The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-08-15


end 1t would, we suppose, be difficult
to find single school teacher Of extern
sive experience who does not think him
self competent to write better grammar
than any at present in use. Most of the
new grammars, however, are either no bet
ter than the old ones or inferior to them.
The one before US is good one, and the
author is capable Of making it better. His
Latin grammar is an excellent one, and
his English grammar is evidently intended
to accompany the former. And the fact
that his Latin grammar was received with
so much favor doubtless induced the au-
thor to bring out his English grammar
sooner than he had intended to do so, and
before it had been completed.
Mr.. BINGHAM says that English nouns
have five cases-nominative, genitive, da-
tive, accusative, and vocative. We are
clearly of the opinion that there should
be dative or ablative case in English, or
perhaps both. AT present, boys are taught
that there is an objective case, and that
this objective case is governed by both
transitive verbs and propositions. 1t
would be decidedly better to have an ac-
cusativc case direct objective) following
| tranSitive verbs, an ablative case following
propositions, and dative indirect objec-
tive) case to express lin Mr.. BISGHAM's
language "that to or for which, or orith
reference to which, anything is, or is done
as, He gave me 4 book (that is, he gave
book to me J He bought me a horse,
| (that is, he bought horse for me.)" 1t is
u fault in this grammar that, following the
authors Latin one, it makes the aCcuSativc
case the object bcth Of transitive verbs
and Of prepoSitionS-the identical evil
which we would have corrected, and
which confuses the minds of students, and
for which there is in English no necessity.
The added "s" in nouns Of the singu-
lar number ending with the same letter
and in the possessive case is p0nS aSi-
nor4m. Tuppenny grammars and the gram
matists can't get over it. Scarcely a
standard work, or a leading English or
American journal or literary periodical
can be found in which the final "s" is
not used, yet we are constantly annoyed
by seeing such English as Jones farm"
&c. Mr.. BINGHAM adds the "s" in the
phrases "Collins's Odes," and "the wit
nesS's OATH" and says it should always be
added wherever it is sounded-that is,
omitted only in such phrases as " "con-
science sake" "goodness sake" &C.,
which, we would add, are not real posses
sive cases at all.
The articles or an and the Mr.. BING-
HAM classes among definitive adjectives.
We quote: " In such expressions as a
"hundred men, "a dozen eggs &C., the
proposition Of must be supplied. The
words 'hundred,' 'dozen,' and few
care nouns in such cases" So we think.
The phrases resemble the Latin mNltun1
a,wi-much of gold.
This, that, former, latter, each, every,
either, neither, &C., &C., are defnitive adj
jectives, not pronouns, says our author.
Ii is singular that every grammarian
should coDjugate the verb "to love" as
an example. 1t is a verb unlike most
transitive verbs, and furnishes no precc-
dent for their proper use; but we have
neither time nor space to show why such
verb ought not to be used. We ask the
author to ponder the suggestion.
4 Good NOte.-" If by the subjunctivc
" We mean separate form to express
" condition or supposition, then the only
" trace of subiunctive which remains IL
" the language is the past subjunctive o.
ss the verb to be, and that only in the sim
"gular." We regard the subjunctive as 9
humbug. Mr.. BINGHAM is not far behind
| us.
another Good Note" We might as vel
call | felt him strille,' the feeling mood
"eI sac him strike,' the seeing mood; q
"heard him say the hearing mood, as tc
call can strike the potential mood
We endorse this in its full meaning.
Mr.. BINGHAM says, "It is useless for the
grammarian to 'kick against the prlcks.
" His business is to discuss the language
"as it is, not as it ought to be-" There
spoke man who appreciates his duty
He says this opropos of his dislike to the
phrase "being built" which, however, nc
has the sense to SEQ and the candor to ac'
knowledge is noao good English.
.Another GOOD Note.-"l 1t is manlies'lS
incorrect to say, Shall you go? IN inqui'
ring about another's intention" IL IS
"vulgarism.'
AnI Anothe.-aWe should say, There
is danger of Roberts forgetting you'' no.
of Robert forgetting YOU 'There is nc
necessity for my going,' not for M
going.'" The genitive ending should never
be omitted.
Mr.. BINGHAM finds in our language
gerunds, which is no objection to his gram
mar.
We could point out many good features
in this grammar if we had time and space
but we are compelled to bring our reVle"
to an end.
A. Tho p,naf;pr 30 fba Natural Academy