INTRODUCTION.

NOTE. The remarks in these first two introductory sections are designed more especially for the teacher, though the pupil should understand thoroughly the leading principles discussed.

SEC. I.THE PROVINCE OF GRAMMAR.

1. Written Tanguage embraces two essential characteristics, the outward form, addressed to the eye; and the inward thought, addressed to the mind; or, more simply, the sign and the thing signified.

2. Now Grammar, properly, regards the former of these, and treats chiefly of the mechanical structure of these visible symbols. Thus, Orthography concerns simply the structure of the sign; Etymology, the various changes which occur in the form of the same, when modified in signification, or when used in connection with other forms; Syntax, the proper method of combining these original and modified forms into discourse; and Prosody, their metrical combination, or the formation of

verse.

66

3. In all these processes, it is evident that we have to do simply with symbolic form. Thus, Orthography teaches that the expression “moon” and not "mun" or "muwn," is the recognized sign for the object thereby denoted; Etymology, that the form moons "is the proper expression for several such objects; Syntax, that the last named form cannot be properly combined with the expression "shines," but that in such a combination, the latter must take the form "shine."

4. So distinct indeed is the symbol from the thought, that we may spell, without being able to define; decline and conjugate, without noting the modification in the idea; parse, without fully comprehending the thoughts themselves or their relations to one another, (at least, in the inflected languages, as the Latin and Greek, this is possible); and scan without apprehending the poetical conception. All these processes are chiefly mechanical, and performed, for the most part, upon what is mere symbolic contrivance.

5. From the above, it is evident that these verbal signs may be combined grammatically, without yielding any sense; as, "Something is nothing." "Moons are moon." Here the grammar is faultless.

On the other hand, words may be combined ungrammatically and still yield an evident meaning. The symbolic structure will indeed be imperfect, but we shall find no difficulty in apprehending the thought, just as we may understand the intent and signification of a drawing or painting though the delineations and the finish are crude and imperfect. Thus the expressions, "It is him," "Who did you see?" "He had began to speak," "I have wrote a letter," though in every instance ungrammatical, are yet perfectly intelligible.

6. Hence we say, that all distinctions, classifications, and discussions generally, which regard the sense rather than the verbal sign, are properly logical, and not grammatical. Indeed grammar is theoretically and practically the doctrine of words, considered as mere signs, in their etymological forms, and their syntactical relations. Of those larger organic elements of discourse, in which these simple verbal elements act merely as constituent parts,--the phrases, the clauses, and the sentences ---grammar does not properly treat.

SEC. II. THE PROVINCE OF LOGICAL ANALYSIS.

9. We have seen that Grammar properly regards only individual words, concerning itself simply with their proper symbolic forms and their methods of combination. Now Logical Analysis on the contrary regards the thought, concerning itself with the various kinds of conceptions which may enter into discourse, and the various uses and forces of the same. Hence Grammar, may be said to discuss the organism of the body, Logical Analysis, the organism of the soul of language.

10. Thus, Grammar, in the form of Orthography, as stated above, gives us the verbal form, "moon"; Logic, as Lexicography, defines the object thus symbolized; Grammar, in the form of Etymology, points out the particular modification which this word must suffer when brought in combination with another word, as in the expression, “moon's rays "; Logic, as Analysis, explains the exact significance of the possessive "moon's," thus combined. [See Logical Analysis, Origin and Source.] Again, Grammar teaches which of the forms, "moon," "moon's," or" moons," may be properly united with the word "shines"; Logical Analysis, the specific significance of these two words thus combined in connected discourse.

11. Hence, Grammatical Syntax holds substantially the same relation to Logical Analysis, that Orthography holds to Lexicography.

12. From the foregoing remarks, it is evident that it is of the utmost importance to understand thoroughly and exactly the respective pro

vinces of the two sciences in question. Indeed, without such a knowledge we shall be liable to fall into the most serious misapprehensions and mistakes in the study of language; for the coin of language is ever alloyed with idioms, provincialisms, anomalies, and syntactical inconsistencies; whereas the gold of thought is always unadulterated, and if we have not learned to distinguish clearly and definitely between the two, we shall unwittingly confound the dross of the one with the pure metal of the other.

was

13. Of the truth of the above, the following may serve as illustrations. Our grammarians assert, for instance, that the subject of a verb is that of which the affirmation is made. Thus, they say that in the example, "Brown was believed to be guilty," "Brown" is the subject of believed," and therefore is in the nominative case. Now, this, according to the definition of a subject, is manifestly false, since "Brown" is not that of which the affirmation, " was believed,” is made, but "Brown to be guilty,” or “Brown's being guilty." Here, then, the subject of a proposition, which is properly a matter of Logical Analysis, is confounded with a nominative case, which is a matter of Grammar, and we have. an error as a consequence. [See Part II., "Subject."]

Again, in the example, "We believe him to be guilty," our grammarians make "him" the object of the verb "believe," and therefore in the objective case. This likewise is false, since "him to be guilty" is the true object of "believe," and "him" is the subject of "to be guilty," being that of which these words make affirmation. Here also an objective case after a transitive verb, which is a matter of grammar, is confounded with the real object of a proposition, which is a matter of Logical Analysis. Again, "Spoke to whoever met him." Here, according to our grammarians, "to" governs an omitted antecedent of the compound relative, in the objective case; whereas, as a matter of fact, it governs nothing, but marks the relationship of the whole clause," Whoever met him." Here the grammatical principle that prepositions take objective cases is confounded with the logical fact of mere relationship.

It is evidently, therefore, of the utmost importance to keep the lines of Grammar and Logic distinct in the mind, since, while they often really coincide, they not unfrequently widely diverge, as in the above, and numerous other cases.

14. Again, Grammar must not be confounded with Rhetoric, which like Logic, has to do only with purely intellectual processes. Rhetoric addresses our emotional nature. It may be called, indeed, the language

of the affections. Hence, if Grammar may be said to discuss the organism of the body, and Logic the organism of the soul, (9), Rhetoric may properly be said to discuss the organism of the heart of language.

NOTE. The respective provinces of these two therefore,-Grammar and Rhetoric,-must be kept distinct, if we would prosecute successfully the study of language, for here the lines sometimes coincide and sometimes diverge. Thus, in the example, "The Pilgrim Fathers-where are they!" we have a subject without a predicate, which is a violation of grammatical principles, save in the case of direct address; but we must remember that in this example we have the language of Rhetoric, the words, "The Pilgrim Fathers," as there used, being the expression of emotion and not of simple unimpassioned thought, with which only, grammar properly deals. So in the following, Rhetoric disregards the principles of Grammar: "The prophets, do they live forever?" Zech. i. 5. "Know ye that the Lord, He is God." So in

numerous other cases.

15. As now, the human mind is, everywhere and in all ages, the same, possessing the same organism, embracing the same faculties, characterized by the same affections, energized by the same mental forces, and subject to the same laws, it is obvious that among different nations, different modes of verbal expression, rather than different modes of thought necessarily prevail; that as the clothing of the human body among the different nations is characterized by great diversities of form and color, so the clothing of human conception, presents equally characteristic peculiarities, while the physical organism in the one case, and the mental in the other, are substantially the same. The same thought is only cast in different moulds.

NOTE. Hence, in the study of Logical Analysis, in whatever language pursued, we are really exploring the foundations which underlie every form of human speech. It should be remembered, therefore, that in the following pages, though we shall pursue our investigations in the English language, we shall really be discussing the logical elements, not of the English language simply, but of EVERY TONGUE. Thus, the elements of universal thought having been learned, the mastery of any new language, should we desire it, will have been half accomplished at the very outset.