The Orangeburg democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1879-1881, 1879-09-12

MIR. EDrroR.-I see the following
item in late issue: ''That knife is
worth q dollar. How is worth parsed
In the above scntence?"
The oply difficulty, am persuaded,
consists in the very defective and cr-
roncous systems Of grammar now in
common use. Our schools suffer no
imposition so cgregious as in the
cnmbrous grammatical textbooks in
common usc.,. They are full of con-.
tradictions, and worse than useless d.
visions and subdivisions, happiness Of
definitions and want Of precision, that
can serve no earthly purpose except
to destroy the very science Of English
grammar, and 10 overtask the verbal
memory and obscure the mental per-
ception OF the pupil. Once olsen
cumber our grammnrs Of all this use
less and contradictory jargon, (intro-
duced into them by the early writer's
TO assimilatc the Latin, when they
have no manner of practical adapta-
ton to our Ianguage,) and arrange IL
system on the true scientific princi-
Piles of the English language, and the
study becomes plain and simple.
There will be no difficulty then in
parsing any correctly written sen
tencc. @
"The British grammars of the En-
glish languange, appear to me to be
very imperfect, and in some particu-
lars, very crroneous.''-N. Webster's
grammar, page 4. If they are imper:
feet why not supply their DEFICIENCIES !?
If they are erroneous, why not correct
and explode their, error? Who was
more competent to do this than Web
stcr? II must he sin to teach what W c
know to be error and it is high time
that the truth should he made known.
$50 defective and erroneous are the
British grammars, and the compila-
tions in the United States, formed
| on their principles, that, without fur
ther helps the, construction of many
established and Legitimate phrases
and SENTENCES in our language cannot
be eXplained.'n'--.W Webster's Grammar,
page 4. Then why not have the helps
And not '''helps' in the form Of more
additions, rules and notes TO the old
systems which would only rcnder.con.
fusion worse confounded but "helps:
by utterly discarding everything from
our grammatical textbooks which
tends to only perplex and confuse and
is of no earthly use in aiding the pu.
pill to speak and write the English
language correctly, and compiling Q
grammar IN accordance with the trut
scientific principles Of the language
Employ apt, simple and suggestive
terms as tic names OF the parts o
speech, and then parse cvery ,co1d &C
cc11liny TO its use. No matter what
the word may be, if its use in the sen
tencc is that of verb, parse it So
if used as on adjective, parse it as ar
adjective-if used rs a proposition
parse it accordingly, and so or
through the whole of the parts O.
speech. When we have removed tho
accumulated mass Of complicated alb
surditics from our system of gram
mar as now in use, the difficulties o
the study will vanish as thir air.
In Kirkham's Grammar, page 1G2
may be seen the following sentences
classed rs idiOms, anomalies and in
tricdcies: l "1'hc wall is three fec
higl.' 2 "IIis son is eight gears old ,
3 "My knife Is acorth shilling" 4
"She is aUorth hin, and all his conncc
tons" 5 "ue has been there three
times" 6 "Thc hat cost ten doNars.'
Z "fhe load weighs ton." 8 1.-The
spar measures ninety .fct."
Now, | understand Kirkham TO say
that while these sentences are correct
English, yet our grammars do not
furnish any rules OF instruction how
they may be parsed. These arc but
specimens Of hundreds of similar ex-
prcssions in daily use, and something
must be radically wrong if our gram.
mars furnish no rules by which they
may be intelligenlly parsed. Why
can't these sentences be parsed? We
are told, "dollars" in the 9Th; "ton''
|