eter:

APPENDIX.

IN making even an elementary text-book, an Author finds it essary, for the satisfaction of teachers and of more advanced olars, sometimes to enter briefly upon discussions of disputed nts, and to make remarks more or less extended in explanaand defence of his methods and definitions. Such remarks discussions, if inserted in the body of the book, even though inguished from the main text by a difference of type, are nd to confuse the minds of beginners. I have judged it t, therefore, in preparing a new edition of my book, to place matter of this kind at the end of the volume, in the form of Appendix.

1. TRUE GROUND OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE LETTERS. When the mouth, throat, and other organs of speech are opened in a icular position, and the voice is allowed to flow out in a continuous uniform current, without any change in the position of the organs, sound so formed is called a VOWEL. In this manner we may prog the sound of a indefinitely, or until out of breath. If, while the ce is thus issuing from the mouth, the current of sound is interted by a partial compression of the organs, the sound becomes a I-VOWEL. Thus, while prolonging the sound of a, if we press the que upon the upper part of the mouth, but allow the voice still to ceed, the sound becomes that of the letter l. If this compression omes so great as actually to close the organs, the sound ceases, and he very act of ceasing gives rise to a MUTE. Thus, in the case just tioned, if instead of pressing the tongue upon the roof of the mouth, press it against the teeth, and entirely stop the passage of the voice, actual termination of the sound is that indicated by the letter t. s process may be reversed. The letter t may be formed first and vowel follow it, as in pronouncing the syllable ta. In this case the te is the very beginning of sound. According to this explanation,

then, as stated in the text, a Mute is merely the commencement or the termination of the sound, on opening or closing the organs; a Semivowel is a partial interruption or modification of the sound, caused by changing the position of the organs during utterance; and a Vowel is the very sound itself prolonged without change. (Page 8.)

2. IMPROPER DIPHTHONGS.

In giving examples of the sounds of the different letters, the improper diphthongs are omitted. In every improper diphthong, one of the vowels is not sounded at all, and may therefore be disregarded. The sound of the other vowel will be found in its proper place in the list of the vowel sounds. The same remark is applicable to the triphthongs. A few examples of foreign sounds of the letters are also omitted, as of au in hautboy, &c. (Page 10.)

3. ON DOUBLING THE FINAL L.

The words, in regard to which there is a dispute respecting the doubling of the final l, are the derivatives of the following: apparel, bevel, bowel, cancel, carol, cavil, channel, chisel, counsel, cudgel, dishevel, drivel, duel, embowel, enamel, empanel, equal, gambol, gravel, grovel, handsel, hatchel, imperil, jewel, kennel, label, level, libel, marshal, marvel, model, panel, parcel, pencil, peril, pistol, pommel, quarrel, ravel, revel, rival, rowel, shovel, shrivel, snivel, tassel, trammel, travel, tunnel, unravel. There is the same dispute respecting the derivatives of bias, and worship. (Page 15.)

1

4. ORIGIN AND MEANING OF THE ARTICLES.

A or an was originally ae, ane, or one. In course of time it became abbreviated into its present form, and by a usage not uncommon in the history of language, the short form acquired a shade of meaning different from the long form, though both were originally precisely the same. The difference is this. One expresses the idea of unity with emphasis. A expresses the same idea, only without emphasis. This will be understood at once by an example. "Can one man carry this weight?" "No, but two could." "Can a man carry this weight?" "No, but a horse could." The idea of unity is expressed in both of these examples; but in the former it is emphatic, in the latter it is not. In the former, one is the leading idea, as distinguished from two or more; in the latter, man is the leading idea, as distinguished from horse or other animal.

A similar remark may be made in regard to the. The word the was originally thaet or that. In course of time it became abbreviated, and the short form acquired, in usage, a shade of meaning different from the original long one. That is demonstrative with emphasis; the is demonstrative without emphasis.

hat these words have acquired a real difference in meaning as well
orm, is evident. 1. Because a and the cannot stand without a noun,
and that can. Thus, I can say, "Give me one, give me that," but
annot say, "Give me a, give me the." 2. Because a and the do not
essarily contradistinguish from two and this, as one and that do.
Because in many cases they are evidently not interchangeable.
kingdom for a horse," and "one kingdom for one horse," express
erent ideas. "The revolution," means, in this country, "the Ameri-
"revolution. "That revolution" may or may not mean so.
In considering the article as forming a separate part of speech, I
ve acted in obedience to the immemorial usage of all languages.
e proper rank of a seems to be with the indefinite pronouns, and that
the with the demonstrative pronouns. If Grammar were a science
be written anew, very likely both the article and the adjective pro-
uns would be called, as in their nature they truly are, Adjectives.
en in that case, however, it is to be remarked, not so much would be
ned in the way of simplification as some persons have supposed.
should require in that case a subdivision of adjectives, correspond-
to the present subdivision of the adjective pronouns, for these words
ve differences of meaning and construction, and, in those languages
ich admit of changes of termination, differences also of form, that
arly distinguish them, both from ordinary adjectives, and from each
ner. (Page 18.)

5. PHILOSOPHICAL CHARACTER OF THE ENGLISH IN REGARD TO GENDER.

The English is, perhaps, the most philosophical of all languages in gard to gender. In other languages things without life are generally asculine, feminine, or neuter, according to their terminations, and thout reference to sex or the absence of it. But in English, gender strictly a distinction of sex, things without sex being invariably uter. In consequence of this peculiarity, the language is capable of rhetorical beauty, which is unknown in other languages. Personifition (which means, considering inanimate objects as persons, endowed ith life) is, in its ordinary form, one of the boldest figures of rhetoric, nd can be used with propriety only in the highest flights of poetry ad oratory. There is, however, a lower kind of personification which n be used in English, and frequently with great beauty. When, for stance, it is desirable to raise the style slightly above the tenor of rose composition, it can often be done with the greatest ease, simply y applying "he" and "she" to neuter nouns. This indirect kind of ersonification at once animates and enlivens the style, without renderng it passionate or overwrought. In this way we say of the earth, she is fruitful," of the sun, "he has risen in his strength," of time, he flies on rapid wings," &c.

When this animated kind of phraseology is used, it is impossible to possiaaoqmiimpo