The Potter journal. [volume] (Coudersport, Pa.) 1857-1872, 1860-03-01
TERMS. .-sl.25 PER AMNuM.

ed "my whole review" as the subject of
his proposition he would have had that
as the only truthful sentence in the whole
Article. Let Mr.. Cooper collect and pub.
ish a few specimens of Mr.. Kenyon's
yiliiGcation OF others; nay, let him pub.
lish every word and syllable that DIR.
Kenyon says Of others in his whole gram.
mar, and it will appear sufficiently ssi.
dent who the rafife, is. Sustain your
position, Mr. Cooper, or own yourself the
villifer. And the other charges are 10
groundiess as this.
2. Mr. Cooper's review presents the
undoubted evidences of an hireiing Can
did and honorable reviewers give the mer.
its and demerits of a book, and leave the
rsadcrs to judge its authors abilities.
But when a reviewer is conscious that he
has failed to make cut case, he supplies
the deficiency by slang phrases, and un-
gentlemanly epithets, applied to the au-
thor of the work under review. Tbs
public is, at short intervals, presented
with reviews of Webster's Dictionary,
Sanders Readers, &c, &C., dressed out
very much in the style Of Mr. Cooper's
review of Kenyon These reviewers arc
understood, among literary men, to be tho
paid agents of the publishers of rival
books. There is always class of literary
men of small caiiber, who can be employ
ed to do this kind of dirty work. The
likeness Of Mr.. Coopcr's review TO the
reviews of this class Of men, shows un-
mistakably where he belongs.
3. Kcnyon's Grammar undoubtedly
has its defects, for what book has not!
But for accuracy of definition, ioyica!
arrangement, aud clearncsS Of Wustrd-
ton, it has no supcriors, if any equals, in
the English language. His was the 6rst
effort to bring cut al English Grammar
upon the basis of the French and Ger
man grammarians. That plan now is al.
most universally adopted by all first class
grahuarians.
!. Coveli's Grammar has its merits.
It WAS moaeled after very excellent
grammar, Green's but is far inferior to
the model Yields Grammar, adopted
by the Associations committee, is preem-
lnently superior to Covell's Strange that
a man Of Mr. Croper's pretensions and
careful examinations of grammars, should
not have met with so popular and SO ex.
ceileut work as Yields, at an ea.lier
day.
[ have said Covells has its merits; It
has also its demerits. A specimen will
suffice. | open the book at random, and
the first classification that meets my eye,
is that OF the verb. read "An active
verb is one that expresses action" A
passive verb is one that represents its SUBJ
iect as acted upon" But does not the
first definition iaclu8s all passive verbs !!
Take an example. Drutus killed Ceasar,
and Caesar was killed by Bru'us. XII
cd, VIC are taught by Covell, is an active
vcrb, aud 1raS killed is a paSsice verb.
But who does not see that ,cas killed ex-
presses action, the same kind and degree
of action that hHYcd expresses? Was
hitled IS, therefore, an active verb The
learner is bewildcred by his author. But
" the passive verb represents its subject
as acted upon" But Coyeli nowhere de-
h0cs what he mears by the subject of
verb. And without this, the learner is
left to guess out the meaning. This def
iuition occurs on page 3S. Nominativs
ease is the SUbject Of finite verb" This
may enHghten tho learner But unfor-
tunately how does he know what finite
verb is ? The grammar does not inform
him. And if he does in somcway sur
mount this difficulty, how can he ascer-
tain the subject of the infnilive and par
ticiPlc? Are their subjects neccssarially
IN the nominatiye case, or are they often
in the objective? What can the learner
do who has Coyell for his standard? Here
is an insurmountable obstacle upon tie
very threshold of Covells Grammar, upon
which the grammar sheds not one ray Of
light. On page 5S, read: g a regular
verb is one that forms its past tense and
perfect participle by taking ed" Pray
how is Ell to be taken ? But how doea
the l3arner know what is meant by the
past tense and perfect participlc, when
their definitions have not yet been given!
And Mr.. Cooper is this the superiority
of arrangement that you so knowingly
commend? He aeho gjces not single
definition in his whole book, that requires
a knowledge of succeeding definitions, to
be understood, is denounced by you for
his bad arrangement, while you commend
the book that abounds in ust such abb
surdities Surely Mr.. Cooper, " Ye are
tho people, and wisdom shall die with
you" Again read on page 60, "Ths
lntinitive mode is not limited by person
and number" Is this definition or
admitting it to be such, is it distinctire
Is it not just as true of the participle as
of tho infnitive? How very precise Co.