The Science Of Grammar

Free Articles

& # 1052 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1056 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1041 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1100 ;

& # 1059 ; & # 1095 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1078 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1103 ;

& # 171 ; & # 1043 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1081 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1081 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1090 ;

& # 1080 ; & # 1084 ; . & # 1060 ; . & # 1057 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1099 ; & # 187 ;

& # 1060 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1095 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1081 ; & # 1092 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1090 ;

THE SCIENCE OF GRAMMAR

& # 1050 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1072 ;

& # 1048 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1100 ; :

& # 1057 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1050 ; -42

& # 1051 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1094 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1058 ; . & # 1045 ; .

& # 1043 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1100 ; 2006

& # 1057 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1078 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1077 ;

Introduction

1. Grammar bears to linguistic communication

2. Grammar is the art of authorship and speech production right

3. The term grammar

4. The composing of linguistic communication

Decision

Literature

Introduction

“ Haec de Grammatica quam brevissime potui: non ut omnia dicerem sectatus, ( quod infinitum erat, ) sed ut upper limit necessaria. ” — QUINTILIAN. _De Inst. Orat._ , Lib. I, Cap. ten.

Language, in the proper sense of the term, is curious to adult male ; so that, without a marvelous premise of human powers, none but human existences can do words the vehicle of idea. An imitation of some of the articulate sounds employed in address, may be exhibited by parrots, and sometimes by domesticated Corvus coraxs, and we know that about all beast animate beings have their curious natural voices, by which they indicate their feelings, whether delighting or painful. But linguistic communication
is an property of ground, and differs basically non merely from all beastly voices, but even from all the chattering, gabble, and babble of our ain species, in which there is non an apprehensible significance, with division of idea, and differentiation of words.

1. Grammar bears to linguistic communication 1. Grammar bears to linguistic communication

Speech consequences from the joint exercising of the best and noblest modules of human nature, from our rational apprehension and our societal fondness ; and is, in the proper usage of it, the curious decoration and differentiation of adult male, whether we compare him with other orders in the creative activity, or position him as an single preeminent among his chaps. Hence that scientific discipline which makes known the nature and construction of address, and instantly concerns the correct and elegant usage of linguistic communication, while it surpasses all the constructs of the stupid or unconditioned, and nowadayss nil that can look desirable to the animal and grovelling, has an intrinsic self-respect which extremely commends it to all individuals of sense and gustatory sensation, and makes it most a front-runner with the most talented heads. That scientific discipline is Grammar. And though at that place be some masterminds who affect to contemn the trammels of grammar regulations, to whom it must be conceded that many things which have been unskillfully taught as such, merit to be despised ; yet it is true, as Dr. Adam comments, that, “ The survey of Grammar has been considered an object of great importance by the wisest work forces in all ages. ” — _Preface to Latin and English Gram._ , p. three.

Grammar bears to linguistic communication several different dealingss, and acquires from each a nature taking to a different definition. First,
It is to linguistic communication, as cognition is to the thing known ; and as philosophy, to the truths it inculcates. In these dealingss, grammar is a scientific discipline. It is the first of what have been called the seven scientific disciplines, or broad subdivisions of cognition ; viz. , grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, uranology, and music. Second,
It is as accomplishment, to the thing to be done ; and as power, to the instruments it employs. In these dealingss, grammar is an art ; and as such, has long been defined, “ _ars recte scribendi, recteque loquendi_ ” the art of authorship and talking right. Third,
It is as pilotage, to the ocean, which nautic accomplishment entirely enables work forces to track. In this relation, theory and pattern combine, and grammar becomes, like pilotage, a practical scientific discipline. Fourthly,
It is as a chart, to a seashore which we would see. In this relation, our grammar is a text-book, which we take as a usher, or usage as a aid to our ain observation. Fifthly,
It is as a individual ocean trip, to the unfastened sea, the main road of states. Such is our significance, when we speak of the grammar of a peculiar text or transition.

Again: Grammar is to linguistic communication a kind of introspection. It turns the module of address or composing upon itself for its ain elucidation ; and makes the lingua or the pen explain the utilizations and maltreatments to which both are apt, every bit good as the nature and Excellency of that power, of which, these are the two expansive instruments. From this history, some may get down to believe that in treating of grammar we are covering with something excessively assorted and mutable for the apprehension to hold on ; a dodging Proteus of the imaginativeness, who is of all time ready to presume some new form, and elude the watchfulness of the enquirer. But let the reader or pupil make his portion ; and, if he delight, follow us with attending. We will endeavor, with welded links, to adhere this Proteus, in such a mode that he shall neither get away from our clasp, nor fail to give to the consulter an apprehensible and satisfactory response. Be non discouraged, generous young person. Hark to that sweet far-reaching note:

“ Sed, quanto ille Wise Men formas Se vertet in omnes, Tanto, nate, Wise Men contende tenacia vincla. ” VIRGIL.

Geor. IV, 411.

“ But 1000, the more he varies signifiers, beware To strive his hobbles with a stricter attention. ” DRYDEN ‘S VIRGIL.

If for a minute we consider the good and the immorality that are done in the universe through the medium of address, we shall with one voice acknowledge, that non merely the module itself, but besides the mode in which it is used, is of incalculable importance to the public assistance of adult male. But this contemplation does non straight heighten our regard for grammar, because it is non to linguistic communication as the vehicle of moral or of immoral sentiment, of good or of evil to mankind, that the attending of the grammarian is peculiarly directed. A consideration of the topic in these dealingss, pertains instead to the moral philosopher. Nor are the humanistic disciplines of logic and rhetoric now considered to be decently within the syntactician ‘s state. Modern scientific discipline assigns to these their separate topographic points, and restricts grammar, which at one period embraced all acquisition, to the cognition of linguistic communication, as respects its fittingness to be the vehicle of any peculiar idea or sentiment which the talker or author may wish to convey by it. Accordingly grammar is normally defined, by authors upon the topic, in the particular sense of an art — ” the art
of speech production or composing a linguistic communication with properness or rightness. ” — _Webster ‘s Dict._

2. Grammar is the art of authorship and talking right 2. Grammar is the art of authorship and speech production right

Lily says, “ Grammatica est recte scribendi atque loquendi Ars ; ” that is, “ Grammar is the art of authorship and talking right. ” Despauter, excessively, in his definition, which is quoted in a preceding paragraph, non improperly placed composing foremost, as being that with which grammar is chiefly concerned. For it ought to be remembered, that over any fleeting colloquial idiom, which has ne’er been fixed by seeable marks, grammar has no control ; and that the speech production which the art or scientific discipline of grammar Teachs, is entirely that which has mention to a cognition of letters. It is the certain inclination of authorship, to better address. And in proportion as books are multiplied, and the cognition of written linguistic communication is diffused, local idioms, which are beneath the self-respect of grammar, will ever be found to turn fewer, and their differences less. There are, in the assorted parts of the universe, many linguistic communications to which the art of grammar has ne’er yet been applied ; and to which, hence, the definition or true thought of grammar, nevertheless general, does non properly extend. And even where it has been applied, and is now honoured as a popular subdivision of survey, there is yet great room for betterment: brutality and faux pass have non been rebuked away as they deserve to be.

Melancthon says, “ Grammatica est certa loquendi Ac scribendi ratio, Latinis Latine. ” Vossius, “ Ars bene loquendi eoque et scribendi, atque Idaho Latinis Latine. ” Dr. Prat, “ _Grammatica est recte loquendi atque scribendi ars._ ” Ruddiman besides, in his Institutes of Latin Grammar, reversed the footings composing
and speech production,
and defined grammar, “ _ars rece loquendi scribendique_ ; ” and, either from mere imitation, or from the general observation that address precedes authorship, this agreement of the words has been followed by most modern syntacticians. Dr. Lowth embraces both footings in a more general one, and says, “ Grammar is the art of justly showing
our ideas by words. ” It is, nevertheless, the state of grammar, to steer us non simply in the look of our ain ideas, but besides in our apprehensiveness of the ideas, and our reading of the words, of others. Hence, Perizonius, in noticing upon Sanctius ‘s imperfect definition, “ _Grammatica est Ars recte loquendi_ , ” non improperly asks, “ _et quidni intelligendi et explicandi_ ? ” “ and why non besides of understanding and explicating? ” Hence, excessively, the art of reading
is virtually a portion of grammar ; for it is but the art of apprehension and talking right that which we have before us on paper. And Nugent has consequently given us the undermentioned definition: “ Grammar is the art of reading, speech production, and composing a linguistic communication by regulations. ” — _Introduction to Dict._ , P. twelve. [ 1 ]

The word _recte_ , justly, genuinely, right, which occurs in most of the foregoing Latin definitions, is censured by the erudite Richard Johnson, in his Grammatical Commentaries, on history of the vagueness of its significance. He says, it is non merely equivocal by ground of its different utilizations in the Latin classics, but destitute of any meaning proper to grammar. But even if this be true as respects its earlier application, it may good be questioned, whether by frequence of usage it has non acquired a meaning which makes it proper at the present clip. The English word right
seems to be less apt to such an expostulation ; and either this brief term, or some other of like import, ( as, “ with rightness ” — ” with properness, ” ) is still normally employed to state what grammar is. But can a male child learn by such agencies what it is, _to speak and compose grammatically_ ? In one sense, he can ; and in an other, he can non. He may deduce, from any of these footings, some thought of grammar as distinguished from other humanistic disciplines ; but no simple definition of this, or of any other art, can pass on to him that learns it, the accomplishment of an creative person.

R. Johnson speaks at big of the relation
of words to each other in sentences, as constituting in his position the most indispensable portion of grammar ; and as being a point really much overlooked, or really severely explained, by syntacticians in general. His animadversion is merely. And it seems to be as applicable to about all the grammars now in usage, as to those which he criticised a hundred and thirty old ages ago. But possibly he gives to the relation of words, ( which is simply their dependance on other words harmonizing to the sense, ) an earlier debut and a more outstanding topographic point, than it ought to hold in a general system of grammar. To the right usage of linguistic communication, he makes four things to be necessary. In mentioning these, I vary the linguistic communication, but non the substance or the order of his places. First,
That we should talk and compose words harmonizing to the meanings which belong to them: the instruction of which now pertains to lexicography, and non to grammar, except incidentally. “ Second,
That we should detect the dealingss
that words have one to another in sentences, and represent those dealingss by such fluctuations, and atoms, as are usual with writers in that linguistic communication. ” Third,
That we should get a cognition of the proper sounds of the letters, and pay a due respect to stress in pronunciation. Fourthly,
That we should larn to compose words with their proper letters, spelling them as literary work forces by and large do.

From these places, ( though he sets aside the first, as refering to lexicography, and non now togrammar, as it once did, ) the learned critic deduces foremost his four parts of the topic, and so his definition of grammar. “ Hence, ” says he, “ there originate Four Partss of Grammar ; Analogy,
which dainties of the several parts of address, their definitions, accidents, and formations ; Syntax,
which dainties of the usage of those things in building, harmonizing to their dealingss ; Orthography,
which dainties of spelling ; and Prosody,
which dainties of stressing in pronunciation. So, so, the true definition of Grammar is this: Grammar is the art of showing the dealingss
of things in building, with due speech pattern in speech production, and writing system in authorship, harmonizing to the usage of those whose linguistic communication we learn. ” Again he adds: “ The word relation
has other senses, taken by itself ; but yet the relation of words one to another in a sentence,
has no other meaning than what I intend by it, viz. , of cause, consequence, means, terminal, mode, instrument, object, adjunct, and the like ; which are names given by logisticians to those dealingss under which the head comprehends things, and hence the most proper words to explicate them to others. And if such things are excessively difficult for kids, so grammar is excessively difficult ; for there neither is, nor can be, any grammar without them. And a small experience will fulfill any adult male, that the immature will as easy grok them, as _gender, figure, declension_ , and other grammar-terms. ” See _R. Johnson ‘s Grammatical Commentaries_ , p. 4.

It is true, that the _relation of words_ — by which I mean that connection between them, which the train of idea signifiers and suggests — or that dependance which one word has on an other harmonizing to the sense — lies at the foundation of all sentence structure. No regulation or rule of building can of all time hold any pertinence beyond the bounds, or contrary to the order, of this relation. To see what it is in any given instance, is but to understand the significance of the phrase or sentence. And it is obviously, that no word of all time needfully agrees with an other, with which it is non therefore connected in the head of him who uses it. No word of all time governs an other, to which the sense does non direct it. No word is of all time required to stand instantly before or after an other, to which it has non some relation harmonizing to the significance of the transition.

Here so are the relation, understanding, authorities, and agreement, of words in sentences ; and these make up the whole of sentence structure — but non the whole of grammar. To this one portion of grammar, hence, the relation of words is cardinal and cardinal ; and in the other parts besides, there are some things to which the consideration of it is incidental ; but there are many more, like spelling, pronunciation, derivation, and whatsoever belongs simply to letters, syllables, and the signifiers of words, with which it has, in fact, no connection. The relation of words, hence, should be clearly and to the full explained in its proper topographic point, under the caput of sentence structure ; but the general thought of grammar will non be brought nigher to truth, by doing it to be “ the art of showing the dealingss
of things in building, ” & amp ; c. , harmonizing to the foregoing definition.

3 The term grammar 3 The term grammar

The term grammar
is derived from the Grecian word [ Hellenic: grama ] , a missive. The art or scientific discipline to which this term is applied, had its beginning, non in cursory address, but in the pattern of authorship ; and address, which is foremost in the order of nature, is last with mention to grammar. The affair or common topic of grammar, is linguistic communication in general ; which, being of two sorts, spoken
and written,
consists of certain combinations either of sounds or of seeable marks, employed for the look of idea. Letterss and sounds, though frequently carelessly confounded in the definitions given of vowels, consonants, & A ; c. , are, in their ain nature, really different things. They address themselves to different senses ; the former, to the sight ; the latter, to the hearing. Yet, by a curious relation randomly established between them, and in effect of an about eternal assortment in the combinations of either, they coincide in a most admirable mode, to consequence the great object for which linguistic communication was bestowed or invented ; viz. , to supply a certain medium for the communicating of idea, and the saving of cognition.

All linguistic communications, nevertheless different, have many things in common. There are points of a philosophical character, which result alike from the analysis of any linguistic communication, and are founded on the very nature of human idea, and that of the sounds or other marks which are used to show it. When such rules entirely are taken as the topic of enquiry, and are treated, as they sometimes have been, without respect to any of the parlances of peculiar linguistic communications, they constitute what is called General, Philosophical, or Universal Grammar. But to learn, with Lindley Murray and some others, that “ Grammar may be considered as dwelling of two species,
Universal and Particular, ” and that the latter simply “ applies those general rules to a peculiar linguistic communication, ” is to follow a double absurdness at the beginning. [ 2 ] For every cultivated linguistic communication has its peculiar grammar, in which whatsoever is cosmopolitan, is needfully included ; but of which, universal or general rules form merely a portion, and that relatively little. We find hence in grammar no “ two species ” of the same genus ; nor is the scientific discipline or art, as normally defined and understood, susceptible of division into any proper and distinguishable kinds, except with mention to different linguistic communications — as when we speak of Greek, Latin, French, or English grammar.

There is, nevertheless, as I have suggested, a certain scientific discipline or doctrine of linguistic communication, which has been denominated Universal Grammar ; being made up of those points merely, in which many or all of the different linguistic communications preserved in books, are found to co-occur. All bad heads are fond of generalisation ; and, in the enormousness of the positions which may therefore be taken of grammar, such may happen an amusement which theynever felt in simply larning to talk and compose grammatically. But the pleasance of such contemplations is non the earliest or the most of import fruit of the survey. The first thing is, to cognize and understand the grammatical building of our ain linguistic communication. Many may gain by this acquisition, who extend non their enquiries to the analogies or the parlances of other linguas. It is true, that every point of grammatical philosophy is the more worthy to be known and regarded, in proportion as it approaches to catholicity. But the rules of all practical grammar, whether cosmopolitan or peculiar, common or curious, must foremost be learned in their application to some one linguistic communication, before they can be distinguished into such categories ; and it is manifest, both from ground and from experience, that the young person of any state non destitute of a good book for the intent, may outdo get a cognition of those rules, from the grammatical survey of their native lingua.

Universal or Philosophic Grammar is a big field for guess and enquiry, and embraces many things which, though true plenty in themselves, are unfit to be incorporated with any system of practical grammar, nevertheless comprehensive its program. Many writers have erred here. With what is simply theoretical, such a system should hold small to make. Philosophy, covering in generalizations, resolutenesss speech non merely as a whole into its component parts and dissociable elements, as anatomy shows the usage and version of the parts and articulations of the human organic structure ; but besides as a composite into its affair and signifier, as one may contemplate that same organic structure in its entirety, yet as consisting of stuffs, some solid and some fluid, and these oddly modelled to a peculiar figure. Grammar, decently so called, requires merely the former of these analyses ; and in carry oning the same, it descends to the 1000 minute specifics which are necessary to be known in pattern. Nor are such things to be despised as fiddling and low: ignorance of what is common and simple, is but the more scandalous for being ignorance of mere basicss. “ Wherefore, ” says Quintilian, “ they are small to be respected, who represent this art as mean and waste ; in which, unless you dependably lay the foundation for the hereafter speechmaker, whatever superstructure you raise will topple into ruins. It is an art, necessary to the immature, pleasant to the old, the sweet comrade of the retired, and one which in mention to every sort of survey has in itself more of public-service corporation than of show. Let no one hence despise as inconsiderable

the elements of grammar. Not because it is a great thing, to separate consonants from vowels, and afterwards split them into glides and deaf-and-dumb persons ; but because, to those who enter the interior parts of this temple of scientific discipline, there will look in many things a great subtilty, which is fit non merely to sharpen the marbless of young person, but besides to exert the loftiest eruditeness and scientific discipline. ” — De Institutione Oratoria,
Lib. I, Cap. four. Lib. I, Cap. four.
4 The composing of linguistic communication 4 The composing of linguistic communication

Again, of the humanistic disciplines which spring from the composing of linguistic communication. Here the art of logic, taking entirely at strong belief, addresses the apprehension with cool tax write-offs of unstained truth ; rhetoric, planing to travel, in some peculiar way, both the opinion and the understandings of work forces, applies itself to the fondnesss in order to carry ; and poetry, assorted in its character and inclination, solicits the imaginativeness, with a position to please, and in general besides to teach. But grammar, though closely connected with all these, and indispensable to them in pattern, is still excessively distinguishable from each to be identified with any of them. In respect to self-respect and involvement, these higher surveies seem to hold greatly the advantage over peculiar grammar ; but who is willing to be an ill-formed poet, speechmaker, or logician? For him I do non compose. But I would carry my readers, that an familiarity with that grammar which respects the mastermind of their common lingua, is of primary importance to all who would cultivate a literary gustatory sensation, and is a necessary debut to the survey of other linguistic communications. And it may here be observed, for the encouragement of the pupil, that as grammar is basically the same thing in all linguistic communications, he who has good mastered that of his ain, has overcome more than half the trouble of larning another ; and he whose cognition of words is the most extended, has the fewest obstructions to meet in continuing farther.

It was the “ original design ” of grammar, says Dr. Adam, to ease “ the acquisition of linguistic communications ; ” and, of all practical treatises on the topic, this is still the chief intent. In those books which are to fix the scholar to interpret from one lingua into another, seldom is any thing else attempted. In those besides which profess to explicate the right usage of common address, must the same intent be of all time paramount, and the “ original design ” be kept in position. But the grammarian may learn many things by the way. One can non larn a linguistic communication, without larning at the same clip a great many sentiments, facts, and rules, of some sort or other, which are needfully embodied in it. For all linguistic communication returns from, and is addressed to, the apprehension ; and he that perceives non the significance of what he reads, makes no acquisition even of the linguistic communication itself. To the scientific discipline of grammar, the nature of the thoughts
conveyed by insouciant illustrations, is non really indispensable: to the scholar, it is extremely of import. The best ideas in the best enunciation should supply the theoretical accounts for vernal survey and imitation ; because such linguistic communication is non merely the most worthy to be remembered, but the most easy to be understood. A differentiation is besides to be made between usage and maltreatment. In bunk, absurdness, or falsity, there can ne’er be any grammatical authorization ; because, nevertheless linguistic communication may be abused, the use which gives jurisprudence to speech, is still that use which is founded upon the common sense
of world.

Grammar entreaties to ground, every bit good as to authorization, but to what extent it should make so, has been affair of difference. “ The cognition of utile humanistic disciplines, ” says Sanctius, “ is non an innovation of human inventiveness, but an emanation from the Deity, falling from above for the usage of adult male, as Minerva sprung from the encephalon of Jupiter. Wherefore, unless thou give thyself entirely to arduous research into the nature of things, and diligently analyze the causes and grounds
of the art 1000 teachest, believe me, thou shalt but see with other work forces ‘s eyes, and hear with other work forces ‘s ears. But the heads of many are preoccupied with a certain perverse sentiment, or instead nescient amour propre, that in grammar, or the art of speech production, there are no causes, and that ground is barely to be appealed to for any thing ; — than which idle impression, I know of nil more foolish ; — nil can be thought of which is more violative. Shall adult male, endowed with ground, do, state, or contrive any thing, without design, and without understanding? Hear the philosophers ; who positively declare that nil comes to go through without a cause. Hear Plato himself ; who affirms that names and words subsist by nature, and contends that linguistic communication is derived from nature, and non from art. ”

“ I know, ” says he, “ that the Aristotelians think otherwise ; but no 1 will doubt that names are the marks, and as it were the instruments, of things. But the instrument of any art is so altered to that art, that for any other intent it must look unfit ; therefore with an plumber’s snake we bore, and with a proverb we cut wood ; but we split rocks with cuneuss, and cuneuss are driven with heavy sledges. We can non therefore but believe that those who foremost gave names to things, did it with design ; and this, I imagine, Aristotle himself understood when he said, _ad placitum nomina significare._ For those who contend that names were made by opportunity, are no less brave than if they would endeavor to carry us, that the whole order of the existence was framed together fortunately. ”

“ You will see, ” continues he, “ that in the first linguistic communication, whatever it was, the names of things were taken from Nature herself ; but, though I can non confirm this to hold been the instance in other linguas, yet I can easy carry myself that in every lingua a ground can be rendered for the application of every name ; and that this ground, though it is in many instances vague, is however worthy of probe. Many things which were non known to the earlier philosophers, were brought to visible radiation by Plato ; after the decease of Plato, many were discovered by Aristotle ; and Aristotle was nescient of many which are now everyplace known. For truth prevarications hid, but nil is more cherished than truth. But you will state, ‘How can at that place be any certain beginning to names, when one and the same thing is called by different names, in the several parts of the universe? ‘ I answer, of the same thing there may be different causes, of which some people may see one, and others, an other. * * * There is hence no uncertainty, that of all things, even of words, a ground is to be rendered: and if we know non what that ground is, when we are asked ; we ought instead to squeal that we do non cognize, than to confirm that none can be given. I know that Scaliger thinks otherwise ; but this is the true history of the affair. ”

“ These several observations, ” he comments further, “ I have unwillingly brought together against those obstinate critics who, while they explode ground from grammar, insist so much on the testimonies of the learned. But have they ne’er read Quintilian, who says, ( Lib. I, Cap. 6, ) that, ‘Language is established by ground, antiquity, authorization, and usage? ‘ He hence does non except ground, but makes it the chief thing. Nay, in a mode, Laurentius, and other grammatists, even of their follies, are frontward to offer grounds,
such as they are. Furthermore, usage does non take topographic point without ground ; otherwise, it ought to be called maltreatment, and non utilize. But from use authorization derives all its force ; for when it recedes from usage, authorization becomes nil: whence Cicero reproves Coelius and Marcus Antonius for talking harmonizing to their ain

illusion, and non harmonizing to usage. But, ‘Nothing can be permanent, ‘ says Curtius, ( Lib. four, ) ‘which is non based upon ground. ‘ It remains, hence, that of all things the ground be foremost assigned ; and so, if it can be done, we may convey forward testimonies ; that the thing, holding every advantage, may be made the more clear. ” — Sanctii Minerva,
Lib. I, Cap. 2.

ulius Caesar Scaliger, from whose sentiment Sanctius dissents above, seems to restrict the scientific discipline of grammar to jump well excessively narrow, though he found within them room for the exercising of much inventiveness and acquisition. He says, “ Grammatica est scientia loquendi ex usu ; neque enim constituit regulas scientibus usus modum, sed antique eorum statis frequentibusque usurpatiombus colligit communem rationem loquendi, quam discentibus traderet. ” — _De Causis L. Latinae_ , Lib. four, Cap. 76. “ Grammar is the scientific discipline of talking harmonizing to usage ; for it does non set up regulations for those who know the mode of usage, but from the settled and frequent uses of these, gathers the common manner of speech production, which it should present to scholars. ” This limited position seems non merely to except from the scientific discipline the usage of the pen, but to relieve the learned from any duty to esteem the regulations prescribed for the induction of the immature. But I have said, and with abundant authorization, that the acquisition of a good manner of authorship is the chief intent of the survey ; and, certainly, the proficients and aces in the art can want for themselves no such freedom. Work force of mastermind, so, sometimes affect to contemn the pettiness of all grammatical instructions ; but this can be nil else than mannerism, since the use of the learned is true the footing of all such instructions, and several of the loftiest of their ain rank appear on the list of syntacticians.

Quintilian, whose authorization is appealed to above, belonged to that age in which the exegesis of histories, verse forms, and other Hagiographas, was considered an indispensable portion of grammar. He hence, every bit good as Diomedes, and other antediluvian authors, divided the syntactician ‘s responsibilities into two parts ; the one including what is now called grammar, and the other the account of writers, and the stigmatizing of the unworthy. Of the sentiment referred to by Sanctius, it seems proper to do here an ampler commendation. It shall be attempted in English, though the paragraph is non an easy one to interpret. I understand the writer to state, “ Speakers, excessively, have their regulations to detect ; and authors, theirs. Language is established by ground, antiquity, authorization, and usage. Of ground the head land is analogy, but sometimes etymology. Ancient things have a certain stateliness, and, as I might state, faith, to commend them. Authority is wont to be sought from speechmakers and historiographers ; the necessity of meter largely excuses the poets. When the opinion of the main Masterss of fluency base on ballss for ground, even error seems right to those who follow great leaders. But, of the art of speech production, usage is the surest kept woman ; for address is obviously to be used as money, which has upon it a public cast. Yet all these things require a penetrating opinion, particularly analogy ; the force of which is, that one may mention what is dubious, to something similar that is clearly established, and therefore turn out unsure things by those which are certain. ” — QUINT, _de Inst. Orat._ , Lib. I, Cap. 6, p. 48.

He scientific discipline of grammar, whatever we may say to be its merely bounds, does non look to hold been better cultivated in proportion as its range was narrowed. Nor has its application to our lingua, in peculiar, of all time been made in such a mode, as to make great
honor to the acquisition or the endowments of him that attempted it. What is new to a state, may be old to the universe. The development of the rational powers of young person by direction in the classics, every bit good as the betterment of their gustatory sensation by the exhibition of what is elegant in literature, is continually prosecuting the attending of new Masterss, some of whom may look to consequence great betterments ; but we must retrieve that the concern itself is of no recent beginning. Plato and Aristotle, who were great Masterss both of grammar and of doctrine, taught these things competently at Athens, in the 4th century before
Jesus. Varro, the grammarian, normally styled the most erudite of the Romans, was modern-day
with the Saviour and his apostles. Quintilian lived in the first
century of our epoch, and before he wrote his most famed book, taught a school twenty old ages in Rome, and received from the province a wage which made him rich. This “ masterful usher of contrary young person, ” as the poet Martial called him, being neither ignorant of what had been done by others, nor disposed to believe it a light undertaking to order the right usage of his ain linguistic communication, was at first slow to set about the work upon which his celebrity now reposes ; and, after it was begun, diligent to put to death it worthily, that it might turn both to his ain honor, and to the existent promotion of learning.He says, at the beginning of his book: “ After I had obtained a quiet release from those labors which for 20 old ages had devolved upon me as an teacher of young person, certain individuals familiarly demanded of me, that I should compose something refering the proper mode of speech production ; but for a long clip I withstood their solicitations, because I knew there were already celebrated writers in each linguistic communication, by whom many things which might refer to such a work, had been really diligently written, and left to descendants. But the ground which I thought would obtain for me an easier alibi, did but excite more earnest prayer ; because, amidst the assorted sentiments of earlier authors, some of whom were non even consistent with themselves, the pick had become hard ; so that my friends seemed to hold a right to enjoin upon me, if non the labor of bring forthing new instructions, at least that of judging refering the old. But although I was persuaded non so much by the hope of providing what was required, as by the shame of refusing, yet, as the affair opened itself before me, I undertook of my ain agreement a much greater undertaking than had been imposed ; that while I should therefore compel my really good friends by a Fuller conformity, I might non come in a common way and pace merely in the footfalls of others. For most other authors who have treated of the art of speech production, have proceeded in such a mode as if upon aces in every other sort of philosophy they would put the last touch in fluency ; either contemning every bit small things the surveies which we foremost learn, or believing them non to fall to their portion in the division which should be made of the professions ; or, what so is following to this, trusting no congratulations or thanks for their inventiveness about things which, although necessary, lie far from fanfare: the tops of edifices make a show, their foundations are unobserved. ” — _Quintiliani de Inst. Orat. , Prooemium._

But the reader may inquire, “ What have all these things to make with English Grammar? ” I answer, they help to demo us whence and what it is. Some familiarity with the history of grammar as a scientific discipline, every bit good as some cognition of the construction of other linguistic communications than our ain, is necessary to him who professes to compose for the promotion of this subdivision of acquisition — and for him besides who would be a competent justice of what is therefore professed. Grammar must non bury her beginning. Criticism must non vacate the protection of letters. The national literature of a state is in the maintaining, non of the people at big, but of writers and instructors. But a grammarian presumes to be a justice of writing, and a instructor of instructors ; and is it to the honor of England or America, that in both states so many are countenanced in this premise of topographic point, who can read no linguistic communication but their female parent lingua? English Grammar is non decently an autochthonal production, either of this state or of Britain ; because it is but a subdivision of the general scientific discipline of linguistics — a new assortment, or species, sprung up from the old stock long ago transplanted from the dirt of Greece and Rome.

It is true, so, that neither any ancient system of grammatical direction nor any grammar of an other linguistic communication, nevertheless contrived, can be wholly applicable to the present province of our lingua ; for linguistic communications must necessitate differ greatly one from an other, and even that which is called the same, may come in clip to differ greatly from what it one time was. But the general analogies of address, which are the cardinal rules of grammar, are but amiss seen by the adult male of one linguistic communication. On the other manus, it is possible to cognize much of those general rules, and yet be really lacking in what is curious to our ain lingua. Real betterment in the grammar of our linguistic communication, must ensue from a position that is neither partial nor superficial. “ Time, regretful creative person, ” as was said of old, “ makes all he handles worse. ” And Lord Bacon, looking to hold this proverb in position, suggests: “ If Time of class alter all things to the worse, and Wisdom and Counsel shall non change them to the better, what shall be the terminal? ” — _Bacon ‘s Essays_ , p. 64.

Decision

Therefore the demand that an able and discreet grammarian should now and so look, who with adept manus can consequence those corrections which a alteration of manner or the ignorance of writers may hold made necessary ; but if he is decently qualified for his undertaking, he will make all this without a going from any of the great rules of Universal Grammar. He will certainly be really far from believing, with a certain modern writer, whom I shall notice in an other chapter, that, “ He is bound to take words and explicate them as he finds them in his twenty-four hours, without any respect to their ancient building and
application. ” — _Kirkham ‘s Gram._ , p. 28. The whole history of every word, so far as he can determine it, will be the position under which he will judge of what is right or incorrect in the linguistic communication which he teaches. Etymology is neither the whole of this position, nor yet to be excluded from it. I concur non hence with Dr. Campbell, who, to do out a strong instance, abundantly says, “ It is ne’er from an attending to etymology,
which would often misdirect us, but from usage, the

merely infallible usher in this affair, that the significances of words in present usage must be learnt. ” — Philosophy of Rhetoric,
p. 188. Jamieson excessively, with an implicitness small to be commended, takes this transition from Campbell ; and, with no other alteration than that of “ _learnt_ ” to “ _learned_ ” publishes it as a corollary of his own. — Grammar of Rhetoric,
p. 42. It is folly to province for truth what is so evidently incorrect. Etymology and usage are seldom at odds ; and where they are so, the latter can barely be deemed infallible.

Literature Literature

1. Brill, E. and Mooney, R. J. ( 1997 ) , & # 8216 ; An overview of empirical natural linguistic communication processing ‘ , in AI Magazine, 18 ( 4 ) : 13-24.

2. Chomsky, N. ( 1957 ) , Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.

3. Curme, G. O. ( 1955 ) , English Grammar. New York: Barnes and Noble.

4. Dowty, D. R. , Karttunen, L. and Zwicky, A. M. ( explosive detection systems ) ( 1985 ) , Natural Language Parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5. Garside, R. ( 1986 ) , ‘The CLAWS word-tagging system ‘ , in R. Garside,

6. G. Leech and G. Sampson ( explosive detection systems ) The Computational Analysis of English. Harlow: Longman.

7. Gazdar, G. and Mellish, C. ( 1989 ) , Natural Language Processing in POP-11. Reading, UK: Addison-Wesley.

8. Georgiev, H. ( 1976 ) , ‘Automatic acknowledgment of verbal and nominal word groups in Bulgarian texts ‘ , in t.a. information, Revue International du traitement automatique du langage, 2, 17-24.

9. Georgiev, H. ( 1991 ) , ‘English Algorithmic Grammar ‘ , in Applied Computer Translation, Vol. 1, No. 3, 29-48.

10. Georgiev, H. ( 1993a ) , ‘Syntparse, package plan for parsing of English texts ‘ , presentation at the Joint Inter-Agency Meeting on Computer-assisted Terminology and Translation, The United Nations, Geneva.

11. Georgiev, H. ( 1993b ) , ‘Syntcheck, a computing machine package plan for orthographical and grammatical spell-checking of English texts ‘ , presentation at the Joint Inter-Agency Meeting on Computer-assisted Terminology and Translation, The United Nations, Geneva.

12. Georgiev, H. ( 1994 & # 8212 ; 2001 ) , Softhesaurus, English Electronic Lexicon, produced and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland ; platform: DOS/ Windows.

13. Georgiev, H. ( 1996-2001a ) , Syntcheck, a computing machine package plan for orthographical and grammatical spell-checking of German texts, produced and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland ; platform: DOS/Windows.

14. Georgiev, H. ( 1996-200lb ) , Syntparse, package plan for parsing of German texts, produced and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland ; platform: DOS/Windows.

15. Georgiev, H. ( 1997 & # 8212 ; 2001a ) , Syntcheck, a computing machine package plan for orthographical and grammatical spell-checking of Gallic texts, produced and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland ; platform: DOS/Windows.

16. Georgiev, H. ( 1997-2001b ) , Syntparse, package plan for parsing of Gallic texts, produced and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland ; platform: DOS/Windows.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*