P. 1
The Grammar of English Grammars by Gould Brown

The Grammar of English Grammars by Gould Brown


|Views: 4,072|Likes:
Published by OrangeSister
The Grammar of English Grammars, with an introduction historical and critical; the whole methodically arranged and amply illustrated; with forms of correcting and of parsing, improprieties for correction, examples for parsing, questions for examination, exercises for writing, observations for the advanced student, decisions and proofs for the settlement of disputed points, occasional strictures and defences, an exhibition of the several methods of analysis, and a key to the oral exercises: to which are added four appendixes, pertaining separately to the four parts of grammar.
The Grammar of English Grammars, with an introduction historical and critical; the whole methodically arranged and amply illustrated; with forms of correcting and of parsing, improprieties for correction, examples for parsing, questions for examination, exercises for writing, observations for the advanced student, decisions and proofs for the settlement of disputed points, occasional strictures and defences, an exhibition of the several methods of analysis, and a key to the oral exercises: to which are added four appendixes, pertaining separately to the four parts of grammar.

More info:

Published by: OrangeSister on May 21, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less









[Fist][The following questions, which embrace nearly all the important particulars of the foregoing code of
Syntax, are designed not only to direct and facilitate class rehearsals, but also to develop the acquirements of
those who may answer them at examinations more public.]

LESSON I.--DEFINITIONS. 1. Of what does Syntax treat? 2. What is the relation of words? 3. What is the
agreement of words? 4. What is the government of words? 5. What is the arrangement of words? 6. What is a
_sentence_? 7. How many and what are the principal parts of a sentence? 8. What are the other parts called?
9. How many kinds of sentences are there? 10. What is a simple sentence? 11. What is a _compound



sentence_? 12. What is a clause, or _member_? 13. What is a _phrase_? 14. What words must be supplied in
parsing? 15. How are the leading principles of syntax presented? 16. In what order are the rules of syntax
arranged in this work?


1. To what do articles relate? 2. What case is employed as the subject of a finite verb? 3. What agreement is
required between words in apposition? 4. By what is the possessive case governed? 5. What case does an
active-transitive verb or participle govern? 6. What case is put after a verb or participle not transitive? 7. What
case do prepositions govern? 8. When, and in what case, is a noun or pronoun put absolute in English? 9. To
what do adjectives relate? 10. How does a pronoun agree with its antecedent? 11. How does a pronoun agree
with a collective noun? 12. How does a pronoun agree with joint antecedents? 13. How does a pronoun agree
with disjunct antecedents?


14. How does a finite verb agree with its subject, or nominative? 15. How does a verb agree with a collective
noun? 16. How does a verb agree with joint nominatives? 17. How does a verb agree with disjunctive
nominatives? 18. What governs the infinitive mood? 19. What verbs take the infinitive after them without the
preposition _to_? 20. What is the regular construction of participles, as such? 21. To what do adverbs relate?
22. What do conjunctions connect? 23. What is the use of prepositions? 24. What is the syntax of


1. What are the several titles, or subjects, of the twenty-four rules of syntax? 2. What says Rule 1st of
_Articles_? 3. What says Rule 2d of _Nominatives_? 4. What says Rule 3d of _Apposition_? 5. What says
Rule 4th of _Possessives_? 6. What says Rule 5th of _Objectives_? 7. What says Rule 6th of _Same Cases_?
8. What says Rule 7th of _Objectives_? 9. What says Rule 8th of the _Nominative Absolute_? 10. What says
Rule 9th of _Adjectives_? 11. What says Rule 10th of _Pronouns_? 12. What says Rule 11th of _Pronouns_?
13. What says Rule 12th of _Pronouns_? 14. What says Rule 13th of _Pronouns_? 15. What says Rule 14th of
_Finite Verbs_? 16. What says Rule 15th of _Finite Verbs_? 17. What says Rule 16th of _Finite Verbs_? 18.
What says Rule 17th of _Finite Verbs_? 19. What says Rule 18th of _Infinitives_? 20. What says Rule 19th of
_Infinitives_? 21. What says Rule 20th of _Participles_? 22. What says Rule 21st of _Adverbs_? 23. What
says Rule 22d of _Conjunctions_? 24. What says Rule 23d of _Prepositions_? 25. What says Rule 24th of


1. What is it, "to analyze a sentence?" 2. What are the component parts of a sentence? 3. Can all sentences be
divided into clauses? 4. Are there different methods of analysis, which may be useful? 5. What is the first
method of analysis, according to this code of syntax? 6. How is the following example analyzed by this
method? "Even the Atheist, who tells us that the universe is self-existent and indestructible--even he, who,
instead of seeing the traces of a manifold wisdom in its manifold varieties, sees nothing in them all but the
exquisite structures and the lofty dimensions of materialism--even he, who would despoil creation of its God,
cannot look upon its golden suns, and their accompanying systems, without the solemn impression of a
magnificence that fixes and overpowers him." 7. What is the second method of analysis? 8. How is the
following example analyzed by this method? "Fear naturally quickens the flight of guilt. Rasselas could not
catch the fugitive, with his utmost efforts; but, resolving to weary, by perseverance, him whom he could not
surpass in speed, he pressed on till the foot of the mountain stopped his course." 9. What is the third method
of analysis? 10. How is the following example analyzed by this method? "Such is the emptiness of human
enjoyment, that we are always impatient of the present. Attainment is followed by neglect, and possession, by



disgust. Few moments are more pleasing than those in which the mind is concerting measures for a new
undertaking. From the first hint that wakens the fancy, to the hour of actual execution, all is improvement and
progress, triumph and felicity." 11. What is the fourth method of analysis? 12. How are the following
sentences analyzed by this method? (1.) "Swift would say, 'The thing has not life enough in it to keep it
sweet;' Johnson, 'The creature possesses not vitality sufficient to preserve it from putrefaction.'" (2.) "There is
one Being to whom we can look with a perfect conviction of finding that security, which nothing about us can
give, and which nothing about us can take away." 13. What is said of the fifth method of analysis?

[Now, if the teacher choose to make use of any other method of analysis than full syntactical parsing, he may
direct his pupils to turn to the next selection of examples, or to any other accurate sentences, and analyze them
according to the method chosen.]


1. Why is it necessary to observe the sense, or meaning, of what we parse? 2. What is required of the pupil in
syntactical parsing? 3. How is the following long example parsed in Praxis XII? "A young man studious to
know his duty, and honestly bent on doing it, will find himself led away from the sin or folly in which the
multitude thoughtlessly indulge themselves; but, ah! poor fallen human nature! what conflicts are thy portion,
when inclination and habit--a rebel and a traitor--exert their sway against our only saving principle!"

[Now parse, in like manner, and with no needless deviations from the prescribed forms, the ten lessons of the
_Twelfth Praxis_; or such parts of those lessons as the teacher may choose.]


1. In what chapter are the rules of syntax first presented? 2. In what praxis are these rules first applied in
parsing? 3. Which of the ten parts of speech is left without any rule of syntax? 4. How many and which of the
ten have but one rule apiece? 5. Then, of the twenty-four rules, how many remain for the other three
parts,--nouns, pronouns, and verbs? 6. How many of these seventeen speak of cases, and therefore apply
equally to nouns and pronouns? 7. Which are these seven? 8. How many rules are there for the agreement of
pronouns with their antecedents, and which are they? 9. How many rules are there for finite verbs, and which
are they? 10. How many are there for infinitives, and which are they? 11. What ten chapters of the foregoing
code of syntax treat of the ten parts of speech in their order? 12. Besides the rules and their examples, what
sorts of matters are introduced into these chapters? 13. How many of the twenty-four rules of syntax are used
both in parsing and in correcting? 14. Of what use are those which cannot be violated in practice? 15. How
many such rules are there among the twenty-four? 16. How many and what parts of speech are usually parsed
by such rules only?


1. What is the essential character of the Notes which are placed under the rules of syntax? 2. Are the different
forms of false construction as numerous as these notes? 3. Which exercise brings into use the greater number
of grammatical principles, parsing or correcting? 4. Are the principles or doctrines which are applied in these
different exercises usually the same, or are they different? 5. In etymological parsing, we use about seventy
_definitions_; can these be used also in the correcting of errors? 6. For the correcting of false syntax, we have
a hundred and fifty-two _notes_; can these be used also in parsing? 7. How many of the rules have no such
notes under them? 8. What order is observed in the placing of these notes, if some rules have many, and others
few or none? 9. How many of them are under the rule for _articles_? 10. How many of them refer to the
construction of _nouns_? 11. How many of them belong to the syntax of _adjectives_? 12. How many of them
treat of _pronouns_? 13. How many of them regard the use of _verbs_? 14. How many of them pertain to the
syntax of _participles_? 15. How many of them relate to the construction of _adverbs_? 16. How many of
them show the application of _conjunctions_? 17. How many of them expose errors in the use of



_prepositions_? 18. How many of them speak of _interjections_?

[Now correct orally the examples of False Syntax placed under the several Rules and Notes; or so many texts
under each head as the teacher may think sufficient.]


1. In what exercise can there be occasion to cite and apply the Exceptions to the rules of syntax? 2. Are there
exceptions to all the rules, or to how many? 3. Are there exceptions in reference to all the parts of speech, or
to how many of the ten? 4. Do articles always relate to nouns? 5. Can the subject of a finite verb be in any
other case than the nominative? 6. Are words in apposition always supposed to be in the same case? 7. Is the
possessive case always governed by the name of the thing possessed? 8. Can an active-transitive verb govern
any other case than the objective? 9. Can a verb or participle not transitive take any other case after it than that
which precedes it? 10. Can a preposition, in English, govern any other case than the objective? 11. Can "the
case absolute," in English, be any other than the nominative? 12. Does every adjective "belong to a
substantive, expressed or understood," as Murray avers? 13. Can an adjective ever relate to any thing else than
a noun or pronoun? 14. Can an adjective ever be used without relation to any noun, pronoun, or other subject?
15. Can an adjective ever be substituted for its kindred abstract noun? 16. Are the person, number, and gender
of a pronoun always determined by an antecedent? 17. What pronoun is sometimes applied to animals so as
not to distinguish their sex? 18. What pronoun is sometimes an expletive, and sometimes used with reference
to an infinitive following it?


19. Does a singular antecedent ever admit of a plural pronoun? 20. Can a pronoun agree with its antecedent in
one sense and not in an other? 21. If the antecedent is a collective noun conveying the idea of plurality, must
the pronoun always be plural? 22. If there are two or more antecedents connected by and, must the pronoun
always be plural? 23. If there are antecedents connected by or or nor, is the pronoun always to take them
separately? 24. Must a finite verb always agree with its nominative in number and person? 25. If the
nominative is a collective noun conveying the idea of plurality, must the verb always be plural? 26. If there
are two or more nominatives connected by and, must the verb always be plural? 21. If there are nominatives
connected by or or nor, is the verb always to refer to them separately? 28. Does the preposition to before the
infinitive always govern the verb? 29. Can the preposition to govern or precede any other mood than the
infinitive? 30. Is the preposition to "understood" after _bid, dare, feel_, and so forth, where it is "superfluous
and improper?" 31. How many and what exceptions are there to rule 20th, concerning participles? 32. How
many and what exceptions are there to the rule for adverbs? 33. How many and what exceptions are there to
the rule for conjunctions? 34. How many and what exceptions are there to the rule for prepositions? 35. Is
there any exception to the 24th rule, concerning interjections?


1. How many of the ten parts of speech in English are in general incapable of any agreement? 2. Can there be
a syntactical relation of words without either agreement or government? 3. Is there ever any needful
agreement between unrelated words? 4. Is the mere relation of words according to the sense an element of
much importance in English syntax? 5. What parts of speech have no other syntactical property than that of
simple relation? 6. What rules of relation are commonly found in grammars? 7. Of what parts is syntax
commonly said to consist? 8. Is it common to find in grammars, the rules of syntax well adapted to their
purpose? 9. Can you specify some that appear to be faulty? 10. Wherein consists the truth of grammatical
doctrine, and how can one judge of what others teach? 11. Do those who speak of syntax as being divided into
two parts, Concord and Government, commonly adhere to such division? 12. What false concords and false
governments are cited in Obs. 7th of the first chapter? 13. Is it often expedient to join in the same rule such
principles as must always be applied separately? 14. When one can condense several different principles into



one rule, is it not expedient to do so? 15. Is it ever convenient to have one and the same rule applicable to
different parts of speech? 16. Is it ever convenient to have rules divided into parts, so as to be double or triple
in their form? 17. What instance of extravagant innovation is given in Obs. 12th of the first chapter?


18. Can a uniform series of good grammars, Latin, Greek, English, &c., be produced by a mere revising of
one defective book for each language? 19. Whose are "The Principles of English Grammar" which Dr.
Bullions has republished with alterations, "on the plan of Murray's Grammar?" 20. Can praise and success
entitle to critical notice works in themselves unworthy of it? 21. Do the Latin grammarians agree in their
enumeration of the concords in Latin? 22. What is said in Obs. 16th, of the plan of mixing syntax with
etymology? 23. Do not the principles of etymology affect those of syntax? 24. Can any words agree, or
disagree, except in something that belongs to each of them? 25. How many and what parts of speech are
concerned in government? 26. Are rules of government to be applied to the governing words, or to the
governed? 27. What are gerundives? 28. How many and what are the principles of syntax which belong to the
head of simple relation? 29. How many agreements, or concords, are there in English syntax? 30. How many
rules of government are there in the best Latin grammars? 31. What fault is there in the usual distribution of
these rules? 32. How many and what are the governments in English syntax? 33. Can the parsing of words be
varied by any transposition which does not change their import? 34. Can the parsing of words be affected by
the parser's notion of what constitutes a simple sentence? 35. What explanation of simple and compound
sentences is cited from Dr. Wilson, in Obs. 25? 36. What notion had Dr. Adam of simple and compound
sentences? 37. Is this doctrine consistent either with itself or with Wilson's? 38. How can one's notion of
ellipsis affect his mode of parsing, and his distinction of sentences as simple or compound?


1. Can one noun have more than one article? 2. Can one article relate to more than one noun? 3. Why cannot
the omission of an article constitute a proper ellipsis? 4. What is the position of the article with respect to its
noun? 5. What is the usual position of the article with respect to an adjective and a noun? 6. Can the relative
position of the article and adjective be a matter of indifference? 7. What adjectives exclude, or supersede, the
article? 8. What adjectives precede the article? 9. What four adverbs affect the position of the article and
adjective? 10. Do other adverbs come between the article and the adjective? 11. Can any of the definitives
which preclude an or a, be used with the adjective _one_? 12. When the adjective follows its noun, where
stands the article? 13. Can the article in English, ever be placed after its noun? 14. What is the effect of the
word the before comparatives and superlatives? 15. What article may sometimes be used in lieu of a
possessive pronoun? 16. Is the article an or a always supposed to imply unity? 17. Respecting an or a, how
does present usage differ from the usage of ancient writers? 18. Can the insertion or omission of an article
greatly affect the import of a sentence? 19. By a repetition of the article before two or more adjectives, what
other repetition is implied? 20. How do we sometimes avoid such repetition? 21. Can there ever be an implied
repetition of the noun when no article is used?


1. In how many different ways can the nominative case be used? 2. What is the usual position of the
nominative and verb, and when is it varied? 3. With what nominatives of the second person, does the
imperative verb agree? 4. Why is it thought improper to put a noun in two cases at once? 5. What case in Latin
and Greek is reckoned the subject of the infinitive mood? 6. Can this, in general, be literally imitated in
English? 7. Do any English authors adopt the Latin doctrine of the accusative (or objective) before the
infinitive? 8. Is the objective, when it occurs before the infinitive in English, usually governed by some verb,
participle, or preposition? 9. What is our nearest approach to the Latin construction of the accusative before
the infinitive? 10. What is apposition, and from whom did it receive this name? 11. Is there a construction of
like cases, that is not apposition? 12. To which of the apposite terms is the rule for apposition to be applied?



13. Are words in apposition always to be parsed separately? 14. Wherein are the common rule and definition
of apposition faulty? 15. Can the explanatory word ever be placed first? 16. Is it ever indifferent, which word
be called the principal, and which the explanatory term? 17. Why cannot two nouns, each having the
possessive sign, be put in apposition with each other? 18. Where must the sign of possession be put, when two
or more possessives are in apposition? 19. Is it compatible with apposition to supply between the words a
relative and a verb; as, "At Mr. Smith's [_who is_] the bookseller?" 20. How can a noun be, or seem to be, in
apposition with a possessive pronoun? 21. What construction is produced by the repetition of a noun or
pronoun? 22. What is the construction of a noun, when it emphatically repeats the idea suggested by a
preceding sentence?


23. Can words differing in number be in apposition with each other? 24. What is the usual construction of
each other and _one an other_? 25. Is there any argument from analogy for taking each other and one an
other for compounds? 26. Do we often put proper nouns in apposition with appellatives? 27. What preposition
is often put between nouns that signify the same thing? 28. When is an active verb followed by two words in
apposition? 29. Does apposition require any other agreement than that of case? 30. What three modes of
construction appear like exceptions to Rule 4th? 31. In the phrase, "For David my servant's sake," which word
is governed by sake, and which is to be parsed by the rule of apposition? 32. In the sentence, "It is _man's_ to
err," what is supposed to govern _man's_? 33. Does the possessive case admit of any abstract sense or
construction? 34. Why is it reasonable to limit the government of the possessive to nouns only, or to words
taken substantive? 35. Does the possessive case before a real participle denote the possessor of something? 36.
What two great authors differ in regard to the correctness of the phrases, "_upon the rule's being observed_,"
and "_of its being neglected_?" 37. Is either of them right in his argument? 38. Is the distinction between the
participial noun and the participle well preserved by Murray and his amenders? 39. Who invented the
doctrine, that a participle and its adjuncts may be used as "_one name_" and in that capacity govern the
possessive? 40. Have any popular authors adopted this doctrine? 41. Is the doctrine well sustained by its
adopters, or is it consistent with the analogy of general grammar? 42. When one doubts whether a participle
ought to be the governing word or the adjunct,--that is, whether he ought to use the possessive case before it
or the objective,--what shall he do? 43, What is objected to the sentences in which participles govern the
possessive case, and particularly to the examples given by Priestley, Murray, and others, to prove such a
construction right? 44. Do the teachers of this doctrine agree among themselves? 45. How does the author of
this work generally dispose of such government? 46. Does he positively determine, that the participle should
never be allowed to govern the possessive case?


47. Are the distinctions of voice and of time as much regarded in participial nouns as in participles? 48. Why
cannot an omission of the possessive sign be accounted a true _ellipsis_? 49. What is the usual position of the
possessive case, and what exceptions are there? 50. In what other form can the meaning of the possessive case
be expressed? 51. Is the possessive often governed by what is not expressed? 52. Does every possessive sign
imply a separate governing noun? 53. How do compounds take the sign of possession? 54. Do we put the sign
of possession always and only where the two terms of the possessive relation meet? 55. Can the possessive
sign be ever rightly added to a separate adjective? 56. What is said of the omission of s from the possessive
singular on account of its hissing sound? 57. What errors do Kirkham, Smith, and others, teach concerning the
possessive singular? 58. Why is Murray's rule for the possessive case objectionable? 59. Do compounds
embracing the possessive case appear to be written with sufficient uniformity? 60. What rules for nouns
coming together are inserted in Obs. 31st on Rule 4th? 61. Does the compounding of words necessarily
preclude their separate use? 62. Is there a difference worth notice, between such terms or things as
_heart-ease_ and _heart's-ease_; a harelip and a _hare's lip_; a headman and a _headsman_; a _lady's-slipper_
and a _lady's slipper_? 63. Where usage is utterly unsettled, what guidance should be sought? 64. What
peculiarities are noticed in regard to the noun _side_? 65. What peculiarities has the possessive case in regard



to correlatives? 66. What is remarked of the possessive relation between time and action? 67. What is
observed of nouns of weight, measure, or time, coming immediately together?


68. Are there any exceptions or objections to the old rule, "Active verbs govern the objective case?" 69. Of
how many different constructions is the objective case susceptible? 70. What is the usual position of the
objective case, and what exceptions are there? 71. Can any thing but the governing of an objective noun or
pronoun make an active verb transitive? 72. In the sentence, "What have I to do with thee?" how are have and
do to be parsed? 73. Can infinitives, participles, phrases, sentences, and parts of sentences, be really "in the
objective case?" 74. In the sentence, "I know why she blushed," how is know to be parsed? 75. In the sentence,
"I know that Messias cometh," how are know and that to be parsed? 76. In the sentence, "And Simon he
surnamed _Peter_", how are Simon and Peter to be parsed? 77. In such sentences as, "I paid him the
money,"--"He asked them the question," how are the two objectives to be parsed? 78. Does any verb in
English ever govern two objectives that are not coupled? 79. Are there any of our passive verbs that can
properly govern the objective case? 80. Is not our language like the Latin, in respect to verbs governing two
cases, and passives retaining the latter? 81. How do our grammarians now dispose of what remains to us of
the old Saxon dative case? 82. Do any reputable writers allow passive verbs to govern the objective case? 83.
What says Lindley Murray about this passive government? 84. Why is the position, "Active verbs govern the
objective case," of no use to the composer? 85. On what is the construction of same cases founded? 86. Does
this construction admit of any variety in the position of the words? 87. Does an ellipsis of the verb or
participle change this construction into apposition? 88. Is it ever right to put both terms before the verb? 89.
What kinds of words can take different cases after them? 90. Can a participle which is governed by a
preposition, have a case after it which is governed by neither? 91. How is the word man to be parsed in the
following example? "The atrocious crime of being a young man, I shall neither attempt to palliate, nor deny."


92. In what kinds of examples do we meet with a doubtful case after a participle? 93. Is the case after the verb
reckoned doubtful, when the subject going before is a sentence, or something not declinable by cases? 94. In
the sentence, "It is certainly as easy to be a scholar, as a gamester," what is the case of scholar and gamester,
and why? 95. Are there any verbs that sometimes connect like cases, and sometimes govern the objective? 96.
What faults are there in the rules given by _Lowth, Murray, Smith_, and others, for the construction of _like
cases_? 97. Can a preposition ever govern any thing else than a noun or a pronoun? 98. Is every thing that a
preposition governs, necessarily supposed to have cases, and to be in the objective? 99. Why or wherein is the
common rule, "Prepositions govern the objective case," defective or insufficient? 100. In such phrases as _in
vain, at first, in particular_, how is the adjective to be parsed? 101. In such expressions as, "I give it up for
lost,"--"I take it for granted," how is the participle to be parsed? 102. In such phrases as, _at once, from
thence, till now_, how is the latter word to be parsed? 103. What peculiarity is there in the construction of
nouns of time, measure, distance, or value? 104. What is observed of the words _like, near_, and _nigh_? 105.
What is observed of the word _worth_? 106. According to Johnson and Tooke, what is worth, in such phrases
as, "Wo worth the day?" 107. After verbs of _giving, paying_, and the like, what ellipsis is apt to occur? 108.
What is observed of the nouns used in dates? 109. What defect is observable in the common rules for "the
case absolute," or "the nominative independent?" 110. In how many ways is the nominative case put absolute?
111. What participle is often understood after nouns put absolute? 112. In how many ways can nouns of the
second person be employed? 113. What is said of nouns used in exclamations, or in mottoes and abbreviated
sayings? 114. What is observed of such phrases as, "hand to hand,"--"_face to face_?" 115. What authors
deny the existence of "the case absolute?"


1. Does the adjective frequently relate to what is not uttered with it? 2. What is observed of those rules which



suppose every adjective to relate to some noun? 3. To what does the adjective usually relate, when it stands
alone after a finite verb? 4. Where is the noun or pronoun, when an adjective follows an infinitive or a
participle? 5. What is observed of adjectives preceded by the and used elliptically? 6. What is said of the
position of the adjective? 7. In what instances is the adjective placed after its noun? 8. In what instances may
the adjective either precede or follow the noun? 9. What are the construction and import of the phrases, _in
particular, in general_, and the like? 10. What is said of adjectives as agreeing or disagreeing with their nouns
in number? 11. What is observed of this and that as referring to two nouns connected? 12. What is remarked
of the use of adjectives for adverbs? 13. How can one determine whether an adjective or an adverb is
required? 14. What is remarked of the placing of two or more adjectives before one noun? 15. How can one
avoid the ambiguity which Dr. Priestley notices in the use of the adjective _no_?


1. Can such pronouns as stand for things not named, be said to agree with the nouns for which they are
substituted? 2. Is the pronoun we singular when it is used in lieu of _I_? 3. Is the pronoun you singular when
used in lieu of thou or _thee_? 4. What is there remarkable in the construction of ourself and _yourself_? 5. Of
what person, number, and gender, is the relative, when put after such terms of address as, _your Majesty, your
Highness, your Lordship, your Honour_? 6. How does the English fashion of putting you for thou, compare
with the usage of the French, and of other nations? 7. Do any imagine these fashionable substitutions to be
morally objectionable? 8. What figures of rhetoric are liable to affect the agreement of pronouns with their
antecedents? 9. How does the pronoun agree with its noun in cases of personification? 10. How does the
pronoun agree with its noun in cases of metaphor? 11. How does the pronoun agree with its noun in cases of
metonymy? 12. How does the pronoun agree with its noun in cases of synecdoche? 13. What is the usual
position of pronouns, and what exceptions are there? 14. When a pronoun represents a phrase or sentence, of
what person, number, and gender is it? 15. Under what circumstances can a pronoun agree with either of two
antecedents? 16. With what does the relative agree when an other word is introduced by the pronoun _it_? 17.
In the sentence, "It is useless to complain," what does it represent? 18. How are relative and interrogative
pronouns placed? 19. What are the chief constructional peculiarities of the relative pronouns? 20. Why does
the author discard the two special rules commonly given for the construction of relatives?


21. To what part of speech is the greatest number of rules applied in parsing? 22. Of the twenty-four rules in
this work, how many are applicable to pronouns? 23. Of the seven rules for cases, how many are applicable to
relatives and interrogatives? 24. What is remarked of the ellipsis or omission of the relative? 25. What is said
of the suppression of the antecedent? 26. What is noted of the word which, as applied to persons? 27. What
relative is applied to a proper noun taken merely as a name? 28. When do we employ the same relative in
successive clauses? 29. What odd use is sometimes made of the pronoun _your_? 30. Under what figure of
syntax did the old grammarians rank the plural construction of a noun of multitude? 31. Does a collective
noun with a singular definitive before it ever admit of a plural verb or pronoun? 32. Do collective nouns
generally admit of being made literally plural? 33. When joint antecedents are of different persons, with which
person does the pronoun agree? 34. When joint antecedents differ in gender, of what gender is the pronoun?
35. Why is it wrong to say, "The first has a lenis, and the other an asper over _them_?" 36. Can nouns without
and be taken jointly, as if they had it? 37. Can singular antecedents be so suggested as to require a plural
pronoun, when only one of them is uttered? 38. Why do singular antecedents connected by or or nor appear to
require a singular pronoun? 39. Can different antecedents connected by or be accurately represented by
differing pronouns connected in the same way? 40. Why are we apt to use a plural pronoun after antecedents
of different genders? 41. Do the Latin grammars teach the same doctrine as the English, concerning
nominatives or antecedents connected disjunctively?




1. What is necessary to every finite verb? 2. What is remarked of such examples as this: "The Pleasures of
Memory was published in 1702?" 3. What is to be done with "Thinks I to myself," and the like? 4. Is it right to
say with Smith, "Every hundred years constitutes a century?" 5. What needless ellipses both of nominatives
and of verbs are commonly supposed by our grammarians? 6. What actual ellipsis usually occurs with the
imperative mood? 7. What is observed concerning the place of the verb? 8. What besides a noun or a pronoun
may be made the subject of a verb? 9. What is remarked of the faulty omission of the pronoun it before the
verb? 10 When an infinitive phrase is made the subject of a verb, do the words remain adjuncts, or are they
abstract? 11. How can we introduce a noun or pronoun before the infinitive, and still make the whole phrase
the subject of a finite verb? 12. Can an objective before the infinitive become "the subject of the affirmation?"
13. In making a phrase the subject of a verb, do we produce an exception to Rule 14th? 14. Why is it wrong to
say, with Dr. Ash, "The king and queen appearing in public was the cause of my going?" 15. What
inconsistency is found in Murray, with reference to his "_nominative sentences_?" 16. What is Dr. Webster's
ninth rule of syntax? 17. Why did Murray think all Webster's examples under this rule bad English? 18. Why
are both parties wrong in this instance? 19. What strange error is taught by Cobbett, and by Wright, in regard
to the relative and its verb? 20. Is it demonstrable that verbs often agree with relatives? 21. What is observed
of the agreement of verbs in interrogative sentences? 22. Do we ever find the subjunctive mood put after a
relative pronoun? 23. What is remarked of the difference between the indicative and the subjunctive mood,
and of the limits of the latter?


24. In respect to collective nouns, how is it generally determined, whether they convey the idea of plurality or
not? 25. What is stated of the rules of Adam, Lowth, Murray, and Kirkham, concerning collective nouns? 26.
What is Nixon's notion of the construction of the verb and collective noun? 27. Does this author appear to
have gained "a clear idea of the nature of a collective noun?" 28. What great difficulty does Murray
acknowledge concerning "nouns of multitude?" 29. Does Murray's notion, that collective nouns are of
different sorts, appear to be consistent or warrantable? 30. Can words that agree with the same collective
noun, be of different numbers? 31. What is observed of collective nouns used partitively? 32. Which are the
most apt to be taken plurally, collections of persons, or collections of things? 33. Can a collective noun, as
such, take a plural adjective before it? 34. What is observed of the expressions, _these people, these gentry,
these folk_? 35. What is observed of sentences like the following, in which there seems to be no nominative:
"There are from eight to twelve professors?" 36. What rule does Dr. Webster give for such examples as the
following: "There was more than a hundred and fifty thousand pounds?" 37. What grammarians teach, that
two or more nouns connected by and, "always require the verb or pronoun to which they refer, to be in the
plural number?" 38. Does Murray acknowledge or furnish any exceptions to this doctrine? 39. On what
principle can one justify such an example as this: "_All work and no play, makes_ Jack a dull boy?" 40. What
is remarked of instances like the following: "Prior's Henry and Emma contains an other beautiful example?"
41. What is said of the suppression of the conjunction _and_? 42. When the speaker changes his nominative,
to take a stronger one, what concord has the verb? 43. When two or more nominatives connected by and
explain a preceding one, what agreement has the verb? 44. What grammarian approves of such expressions as,
"Two and two is four?" 45. What is observed of verbs that agree with the nearest nominative, and are
understood to the rest? 46. When the nominatives connected are of different persons, of what person is the


47. What is the syntax of the verb, when one of its nominatives is expressed, and an other or others implied?
48. What is the syntax of the verb, when there are nominatives connected by _as_? 49. What is the
construction when two nominatives are connected by _as well as, but_, or _save_? 50. Can words connected
by with be properly used as joint nominatives? 51. Does the analogy of other languages with ours prove any
thing on this point? 52. What does Cobbett say about with put for _and_? 53. What is the construction of such
expressions as this: "A torch, snuff and _all, goes_ out in a moment?" 54. Does our rule for the verb and



disjunct nominatives derive confirmation from the Latin and Greek syntax? 55. Why do collective nouns
singular, when connected by or or nor, admit of a plural verb? 56. In the expression, "_I, thou, or he, may
affirm_," of what person and number is the verb? 57. Who says, "the verb agrees with _the last nominative_?"
58. What authors prefer "the nearest person," and "_the plural number_?" 59. What authors prefer "the
nearest nominative, whether singular or plural?" 60. What author declares it improper ever to connect by or or
nor any nominatives that require different forms of the verb? 61. What is Cobbett's "_clear principle_" on this
head? 62. Can a zeugma of the verb be proved to be right, in spite of these authorities? 63. When a verb has
nominatives of different persons or numbers, connected by or or nor, with which of them does it commonly
agree? 64. When does it agree with the remoter nominative? 65. When a noun is implied in an adjective of a
different number, which word is regarded in the formation of the verb? 66. What is remarked concerning the
place of the pronoun of the first person singular? 67. When verbs are connected by _and, or_, or nor, do they
necessarily agree with the same nominative? 68. Why is the thirteenth rule of the author's Institutes and First
Lines not retained as a rule in this work? 69. Are verbs often connected without agreeing in mood, tense, and


70. What particular convenience do we find in having most of our tenses composed of separable words? 71. Is
the connecting of verbs elliptically, or by parts, anything peculiar to our language? 72. What faults appear in
the teaching of our grammarians concerning do used as a "substitute for other verbs?" 73. What notions have
been entertained concerning the word to as used before the infinitive verb? 74. How does Dr. Ash parse to
before the infinitive? 75. What grammarians have taught that the preposition to governs the infinitive mood?
76. Does Lowth agree with Murray in the anomaly of supposing to a preposition that governs nothing? 77.
Why do those teach just as inconsistently, who forbear to call the to a preposition? 78. What objections are
there to the rule, with its exceptions, "One verb governs an other in the infinitive mood?" 79. What large
exception to this rule has been recently discovered by Dr. Bullions? 80. Are the countless examples of this
exception truly elliptical? 81. Is the infinitive ever governed by a preposition in French, Spanish, or Italian?
82. What whimsical account of the English infinitive is given by Nixon? 83. How was the infinitive expressed
in the Anglo-Saxon of the eleventh century? 84. What does Richard Johnson infer from the fact that the Latin
infinitive is sometimes governed by a preposition? 85. What reasons can be adduced to show that the
infinitive is not a noun? 86. How can it be proved that to before the infinitive is a preposition? 87. What does
Dr. Wilson say of the character and import of the infinitive? 88. To what other terms can the infinitive be
connected? 89. What is the infinitive, and for what things may it stand? 90. Do these ten heads embrace all the
uses of the infinitive? 91. What is observed of Murray's "_infinitive made absolute_?" 92. What is said of the
position of the infinitive? 93. Is the infinitive ever liable to be misplaced?


94. What is observed of the frequent ellipses of the verb to be, supposed by Allen and others? 95. What is said
of the suppression of to and the insertion of _be_; as, "To make himself be heard?" 96. Why is it necessary to
use the sign to before an abstract infinitive, where it shows no relation? 97. What is observed concerning the
distinction of voice in the simple infinitive and the first participle? 98. What do our grammarians teach
concerning the omission of to before the infinitive, after _bid, dare, feel_, &c.? 99. How do Ingersoll,
Kirkham, and Smith, agree with their master Murray, concerning such examples as, "_Let me go_?" 100.
What is affirmed of the difficulties of parsing the infinitive according to the code of Murray? 101. How do
Nutting, Kirkham, Nixon, Cooper, and Sanborn, agree with Murray, or with one an other, in pointing out what
governs the infinitive? 102. What do Murray and others mean by "neuter verbs," when they tell us that the
taking of the infinitive without to "extends only to active and neuter verbs?" 103. How is the infinitive used
after _bid_? 104. How, after _dare_? 105. How, after _feel_? 106. How, after _hear_? 107. How, after _let_?
108. How, after _make_? 109. How, after _need_? 110. Is need ever an auxiliary? 111. What errors are taught
by Greenleaf concerning dare and need or _needs_? 112. What is said of see, as governing the infinitive? 113.
Do any other verbs, besides these eight, take the infinitive after them without _to_? 114. How is the infinitive



used after _have, help_, and _find_? 115. When two or more infinitives occur in the same construction, must
to be used with each? 116. What is said of the sign to after than or _as_?


1. What questionable uses of participles are commonly admitted by grammarians? 2. Why does the author
incline to condemn these peculiarities? 3. What is observed of the multiplicity of uses to which the participle
in ing may be turned? 4. What is said of the participles which some suppose to be put absolute? 5. How are
participles placed? 6. What is said of the transitive use of such words as _unbecoming_? 7. What distinction,
in respect to government, is to be observed between a participle and a participial noun? 8. What shall we do
when of after the participial noun is objectionable? 9. What is said of the correction of those examples in
which a needless article or possessive is put before the participle? 10. What is stated of the retaining of
adverbs with participial nouns? 11. Can words having the form of the first participle be nouns, and clearly
known to be such, when they have no adjuncts? 12. What strictures are made on Murray, Lennie, and
Bullions, with reference to examples in which an infinitive follows the participial noun? 13. In what instances
is the first participle equivalent to the infinitive? 14. What is said of certain infinitives supposed to be
erroneously put for participles? 15. What verbs take the participle after them, and not the infinitive? 16. What
is said of those examples in which participles seem to be made the objects of verbs? 17. What is said of the
teaching of Murray and others, that, "The participle with its adjuncts may be considered as a _substantive
phrase_?" 18. How does the English participle compare with the Latin gerund? 19. How do Dr. Adam and
others suppose "the gerund in English" to become a "substantive," or noun? 20. How does the French
construction of participles and infinitives compare with the English?


21. What difference does it make, whether we use the possessive case before words in ing, or not? 22. What is
said of the distinguishing or confounding of different parts of speech, such as verbs, participles, and nouns?
23. With how many other parts of speech does W. Allen confound the participle? 24. How is the
distinguishing of the participle from the verbal noun inculcated by Allen, and their difference of meaning by
Murray? 25. Is it pretended that the authorities and reasons which oppose the mixed construction of
participles, are sufficient to prove such usage altogether inadmissible? 26. Is it proper to teach, in general
terms, that the noun or pronoun which limits the meaning of a participle should be put in the possessive case?
27. What is remarked of different cases used indiscriminately before the participle or verbal noun? 28. What
say Crombie and others about this disputable phraseology? 29. What says Brown of this their teaching? 30.
How do Priestley and others pretend to distinguish between the participial and the substantive use of verbals
in _ing_? 31. What does Brown say of this doctrine? 32. If when a participle becomes an adjective it drops its
regimen, should it not also drop it on becoming a noun? 33. Where the sense admits of a choice of
construction in respect to the participle, is not attention due to the analogy of general grammar? 34. Does it
appear that nouns before participles are less frequently subjected to their government than pronouns? 35. Why
must a grammarian discriminate between idioms, or peculiarities, and the common mode of expression? 36. Is
the Latin gerund, like the verbal in ing, sometimes active, sometimes passive; and when the former governs
the genitive, do we imitate the idiom in English? 37. Is it agreed among grammarians, that the Latin gerund
may govern the genitive of the agent? 38. What distinction between the participial and the substantive use of
verbals in ing do Crombie and others propose to make? 39. How does this accord with the views of Murray,
Lowth, Adam, and Brown?. 40. How does Hiley treat the English participle? 41. What further is remarked
concerning false teaching in relation to participles?


1. What is replied to Dr. Adam's suggestion, "Adverbs sometimes qualify substantives?" 2. Do not adverbs
sometimes relate to participial nouns? 3. If an adverbial word relates directly to a noun or pronoun, does not
that fact constitute it an adjective? 4. Are such expressions as, "the then ministry," "the above discourse,"



good English, or bad--well authorized, or not? 5. When words commonly used as adverbs assume the
construction of nouns, how are they to be parsed? 6. Must not the parser be careful to distinguish adverbs used
substantively or adjectively, from such as may be better resolved by the supposing of an ellipsis? 7. How is an
adverb to be parsed, when it seems to be put for a verb? 8. How are adverbs to be parsed in such expressions
as, "_Away with him?_" 9. What is observed of the relation of conjunctive adverbs, and of the misuse of
_when_? 10. What is said in regard to the placing of adverbs? 11. What suggestions are made concerning the
word _no_? 12. What is remarked of two or more negatives in the same sentence? 13. Is that a correct rule
which says, "Two negatives, in English, destroy each other, or are equivalent to an affirmative?" 14. What is
the dispute among grammarians concerning the adoption of or or nor after not or _no_? 15. What fault is
found with the opinion of Priestley, Murray, Ingersoll, and Smith, that "either of them may be used with
nearly equal propriety?" 16. How does John Burn propose to settle this dispute? 17. How does Churchill treat
the matter? 18. What does he say of the manner in which "the use of nor after not has been introduced?" 19.
What other common modes of expression are censured by this author under the same head? 20. How does
Brown review these criticisms, and attempt to settle the question? 21. What critical remark is made on the
misuse of ever and _never_? 22. How does Churchill differ from Lowth respecting the phrase, "ever so
wisely," or "_never so wisely?_" 23. What is observed of never and ever as seeming to be adjectives, and
being liable to contraction? 24. What strictures are made on the classification and placing of the word _only_?
25. What is observed of the term not but, and of the adverbial use of _but_? 26. What is noted of the
ambiguous use of but or _only_? 27. What notions are inculcated by different grammarians about the
introductory word _there_?


1. When two declinable words are connected by a conjunction, why are they of the same case? 2. What is the
power, and what the position, of a conjunction that connects sentences or clauses? 3. What further is added
concerning the terms which conjunctions connect? 4. What is remarked of two or more conjunctions coming
together? 5. What is said of and as supposed to be used to call attention? 6. What relation of case occurs
between nouns connected by _as_? 7. Between what other related terms can as be employed? 8. What is as
when it is made the subject or the object of a verb? 9. What questions are raised among grammarians, about
the construction of as follow or as follows, and other similar phrases? 10. What is said of Murray's mode of
treating this subject? 11. Has Murray written any thing which goes to show whether as follows can be right or
not, when the preceding noun is plural? 12. What is the opinion of Nixon, and of Crombie? 13. What
conjunction is frequently understood? 14. What is said of ellipsis after than or _as_? 15. What is suggested
concerning the character and import of than and _as_? 16. Does than as well as as usually take the same case
after it that occurs before it? 17. Is the Greek or Latin construction of the latter term in a comparison usually
such as ours? 18. What inferences have our grammarians made from the phrase _than whom_? 19. Is than
supposed by Murray to be capable of governing any other objective than _whom_? 20. What grammarian
supposes whom after than to be "in the objective case _absolute_?" 21. How does the author of this work
dispose of the example? 22. What notice is taken of O. B. Peirce's Grammar, with reference to his manner of
parsing words after than or _as_? 23. What says Churchill about the notion that certain conjunctions govern
the subjunctive mood? 24. What is said of the different parts of speech contained in the list of correspondents?


1. What is said of the parsing of a preposition? 2. How can the terms of relation which pertain to the
preposition be ascertained? 3. What is said of the transposition of the two terms? 4. Between what parts of
speech, as terms of the relation, can a preposition be used? 5. What is said of the ellipsis of one or the other of
the terms? 6. Is to before the infinitive to be parsed just as any other preposition? 7. What is said of Dr.
Adam's "To taken _absolutely_?" 8. What is observed in relation to the exceptions to Rule 23d? 9. What is
said of the placing of prepositions? 10. What is told of two prepositions coming together? 11. In how many
and what ways does the relation of prepositions admit of complexity? 12. What is the difference between in
and _into_? 13. What notice is taken of the application of _between, betwixt, among, amongst, amid,



amidst_? 14. What erroneous remark have Priestley, Murray, and others, about two prepositions "in the same
construction?" 15. What false doctrine have Lowth, Murray, and others, about the separating of the
preposition from its noun? 16. What is said of the prepositions which follow averse and _aversion, except_
and _exception_? 17. What is remarked concerning the use of _of, to, on_, and _upon_? 18. Can there be an
inelegant use of prepositions which is not positively ungrammatical?


1. Are all interjections to be parsed as being put absolute? 2. What is said of O and the vocative case? 3. What
do Nixon and Kirkham erroneously teach about cases governed by interjections? 4. What say Murray,
Ingersoll, and Lennie, about interjections and cases? 5. What is shown of the later teaching to which Murray's
erroneous and unoriginal remark about "_O, oh_, and ah," has given rise? 6. What notice is taken of the
application of the rule for "_O, oh_, and ah," to nouns of the second person? 7. What is observed concerning
the further extension of this rule to nouns and pronouns of the third person? 8. What authors teach that
interjections are put absolute, and have no government? 9. What is the construction of the pronoun in "_Ah
me!_" "_Ah him!_" or any similar exclamation? 10. Is the common rule for interjections, as requiring certain
cases after them, sustained by any analogy from the Latin syntax? 11. Can it be shown, on good authority, that
O in Latin may be followed by the nominative of the first person or the accusative of the second? 12. What
errors in the construction and punctuation of interjectional phrases are quoted from Fisk, Smith, and Kirkham?
13. What is said of those sentences in which an interjection is followed by a preposition or the conjunction
_that_? 14. What is said of the place of the interjection? 15. What says O. B. Peirce about the name and place
of the interjection? 16. What is offered in refutation of Peirce's doctrine?

[Now parse the six lessons of the _Thirteenth Praxis_; taking, if the teacher please, the Italic or difficult words
only; and referring to the exceptions or observations under the rules, as often as there is occasion. Then
proceed to the correction of the eighteen lessons of False Syntax contained in

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->