The Republican journal., 1916-10-19
Progress VS.. Retrogression.


To THE EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL:
kitchener and James, the leading modern
psychologists, acknowledge that they
have abandoned the common sense view
of psychology. Whether it is progress,
or not, remains for the future to decide.
Once there was an energizing, vitalizing
force behind nature which used the
human body for the accomplishment of
certain great ends. Now thought pro-
cesses are so wildly accounted for, by
brain activities, that psychology stu
dents have come to believe that the
nervous system is the part of US that
goes to heaven at the close OF our earth
ly career.
There are periods of rapid progress
and periods of retarded progress, or even
retrogression, in individual development.
The same is doubtless true in the life of
society. There are indications that this
is period of decline, notably the Euro
pean war and some of the books now
being published. have used many diff
ferent grammars in a half dozen differ
ent States of the Union and in only one
old grammar published half century
ago did find copula verb seriously used.
And vet this old relic of antiquity has
been inserted in the local grammar and
become the hobby of certain teachers.
Copulative verb is not found in any olher
| language and is decided incumbrance
upon the English.
was recently, not little surprised to
read in The Bellingham, WASH, Her Id
an editorial in which a quotation from
another paper was used, recommending
the discontinuance of the study of gram
mar. After investigation l am not so
much surprised. Indeed, it would be a
boon to humanity if such books could be
deposited in the bottom of Puget Sound.
1t would seem that some one must have
grudge against the rising generation
to pay off when children are required
to resolve such verbs as Swim and
''plow" into an asserting and attrlbutive
element.
1t is sufficient for all the purposes of
this life, simply to say that such words
as swim or pillow express action or tell
what is done and are used as the predi-
cate of sentences. Should finer distinc-
tons of meaning be necessary in the
next world, that will be time enough to
learn the finer distinctions. I have in
years past been called an educational
anarchist and refused teachers GER
tifcate for thus censuring local senti-
ment. But somebody must look after
the weeds or this would be great world
some day.
To say that the word 'few" is the
bare predicate because it presses the as
sorting and attributive idea of the
thought, is to double the necessary work.
There is neither practical nor scientific
gain by resolving this action word into
an asserting and attributive idea. My
attention has for the first time been
called to the fact that the object of the
verb forms part of the bare or simple
predicate. The object is usually treated
like an adverb as a modifier of the verb.
Here comes another fine distinction bet
ter adapted to the senior in the Univer-
sity than to the grades. When the verb
''grow" is followed by "tall' portion
of its attributive force is drawn out and
centered in the adjective tall.
This author, VINO usually makes finer
distinctions than other authors in the
case of participles, makes less distlnc-
ton. He sees no difference between
Singing birds" and "birds singing" in
a tree. In the first expression the word
singing" is principally descriptive. In
the second. action is more emphasized. |
This author makes mistake by speak |
ing, part OF the time, ". the proposition
as connecting word. Green teachers |
emphasize the connecting idea to the ex-
clusion of the relation idea and thereby
confuse the children to the extent that
few like grammar. Such phrases as
Gin the morning" tells "when;' "be-
hind the tree" tells "where" and Gin |
haste" tells chow"
After tue idea or force of the phrase