seems to have been es, is, 's.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Several respectable authors and critics have fallen into the error of regarding this possessive termination as a contraction of the pronoun his. "The same single letter [s], on many occasions, does the office of a whole word, and represents the his or her of our forefathers."-Addison.

It is true that the word his was frequently written after words to form the possessive, by Spenser, Dry

den, Pope, and other popular authors, during a period of two or three centuries, as, "Christ his sake"-" Socrates his rules;" but the present contracted form of the possessive was in use still earlier, and our ablest philologists have uniformly referred its origin to the old Saxon termination.

4. Adjectives have three degrees of comparison :the positive, the comparative, and the superlative; but it has been objected to the positive form, that, as it denotes the quality in its simple state, without increase or diminution, it cannot properly be called a degree. It should, however, be borne in mind that all adjectives imply a general comparison of qualities. Thus, when we say that a man is discreet, we obviously mean that he has more discretion than the generality of men. So also when we say that a man is tall, it is implied that he is tall compared with other men. Hence arises the difference between the height of a tall man and that of a tall tree, each being compared with others of the same kind. In this sense, therefore, the positive is strictly and properly a degree of comparison.

The following adjectives are compared irregularly:

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

N.B. Elder and eldest are applied to persons; and, according to the best usage, only in comparing members of the same family. Thus-an elder brother, the eldest sister: but-Wellington was little older than Napoleon; the oldest street in the town.— D'Orsey.

Some adjectives in the superlative degree are formed by adding most to the comparative, or to the word, from which the comparative itself is made; as, hind, hinder, hindermost or hindmost: nether, nethermost: up, upper, uppermost or upmost: in, inner, innermost or inmost.

Diminution of quality is expressed by less and least, whether the adjective be of one syllable or more than one; as, bold, less bold, least bold.

5. There seems to be no good reason for joining an and other. An here excludes any other article: and analogy and consistency require that the words be separated. Their union has sometimes led to an improper repetition of the article; as, "Another such a man," for "An other such man."

6. The pronoun you was originally plural in signifcation, but it is now universally employed in popular discourse to represent either a singular or a plural

noun.

No usage of our language is more fully established

than that, which recognizes you as the representative of nouns in the singular number.

Brightland, one of the earliest of our English grammarians, who wrote in 1710, classes you with the singular pronouns I, thou, and he. Greenwood, in his celebrated grammar, which appeared the following year, says " Thou or you is of the second person singular." The same opinion was entertained by many other grammatical writers of the last century.

Lindley Murray's Grammar first appeared in 1795. Following the practice of the Society of Friends,-the community, in which he was educated,―he restricted you to the plural number; and such was the influence of his example that this word was, for a time, very generally excluded from the list of singular pronouns.

There has, however, always existed a respectable class of authors, who have treated the pronoun you as singular, when used to personate an individual: and, during the last forty years, the number of this class has very rapidly increased.

"It is altogether absurd to consider you as exclusively a plural pronoun in the modern English language. It may be a matter of history, that it was originally used as a plural only: and it may be a matter of theory, that it was first applied to individuals on a principle of flattery: but the fact is, that it is now our second person singular. When applied to an individual, it never excites any idea either of plurality or of adulation: but excites, precisely and exactly, the idea, that was excited by the use of thou, in an earlier stage of the language.”—Jeffrey, in the Edinburgh Review.

"If a word, once exclusively plural, becomes, by universal use, the sign of individuality, it must take its place in the singular number. That this is the fact with you, is proved by national usage."-Webster.

7. The "Society of Friends" profess to use thou in addressing a single individual-many of them, however, [perhaps from an idea that it is less formal] misemploy thee for thou, and often join it to the third. person of the verb instead of the second. Such expressions as "thee does, thee is, thee has, thee thinks," &c. are double solecisms: they set all grammar at defiance. We have, however, in Scripture, an instance of similar inaccuracy: -- "For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: O well is thee [that is to say, O thee is well,] and happy shalt thou be."-Psalm cxxviii. 2. Prayer Book Translation.

66

8. Never say "I have come"-" He has risen"They were once in good circumstances, but have now fallen"-but "I am come"-"He is risen". They were, &c., but are now fallen."

66

9. We nearly always see can and not written as one word: thus, cannot. This is not always correct. The rule for the junction or non-junction is very simple: When power is denied, can and not are united to prevent ambiguity: as, "I cannot go." "I cannot go." But when the power is affirmed, and something else is denied, the words are written separately: as, "The Christian apologist can not merely expose the utter baseness of the infidel assertion, but he has also positive ground for erecting an opposite and confronting assertion in its place."

10. When adjectives are connected, and the quali

« ElőzőTovább »