The-Grammar-of-English-Grammars-48

Prévia do material em texto

in	reputation	and	revenue	he	is	altogether	as	preëminent	as	he	pretends	to	be.
The	character	of	his	alleged	improvements,	however,	I	shall	inspect	with	the	eyes
of	one	who	means	to	know	the	certainty	for	himself;	and,	in	this	item	of	literary
history,	the	reader	shall	see,	in	some	sort,	what	profit	there	is	in	grammar.	Is	the
common	language	of	two	of	the	largest	and	most	enlightened	nations	on	earth	so
little	understood,	and	its	true	grammar	so	little	known	or	appreciated,	that	one	of
the	most	unscholarly	and	incompetent	of	all	pretenders	to	grammar	can	have
found	means	to	outrival	all	the	grammarians	who	have	preceded	him?	Have
plagiarism	and	quackery	become	the	only	means	of	success	in	philology?	Are
there	now	instances	to	which	an	intelligent	critic	may	point,	and	say,	"This	man,
or	that,	though	he	can	scarcely	write	a	page	of	good	English,	has	patched	up	a
grammar,	by	the	help	of	Murray's	text	only,	and	thereby	made	himself	rich?"	Is
there	such	a	charm	in	the	name	of	Murray,	and	the	word	improvement,	that	by
these	two	implements	alone,	the	obscurest	of	men,	or	the	absurdest	of	teachers,
may	work	his	passage	to	fame;	and	then,	perchance,	by	contrast	of
circumstances,	grow	conceited	and	arrogant,	from	the	fortune	of	the
undertaking?	Let	us	see	what	we	can	find	in	Kirkham's	Grammar,	which	will	go
to	answer	these	questions.
25.	Take	first	from	one	page	of	his	"hundred	and	fifth	edition,"	a	few	brief
quotations,	as	a	sample	of	his	thoughts	and	style:
"They,	however,	who	introduce	usages	which	depart	from	the	analogy	and
philosophy	of	a	language,	are	conspicuous	among	the	number	of	those	who	form
that	language,	and	have	power	to	control	it."	"PRINCIPLE.—A	principle	in
grammar	is	a	peculiar	construction	of	the	language,	sanctioned	by	good	usage."
"DEFINITION.—A	definition	in	grammar	is	a	principle	of	language	expressed
in	a	definite	form."	"RULE.—A	rule	describes	the	peculiar	construction	or
circumstantial	relation	of	words,	which	custom	has	established	for	our
observance."—Kirkham's	Grammar,	page	18.
Now,	as	"a	rule	describes	a	peculiar	construction,"	and	"a	principle	is	a	peculiar
construction,"	and	"a	definition	is	a	principle;"	how,	according	to	this
grammarian,	do	a	principle,	a	definition,	and	a	rule,	differ	each	from	the	others?
From	the	rote	here	imposed,	it	is	certainly	not	easier	for	the	learner	to	conceive
of	all	these	things	distinctly,	than	it	is	to	understand	how	a	departure	from
philosophy	may	make	a	man	deservedly	"conspicuous."	It	were	easy	to	multiply
examples	like	these,	showing	the	work	to	be	deficient	in	clearness,	the	first
requisite	of	style.
26.	The	following	passages	may	serve	as	a	specimen	of	the	gentleman's	taste,
and	grammatical	accuracy;	in	one	of	which,	he	supposes	the	neuter	verb	is	to
express	an	action,	and	every	honest	man	to	be	long	since	dead!	So	it	stands	in	all
his	editions.	Did	his	praisers	think	so	too?
"It	is	correct	to	say,	The	man	eats,	he	eats;	but	we	cannot	say,	The	man	dog	eats,
he	dog	eats.	Why	not?	Because	the	man	is	here	represented	as	the	possessor,	and
dog,	the	property,	or	thing	possessed;	and	the	genius	of	our	language	requires,
that	when	we	add	to	the	possessor,	the	thing	which	he	is	represented	as
possessing,	the	possessor	shall	take	a	particular	form	to	show	ITS	case,	or
relation	to	the	property."—Ib.,	p.	52.
THE	PRESENT	TENSE.—"This	tense	is	sometimes	applied	to	represent	the
actions	of	persons	long	since	dead;	as,	'Seneca	reasons	and	moralizes	well;	An
HONEST	MAN	IS	the	noblest	work	of	God.'"—Ib.,	p.	138.
PARTICIPLES.—"The	term	Participle	comes	from	the	Latin	word	participio,
[10]	which	signifies	to	partake."—"Participles	are	formed	by	adding	to	the	verb