The Potter journal. [volume] (Coudersport, Pa.) 1857-1872, 1860-01-26
"ENGLISH GRAMMAR.
g PART !,

"PART I.
"3 LANGUAGE.
Defnition-Language, in general
sense, is any means of expressing the
thoughts suggested by the desires, the
emotions, the passions, the reason.
Specifcdtion.-Language made mp
of words, with which We shall primarily
have to do in this work, is either written
or spoken, according as we wish to ad-
dress our thoughts to the minds of others
through the medium of the ear or eye"
He opens with language without tell
ing that there is any relation between
grammar and language. His specification
is long and needless, especially, "we shall
primarily have to do with words" as the
most hasty glance shows it is all words
and no meaning. This is too hard to be
placed in the hands Of child commcnc-
ing grammar. The next twenty pages
are too easy for one who has commenced
grammar. Thus his arrangement spoils
it for all classes of pupils. Instead of
treating each topic in full by itself, he
tells one fact and then a score OF pages
intervene before he tells another Noun
Is defined on page 5 !: it is not mentioned
again until page 81, and is finally drop
ped on page 81. Though occupying so
much space he fails to treat the subject
accurately, fully, or logically. He says
"nouns are of four kinds proper, common,
collective, and abstract" Other gram
marians give two classes and call collect
I've and abstract nouns, sub-classcs of
common nouns. 1t needs no great acu-
men to see that they are sub classes. Thus.
virtue is the general name for class Of
noble traits of character, According to
Kenyon's definitions it is both a common
and an abstract noun, yet lie failed to see
that noun could belong to these two
classes at the same time. "Nouns un-
dergo certain changes called variations {:
these will be better understood by attend
ing to the details than by any laLored
definitions" A plain admission that he
labored hard in preparing his definitions,
and in the absence of other, may be taken
as the reason why ne has not given def
inition of grammar Then he ta6ors to
give definitions -
" Variations are of four kinds per
son, number, gender, case. The person
Of substantiyes denotes the speaker, the
hearer, or the person or thing spoken of
The first person denotes the speaker; the
second the hearer; the third, the person
or thing spoken of. Number is the va
ration of nouns that distinguishes wheth-
er one object, or more than Cne is meant.
Gender is the distinction of sex. The
term case is used to indicate the relation
that substantives sustain to other words"
Each definition differs in form from the
others. Does not this indicate labor? On
page 80 "gender is variation" on page
"A, I" it is the distinction of sex, both
cannot be true. Suppose the person spok-
en- Of, hears /; he is in both the second and
third person. Suppose the person ad-
dressed, does not hear; he is in no per-
son. To such absurdities do Kenyon's
definitions lead. | will now quote from
page 66, where he tries to be sarcastic :;
he is speaking of, what he calls ''coniunc-
tive pronouns of one case" "The words
now under consideration, are usually call
ed relative pronouns, but with what pro-
pricty, the author Cf this work has not
been able to learn. He objects to the
use of the term, because it is not dis
ttnctipe. The term relative pronoun will
apply equally to the personal pronouns
as to this class. To illustrate Sarah
gave the book, which she bought of the
pedier, to Ler sister. Let US apply the
following definition: "a relative pronoun
is pronoun that relates to some word or
phrase going before, called its antecedent.'
In the sentence above qohich relates to
book, some word going before, called its
antecedent; therefore ,chich is relative
pronoun. Her relates to Sarah, some
word going before called its antecedent,
(why not p therefore her is a relative
pronoun, (why notO Hence which is
a relative pronoup, and her is a personal
pronoun. o logic thou art beautiful
thing, especially when applied to Eug-
lish grammar" Here he Is not candid. |
He does not tell us whose definition of
relative pronoun, he is applying; but tries
to convey the impression that every body
except himself gives that definition. i
have looked for it in many grammars, but |