Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-03-01
For the Phenir Gazette .

been induced to make few remarks, through
the medium of your interesting journal, upon
two new publications, on the subject Of English
Grammar. One, entitled SIN appeal from the
present popular Systems Of English PhiloIosy, to
Common Sense" This shews the defects oil the
popular system, and deserves the attention OF
every grammarian. The other, entitled ".an II
meriean System of English Grammar, Developing
iheprinciplss Of the English Language, and I'M
pressing them upon the memory by exercising The
judgment of the Learner" This, also, in my o.
pinion, is work Of real merit; 1t is the best
system of English Grammar that has come un-
der my notice. In both, the author evinces
great talents for invention and ratiocinauon,
originality Of thought acuteness ofintellect, and
an extensive acquaintance with the philosophy
of the English language. The Grammar is
admirably calculated to urge the youthful mind
TO invention, and habiluate it to close and acou-
rate thinking. Tt presents the science to the
learner, in way which cannot fail to command
his attention, and employ his perceptive pow
ers. OF course, therefore, it differs materially
from the popular system OF English Grammar.
On this account, many may be induced to reject
il; but those who will read it attentively, and
contrast it with the system of Murray, and lis
various notifications by Greenleaf, lngersoll
and others, will readily discover the correctness
Of the former, and the absurdiy Of the latter
The definitions in the American system, hit the
family trait Of words; they include and srclude;
they are therefore correct. The definitions in
the other system, are in many instances incor-
reel. and involve the learner in perplexity, and
leave him in doubt.
In support Of my assertions, it may not be
IMPROPER 10 introduce something by way Of IL
lustration, and leave the candid grammarian to
Judge of their correctness. "The objective
case expresses the object OF an action or OF re-
la,ior;s as Saul prosecuted the Christians. Ac-
cording TO the definition, the noun Christians,
is in the Objective case; this is correct. lnvert
the order of these words. The Christians were
prosecuted by Saul. Y noun, Christians, is
here in the nominstive csse! But how does this
comport with the definition? 1t asserts as deci-
ded!y as words can declare, that the name OF
the object Of an action, is the objective case.
II cannot be said that the Christian N the lat
ter example, are not the objects OF persecution
as well as in the former. The noun, Christians,
therefore, according 10 the definition, IS IN the
objeetipe casen This is absurd: and what is still
more astonishing, Saul, the very actor or agent
himself, is put, contrary to the definition, in the
obisetire caseH!
/ will now show these inconsistencies are
avoided by the American or new system
Things are here divided into two great families;
namely, subjects and objects. Those which
receive the principal OF greater share OF thought
are subjects: those which are introduced mere
" to explain something relaiire to the subject,
are objects. For illustration, we may advert
to pair of tongs, and a coal of fire. Now, the
coal is the principal thing, the central point OF
though, and action; the coal then is'the SUBJECT
The ,ongs being used as instruments, with
which to handle the subject or coal, are mere
objects. Further: The bird is on the tree. Here,
the bird is the central point of thought, and is
the subject Again: The tree is near the bird.
Here, the tree becomes the subject, and the bird
the object.
Saul prosecuted the Christians.
Now, in order to distinguish the subject from
the object, you must consider with which the
writer is particularly concerned. This you
will find 10 be Saul; Saul, then, rs the subject
and as the Christians receive but slight glance
of mental attention, they are the objects.
The Christians were prosecuted by Saul.
Upon the above principles it will be seen,
that the Christians who, in the former exam
ple, are the objects, in the latter are the central
point of thought, and become the subjects. IL
is matter Of no consequence whether the thing
acts, or is acted upon, according to the new
system. If the thing is the central point OF
thought, its name is in the nom'naf'0s case IL
tits not the central point OF thought, Its name
is in the objective case.