of roundness, hardness, &c. but that idea in concreto,—in conjunction with its subject. Hence it follows that a word which does not add to its noun the idea of some quality or attribute as belonging to it or connected with it, is not strictly speaking an adjective, and for this reason the articles, and the words generally ranked as distributive, demonstrative, and indefinite pronouns, though adjectives in construction, are not so in sense and meaning. They express no quality, property or attribute of a noun, either separately or in connection with it, nor can they be predicated of it. On the other hand all words which do make such an addition to the noun, may properly be regarded as adjectives, though they be often or generally used for other purposes. Thus the words "gold," "sea," "flower," are nouns, but when we saya gold watch," "sea water," "a flower garden," they are used as adjectives.

COMPARISON.-Adjectives denoting qualities or properties capable of increase, and so of existing in different degrees, assume different forms to express a greater or less degree of such quality or property in one object compared with another, or with several others. These forms are three, and are appropriately denominated the positive, comparative, and superlative. Some object to the positive being called a degree of comparison, because in its ordinary use it does not, like the comparative and superlative forms, necessarily involve comparion. And they think it more philosophical to say, that the degrees of comparison are only two, the comparative and superlative. This, however, with the appearance of greater exactness is little else than a change of words, and a change perhaps not for the better. If we define a degree of compariron a form of the adjective which necessarily implies comparison," this change would be just, but this is not what grammarians mean, when they say there are three degress of comparison. Their meaning is that there are three forms of the adjective, each of which, when comparison is intended, expresses a different degree of the quality or attribute in the things compared: Thus, if we compare wood, stone, and iron, with regard to their weight, we would say "wood is heavy, stone heavier, and iron is the heaviest." Each of these forms of the adjective in this comparison expresses a different degree of weight in the things compared, the positive heavy expresses one degree, the comparative heavier, another, and the superlative heaviest, a third, and of these the first is as essential an element in the comparison as the second, or the third. Indeed there never can be comparison without the statement of at least two degrees, and of these the positive form of the adjective either expressed or implied. always expresses one. When we say "wisdom is more precious than rubies," two degrees of value are compared, the one expressed by the comparative, "more precious," the other necessarily implied. The meaning is "rubies are precious, wisdom is more precious." Though, therefore, it is true, that the simple

form of the adjective does not always, nor even commonly denote comparison, yet as it always does indicate one of the degrees compared whenever comparison exists, it seems proper to rank it with the other forms, as a degree of comparison. This involves no impropriety, it produces no confusion, it leads to no error, it has a positive foundation in the nature of comparison, and it furnishes an appropriate and convenient appellation for this form of the adjective, by which to distinguish it in speech from the other forms.

4. PRONOUNS.

The term pronoun (Lat pronomen) strictly means a word used for, or instead of a noun. In English, Pronouns are usually divided into three general classes, personal, relative, and adjective. The first or personal, includes also compound pronouns which in the nominative are emphatic or definite, and in the objective, reflexive, § 15. 2. The second or relative, (except "that") without any change of form becomes interrogative in asking questions, § 17. All the words in these two classes both in sense and construction are used as nouns, and instead of nouns.

The third class called adjective pronouns, and sometimes pronominal adjectives, is usually subdivided into possessive, distributive, demonstrative, and indefinite. Of these the first or possessive are derived from the personal, and in meaning are strictly pronouns, being always the representative or substitute of a noun; but in construction they are adjectives and are always joined with a noun, and hence are appropriately denominated adjective pronouns, i. e. pronouns used adjectively. By some they are less appropriately classed with adjectives; and called pronominal adjectives.

In many grammars the possessives my, thy, his, her, its, our, your, their, are set down as the possessive case of the personal pronouns, with mine, thine, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, making two forms of the possessive case, thus; my or mine, thy or thine, &c. In the use of these forms this difference is to be observed, viz: that the first is always followed by a noun denoting the thing possessed; as, "this is my book;" the latter never has the noun following it, but seems as it were to include it, as well as to be governed by it; as, "this book is not mine;”—equivalent to "this book is not my book." The possessive case of the noun is used both ways; as, "this is John's book," or, "this book is John's." Which of these methods is adopted in teaching or studying grammar, is a matter of no practical moment; some grammarians adopt the one and some the other, merely as a matter of taste without any controversy on the subject. The classification in the text is preferred as being on the whole more simple, because the possessives my, thy, &c. like the adjective, can never stand alone, as the possessive case does, but must be supported by a noun following them; Thus we say, "It is the

king's," "It is yours;" but we cannot say "It is your," the presence of a noun being necessary to the last expression;-and because if these words are ranked as the possessive case of the personal pronoun, it unnecessarily leaves the English language without a class of words, corresponding to the possessive pronouns of other languages. They have precisely the same meaning as the Latin Meus, mea, meum; or the French Mon, ma, or the German Mein, (or meiner) meine, mein; or the Anglo-Saxon, (which is the mother of the English language,) Min, mine, min,—and they are used in precisely the same way. There seems therefore, to be no good reason for giving them a different classification. Indeed, the only circumstance which renders it possible to regard them as a possessive case in English, is that like the English adjective they are indeclinable. Had they been declinable, like the Latin or French, &c. they never could have been used as a possessive case. The theory which would class the possessive mine, thine, hers, yours, &c. as the nominative or objective, because we can say for example, "Mine is better than yours," seems unworthy of a moment's notice.

The words belonging to the other three divisions, have been found more difficult to arrange in a satisfactory manner. They seem to occupy a sort of middle ground between adjectives and pronouns, and are sometimes used as the one, and sometimes as the other, without the strict and appropriate character of either. They are not adjectives in sense as already shewn. App. III. 2, but they are generally adjectives in construction, having a noun expressed or understood, which they serve to limit or restrict in various ways. On the other hand, with few exceptions, they are so often used without a noun, or as its substitute, that they are not improperly regarded as pronouns, though in a sense less strict than the others. Thus, "Let each esteem others better than themselves." "Among men, some are good, others bad, none perfect." "All things come alike to all," &c.

From this equivocal or rather double character of these words, they have been variously arranged by different authors. Some, among whom are Grant, Crombie, Hiley, Sutcliffe, Allen, Cooper, Brown, &c. class them with adjectives, and call them "Pronominal Adjectives;" and others, such as Lowth, Priestly, Smart, Murray, Lennie, Booth, Churchill, Wright, Cobbet, Kirkham, Smith, and many others, class them with pronouns, and call them "Adjective Pronouns." Since all are agreed about the use of these words, it seems in itself a matter of less importance to which of these two classes they be attached, or whether they are more appropriately called Pronominal Adjectives or Adjective Pronouns. But as in the Latin and Greek and in most, if not all European languages, almost all of the corresponding words are ranked uniformly as adjective pronouns; and as there is no necessity for, and no advantage to be derived from a different classification, it seems to be unwise, merely for the sake of change

or the love of singularity, to depart from this arrangement in English.

5. THE VERB.

1. DEFINITION.-The proper definition of this part of speech, its division into classes, and the distribution, arrangement, and nomenclature of its different parts, grammarians have found to be a task of no small difficulty, and their endeavors to execute it have not always proved satisfactory either to themselves or others. Of the many definitions and classifications that have been proposed, none are entirely free from objections; and the same variety that occurs on this subject in English grammars, is found also in the grammars of foreign languages. As a definition, I have met with nothing more brief and accurate than that given in the text.

2. MURRAY'S DIVISION.-The classification of verbs has been and still is a vexed question. In accordance with his definition, Murray has divided verbs into three classes, Active, Passive, and Neuter, and includes in the first class transitive verbs only, and in the last all verbs used intransitively. To this classification it is objected. 1st. That it makes active and passive two different classes, whereas they constitute properly but one class, under two different forms. Active and passive are in fact but different forms or parts of one and the same verb, and consequently must be regarded as belonging to one class. § 21 Obs. 1.-2d. It confines the use of the term "transitive" to the active voice, whereas verbs in the passive form are as really transitive as in the active form. § 21, as above. 3d. If this inaccuracy be corrected by referring all transitive verbs, whether active or passive in form to one class, the term "Neuter" (neither of the two) will be inappropriate as a designation for the class to which it is now applied.

3. KIRKHAM'S DIVISION.-The division of Murray, however, is better than that of Kirkham, Smith, and some others, who agree with Murray, in dividing verbs into active, passive, and neuter, but differ from him in ranking what they call intransitive verbs, under the general head of active verbs, and designating by the term "neuter", those verbs only which are supposed not to denote action at all, but only being in a certain state, and that of course not a state of action. This division is liable to all the objections that lie against the division of Murray, and to others still more serious, as;

1st. It creates a distinction between intransitive and neuter verbs, which it is often very difficult to make, and when made, whether correctly or not, is of no use whatever in grammar, as those verbs called intransitive, and those called neuter, in construction, are always used in precisely the same way, they neither nave nor need a regimen.

2d. It unites in one class in Etymology, words which must be distinguished in Syntax, namely, transitive and intransitive verbs, the former of which, in the active voice, always have a regimen,

and the latter never, but are used in the same way as neuter verbs. Whenever an intransitive verb takes a regimen, it thereby becomes transitive, and should be so denominated.

3d. By confining the term neuter to verbs which do not express action, whenever, in construction, verbs of this class are used transitively, as often happens, we are led to regard as active a verb, whose characteristic is that it expresses no action whatever. For example; when we say of a person, "He lived and died in peace with all men,” “lived" and "died are both neuter verbs, i.e. they express neither action nor passion. But when we say, "he lived the life and died the death of the righteous," they both beome active and transitive verbs, and yet neither of them express any more action in this case than they did in the other.

4. BROWN'S DIVISION.—Mr. Brown, and some others with him divide verbs into four classes. Active-transitive, Active-intransitive, Passive, and Neuter. This differs from the preceding only in dividing the active verbs of that division into two classes, ac tive-transitive, and active-intransitive—a distinction also made in the other case in the form of an observation. It is of course liable to nearly the same objections. This four-fold division is faulty in the following respects. 1st. The first and third properly constitute but one class, as they both express transitive action, and differ only in form, the one being in the active voice and the other in the passive. 2d. In a four-fold division of verbs, the term "neuter" (neither of the two) as a designation of one class has no appropriate meaning. 3d. The second and fourth divisions should be classed under one head, as they are both intransitive, and are used in the construction of sentences in precisely the same way.

5. It has been already noticed that verbs usually neuter and intransitive, are sometimes used transitively. In such cases, they should be denominated transitive verbs. In like manner, transitive verbs are sometimes used intransitively. When we say of a person that "he reads, writes, and converses well, labors diligently, lives happily, and sleeps soundly," we have six verbs, of which the first two are in sense, active-transitive verbs, because a person cannot read or write without reading or writing something, and yet it is manifest there is nothing active or transitive intended to be expressed; the whole idea conveyed by these words in this sentence, is simply "he is a good reader and a good writer." "Reads," and writes," here, are just as intransitive as "converses," or "labors," or "sleeps"-in fact, that all the six verbs are used in a manner precisely alike, to express certain habits, capacities, or states, of the subject "he." It is manifest, therefore, that in parsing such a sentence, "reads" and "writes" should be described as transitive verbs used intransitively, or more simply as intransitives. From all these facts taken together, I think the following positions are fully warranted, viz:

1st. That the presence or the absence of action, simply consi